S 707MBS
Database
This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.
object(Timber\Post)#3794 (45) {
["ImageClass"]=>
string(12) "Timber\Image"
["PostClass"]=>
string(11) "Timber\Post"
["TermClass"]=>
string(11) "Timber\Term"
["object_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["custom"]=>
array(6) {
["_wp_attached_file"]=>
string(12) "S_707MBS.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(7) "2051176"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["_edit_lock"]=>
string(12) "1495527757:1"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(128596) "july 2007 &Californians the environment in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mark Baldassare Dean Bonner Jennifer Paluch Sonja Petek The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns: California in the global economy; demography; education; employment and income; environment, growth, and infrastructure; government and public finance; health and social policy; immigrants and immigration; key sectors in the California economy; and political participation. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political candidates for public office. Mark Baldassare is President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, California 95814 phone: 916.440.1120 fax: 916.440.1121 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Survey Press Release Global Warming and Energy Air Pollution Environmental Politics and Preferences Regional Maps Methodology Questionnaire and Results: California Questionnaire and Results: San Joaquin Valley 1 3 7 15 25 32 33 35 41 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Inaugurated in April 1998, this is the 79th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 168,000 Californians. This survey is the seventh PPIC Statewide Survey on the environment since 2000. The current survey is part of a three-year series conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The intent of the series is to inform state, local, and federal policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about environment, education, and population issues. The current survey examines environmental perceptions, attitudes, and policy preferences. We focus on the related issues of global warming, energy, and air quality because these are current topics in public policy and political debates at the regional, state, and federal government levels. California public opinion is relevant for several reasons. The state has several regions with high air pollution levels, including the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin Valley. California has taken the lead nationally in policy efforts on global warming, alternative energy, and air quality. State residents have also dealt with multi-year increases in gasoline prices. This survey presents the responses of 2,500 adult residents throughout the state. Some questions are repeated from earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys and from recent national surveys. Because of important air quality issues in the San Joaquin Valley, we also present the results of a survey oversample of 766 San Joaquin Valley residents, for a total sample of 1,001 adult residents of that region. In the overall survey, we examined the following issues: Global warming and energy, including identification of the state’s most important environmental issue; perceptions of global warming and its effects on California’s future; support for state policies to address global warming and greenhouse gas emissions; and opinions about the U.S. energy supply, about allowing more offshore oil drilling, and about funding the development of alternative energy sources, including new nuclear power plants. Air quality and health issues, including perceptions of air pollution and of trends in air quality in a respondent’s region; the perceived threat of air pollution to personal health; beliefs about the causes of air pollution and government responsibility for setting air quality standards; opinions about the composition and performance of regional air districts; actions people are willing to take to improve air quality; and specific findings for residents of the San Joaquin Valley. Environmental politics and preferences, including overall ratings of the governor and president and of their handling of environment issues; preferences for federal and state involvement in environmental protection; the importance of environmental issues such as air quality, global warming, and energy policy in the 2008 presidential election; automobile driving trends, willingness to purchase more fuel-efficient cars, and the effects of increased gasoline prices. Variations in perceptions, attitudes, and policy preferences across the five major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Orange/San Diego counties, and Inland Empire), among Asians, blacks, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites, and across age, education, income, and political groups, and among San Joaquin Valley population subgroups. Copies of this report may be ordered online (www.ppic.org) or by phone (415-291-4400). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. View our searchable PPIC Statewide Survey database online at http://www.ppic.org/main/survAdvancedSearch.asp. 1 PRESS RELEASE Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT The Goal Is Always Greener: Worried Californians Looking for Stronger Government Action on the Environment AIR POLLUTION STILL THE TOP CONCERN -- BUT GLOBAL WARMING, DROUGHT FEARS ON THE RISE; VOTERS BACK TOUGH EMISSIONS POLICIES; TROUBLED AIR IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 25, 2007 — Californians are unhappy about the level of government effort – federal and state – to protect the environment, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Ironically, the highly publicized moves that Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature are making to counter air pollution and global warming may be fueling these escalating expectations about what government could and should be doing. Today, about half (49%) of all Californians say the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment – the highest share of residents to hold this view in recent years of the PPIC Statewide Survey (46% in 2006, 42% in 2004, 46% in 2003). A similar percentage of likely voters (48%) shares this perception today. Despite the “green” image the governor is working to project, he has recently lost popular ground when it comes to handling environmental issues: Today, fewer than half (47%) of all residents approve of the job he’s doing on the environment – an 8-point drop since January when approval stood at 55 percent. Approval among likely voters has similarly dropped, from 57 percent in January to 51 percent today. Although still in positive territory, Schwarzenegger’s overall job performance ratings have also dipped in the last six months (all adults 58% to 52%, likely voters 61% to 59%). “Considering all the attention state leaders are paying to environmental issues and the unprecedented protections they have enacted, it’s amazing how little credit – and slack – Californians are giving them,” says Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of PPIC. “Green expectations are staying way ahead of government ability to deliver.” If the state government is on the hot seat over the environment, the federal government is being scorched. Two-thirds (67%) of Californians say the federal government is not doing enough to protect the nation’s environment – a perception that has risen appreciably over time (52% in 2003, 56% in 2004, 61% in 2006). The burn is even hotter for President Bush. His approval ratings have fallen to historic lows this month among all Californians – for both his overall job performance (26%) and his handling of the environment (25%). Likely voters are equally critical, with only one-quarter (25%) approving his job overall and 23 percent approving on environmental issues. And while there are unsurprising partisan divisions, Republicans’ disapproval of the president’s overall performance is considerable (42%), having jumped by 18 points since last July. Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (87%) and independents (76%) disapprove of the job he is doing overall. 3 Californians and the Environment THE ‘08 ELECTION “ENVIRONMENT” Given the critical mood, candidates running for their party’s presidential nomination may want to give environmental issues a second – and third – look. A majority of the state’s likely voters (54%) say that candidates’ positions on the environment will be very important in determining how they cast their vote; another 29 percent say these views will be somewhat important, while only 16 percent say they will not be too important. Voter interest in the environment has increased significantly from before the 2004 presidential elections: Fewer than four in 10 likely voters called environmental positions very important in July 2004 (37%) or July 2003 (39%). THE AIR WE BREATHE…HEALTHY OR NOT? Californians’ dissatisfaction with government action reflects their continuing – and in some cases rising – environmental anxieties. For the seventh year of PPIC surveys on the environment, residents name air pollution as the state’s most important environmental problem (29%). That concern holds across political parties, all regions of the state, and all racial and ethnic groups. Most residents describe air pollution in their own region of the state as either a big problem (35%) or somewhat of a problem (37%). Less than a quarter (20%) say their regional air quality has improved over the past 10 years, while about half (48%) say it has grown worse. However, there are major regional differences in these air quality perceptions, with Central Valley, Inland Empire, and Los Angeles area residents generally far more critical. Even more disturbing is that 25 percent of residents now say air pollution poses a very serious health threat to themselves and their families, up from 18 percent in 2003. Again, there are sharp regional differences, with residents of the Inland Empire (34%), the Los Angeles area (32%), and the Central Valley (30%) far more likely than residents of the San Francisco Bay Area or Orange/San Diego Counties (19% each) to believe air pollution is a serious threat. There are also stark differences among racial and ethnic groups: Blacks (40%) and Latinos (35%) are far more likely than Asians (19%) or whites (16%) to say air pollution is a very serious threat. On specific aspects of the health threat, 40 percent of all residents say they or a family member suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems. However, the share is significantly higher among blacks (51%) than among any other racial or ethnic group (Latinos 41%, whites 38%, Asians 27%). HEATING UP: GLOBAL WARMING, DROUGHT WORRIES ESCALATE Although air pollution continues to top the list of environmental problems, residents are becoming much more aware of global warming. Today, 11 percent identify global warming as the biggest environmental problem facing the state – a 3-point increase over last year (8%) and a substantial jump since 2002 and 2000 when fewer than 1 percent mentioned global warming. Even more striking, for the first time a majority of Californians (54%) say that global warming poses a very serious threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life. This marks a 5-point increase since last July and a 15-point increase since July 2005. Californians’ sense of urgency reflects a belief that the effects of global warming are already being felt – two-thirds of residents (66%) hold this view, up 3 points from last July and 9 points from July 2005. And 81 percent believe steps should be taken right away to counter these effects. Only 1 in 6 think immediate action is not necessary. Moreover, the urgency crosses party lines. There may be significant partisan differences on other questions related to global warming, but when it comes to counteracting the effects of global warming, majorities of Democrats (92%), independents (82%), and Republicans (60%) say something should be done right away. What effect of global warming worries Californians the most? “More Californians are associating global warming with a greater variety of environmental threats,” says Baldassare. “It’s not just air pollution – concern over increased droughts and flooding is becoming more evident in Californians’ thinking on the 4 PPIC Statewide Survey Press Release issue.” In fact, the greatest number of residents (60%) are now very concerned about severe droughts. This is a 19-point surge in concern over droughts since July 2005 and includes majorities in every region of the state. A potentially related finding is that the share of residents who say the state’s diminishing water supply is California’s most important environmental problem has doubled from 4 percent last July to 8 percent today. APPLAUDING AB 32, OTHER EMISSIONS LAWS; READY FOR REGULATION? Despite their underwhelming response to government efforts, Californians overwhelmingly support recent laws the state has passed to lower auto emissions. AB 32, the law requiring California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, is an ingredient in the political controversy over environmental policy in Sacramento at the moment, but it gets enthusiastic support from 3 in 4 residents (78%) and likely voters (76%). That’s a significant jump since last July when 2 in 3 residents (65%) and likely voters (66%) favored the legislation, which was then in the proposal stage. Support for the law includes strong majorities across political parties. Residents (84%) and likely voters (81%) are even more supportive of a 2002 law that requires automakers to reduce emissions from new cars in California, starting in 2009. Backing for the law has been extremely high every time this question has been asked in the past five years but is currently at its highest point among all residents. Once again, support is high across partisan lines (Democrats 92%, independents 84%, and Republicans 71%). An executive order Governor Schwarzenegger issued in January to reduce the carbon intensity of the state’s transportation fuels is also solidly favored by residents and likely voters (77% each). Honing in on air pollution specifically, Californians are also largely willing to toughen pollution standards on many activities, even if it costs more. For example, a strong majority (68%) would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities even if it cost these businesses more to operate. An equal share (68%) would support tougher standards on the ships, trucks, and trains that transport goods in California, despite increased costs. When it comes to support for toughening air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities, half of Californians (50%) favor the idea even if it costs more, 34 percent don’t favor it in any case, 5 percent favor it but not if it increases costs, and 11 percent don’t know. WHO’S IN CHARGE OF THE AIR? WHO SHOULD BE? Given residents’ concern over air pollution, which level of government do they want to set and enforce air quality standards? State government gets the biggest nod from both residents (37%) and likely voters (42%). Federal and local governments trail significantly. Regional air districts – which are responsible for stationary sources of air pollution – are the choice of very few residents (16%) and likely voters (18%). Moreover, the share of residents who say regional districts should set air quality standards in their region has dropped 10 points since 2003. Baldassare notes, “We find that 7 in 10 residents do not know enough about their regional air district to rate their handling of air quality, yet when told these boards are typically composed of local elected officials, 8 in 10 favor the idea of including professionals with knowledge of health and environmental issues.” THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY In this survey, additional interviews were conducted to provide an in-depth analysis of attitudes in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley – home to some of the worst air pollution in the nation. Compared to residents in the rest of the state, far more San Joaquin Valley residents say air pollution is a big problem in their region (35% to 56%, respectively). Thirty percent of people in the San Joaquin Valley say they are very dissatisfied with air quality in their regions, compared to 14 percent of all Californians. But perhaps July 2007 5 Californians and the Environment most troubling, significantly more San Joaquin Valley residents (35%) than residents statewide (25%) identify air pollution as a very serious health threat to them and their families. Other San Joaquin Valley findings are presented on pages 17, 19, 21, and 23 of the survey. All the San Joaquin Valley survey questions and responses are available on pages 41-46. MORE KEY FINDINGS Better fuel efficiency or more oil drilling? No contest — Page 12 To reduce dependency on foreign oil, residents are decidedly in favor of requiring automakers to improve fuel efficiency on cars (75%), but not of allowing more oil drilling off California’s coast (52% oppose, 41% favor). Renewable energy, yes; nuclear power, probably not — Page 13 Californians (84%) heartily support spending more government money to develop solar, geothermal, and wind power. Far fewer (37%) support the idea of building more nuclear power plants; however, likely voters are closely divided on the issue (44% favor, 47% oppose). A solitary commute — Page 29 The number of Californians who drive alone to work (66%) dwarfs the number who carpool (13%) or take public transit (7%). Among likely voters, the drive-alone share jumps even higher (72%). Pain at the pump pressuring preferences? — Page 31 Two-thirds of residents (65%) say gas prices have caused them financial hardship – and 69 percent say they would now seriously consider buying a more fuel-efficient car… even if it cost more. ABOUT THE SURVEY This edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey is part of a three-year series that is supported by funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The intent of this survey series is to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about Californians’ attitudes toward environment, education, and population issues. