By Colton McAllister, State Politics Reporter

Governor Newsom has recently stated he’s not backing down from his “return to office” order for state workers. Many workers who have grown accustomed to remote work arrangements begun under Covid are unhappy about the Governor’s order, and labor leaders representing public employees are fighting to stop it. 

The mandate affects 100,000 state workers, and the workers’ objections have included legal action alleging the order’s climate change impact would violate the state’s environmental quality law, called CEQA. Unions have also created billboards warning Sacramentans of traffic jams as a result of the policy.

The clash raises an interesting question — if the Governor was as committed to his green policy as he often declares emphatically, why is he not moved by the environmental arguments raised by state workers?

Newsom has been vocal in denouncing President Trump, accusing the president of not doing enough to stop climate change. Meanwhile, Newsom has stated a goal of achieving zero climate emissions by 2045. 

Many liberals believe that despite the steep cost of this program, the benefits are worth it to save the planet. However, for working Californians struggling with high costs of living, the consequences have been a serious burden while also coming with a multitude of minor inconveniences such as bans on plastic straws and bags. The nation’s highest fuel prices, electricity rates 75-100 percent above the national average, and the well documented exodus of businesses from the state are all among the major costs of Newsom and legislative Democrats green program.

It is against this backdrop that Newsom is demanding 100,000 workers return to the office.

For those concerned about climate change, as the Governor proclaims to be, the added emissions from 100,000 more cars clogging Sacramento’s roads should be a major issue. Rough estimates put the daily commute for a typical state worker at around 16 kg of CO₂ per round trip. That’s potentially 1.6 million kilograms (over 1,700 tons) of extra CO₂ pumped into the air every single workday. 

The public employees’ argument on this issue is not a new idea. In fact, environmentalists advocated a remote work transition as part of a broader climate policy well before Covid. 

Ten years before Covid spurred many Americans to begin working remotely, MoveOn.org Founder Joan Blades and Nannette Fondas co-authored a book urging more widespread adoption of remote work for purposes of protecting the environment and empowering women.

Why then is Newsom so adamant about his return to the office order? 

While it’s debatable whether workers are actually more productive working at an office — there are studies and anecdotal claims on both sides of the debate — it is clear many bosses prefer to have their employees in the office where it’s easier for them to make sure they’re doing their jobs. 

Conservatives have often called out Newsom for his hypocrisy, as evidenced by his dining at the French Laundry with his friends while putting the rest of the state in lockdown. Is this an example of the same behavior pattern? 

While ordinary Californians and small business owners must adjust to the costs and inconveniences of his climate policy, is Newsom himself once again exempt?

Featured image: Traffic jam on Interstate 80, West Sacramento, California. (Wikimedia Commons / Photo by Ken Lund, CC BY-SA 2.0)