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,500 California adult residents interviewed between June 28 and July 15, 2007. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for the 1,814 registered voters is +/-2.5%, and for the 1,238 likely voters it is +/- 3%. Findings are also based on a telephone survey of an additional 766 San Joaquin Valley residents interviewed between July 11 and July 18, 2007. These interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The total sample for the San Joaquin Valley region is 1,001 adult residents. The sampling error is +/-3%. For more information on methodology, see pages 33 and 34. Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) after 10 p.m. on July 25, 2007. 6 PPIC Statewide Survey GLOBAL WARMING AND ENERGY KEY FINDINGS Air pollution (29%) tops the list of the most important state environmental issues across all regions. The share of Californians naming global warming (11%) and the water supply (8%) as the biggest environmental issues in the state is increasing. (page 8) Two in three residents believe the effects of global warming have already begun and growing proportions say this poses a very serious threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life. (page 9) Majorities of residents are very concerned about more severe droughts and increased air pollution due to global warming in California, while 37 percent are very concerned about increased flooding. The percentage of residents who are very concerned about droughts has increased sharply in two years. (page 10) Residents are highly supportive of measures to address global warming, including the tailpipe emissions law (84%) and the law to roll back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (78%). Two in three believe California should make its own global warming policies, separate from the federal government. (page 11) To reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, Californians strongly favor requiring automakers to improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles. Republicans and Democrats are divided over allowing more oil drilling off the coast. (page 12) Overwhelming majorities of residents favor spending more government money on alternative fuels and energy development; they are split along party lines over building more nuclear power plants. (page 13) Percent all adults Most Important Environmental Issue Facing California 50 Air pollution Global warming 40 Water supply 30 20 10 0 June June July July July July July 00 02 03 04 05 06 07 Threat of Global Warming to California's Future Economy and Quality of Life 80 Percent saying "very serious threat" 60 54 49 40 39 Percent all adults 20 0 July 2005 July 2006 July 2007 Building More Nuclear Power Plants 80 57 60 59 54 52 Percent all adults 40 39 20 0 July 01 39 33 37 Favor Oppose July July July 05 06 07 7 Californians and the Environment MOST IMPORTANT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE Californians continue to name air pollution as the state’s most important environmental issue, but public attention to global warming continues to increase. Three in 10 Californians (29%) think that air pollution is the most important environmental issue, while 11 percent think that global warming is the top issue. Air pollution has been the top environmental issue for Californians since we first asked this question in June 2000. The percent naming global warming has increased 3 points since last July and 9 points since July 2005. Compared to a year ago, twice as many residents name water supply (4% 2006, 8% today), while half as many say energy (12% 2006, 6% today). Equal percentages of residents name pollution in general (5%) and water pollution (5%), similar to last year and 2005. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top six issues mentioned in 2007 June 00 June 02 July 03 July 04 July 05 July 06 July 07 Air pollution 33% 34% 30% 33% 26% 24% 29% Global warming - - 1 1 2 8 11 Water supply 6 97 6 5 4 8 Energy - 2 3 5 6 12 6 Pollution in general 9 5 6 8 6 5 5 Water pollution 6 12 10 7 6 4 5 Across California’s regions, air pollution is considered the most important environmental issue, but residents of the Central Valley (33%), Los Angeles (32%), and the Inland Empire (31%) are slightly more likely than those in Orange/San Diego counties (27%) or the San Francisco Bay Area (25%) to have this perception. Across racial/ethnic groups, air pollution is the most important issue, but Asians (38%) and Latinos (33%) more often than whites (27%) and blacks (23%) hold this view. San Francisco Bay Area residents (14%) are the most likely to hold the perception that global warming is the most important environmental issue, followed by residents of Los Angeles (11%), the Inland Empire (10%), the Central Valley (8%), and Orange/San Diego counties (7%). Blacks (18%) are the most likely racial/ethnic group to name global warming as the top environmental issue, then whites (12%), Asians (9%), and Latinos (9%). Across political parties, independents (32%), Democrats (29%), and Republicans (28%) all name air pollution as the most important environmental issue, but Democrats (18%) are more likely than independents (11%) or Republicans (8%) to name global warming as the top issue. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top six issues mentioned Air pollution All Adults 29% Central Valley 33% San Francisco Bay Area 25% Region Los Angeles 32% Orange/ San Diego 27% Inland Empire 31% Global warming 11 8 14 11 7 10 Water supply 8 10 10 5 9 5 Energy 6 4 7 5 78 Pollution in general 5 5 4 6 44 Water pollution 5 3 6 5 84 8 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming and Energy PERCEPTIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING When do Californians believe the effects of global warming will begin? Two in three Californians (66%) think they already have. This is a 3-point increase from last July and a 9-point increase from July 2005. Californians are somewhat more likely than Americans nationwide (60%) to think global warming has already begun, according to a March Gallup poll. Significant partisan differences exist in views of global warming, with more than three in four Democrats (77%) and seven in 10 independents (69%) thinking the effects of global warming have already begun, whereas nearly half of Republicans (47%) hold this view. Latinos (72%), blacks (66%), and whites (65%) are more likely than Asians (59%) to think the effects of global warming have already begun. “Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen…?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind Already begun 66% 77% 47% 69% Within a few years 44 3 2 Within your lifetime 7 5 10 8 Not within lifetime, but will 11 9 16 8 affect future generations Will never happen 7 3 18 8 Don’t know 52 6 5 Likely Voters 64% 3 6 11 11 5 Eight in 10 Californians believe global warming will be a very (54%) or somewhat serious (28%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. This is the first time a majority of Californians are saying that the threat of global warming is very serious, a 5-point increase from last July and a 15-point increase from July 2005. Across political parties, Democrats (65%) and independents (59%) are much more likely than Republicans (29%) to say this threat is very serious, although all parties have experienced increases since July 2005 (49% Democrats, 43% independents, 21% Republicans). At least half of residents across all of California’s regions hold this view, but residents in Los Angeles (59%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (56%) are the most likely to say the threat is very serious. Latinos (68%) and blacks (59%) are much more likely than whites (47%) and Asians (41%) to say that the threat of global warming is very serious. Women (59%) are more likely than men (50%) to hold this view. “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?” Very serious All Adults 54% Central Valley 50% San Francisco Bay Area 56% Region Los Angeles 59% Orange/ San Diego 52% Inland Empire 52% Somewhat serious 28 31 27 27 28 25 Not too serious 8 8 10 7 8 8 Not at all serious 7 8 6 4 10 10 Don’t know 3 31325 Large and growing shares of Californians also believe it is necessary to take immediate steps to counter the effects of global warming (73% July 2003, 76% July 2004, 79% July 2006, 81% today). At least three in four in all regions and racial/ethnic groups hold this view today and majorities of Democrats (92%), independents (82%), and Republicans (60%) say that steps should be taken right away. July 2007 9 Californians and the Environment EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING How concerned are Californians when it comes to the possible impacts of global warming? It depends on the impact. Majorities of Californians are very concerned about droughts that are more severe (60%) and increased air pollution (55%), while 37 percent are very concerned about increased flooding. Since 2005, more Californians have become very concerned about increased flooding (27% to 37%) and even more about the possibility of more severe droughts (41% to 60%). The percentage of Californians who are very concerned about increased air pollution is three points higher than in 2005 (52% 2005, 55% today). “Now I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. How about…” …droughts that are more severe? …increased air pollution? …increased flooding? 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 Very concerned 41% 60% 52% 55% 27% 37% Somewhat concerned 37 25 34 31 33 28 Not too concerned 12 6 7 6 23 18 Not at all concerned 9 7 6 7 15 15 Don’t know 1 2 1122 The percentage that is very concerned about more severe droughts due to global warming is much higher among Democrats (69%) and independents (58%) than among Republicans (42%). Latinos (70%) are far more likely than Asians (55%), whites (55%), and blacks (51%) to be very concerned about droughts, and women (65%) are more likely than men (55%) to hold this view. The proportion of residents that is very concerned about increased air pollution caused by global warming is also much greater among Democrats (67%) and independents (54%) than among Republicans (36%). Blacks (68%) and Latinos (64%) are more likely than Asians (55%) and whites (47%) to be very concerned about increased air pollution. Concern is much greater among women (62%) than men (48%). High levels of concern about increased flooding due to global warming are more common among Democrats (43%) and independents (34%) than among Republicans (20%). Half of Latinos (51%) and blacks (50%) are very concerned about increased flooding, while far fewer Asians (34%) and whites (27%) hold this view. Once again, concern about this effect of global warming is higher for women (42%) than men (32%). Majorities across regions are very concerned about more severe droughts and increased air pollution, while fewer than half in all regions are very concerned about increased flooding in California. Percent saying “very concerned” All Adults …droughts that are more severe? …increased air pollution? …increased flooding? 60% 55 37 “How about…” Central Valley 56% 53 37 San Francisco Bay Area 60% 57 39 Region Los Angeles 63% 60 41 Orange/ San Diego 59% 52 30 Inland Empire 58% 55 33 10 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming and Energy CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS POLICY California was an early leader in state-level efforts to curb the effects of global warming, having passed legislation in 2002. Since then, policymakers have been active in proposing new laws on this issue. In recent years, as public concern about the effects of global warming has risen, we find that large and growing proportions of residents are in favor of California making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address global warming (54% July 2005, 65% July 2006, 67% today). Majorities of Democrats (74%), independents (72%), and Republicans (59%) hold this view today. Reflecting their strong support for state-level efforts, more than eight in 10 Californians (84%) and likely voters (81%) favor the 2002 state law that requires all automakers to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars in California beginning in 2009. Favor for this policy has been overwhelming among California adult residents each time we asked about it over the past five years (81% June 2002, 80% July 2003, 81% July 2004, 77% July 2005, 78% July 2006, 84% today). Today, majorities of Democrats (92%), independents (84%), and Republicans (71%) favor the 2002 state law. Overwhelming majorities across regions and racial/ethnic and demographic groups favor the law. Favor Oppose Don't know “What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind 84% 92% 71% 84% 81% 13 7 26 12 16 31343 A more recent state law (AB 32) that requires California to cut its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020 continues to enjoy favor among Californians. When asked about the proposed legislation last July, two in three Californians (65%) and likely voters (66%) were in favor. One year later, more than three in four adults (78%) and likely voters (76%) are in favor of this new law. Majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (80%), and Republicans (65%) today favor this state law, as do at least seven in 10 across regions and across racial/ethnic and demographic groups. Favor Oppose Don't know “What about the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 78% 87% 65% 80% 14 6 26 11 8799 Likely Voters 76% 16 8 In January, Governor Schwarzenegger issued an executive order to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. Today, a majority of Californians and likely voters (77% each) are in favor of this order. Favor is high among Democrats (82%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) and across California’s regions and racial/ethnic and demographic groups. July 2007 11 Californians and the Environment U.S. ENERGY SUPPLY To reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, how do Californians feel about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in America? More than eight in 10 residents (85%) and likely voters (88%) favor this proposal and 75 percent of Californians and eight in 10 likely voters (82%) would be in favor even if it increased the cost of buying a new car. The level of support for this policy among California adult residents, even if it were more costly, was similar in July 2003 (75%), July 2004 (73%), July 2005 (73%), and July 2006 (74%) to today (75%). Percentages favoring this policy, even if more costly, are high across political parties, although partisan differences do exist, with more than eight in 10 Democrats (86%) and independents (82%) in favor, compared to seven in 10 Republicans (71%). Support for this proposal is high across all regions, but favor is highest in the San Francisco Bay Area (82%). Across racial/ethnic groups, at least two in three favor this proposal, with support greatest among whites (83%). The level of support for this policy increases with higher age, education, and income. “How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Favor, even if more costly 75% 86% 71% 82% 82% Favor, but not if more costly 10 6 10 5 6 Oppose 10 5 14 8 9 Don't know 53553 By contrast, a majority of residents are unwilling to allow more oil drilling off the California coast to help reduce dependence on foreign oil. Opposition to allowing more drilling off the California coast has hovered around 50 percent when we have asked this question in the past (54% July 2003, 50% July 2004, 53% July 2005, 51% July 2006, 52% today). Sizeable majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (60%) today oppose this proposal, whereas 60 percent of Republicans favor more oil drilling off the coast. Across regions, opposition is strongest among residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (66%), while fewer in Los Angeles (51%) and Orange/San Diego counties (49%) and still fewer in the Inland Empire (45%) and the Central Valley (42%) are opposed. Blacks and whites (56% each) are more likely than Asians and Latinos (45% each) to oppose allowing more oil drilling off the California coast. Opposition to allowing more oil drilling off the coast increases with higher education and income and declines with age (56% under age 35, 53% age 35 to 54, 45% age 55 and older). Favor Oppose Don't know “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 41% 29% 60% 33% 52 65 34 60 7667 Likely Voters 40% 55 5 12 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming and Energy ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Aside from increasing fuel efficiency or increasing the U.S. supply of oil, alternative energy development might also reduce dependence on foreign oil. Where do Californians stand on this issue? Eight in 10 Californians (84%) and likely voters (85%) favor spending more government money to develop renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power. Similar percentages of Californians (83%) and likely voters (87%) were in favor of this proposal last July. Californians’ views are similar to Americans nationwide (81% favor, 17% oppose), according to a March Gallup poll. While support is very high among all party groups in California today, it is greater among Democrats (90%) and independents (86%) than among Republicans (79%). Support for spending more on renewable energy stands at 80 percent or higher across California’s regions and racial/ethnic and demographic groups. About eight in 10 Californians and likely voters (78% each) favor spending more government money to develop alternative fuel sources, such as biofuels and ethanol, for automobiles. Last July, support for this idea was similar among all adults (81%) but somewhat higher among likely voters (86%). On a similar question asked in a March Gallup poll, Americans nationwide (86% favor, 12% oppose) were more supportive of this idea than Californians are today. Democrats (84%) and independents (79%) are more supportive than Republicans (70%). About three in four or more are in favor of this proposal across the state’s regions and racial/ethnic and demographic groups. “How about spending more government money to develop…” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind …renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power? Favor Oppose Don't know 84% 90% 79% 86% 12 8 18 11 4 233 …alternative sources of fuel, such as biofuels and ethanol, for automobiles? Favor Oppose Don't know 78 84 70 79 18 12 27 16 4 435 Likely Voters 85% 12 3 78 19 3 By contrast, only 37 percent of California adults support building more nuclear power plants, while 54 percent oppose the idea. Likely voters are divided on this issue (44% favor, 47% oppose). Opposition to more nuclear power plants is similar to last July (52%), but is 5 points less than July 2005 (59%). While 58 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents oppose building more nuclear power plants, 55 percent of Republicans favor this idea. Across regions, opposition is lowest in Orange/San Diego counties (48%), while it is higher in the Central Valley (53%), Los Angeles (55%), the San Francisco Bay Area (55%), and the Inland Empire (57%). Opposition is lower among men (49%) than among women (59%), and is lower among whites (47%) than among Latinos (62%), Asians, and blacks (61% each). Opposition to building more nuclear power plants decreases with higher age, education, and income. Favor Oppose Don't know “How about building more nuclear power plants at this time?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 37% 31% 55% 38% 54 58 37 55 9 11 8 7 Likely Voters 44% 47 9 July 2007 13 AIR POLLUTION KEY FINDINGS Thirty-five percent of California residents say regional air pollution is a big problem. This perception varies sharply across regions; 56 percent in the San Joaquin Valley say air pollution is a big problem. Half of residents statewide, and 64 percent in the San Joaquin Valley, say that regional air quality has gotten worse. (pages 16, 17) One in four Californians say regional air pollution is a very serious health threat, and 50 percent think this health threat is more serious in lower-income areas. Thirty-five percent of San Joaquin Valley residents say air pollution is a very serious health threat; 36 percent say the threat is more serious in lower-income areas. (pages 18, 19) Californians and San Joaquin Valley residents are most likely to say that the state government should set regional air quality standards, rather than federal, regional, or local entities. While most have no opinion of their regional air district, disapproval is higher among likely voters in the San Joaquin Valley (23%) than it is statewide (16%). (pages 20, 21) Half of Californians and San Joaquin Valley residents want tougher air pollution standards on farm and agriculture activities, even if it is more costly for businesses. Even higher proportions (68% California, 65% San Joaquin Valley) want tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. (page 22, 23) Nearly seven in 10 Californians want stricter air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport goods, even if it is more costly for businesses. Solid majorities across regions would favor assessing container fees on owners of cargo moving through California’s ports as a way to clean up air pollution. (page 24) Regional Air Quality as Compared to 10 Years Ago 80 Percent saying it has "gotten worse" 60 56 50 45 50 38 40 Percent all adults 20 0 CV SF Bay LA O/SD IE Personal Health Threat of Regional Air Pollution 60 Percent saying it is a "very serious health threat" 50 40 40 35 Percent all adults 30 19 20 16 10 0 Asian Black Latino White Willingness to See Tougher Air Pollution Standards On... 100 Percent saying "yes, even if more costly for businesses to operate" 80 68 68 60 50 40 Percent all adults 20 0 Commercial, industrial activities Ships, trucks, trains Agriculture, farm activities 15 Californians and the Environment PERCEPTIONS OF AIR POLLUTION – STATEWIDE TRENDS Seven in 10 residents describe air pollution in their region as a big problem (35%) or somewhat of a problem (37%). Los Angeles (49%), Inland Empire (49%), and Central Valley (42%) residents are much more likely than Orange/San Diego (24%) and San Francisco Bay Area residents (22%) to say air pollution is a big problem in their region today. Compared to a year ago, the percentage saying air pollution is a big problem has dropped statewide (41% to 35%) and across all regions except for the Inland Empire (47% to 49%). Comparing 2000 to today, the proportion holding this view has grown most in the Inland Empire (28% to 49%), Central Valley (28% to 42%), and Los Angeles (40% to 49%), and has changed least in Orange/San Diego counties (20% to 24%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (26% to 22%). Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know “Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region?” All Adults 35% Central Valley 42% San Francisco Bay Area 22% Region Los Angeles 49% Orange/ San Diego 24% 37 33 47 34 43 27 25 30 16 31 1- 112 Inland Empire 49% 27 23 1 Relatively few Californians (20%) say that their regional air quality has improved over the last 10 years, while half (48%) say it has worsened and 15 percent volunteer that it is the same. The proportion saying air quality has worsened is similar to last July (50%) and July 2005 (47%), but is much higher than July 2003 (38%). Central Valley (56%), Los Angeles (50%), and Inland Empire residents (50%) are more likely than others to say air quality has worsened. Latinos (62%) are far more likely than blacks (49%), Asians (46%), or whites (39%) to hold this view, as are women (53%) more than men (43%). While six in 10 Californians are very (19%) or somewhat satisfied (43%) with their regional air quality, about four in 10 are somewhat (23%) or very dissatisfied (14%). San Francisco Bay Area and Orange/San Diego residents (73% each) are much more likely to be satisfied than Central Valley (56%), Inland Empire (50%), and Los Angeles (47%) residents. Majorities across demographic groups express satisfaction with their air quality, while blacks (55%) are less likely than Latinos (61%), whites (64%), or Asians (69%) to hold this view, and women (59%) are less satisfied with their regional air quality than men (66%). Satisfaction with regional air quality was similar a year ago. Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today?” All Adults 19% Central Valley 15% San Francisco Bay Area 24% Region Los Angeles 11% Orange/ San Diego 20% 43 41 49 36 53 23 21 20 32 20 14 21 6 21 6 12 1 - 1 Inland Empire 14% 36 26 23 1 16 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution PERCEPTIONS OF AIR POLLUTION – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY For this survey, we completed additional interviews for an in-depth analysis of the eight-county San Joaquin Valley (SJV), which experiences some of the worst air pollution in the country (see Methodology section). This region is particularly susceptible to air pollution because of commercial and personal vehicle traffic, agricultural and industrial activities, and its physical geography. San Joaquin Valley residents are 21 points more likely than statewide residents to say that regional air pollution is a big problem (56% to 35%). Perceptions within the region vary: South SJV residents (64%) are far more likely than North SJV residents (42%) to call regional air pollution a big problem. Among racial/ethnic groups, whites (62%) are more likely than Latinos (50%) to hold this view. Across political parties, majorities of Republicans (61%), Democrats (60%), and independents (55%) say air pollution is a big problem. San Joaquin Valley residents only Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know “Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region?” All SJV Adults 56% Region North San Joaquin South San Joaquin Valley Valley 42% 64% Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 50% 62% 28 37 22 30 24 15 20 13 19 13 11 1 1 1 Despite the efforts made by the California Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to reduce air pollution, about two in three SJV residents (64%) believe their regional air quality has worsened in the past 10 years and only 12 percent say it has improved. Compared to statewide residents (48% worsened), SJV residents (64% worsened) are far more pessimistic. North SJV (63%) residents are as likely as South SJV residents (65%) to say air quality has worsened and about six in 10 or more across political parties, and among Latinos, whites, men, and women say air quality has worsened. Over half of SJV residents are somewhat (25%) or very dissatisfied (30%) with their regional air quality. As a result, SJV residents are 18 points more likely than statewide residents to say they are dissatisfied (55% to 37%). South SJV residents (64%) are far more likely than North SJV residents (43%) to be dissatisfied with their air quality and are twice as likely to be very dissatisfied (38% to 18%). While about half or more across political parties and racial/ethnic groups say they are at least somewhat dissatisfied, Democrats (37%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (32%) and independents (28%) to be very dissatisfied with air quality, and whites (37%) are more likely than Latinos (21%) to be very dissatisfied. San Joaquin Valley residents only Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today?” All SJV Adults 11% Region North San Joaquin South San Joaquin Valley Valley 11% 11% Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 11% 11% 32 45 24 40 25 25 25 26 27 27 30 18 38 21 37 21 1 1 - July 2007 17 Californians and the Environment AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH – STATEWIDE TRENDS Six in 10 Californians believe that regional air pollution is a very (25%) or somewhat serious (34%) health threat to themselves and their immediate families. Similar percentages have held this view since 2003, but the proportion saying that air pollution is a very serious health threat has been growing steadily since that time (18% July 2003, 20% 2004, 21% 2005, 23% 2006, 25% today). Across regions, Inland Empire (34%), Los Angeles (32%), and Central Valley residents (30%) are the most likely to say the health threat of air pollution is very serious, while San Francisco Bay Area and Orange/San Diego residents (19% each) are less likely to hold this view. Differences are stark across racial/ethnic groups, with 40 percent of blacks and 35 percent of Latinos saying air pollution poses a very serious health threat, compared to 19 percent of Asians and 16 percent of whites. Of those who say regional air pollution is a big problem, nine in 10 say it poses a very (52%) or somewhat serious (37%) health threat. “How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” Very serious All Adults 25% Central Valley 30% San Francisco Bay Area 19% Region Los Angeles 32% Orange/ San Diego 19% Inland Empire 34% Somewhat serious 34 33 34 41 33 31 Not too serious 36 34 41 23 44 33 Not at all serious 3 2 5 1 3 1 Don't know 211311 Four in 10 residents (40%) report that they or a family member suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems, which is similar to last year (41%) and 2003 (37%). Central Valley (46%) and Inland Empire residents (43%) are more likely than others to report asthma or respiratory problems (39% Los Angeles, 39% San Francisco Bay Area, 35% Orange/San Diego counties). Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks (51%) are much more likely than others to say that they or a family member suffer from asthma or respiratory problems (41% Latinos, 38% whites, 27% Asians). Half of Californians think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas in their region, and four in 10 think it is not. Californians in last year’s survey were more divided on this issue (47% yes, 45% no). At least half of residents in Orange/San Diego counties, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Los Angeles believe the health threat from air pollution is greater in lower-income areas, while four in 10 residents in the Inland Empire and Central Valley hold this view. Latinos (68%), blacks (63%), and Asians (55%), are much more likely than whites (37%) to believe that lower-income areas are at greater risk, and this belief is higher for lower-income than upper-income residents. There is also a partisan divide, with Democrats (54%) and independents (43%) much more likely than Republicans (29%) to perceive disparities. Yes No Don't know “Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region?” All Adults 50% Central Valley 38% San Francisco Bay Area 55% Region Los Angeles 58% Orange/ San Diego 50% 42 54 36 34 43 88987 Inland Empire 42% 50 8 18 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY About seven in 10 SJV residents believe regional air pollution is a very (35%) or somewhat serious (37%) health threat to themselves and their immediate family. Residents in this region are 13 points more likely than statewide residents to believe air pollution poses at least a somewhat serious threat (72% to 59%) and 10 points more likely to say the threat is very serious (35% to 25%). Regional variations exist on the threat perception of air pollution: Although 42 percent of South SJV residents say air pollution is a very serious health threat, just 25 percent of North SJV residents hold this perception. Assessing the health threat of air pollution, Latinos (38%) are slightly more likely than whites (33%) to believe it is very serious. “How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” San Joaquin Valley residents only Very serious All SJV Adults 35% Region North San Joaquin South San Joaquin Valley Valley 25% 42% Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 38% 33% Somewhat serious 37 40 36 41 38 Not too serious 25 32 20 21 25 Not at all serious 11 2 - 2 Don't know 22 - -2 Fifty-two percent of SJV residents report that they or a family member suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems, 12 points higher than self-reported incidence rates statewide (40%). Reports of these types of health problems are higher in the South SJV (55%) than North SJV (48%), and are much higher among women (61%) than men (44%). Fifty-four percent of Latinos and 50 percent of whites report that they or a family member suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems. In the context of higher levels of dissatisfaction with regional air quality and personal concerns about the health threat of air pollution in their region, it is noteworthy that a solid majority of SJV residents (57%) do not think the health threat of air pollution is any more serious in lower-income areas of their region than in other areas. By contrast, half of residents statewide believe that disparities exist. North (56%) and South (58%) SJV residents hold similar views that air pollution does not pose a more serious health threat in lower-income areas. Among racial/ethnic groups however, Latinos (58%) are far more likely than whites (19%) to believe air pollution more adversely affects lower-income areas, and this belief is far higher among lower-income than upper-income residents. Republicans (74%) are more likely than independents (58%) or Democrats (53%) to say that air pollution is not a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than in others.. San Joaquin Valley residents only Yes No Don’t know “Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region?” All SJV Adults 36% Region North San Joaquin South San Joaquin Valley Valley 38% 35% Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 58% 19% 57 56 58 40 72 76 7 2 9 July 2007 19 Californians and the Environment REGIONAL AIR DISTRICTS – STATEWIDE TRENDS Almost half of Californians (47%) respond correctly that vehicle emissions are the lead contributor to regional air pollution, with 29 percent blaming personal vehicles and 18 percent saying the main culprit in creating pollution is commercial vehicles. Other causes of air pollution were chosen by fewer residents (15% population growth and development, 14% industry and agriculture, 7% pollution from outside the area, 4% weather and geography). Similar responses were found in 2003, 2005, and 2006. In general, the California Air Resources Board sets air quality standards for mobile sources of air pollution, while regional air districts cover stationary sources. Nearly four in 10 Californians say the state government (37%) should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in their region; fewer choose the federal government (21%), local government (17%), or their regional air district (16%). Californians favored the lead role for state government by similar percentages in 2003, 2005, and 2006. Since 2003, fewer Californians mention their regional air district (26% to 16%), while more mention the federal government (14% to 21%). Today, pluralities across regions, political parties, and gender, age, education, and income groups choose state government when asked who should take the lead. State government Federal government Local government Regional air district Other (specify) Don’t know “Which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region?” All Adults 37% Central Valley 36% San Francisco Bay Area 38% Region Los Angeles 35% Orange/ San Diego 39% Inland Empire 32% 21 19 23 24 21 20 17 19 15 17 16 13 16 17 16 13 17 24 35 3 3 2 3 64 5 8 5 8 Likely Voters 42% 18 16 18 3 3 Thirty-five regional air districts are primarily responsible for controlling emissions from stationary sources. Asked for an assessment of the way their regional air district is handling air quality issues, about seven in 10 residents and likely voters don’t know enough to say. Those with opinions are equally divided between approval and disapproval. Republicans (21%) are more likely than independents (14%) or Democrats (13%) to say they approve, but across political parties, the most striking finding also is the lack of familiarity with regional air districts. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that your regional air district is handling air quality issues, or don’t you know enough to say?” Approve All Adults 15% Central Valley 14% San Francisco Bay Area 17% Region Los Angeles 12% Orange/ San Diego 17% Inland Empire 11% Disapprove 14 19 11 16 10 12 Don’t know enough to say 71 67 72 72 73 77 Likely Voters 17% 16 67 Some have proposed that boards of regional air districts, which are typically composed of local elected officials who are appointed by city, county, or state government, should also include professionals with knowledge of health and environmental issues. Most residents (81%) and likely voters (83%), and more than three in four residents across parties, regions, and racial/ethnic and demographic groups, say they would favor this idea. 20 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution REGIONAL AIR DISTRICTS – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY Compared to statewide, SJV residents are more divided in their views about the causes of regional air pollution. Although a plurality of SJV residents believe vehicle emissions contribute the most to regional air pollution, just three in 10 say commercial vehicles (12%) and personal vehicles (16%). After vehicle emissions, 20 percent blame industry and agriculture, 15 percent blame pollution from outside the area, 11 percent point to population growth and development, and 9 percent say weather and geography. When it comes to setting air quality standards, what are the preferences of SJV residents? Much as residents statewide do, a plurality of SJV residents (36%) believe the state government should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards. One in five would choose their local government (20%), while fewer would choose the federal government (17%) or their regional air district (16%). Pluralities of likely voters (42%), Republicans (48%), Democrats (35%), independents (31%), North (38%) and South (35%) SJV residents, Latinos (34%), whites (39%), and men (35%) and women (37%) think the state government should have the primary responsibility for regulating regional air quality. San Joaquin Valley Residents Only State government Local government Federal government Regional air district Other (specify) Don’t know “Which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region?” All SJV Adults Region North San Joaquin Valley South San Joaquin Valley 36% 38% 35% 20 18 22 17 16 17 16 15 17 45 3 78 6 SJV Likely Voters 42% 20 15 17 2 4 The vast majority of SJV residents (70%) and likely voters (60%) don’t know enough to have an opinion about the performance of their regional air district. Residents in the San Joaquin Valley (18%) are slightly more likely than residents statewide (14%) to disapprove of the way the regional air district is handling air quality issues and SJV likely voters (23%) are more inclined to disapprove than likely voters statewide (16%). Disapproval is higher in South (21%) than North (14%) SJV. Across political parties, Republicans (19%) are more likely than Democrats (12%) and independents (11%) to approve of their performance. Once again, though, the most striking finding is the lack of familiarity with the regional air district. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that your regional air district is handling air quality issues, or don’t you know enough to say?” San Joaquin Valley Residents Only Approve All SJV Adults 12% Region North San Joaquin Valley South San Joaquin Valley 14% 12% Dem 12% Party Rep 19% Ind 11% Disapprove 18 14 21 24 19 20 Don't know enough to say 70 72 67 64 62 69 SJV Likely Voters 17% 23 60 In patterns that mirror the statewide trends, SJV residents (76%) and likely voters (80%) overwhelmingly favor the addition of professionals with knowledge of health and environmental issues to the board of their regional air district. Republicans (82%), Democrats (79%) and independents (78%) are similarly supportive, and support for this proposal is high in the North (75%) and South (77%) SJV regions, and across racial/ethnic (80% whites, 71% Latinos) and all demographic groups. Of those SJV residents who consider air pollution a big problem in their region today, 80 percent support this proposal. July 2007 21 Californians and the Environment AIR QUALITY POLICIES – STATEWIDE TRENDS To combat regional air pollution, a majority of California residents (55%) say they would be willing to see tougher standards imposed on agriculture and farm activities. Half of adults and 54 percent of likely voters are in favor of this policy, even if it made it more costly for businesses to operate. Support for tougher regulations on agriculture and farm activities, even if costs increase for businesses, has dropped since last July (57%) and July 2005 (54%), but support is slightly higher today than in July 2003 (47%). Today, residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (56%) are the most likely to support stricter regulations, followed by the Inland Empire (51%), Los Angeles (49%), the Central Valley (48%), and Orange/San Diego counties (47%). Across political parties, Democrats (63%) are more likely than independents (54%) and much more likely than Republicans (40%) to favor tougher regulations on agriculture and farm activities, even if it raised costs. Latinos (45%) are the least likely to support stricter regulations, whereas more than half of whites (52%), Asians (58%), and blacks (68%) are in favor. Support for greater restrictions increases with higher education and income. Among those who say regional air pollution is a big problem, 55 percent support tougher standards on farming and agriculture as a way to mitigate air pollution. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” Yes, even if more costly All Adults 50% Central Valley 48% San Francisco Bay Area 56% Region Los Angeles 49% Orange/ San Diego 47% Inland Empire 51% Yes, but not if more costly 5 7 5 5 4 4 No 34 34 27 34 37 36 Don't know 11 11 12 12 12 9 Californians (74%) and likely voters (78%) are much more likely to support tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities than on farm and agriculture activities. Sixty-eight percent of residents and 74 percent of likely voters support more regulation on commerce and industry, even if it makes it more costly for businesses to operate. San Francisco Bay Area residents (76%) are again the most likely to favor such standards although more than six in 10 residents in other regions are in favor as well (72% Inland Empire, 66% Los Angeles, 65% Central Valley, 64% Orange/San Diego counties). Eight in 10 Democrats (82%), seven in 10 independents (72%), and six in 10 Republicans (61%) support stricter regulation of commercial and industrial activities. Latinos (57%) are much less likely than Asians (70%), whites (75%), and blacks (78%) to support tougher standards. Majorities across all demographic groups are in favor, and favor increases with age, education, and income. Of those who say air pollution is a big problem, 71 percent favor tougher air pollution standards for commercial and industrial activities. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” Yes, even if more costly All Adults 68% Central Valley 65% San Francisco Bay Area 76% Region Los Angeles 66% Orange/ San Diego 64% Inland Empire 72% Yes, but not if more costly 6 6 2 7 7 5 No 18 20 17 19 21 15 Don't know 89 5 8 8 8 22 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution AIR QUALITY POLICIES – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY San Joaquin Valley residents (57%) are about as likely as residents statewide (55%) to favor tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities. About half of SJV residents (50%) and likely voters (53%) would favor tougher standards, even if it made it more costly for businesses to operate. About half of residents in the North (48%) and South (52%) SJV regions support stricter regulations, even with higher costs. There are, however, differences across parties: Although 59 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independents would support tougher standards on farming and agriculture, 48 percent of Republicans say they would. About half of Latinos (51%) and whites (49%), and women (53%) and men (48%) support greater restrictions. Of those who say air pollution is a big problem, 57 percent would like to see tougher air pollution standards on farming and agriculture, even with increased costs. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” San Joaquin Valley residents only Yes, even if more costly All SJV Adults 50% Region North San Joaquin Valley South San Joaquin Valley 48% 52% Dem 59% Party Rep 48% SJV Likely Ind Voters 58% 53% Yes, but not if more costly 7 5 8 575 4 No 35 41 32 30 38 30 38 Don't know 86 8 677 5 Just as residents statewide are more willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities than on farming and agriculture, so are SJV residents. About seven in 10 SJV residents (71%) and likely voters (72%) would favor stricter air pollution regulations on commercial and industrial activities. Two in three SJV adult residents (65%) and likely voters (67%) would still be in favor, even if it made it more costly for businesses to operate. South SJV residents (66%) are as likely as North SJV residents (64%) to favor greater restrictions, even with higher costs for businesses. Majorities across political parties support tougher standards, although this preference is held by higher percentages of Democrats (77%) than independents (68%) or Republicans (62%). Among racial/ethnic groups, whites (70%) are much more likely than Latinos (57%) to support tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities; women (69%) are more likely than men (61%) to be in favor. Of those residents who perceive air pollution as a big problem, 71 percent favor stricter air pollution standards on commerce and industry. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” San Joaquin Valley residents only Yes, even if more costly All SJV Adults 65% Region North San Joaquin Valley South San Joaquin Valley 64% 66% Dem 77% Party Rep 62% SJV Likely Ind Voters 68% 67% Yes, but not if more costly 6 7 5 4 7 10 5 No 21 20 21 13 22 14 20 Don't know 89 8 698 8 July 2007 23 Californians and the Environment GOODS MOVEMENT AND AIR QUALITY – STATEWIDE TRENDS Goods movement is one of several causes of air pollution in California today. Three in four Californians would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains carrying freight and cargo. Moreover, 68 percent of residents and 73 percent of likely voters would be in favor, even if it made it more costly for businesses to operate. Support today among all adults (68%) is similar to last July (71%) and July 2005 (70%). Today, Democrats (82%) are more likely than independents (71%) and Republicans (62%) to favor stricter standards on ships, trucks, and trains. San Francisco Bay Area residents (77%) are the most likely to favor increased regulation of transport vehicles, but support is also strong in other regions. Solid majorities across all demographic groups support tougher standards. Of those who view air pollution as a big problem, 71 percent are in favor of this policy idea. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” Yes, even if more costly All Adults 68% Central Valley 64% San Francisco Bay Area 77% Region Los Angeles 67% Orange/ San Diego 65% Yes, but not if more costly 6 7 4 7 4 No 18 20 15 17 22 Don't know 89 4 9 9 Inland Empire 72% 5 15 8 To relieve traffic at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland, and to help fund an air pollution reduction program, the state legislature is considering a bill to assess container fees on owners of cargo moving through the ports. About two in three residents (68%) and likely voters (65%) favor charging these fees. Democrats (72%) and independents (71%) show more support than Republicans (58%), although strong majorities across parties, racial/ethnic, and demographic groups are in favor. Los Angeles residents are more likely than others to favor this idea, but there is solid support across regions. Seventy-five percent who support tougher standards on transport vehicles also favor this fee proposal. Favor Oppose Don't know “To help relieve traffic congestion at California’s major seaports, and to help clean up air pollution caused by port traffic, would you favor or oppose charging a container fee on owners of cargo moving through these ports?” All Adults 68% Central Valley 67% San Francisco Bay Area 67% Region Los Angeles 72% Orange/ San Diego 68% 23 24 25 20 24 9 9888 Inland Empire 63% 25 12 A separate program proposed by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would attempt to mitigate air pollution by replacing or retrofitting high-polluting trucks moving through these ports. To fund this, a fee would be assessed on truck owners at the terminal gates. Seventy-one percent of residents and 67 percent of likely voters would favor this idea. Once again, majorities of Democrats (77%), independents (68%), and Republicans (57%) support this proposal to reduce air pollution, though at varying levels. Residents in the areas most affected by Southern California port traffic are most in favor (74% Los Angeles, 72% Orange/San Diego counties), but more than two in three residents in other regions also support this idea. Solid majorities across racial/ethnic and demographic groups are in favor. Seventyeight percent of those who favor tougher standards on transport vehicles also favor this fee proposal. 24 PPIC Statewide Survey ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND PREFERENCES KEY FINDINGS About half of Californians approve of Governor Schwarzenegger’s overall job performance (52%) and his handling of state environmental issues (47%). These approval ratings are both up sharply from last July’s but have declined since January. (page 26) About one in four residents approve of President Bush’s overall job performance (26%) and his handling of environmental issues in the U.S. (25%). These approval ratings have both declined in the last year. (page 27) Two in three Californians say the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment; half say state government is also not doing enough. (page 28) A majority of likely voters (54%) say that 2008 presidential candidates’ positions on the environment will be very important for how they vote. This is twice as true for Democratic voters (70%) as for Republican voters (34%). (page 29) Two in three employed residents drive alone to work, and the percentage rises with income. About one in five residents own or lease an SUV, while six in 10 residents would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle, even if it were more costly. (pages 29, 30) Two in three residents say gasoline price increases have caused them financial hardship, but there are strong differences across racial/ethnic and income groups. Higher gas prices have made seven in 10 consider buying a more fuel efficient car. (page 31) Governor's Approval Percent all adults 100 80 57 60 40 39 20 Overall Environment 42 34 39 32 58 55 52 47 0 July July July January July 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 President's Approval 100 Overall Environment Percent all adults 80 65 60 53 40 38 40 39 37 32 32 20 36 26 30 25 0 June July July July July July 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Automobile Driving Trends 100 80 75 73 71 Drive alone to work Own SUV 67 70 66 60 Percent all adults 40 20 23 21 23 22 23 22 0 2002* July 2003 July 2004 July 2005 July 2006 July 2007 *In 2002, SUV questio n was asked in June and co mmuting questio n was asked in No vember 25 Californians and the Environment GOVERNOR’S APPROVAL RATINGS Although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s job approval ratings remain high, they are lower than they were when his newest term began in January, but higher than they were a year ago. Today, 52 percent of all adults and 59 percent of likely voters approve of the way Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor, down from 58 percent and 61 percent, respectively, in January. Still, these ratings are much higher than they were last July (42% all adults, 49% likely voters). Republicans (75%) continue to give the governor much higher ratings than Democrats (46%) and independents (52%) do. Democrats and independents are more likely to approve of the governor today than they were last July (25% Democrats, 42% independents), but less likely than they were in January (55% Democrats, 60% independents). Among racial/ethnic groups, blacks are divided in their opinion of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s job performance (40% approve, 46% disapprove), while a majority of whites (64%) and Asians (57%) approve, and a majority of Latinos disapprove (52%). The governor’s ratings vary across regions, with at least half approving in the Central Valley (63%), Orange/San Diego counties (54%), and the Inland Empire (50%), but fewer than half approving in the San Francisco Bay Area (47%) and Los Angeles (44%). His approval rating is significantly higher among men than women (56% to 47%) and it increases with higher age, education, and income. Approve Disapprove Don't know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Race/Ethnicity Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 52% 46% 75% 52% 57% 40% 34% 64% 34 41 17 33 17 46 52 23 14 13 8 15 26 14 14 13 Likely Voters 59% 31 10 Today, 47 percent of adults and 51 percent of likely voters approve of how the governor is handling environmental issues in California. However, like his overall ratings, his environmental ratings have declined since January (55% adults, 57% likely voters), but are still much higher than they were last July (39% all adults, 44% likely voters). As is true for his overall rating, Republicans (62%) are much more likely than Democrats (44%) and independents (49%) to approve of how the governor is handling environmental issues. Across other groups, Asians (43%), blacks (41%), and Latinos (38%) give him lower ratings than whites (54%) do. He also receives higher environmental approval ratings in the Central Valley (51%) and in Orange/San Diego counties (49%) than in other regions (46% San Francisco Bay Area, 44% Inland Empire, 39% Los Angeles). Approval of his environmental performance increases with higher age, education, and income. Approve Disapprove Don't know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Race/Ethnicity Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 47% 44% 62% 49% 43% 41% 38% 54% 31 37 19 29 23 49 40 24 22 19 19 22 34 10 22 22 Likely Voters 51% 32 17 26 PPIC Statewide Survey Environmental Politics and Preferences PRESIDENT’S APPROVAL RATINGS President Bush’s job approval ratings reached another historic low this month. Only 26 percent of California residents approve of the way the president is handling his job, 3 points down from January (29%) and ten points down from last July (36%). Seven in 10 adults (68%) and likely voters (71%) now disapprove of the president’s performance. Californians are slightly less favorable than adults nationwide toward the president, according to a July 18 Gallup poll (31% approve, 63% disapprove). In sharp contrast to President Bush’s low approval ratings among Democrats (10%) and independents (21%), a majority of Republicans still approve of how he is handling his job (52%). However, even among Republicans, disapproval of the president’s job performance has risen since last July (24% to 42%) and since January (37% to 42%). Across all regions, a majority of residents disapprove of Bush’s performance, but disapproval is highest in the San Francisco Bay Area (77%). Strong majorities in all racial/ethnic groups also disapprove of the president’s performance, with blacks (85%) the most likely to disapprove, followed by whites (69%), Latinos (66%), and Asians (61%). Approve Disapprove Don't know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Race/Ethnicity Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 26% 10% 52% 21% 29% 7% 29% 26% 68 87 42 76 61 85 66 69 6 3 6 3 10 8 5 5 Likely Voters 25% 71 4 President Bush’s handling of environmental issues gets ratings similar to his overall performance. Only one in four California residents (25%) and likely voters (23%) approve; about two in three disapprove (63% all adults, 69% likely voters). Although his approval ratings on the environment had hovered around 30 percent since July 2004 (32% July 2004, 32% July 2005, 30% July 2006), they dropped 5 points in the past year, reaching a historic low this month. Strong majorities of Democrats (85%) and independents (67%) disapprove of the president’s performance on environmental issues, while more Republicans approve (45%) than disapprove (39%). Although majorities of all racial/ethnic groups disapprove, blacks (80%) and whites (65%) disapprove more than Latinos (57%) and Asians (56%). Across regions, disapproval is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (69%) and Los Angeles (66%) than in the Inland Empire (60%), the Central Valley (58%), and Orange/San Diego counties (57%). Disapproval of Bush’s handling of environmental issues increases with higher age, education, and income. Approve Disapprove Don't know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Race/Ethnicity Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 25% 8% 45% 19% 20% 11% 31% 23% 63 85 39 67 56 80 57 65 12 7 16 14 24 9 12 12 Likely Voters 23% 69 8 July 2007 27 Californians and the Environment FEDERAL AND STATE INVOLVEMENT More than two in three Californians (67%) and likely voters (71%) think the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment in the United States, a perception that has been increasing over time (52% July 2003, 56% July 2004, 61% July 2006.) An overwhelming majority of Democrats (83%) and independents (71%) believe that the federal government is not doing enough, and even half of Republicans agree (49%). Strong majorities across all regions and age, education, and income groups believe that the federal response is inadequate. Across racial/ethnic groups, that perception is considerably higher among blacks (85%) than among whites (69%), Asians (63%), or Latinos (62%). “Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind More than enough 5% 2% 12% 3% 5% Just enough 23 13 34 21 21 Not enough 67 83 49 71 71 Don't know 52553 Californians are much more positive about the efforts of their state government: 45 percent think the state is doing more than enough (9%) or just enough (36%) to protect the environment in California. Still, almost half of adults (49%) believe that state efforts are falling short, which is the highest percentage in recent years (46% July 2006, 42% July 2004, 46% July 2003) and similar to the perceptions of state actions during the first term of Gov. Gray Davis (50% June 2000, 51% June 2002). Democrats (59%) and independents (52%) are far more likely than Republicans (32%) to say the state is not doing enough to protect the environment. This belief is more prevalent in Los Angeles (56%) and the Inland Empire (52%) than elsewhere, and it is higher among blacks (72%) and Latinos (58%) than among whites (43%) or Asians (42%). It is also greater among women than men (52% to 46%), but this belief declines with higher age, education, and income. “Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind More than enough 9% 4% 20% 6% 11% Just enough 36 34 43 35 37 Not enough 49 59 32 52 48 Don't know 63574 28 PPIC Statewide Survey Environmental Politics and Preferences 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Californians’ interest in the upcoming presidential election is high, and environmental issues may be crucial to their decisions. Seventy-nine percent of likely voters say they are following news about candidates for the presidential election at least fairly closely, and a majority of likely voters (54%) say candidates’ positions on the environment will be very important in determining their vote. Voters’ emphasis on this issue has grown significantly since July 2003 (39%) and July 2004 (37%), when fewer than four in 10 said that the 2004 presidential candidates’ positions on the environment were very important in their voting decision. As in July 2003 and July 2004, Democrats and independents today are more likely than Republicans to consider the candidates’ environmental positions very important, but that importance has risen in all partisan groups. While solid majorities of Latinos and whites now say a candidate’s environmental stance is at least somewhat important, Latinos (68%) are more likely than whites (51%) to call it very important. Likely voters in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area place more importance than voters living in the Central Valley or the Other Southern California Region on the environmental positions of the 2008 presidential candidates. (Orange/San Diego counties and the Inland Empire are combined for this analysis and in the table below due to small sample sizes for likely voters in these regions.) “In thinking about the presidential election in 2008, how important to you are the candidates' positions on the environment—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy—in determining your vote?” Likely voters only Very important Somewhat important Not too important Don't know All Likely Voters 54% 29% 16% 1% Democrat 70 23 6 1 Party Republican 34 37 28 1 Independent 52 29 17 2 Central Valley 48 27 23 2 Region San Francisco Bay Area 60 28 12 - Los Angeles 60 26 12 2 Other Southern California 46 33 20 1 AUTOMOBILE DRIVING TRENDS For most Californians, the commute to work is solitary: 66 percent of employed residents report driving alone to work; far fewer carpool or take public transit. Solo driving increases with affluence, with about three in four with household incomes over $80,000, homeowners, and college graduates driving alone to work. One in three Latinos carpool or take public transit, compared to just 12 percent of whites. “How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle?” Drive alone All Adults 66% Under $40,000 53% Income $40,000 to $79,999 71% $80,000 or more 78% Likely Voters 72% Carpool 13 22 9 8 9 Take public bus or transit 7 11 6 4 5 Other 14 14 14 10 14 July 2007 29 Californians and the Environment AUTOMOBILE DRIVING TRENDS (CONTINUED) Across regions, residents in the Inland Empire and Orange/San Diego counties (72% each) report the highest levels of driving alone, followed by Central Valley (68%), Los Angeles (66%), and San Francisco Bay Area residents (61%). Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area residents (10% each) are the most likely to take public transit, compared to 5 percent or fewer in other regions. What vehicles are Californians driving? Twenty-two percent of residents own or lease an SUV, and SUV ownership increases significantly with household income levels. Whites and Asians (25% each) and blacks (21%) are more likely than Latinos (17%) to own or lease an SUV. Owning or leasing an SUV is twice as high among adults with children under 18 as it is among people with no children under 18 (30% to 16%). It is also higher for men than women (25% to 20%) and for those 35 to 54 (31%) than for adults under 35 (17%) or older than 54 (16%). Conservatives (26%) are more likely than liberals (18%) to own or lease an SUV. “Do you personally own or lease an SUV?” All Adults Under $40,000 Income $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more Likely Voters Yes 22% 11% 23% 36% 25% No 78 89 77 64 75 We also asked residents if they would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle. Nearly six in 10 residents and likely voters (58% each) say they would, even if it would be more costly. A majority of residents across all income levels, and 63 percent who own or lease an SUV, would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid automobile even if it costs more. Six in 10 Latinos and whites (60% each) and more than half of blacks (56%) and Asians (55%) say the same. Giving serious consideration to purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle increases with higher education and income. “Would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine?” (if yes: “Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?)” Yes, even if more costly All Adults 58% Under $40,000 54% Income $40,000 to $79,999 62% $80,000 or more 65% Yes, but not if more costly 12 15 11 11 No 18 18 18 15 Already have a hybrid/don’t drive/won’t buy or lease 4 3 2 4 another vehicle (volunteered) Don't know 8 10 7 5 Likely Voters 58% 12 19 5 6 30 PPIC Statewide Survey Environmental Politics and Preferences EFFECTS OF GASOLINE PRICES As gasoline prices continue to rise nationwide, are Californians feeling the effects in their pocketbooks? Today, 65 percent of residents say price increases in gasoline have caused financial hardship for themselves or their households. That proportion is similar to a year ago (67%) and is higher than in September 2005 (57%) and July 2004 (55%). “Have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household?” All Adults Asians Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites Under $40,000 Income $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more Yes 65% 62% 67% 83% 54% 79% 65% 52% No 34 35 33 16 45 20 35 48 Don't know 1 3 - 1 1 1 - - Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (83%) are far more likely than blacks (67%), Asians (62%), and whites (54%) to report a financial hardship from increased gasoline prices. Across income groups, residents with incomes less than $40,000 are far more likely than others to report a hardship. However, even among those with incomes of $80,000 or more, about half (52%) say increased gas prices caused a hardship. Regionally, a majority of residents report such a hardship, but it seems to have hit harder in the Inland Empire (73%) and Los Angeles (71%) than in the Central Valley (64%), Orange/San Diego counties (62%), and the San Francisco Bay Area (54%). Across demographic groups, majorities report gasoline-related financial hardship, with younger, less educated, and less affluent residents reporting the highest levels. With gasoline prices continuing to rise over the past few years, have residents considered any longer-term actions to reduce their gasoline use? Sixty-nine percent of residents say they are considering getting a more fuel-efficient car, and 8 percent report owning such a vehicle already. Findings are nearly identical to last year’s. Of the California residents who say increased gas prices are causing them financial hardships, 77 percent say they would consider getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time they buy a vehicle. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (81%) and Asians (77%) are more likely than whites (64%) and blacks (61%) to consider a more fuel-efficient car for their next vehicle. Across income groups, that likelihood is higher among those with household incomes less than $40,000 than among more affluent residents. Younger residents are much more likely than older residents to consider a more fuel-efficient car as their next vehicle. A majority of SUV owners (66%) say the same. “As a result of the rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle?” Yes, have considered All Adults 69% Asians 77% Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 61% 81% Whites 64% Under $40,000 74% Income $40,000 to $79,999 71% $80,000 or more 66% No, have not considered 19 12 29 14 21 16 17 20 My current vehicle is fuelefficient (volunteered) 8 7 3 3 11 4 9 13 Don't drive (volunteered) 3 2 6 1 4 4 2 1 Don't know 12 1 1 - 2 1 - July 2007 31 REGIONAL MAPS San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin North San Joaquin Valley Stanislaus Merced Madera Fresno South San Joaquin Valley Kings Tulare Kern 32 METHODOLOGY The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, president and CEO and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Sonja Petek, project manager for this survey, and from survey research associates Dean Bonner and Jennifer Paluch, and survey intern Stephanie Stone. The survey was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation as part of a three-year series on education, environment, and population issues. We benefited from discussions with Hewlett staff, PPIC researchers, and other policy experts; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of this report were determined solely by Mark Baldassare. Statewide Survey Sample The findings in this report are based on a telephone survey of 2,500 California adult residents interviewed from June 28 to July 15, 2007. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Interviews took an average of 18 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean. We chose these languages because Spanish is the dominant language among non-English speaking adults in California, followed in prevalence by the three Asian languages. Accent on Languages translated the survey into Spanish, with assistance from Renatta DeFever and Stephanie Stone. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. translated the survey into Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean, and conducted the telephone interviewing for this survey. We used recent U.S. Census and state data to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,500 California adult residents is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger: For the 1,814 registered voters, it is +/- 2.5 percent; for the 1,238 likely voters, it is +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to five geographic regions accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba counties. “San Francisco Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, “Inland Empire” includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego counties. Residents from other geographic areas are included in the statewide results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters. However, sample sizes for these less populated areas are not large enough to report separately in tables and text. We present specific results for respondents in the statewide sample in four self-identified racial/ethnic groups: Asian, black, Latino, 33 Methodology and non-Hispanic white. We also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents (i.e. registered as “decline to state”) and we analyze the responses of likely voters—those who are the most likely to participate in the state’s elections. We compare current statewide survey responses both to responses in earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys and to responses in national surveys conducted by Gallup and New York Times/CBS News. San Joaquin Valley Survey Oversample We include an analysis of San Joaquin Valley residents in this report because of the important air quality issues in this region of the state. We present the findings for 1,001 adult residents living in the eightcounty San Joaquin Valley region, 235 of whom are part of the statewide survey sample and 766 of whom are a part of a survey oversample of residents in the San Joaquin Valley region interviewed from July 11 to July 18, 2007. The methodology for the San Joaquin Valley survey oversample was the same as for the statewide survey sample. The telephone interviewing was conducted in English and Spanish, which are the two primary languages spoken in the San Joaquin Valley region. We used recent U.S. Census and state data to compare demographic characteristics of the overall San Joaquin Valley survey sample with San Joaquin Valley’s adult population. This sample was also comparable to the census and state figures and the survey data were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the San Joaquin Valley sample of 1,001 adults is +/- 3 percent, while the sampling errors for subgroups in this region are larger: For the 728 registered voters, it is +/- 3.5 percent; for the 446 likely voters, it is +/- 4.5 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. When reporting the results for the San Joaquin Valley, we refer to two geographic subregions that we have identified in our Central Valley survey series, in collaboration with the Great Valley Center: “North San Joaquin Valley” includes Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties, and “South San Joaquin Valley” includes Kern, Kings, Fresno, Madera, and Tulare counties. We present specific results for the San Joaquin Valley in two self-identified racial/ethnic groups: Latino and non-Hispanic white. The sample sizes for blacks and Asians in this region are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. For the San Joaquin Valley, we also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and we analyze the responses of likely voters. 34 PPIC Statewide Survey QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS: CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT June 28 - July 15, 2007 2,500 California Adult Residents: English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese MARGIN OF ERROR +/-2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 52% approve 34 disapprove 14 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 47% approve 31 disapprove 22 don’t know 3. What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [code, don’t read] 29% air pollution, vehicle emissions 11 global warming, global climate change, greenhouse gases 8 water supply, reservoirs 6 energy 5 pollution in general 5 water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams 4 loss of forests, forest fires 3 immigration, immigrants 3 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 3 traffic congestion 2 population growth, overpopulation 9 other 12 don’t know 4. Next, we are interested in the region of California that you live in. Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region? 35% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 27 not a problem 1 don’t know 5. How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today—would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied? 19% very satisfied 43 somewhat satisfied 23 somewhat dissatisfied 14 very dissatisfied 1 don’t know 6. Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago? 20% better 48 worse 15 same (volunteered) 17 don’t know 7. How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, or not too serious of a health threat? 25% very serious 34 somewhat serious 36 not too serious 3 not at all serious (volunteered) 2 don’t know 35 Californians and the Environment 8. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region? 50% yes 42 no 8 don’t know 9. Do you or does anyone in your immediate family suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems? (if yes: Would that be you or someone in your family?) 12% yes, respondent 23 yes, someone in immediate family 5 yes, both 60 no 10.Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region? [read rotated list then ask, “or something else?”] 29% personal vehicle emissions 18 commercial vehicle emissions 15 population growth and development 14 industry and agriculture 7 pollution from outside the area 4 weather and geography 8 all of the above (volunteered) 3 something else (specify) 2 don’t know 11.More generally, which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region? [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 21% the federal government 37 the state government 16 the regional air district 17 the local government 3 other (specify) 6 don’t know 12.Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that your regional air district is handling air quality issues, or don’t you know enough to say? 15% approve 14 disapprove 71 don't know enough to say 13.Regional air districts are responsible for controlling air pollution from stationary sources, like industry and business, and their boards are typically comprised of local elected officials who are appointed by the city, county, or state government. Do you favor or oppose having these boards also include professionals with knowledge about health and environmental issues? 81% favor 11 oppose 8 don’t know We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 14 to 17] 14.Would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 58% yes, even if more costly 12 yes, but not if more costly 18 no 4 already have a hybrid/don’t drive/won’t buy or lease another vehicle (volunteered) 8 don’t know 15.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 50% yes, even if more costly 5 yes, but not if more costly 34 no 11 don’t know 36 PPIC Statewide Survey 16.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 68% yes, even if more costly 6 yes, but not if more costly 18 no 8 don’t know 17.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 68% yes, even if more costly 6 yes, but not if more costly 18 no 8 don’t know Next, [rotate questions 18 and 19] 18.To help relieve traffic congestion at California’s major seaports, and to help clean up air pollution caused by port traffic, would you favor or oppose charging a container fee on owners of cargo moving through these ports? 68% favor 23 oppose 9 don’t know 19.To reduce the amount of air pollution caused by trucks carrying cargo through California’s major seaports, would you favor or oppose charging a fee on truck owners to help fund a program that replaces or retrofits high polluting trucks? 71% favor 24 oppose 5 don’t know Questionnaire and Results: CALIFORNIA 20.On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen? [rotate] [1] they have already begun to happen; [2] they will start happening within a few years; [3] they will start happening within your lifetime; [4] they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] [5] they will never happen. 66% already begun 4 within a few years 7 within your lifetime 11 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 7 will never happen 5 don’t know 21.Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet? 81% right away 14 not necessary yet 2 neither, never necessary (volunteered) 3 don’t know 22.How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious of a threat? 54% very serious 28 somewhat serious 8 not too serious 7 not at all serious 3 don’t know Now I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. [rotate questions 23 to 25] July 2007 37 Californians and the Environment 23.How about increased flooding? 37% very concerned 28 somewhat concerned 18 not too concerned 15 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 24.How about droughts that are more severe? 60% very concerned 25 somewhat concerned 6 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 25.How about increased air pollution? 55% very concerned 31 somewhat concerned 6 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 1 don’t know State policies could be used to address the effects of global warming in California. Please tell me whether you favor or oppose the following policies. 26.What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009? 84% favor 13 oppose 3 don’t know 27.What about the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020? 78% favor 14 oppose 8 don’t know 28.What about the governor’s low carbon fuel standard that would require a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of fuel by the year 2020? 77% favor 13 oppose 10 don’t know 38 PPIC Statewide Survey 29.Do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming? 67% favor 26 oppose 7 don’t know 30.Changing topics, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 26% approve 68 disapprove 6 don’t know 31.Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 25% approve 63 disapprove 12 don’t know [rotate questions 32 and 33] 32.Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States? 5% more than enough 23 just enough 67 not enough 5 don’t know 33.Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 9% more than enough 36 just enough 49 not enough 6 don’t know Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 34 to 38] 34.How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if yes: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 75% favor, even if more costly 10 favor, but not if more costly 10 oppose 5 don’t know 35.How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 41% favor 52 oppose 7 don’t know 36.How about spending more government money to develop alternative sources of fuel, such as biofuels and ethanol, for automobiles? 78% favor 18 oppose 4 don’t know 37.How about spending more government money to develop renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power? 84% favor 12 oppose 4 don’t know 38.How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 37% favor 54 oppose 9 don’t know 39.Next, have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? 65% yes, caused hardship 34 no, have not caused hardship 1 don’t know Questionnaire and Results: CALIFORNIA 40.As a result of the rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuelefficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? 69% yes, have considered 19 no, have not considered 8 my current vehicle is fuel-efficient (volunteered) 3 don’t drive/don’t have a car/won’t buy another vehicle (volunteered) 1 don’t know [Responses recorded for questions 41 and 42 are for likely voters only. All other responses are from all adults, except where noted.] 41.In thinking about the presidential election in 2008, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy in determining your vote? 54% very important 29 somewhat important 16 not too important 1 don’t know 42.How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2008 presidential election? 30% very closely 49 fairly closely 17 not too closely 4 not at all closely 43.On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 72% yes [ask q43a] 27 no [skip to q44f] 1 don’t know [skip to q44f] 43a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 42% Democrat [ask q44a] 33 Republican [skip to q44b] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q45] 20 independent [skip to q44c] July 2007 39 Californians and the Environment 44a.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 56% strong 41 not very strong 3 don’t know [skip to q45] 44b.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 49% strong 49 not very strong 2 don’t know [skip to q45] 44c.Would you join a political party if it was a good reflection of your political views or do you prefer to be unaffiliated with any specific party? 27% join a political party 71 remain unaffiliated 2 don’t know 44d.And, were you previously registered with a major party or have you always been an independent? 38% previously registered [ask q44e] 59 always been an independent [skip to q44f] 3 don’t know [skip to q44f] 44e.And what party were you previously registered with? [code, don’t read] 53% Republican Party 41 Democratic Party 2 American Independent 4 other (specify) 44f.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 23% Republican Party 42 Democratic Party 24 neither (volunteered) 11 don’t know 45.Would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 11% very liberal 22 somewhat liberal 29 middle-of-the-road 24 somewhat conservative 10 very conservative 4 don’t know 46.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 22% great deal 37 fair amount 31 only a little 9 none 1 don’t know [d1--d5: demographic questions] d6. How do you usually commute to work— drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle? 66% drive alone 13 carpool 7 take public bus or transit 4 walk 3 bicycle 5 work at home (volunteered) 2 other (specify) d7. Do you personally own or lease an SUV? 22% yes 78 no d7a.Do you personally own or lease a hybrid vehicle? 5% yes 95 no [d8--d13: demographic questions] 40 PPIC Statewide Survey QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT June 28 - July 18, 2007 1,001 San Joaquin Valley Residents: English, Spanish MARGIN OF ERROR +/-3% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SAMPLE 1. First, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 54% approve 34 disapprove 12 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 50% approve 30 disapprove 20 don’t know 3. What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [code, don’t read] 35% air pollution, vehicle emissions 9 water supply, reservoirs 6 global warming, global climate change, greenhouse gases 5 pollution in general 4 immigration, immigrants 4 loss of forests, forest fires 3 energy 3 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 3 water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams 2 population growth, overpopulation 13 other 13 don’t know 4. Next, we are interested in the region of California that you live in. Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region? 56% big problem 28 somewhat of a problem 15 not a problem 1 don’t know 5. How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today—would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied? 11% very satisfied 32 somewhat satisfied 25 somewhat dissatisfied 30 very dissatisfied 2 don’t know 6. Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago? 12% better 64 worse 11 same (volunteered) 13 don’t know 7. How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, or not too serious of a health threat? 35% very serious 37 somewhat serious 25 not too serious 1 not at all serious (volunteered) 2 don’t know 41 Californians and the Environment 8. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region? 36% yes 57 no 7 don’t know 9. Do you or does anyone in your immediate family suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems? (if yes: Would that be you or someone in your family?) 14% yes, respondent 31 yes, someone in immediate family 7 yes, both 47 no 1 don’t know 10.Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region? [read rotated list then ask, “or something else?”] 20% industry and agriculture 16 personal vehicle emissions 15 pollution from outside the area 12 commercial vehicle emissions 11 population growth and development 9 weather and geography 11 all of the above (volunteered) 2 something else (specify) 4 don’t know 11.More generally, which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region? [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 17% the federal government 36 the state government 16 the regional air district 20 the local government 4 other (specify) 7 don’t know 12.Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that your regional air district is handling air quality issues, or don’t you know enough to say? 12% approve 18 disapprove 70 don't know enough to say 13.Regional air districts are responsible for controlling air pollution from stationary sources, like industry and business, and their boards are typically comprised of local elected officials who are appointed by the city, county, or state government. Do you favor or oppose having these boards also include professionals with knowledge about health and environmental issues? 76% favor 13 oppose 11 don’t know We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 14 to 17] 14.Would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 56% yes, even if more costly 13 yes, but not if more costly 19 no 3 already have a hybrid/don’t drive/won’t buy or lease another vehicle (volunteered) 9 don’t know 15.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 50% yes, even if more costly 7 yes, but not if more costly 35 no 8 don’t know 42 PPIC Statewide Survey 16.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 65% yes, even if more costly 6 yes, but not if more costly 21 no 8 don’t know 17.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 63% yes, even if more costly 5 yes, but not if more costly 21 no 11 don’t know Next, [rotate questions 18 and 19] 18.To help relieve traffic congestion at California’s major seaports, and to help clean up air pollution caused by port traffic, would you favor or oppose charging a container fee on owners of cargo moving through these ports? 66% favor 25 oppose 9 don’t know 19.To reduce the amount of air pollution caused by trucks carrying cargo through California’s major seaports, would you favor or oppose charging a fee on truck owners to help fund a program that replaces or retrofits high polluting trucks? 67% favor 27 oppose 6 don’t know Questionnaire and Results: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 20.On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen? [rotate] [1] they have already begun to happen; [2] they will start happening within a few years; [3] they will start happening within your lifetime; [4] they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] [5] they will never happen. 60% already begun 4 within a few years 8 within your lifetime 12 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 10 will never happen 6 don’t know 21.Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet? 78% right away 16 not necessary yet 2 neither, never necessary (volunteered) 4 don’t know 22.How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious of a threat? 52% very serious 28 somewhat serious 8 not too serious 10 not at all serious 2 don’t know Now I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. [rotate questions 23 to 25] July 2007 43 Californians and the Environment 23.How about increased flooding? 34% very concerned 26 somewhat concerned 21 not too concerned 17 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 24.How about droughts that are more severe? 54% very concerned 28 somewhat concerned 8 not too concerned 9 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 25.How about increased air pollution? 56% very concerned 30 somewhat concerned 6 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 1 don’t know State policies could be used to address the effects of global warming in California. Please tell me whether you favor or oppose the following policies. 26.What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009? 80% favor 17 oppose 3 don’t know 27.What about the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020? 73% favor 18 oppose 9 don’t know 28.What about the governor’s low carbon fuel standard that would require a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of fuel by the year 2020? 76% favor 13 oppose 11 don’t know 44 PPIC Statewide Survey 29.Do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming? 61% favor 30 oppose 9 don’t know 30.Changing topics, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 35% approve 59 disapprove 6 don’t know 31.Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 31% approve 53 disapprove 16 don’t know [rotate questions 32 and 33] 32.Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States? 7% more than enough 28 just enough 61 not enough 4 don’t know 33.Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 10% more than enough 38 just enough 47 not enough 5 don’t know Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 34 to 38] 34.How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if yes: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 72% favor, even if more costly 12 favor, but not if more costly 12 oppose 4 don’t know 35.How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 52% favor 41 oppose 7 don’t know 36.How about spending more government money to develop alternative sources of fuel, such as biofuels and ethanol, for automobiles? 77% favor 19 oppose 4 don’t know 37.How about spending more government money to develop renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power? 80% favor 16 oppose 4 don’t know 38.How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 40% favor 52 oppose 8 don’t know 39.Next, have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? 71% yes, caused hardship 29 no, have not caused hardship Questionnaire and Results: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 40.As a result of the rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuelefficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? 68% yes, have considered 20 no, have not considered 8 my current vehicle is fuel-efficient (volunteered) 3 don’t drive/don’t have a car/won’t buy another vehicle (volunteered) 1 don’t know [Responses recorded for questions 41 and 42 are for San Joaquin Valley likely voters only. All other responses are from all San Joaquin Valley adults, except where noted.] 41.In thinking about the presidential election in 2008, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy in determining your vote? 47% very important 31 somewhat important 21 not too important 1 don’t know 42.How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2008 presidential election? 28% very closely 49 fairly closely 18 not too closely 5 not at all closely 43.On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 73% yes [ask q43a] 27 no [skip to q44f] 43a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 37% Democrat [ask q44a] 44 Republican [skip to q44b] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q45] 14 independent [skip to q44c] July 2007 45 Californians and the Environment 44a.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 51% strong 44 not very strong 5 don’t know [skip to q45] 44b.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 51% strong 47 not very strong 2 don’t know [skip to q45] 44c.Would you join a political party if it was a good reflection of your political views or do you prefer to be unaffiliated with any specific party? 21% join a political party 76 remain unaffiliated 3 don’t know 44d.And, were you previously registered with a major party or have you always been an independent? 35% previously registered [ask q44e] 63 always been an independent [skip to q44f] 2 don’t know [skip to q44f] 44e.And what party were you previously registered with? [code, don’t read] 40% Republican Party 57 Democratic Party 2 other (specify) 1 don’t know 44f.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 23% Republican Party 39 Democratic Party 25 neither (volunteered) 13 don’t know 45.Would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 8% very liberal 17 somewhat liberal 32 middle-of-the-road 25 somewhat conservative 14 very conservative 4 don’t know 46.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 18% great deal 37 fair amount 34 only a little 10 none 1 don’t know [d1-d5: demographic questions] D6.How do you usually commute to work— drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle? 73% drive alone 18 carpool 2 take public bus or transit 2 walk 2 bicycle 2 work at home (volunteered) 1 other (specify) D7.Do you personally own or lease an SUV? 24% yes 76 no D7a.Do you personally own or lease a hybrid vehicle? 5% yes 95 no [d8-d13: demographic questions] 46 PPIC Statewide Survey PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ruben Barrales President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Angela Blackwell Founder and Chief Executive Officer PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Jon Cohen Director of Polling The Washington Post Matthew K. Fong Special Counsel Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP Russell Hancock President and Chief Executive Officer Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and Chief Executive Officer The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and Chief Executive Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center The PPIC Statewide Survey Advisory Committee is a diverse group of experts who provide advice on survey issues. However, survey methods, questions, content, and timing are determined solely by PPIC. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Mark Baldassare President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of California Linda Griego President and Chief Executive Officer Griego Enterprises, Inc. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Former State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Copyright © 2007 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, California 95814 phone: 916.440.1120 fax: 916.440.1121 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org"
}
["___content":protected]=>
string(102) "
"
["_permalink":protected]=>
string(100) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-the-environment-11/s_707mbs/"
["_next":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_prev":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_css_class":protected]=>
NULL
["id"]=>
int(8610)
["ID"]=>
int(8610)
["post_author"]=>
string(1) "1"
["post_content"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_date"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 02:39:08"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(3849)
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "inherit"
["post_title"]=>
string(8) "S 707MBS"
["post_type"]=>
string(10) "attachment"
["slug"]=>
string(8) "s_707mbs"
["__type":protected]=>
NULL
["_wp_attached_file"]=>
string(12) "S_707MBS.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(7) "2051176"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["_edit_lock"]=>
string(12) "1495527757:1"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(128596) "july 2007 &Californians the environment in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mark Baldassare Dean Bonner Jennifer Paluch Sonja Petek The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns: California in the global economy; demography; education; employment and income; environment, growth, and infrastructure; government and public finance; health and social policy; immigrants and immigration; key sectors in the California economy; and political participation. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political candidates for public office. Mark Baldassare is President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, California 95814 phone: 916.440.1120 fax: 916.440.1121 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Survey Press Release Global Warming and Energy Air Pollution Environmental Politics and Preferences Regional Maps Methodology Questionnaire and Results: California Questionnaire and Results: San Joaquin Valley 1 3 7 15 25 32 33 35 41 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Inaugurated in April 1998, this is the 79th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 168,000 Californians. This survey is the seventh PPIC Statewide Survey on the environment since 2000. The current survey is part of a three-year series conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The intent of the series is to inform state, local, and federal policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about environment, education, and population issues. The current survey examines environmental perceptions, attitudes, and policy preferences. We focus on the related issues of global warming, energy, and air quality because these are current topics in public policy and political debates at the regional, state, and federal government levels. California public opinion is relevant for several reasons. The state has several regions with high air pollution levels, including the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin Valley. California has taken the lead nationally in policy efforts on global warming, alternative energy, and air quality. State residents have also dealt with multi-year increases in gasoline prices. This survey presents the responses of 2,500 adult residents throughout the state. Some questions are repeated from earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys and from recent national surveys. Because of important air quality issues in the San Joaquin Valley, we also present the results of a survey oversample of 766 San Joaquin Valley residents, for a total sample of 1,001 adult residents of that region. In the overall survey, we examined the following issues: Global warming and energy, including identification of the state’s most important environmental issue; perceptions of global warming and its effects on California’s future; support for state policies to address global warming and greenhouse gas emissions; and opinions about the U.S. energy supply, about allowing more offshore oil drilling, and about funding the development of alternative energy sources, including new nuclear power plants. Air quality and health issues, including perceptions of air pollution and of trends in air quality in a respondent’s region; the perceived threat of air pollution to personal health; beliefs about the causes of air pollution and government responsibility for setting air quality standards; opinions about the composition and performance of regional air districts; actions people are willing to take to improve air quality; and specific findings for residents of the San Joaquin Valley. Environmental politics and preferences, including overall ratings of the governor and president and of their handling of environment issues; preferences for federal and state involvement in environmental protection; the importance of environmental issues such as air quality, global warming, and energy policy in the 2008 presidential election; automobile driving trends, willingness to purchase more fuel-efficient cars, and the effects of increased gasoline prices. Variations in perceptions, attitudes, and policy preferences across the five major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Orange/San Diego counties, and Inland Empire), among Asians, blacks, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites, and across age, education, income, and political groups, and among San Joaquin Valley population subgroups. Copies of this report may be ordered online (www.ppic.org) or by phone (415-291-4400). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. View our searchable PPIC Statewide Survey database online at http://www.ppic.org/main/survAdvancedSearch.asp. 1 PRESS RELEASE Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT The Goal Is Always Greener: Worried Californians Looking for Stronger Government Action on the Environment AIR POLLUTION STILL THE TOP CONCERN -- BUT GLOBAL WARMING, DROUGHT FEARS ON THE RISE; VOTERS BACK TOUGH EMISSIONS POLICIES; TROUBLED AIR IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 25, 2007 — Californians are unhappy about the level of government effort – federal and state – to protect the environment, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Ironically, the highly publicized moves that Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature are making to counter air pollution and global warming may be fueling these escalating expectations about what government could and should be doing. Today, about half (49%) of all Californians say the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment – the highest share of residents to hold this view in recent years of the PPIC Statewide Survey (46% in 2006, 42% in 2004, 46% in 2003). A similar percentage of likely voters (48%) shares this perception today. Despite the “green” image the governor is working to project, he has recently lost popular ground when it comes to handling environmental issues: Today, fewer than half (47%) of all residents approve of the job he’s doing on the environment – an 8-point drop since January when approval stood at 55 percent. Approval among likely voters has similarly dropped, from 57 percent in January to 51 percent today. Although still in positive territory, Schwarzenegger’s overall job performance ratings have also dipped in the last six months (all adults 58% to 52%, likely voters 61% to 59%). “Considering all the attention state leaders are paying to environmental issues and the unprecedented protections they have enacted, it’s amazing how little credit – and slack – Californians are giving them,” says Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of PPIC. “Green expectations are staying way ahead of government ability to deliver.” If the state government is on the hot seat over the environment, the federal government is being scorched. Two-thirds (67%) of Californians say the federal government is not doing enough to protect the nation’s environment – a perception that has risen appreciably over time (52% in 2003, 56% in 2004, 61% in 2006). The burn is even hotter for President Bush. His approval ratings have fallen to historic lows this month among all Californians – for both his overall job performance (26%) and his handling of the environment (25%). Likely voters are equally critical, with only one-quarter (25%) approving his job overall and 23 percent approving on environmental issues. And while there are unsurprising partisan divisions, Republicans’ disapproval of the president’s overall performance is considerable (42%), having jumped by 18 points since last July. Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (87%) and independents (76%) disapprove of the job he is doing overall. 3 Californians and the Environment THE ‘08 ELECTION “ENVIRONMENT” Given the critical mood, candidates running for their party’s presidential nomination may want to give environmental issues a second – and third – look. A majority of the state’s likely voters (54%) say that candidates’ positions on the environment will be very important in determining how they cast their vote; another 29 percent say these views will be somewhat important, while only 16 percent say they will not be too important. Voter interest in the environment has increased significantly from before the 2004 presidential elections: Fewer than four in 10 likely voters called environmental positions very important in July 2004 (37%) or July 2003 (39%). THE AIR WE BREATHE…HEALTHY OR NOT? Californians’ dissatisfaction with government action reflects their continuing – and in some cases rising – environmental anxieties. For the seventh year of PPIC surveys on the environment, residents name air pollution as the state’s most important environmental problem (29%). That concern holds across political parties, all regions of the state, and all racial and ethnic groups. Most residents describe air pollution in their own region of the state as either a big problem (35%) or somewhat of a problem (37%). Less than a quarter (20%) say their regional air quality has improved over the past 10 years, while about half (48%) say it has grown worse. However, there are major regional differences in these air quality perceptions, with Central Valley, Inland Empire, and Los Angeles area residents generally far more critical. Even more disturbing is that 25 percent of residents now say air pollution poses a very serious health threat to themselves and their families, up from 18 percent in 2003. Again, there are sharp regional differences, with residents of the Inland Empire (34%), the Los Angeles area (32%), and the Central Valley (30%) far more likely than residents of the San Francisco Bay Area or Orange/San Diego Counties (19% each) to believe air pollution is a serious threat. There are also stark differences among racial and ethnic groups: Blacks (40%) and Latinos (35%) are far more likely than Asians (19%) or whites (16%) to say air pollution is a very serious threat. On specific aspects of the health threat, 40 percent of all residents say they or a family member suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems. However, the share is significantly higher among blacks (51%) than among any other racial or ethnic group (Latinos 41%, whites 38%, Asians 27%). HEATING UP: GLOBAL WARMING, DROUGHT WORRIES ESCALATE Although air pollution continues to top the list of environmental problems, residents are becoming much more aware of global warming. Today, 11 percent identify global warming as the biggest environmental problem facing the state – a 3-point increase over last year (8%) and a substantial jump since 2002 and 2000 when fewer than 1 percent mentioned global warming. Even more striking, for the first time a majority of Californians (54%) say that global warming poses a very serious threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life. This marks a 5-point increase since last July and a 15-point increase since July 2005. Californians’ sense of urgency reflects a belief that the effects of global warming are already being felt – two-thirds of residents (66%) hold this view, up 3 points from last July and 9 points from July 2005. And 81 percent believe steps should be taken right away to counter these effects. Only 1 in 6 think immediate action is not necessary. Moreover, the urgency crosses party lines. There may be significant partisan differences on other questions related to global warming, but when it comes to counteracting the effects of global warming, majorities of Democrats (92%), independents (82%), and Republicans (60%) say something should be done right away. What effect of global warming worries Californians the most? “More Californians are associating global warming with a greater variety of environmental threats,” says Baldassare. “It’s not just air pollution – concern over increased droughts and flooding is becoming more evident in Californians’ thinking on the 4 PPIC Statewide Survey Press Release issue.” In fact, the greatest number of residents (60%) are now very concerned about severe droughts. This is a 19-point surge in concern over droughts since July 2005 and includes majorities in every region of the state. A potentially related finding is that the share of residents who say the state’s diminishing water supply is California’s most important environmental problem has doubled from 4 percent last July to 8 percent today. APPLAUDING AB 32, OTHER EMISSIONS LAWS; READY FOR REGULATION? Despite their underwhelming response to government efforts, Californians overwhelmingly support recent laws the state has passed to lower auto emissions. AB 32, the law requiring California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, is an ingredient in the political controversy over environmental policy in Sacramento at the moment, but it gets enthusiastic support from 3 in 4 residents (78%) and likely voters (76%). That’s a significant jump since last July when 2 in 3 residents (65%) and likely voters (66%) favored the legislation, which was then in the proposal stage. Support for the law includes strong majorities across political parties. Residents (84%) and likely voters (81%) are even more supportive of a 2002 law that requires automakers to reduce emissions from new cars in California, starting in 2009. Backing for the law has been extremely high every time this question has been asked in the past five years but is currently at its highest point among all residents. Once again, support is high across partisan lines (Democrats 92%, independents 84%, and Republicans 71%). An executive order Governor Schwarzenegger issued in January to reduce the carbon intensity of the state’s transportation fuels is also solidly favored by residents and likely voters (77% each). Honing in on air pollution specifically, Californians are also largely willing to toughen pollution standards on many activities, even if it costs more. For example, a strong majority (68%) would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities even if it cost these businesses more to operate. An equal share (68%) would support tougher standards on the ships, trucks, and trains that transport goods in California, despite increased costs. When it comes to support for toughening air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities, half of Californians (50%) favor the idea even if it costs more, 34 percent don’t favor it in any case, 5 percent favor it but not if it increases costs, and 11 percent don’t know. WHO’S IN CHARGE OF THE AIR? WHO SHOULD BE? Given residents’ concern over air pollution, which level of government do they want to set and enforce air quality standards? State government gets the biggest nod from both residents (37%) and likely voters (42%). Federal and local governments trail significantly. Regional air districts – which are responsible for stationary sources of air pollution – are the choice of very few residents (16%) and likely voters (18%). Moreover, the share of residents who say regional districts should set air quality standards in their region has dropped 10 points since 2003. Baldassare notes, “We find that 7 in 10 residents do not know enough about their regional air district to rate their handling of air quality, yet when told these boards are typically composed of local elected officials, 8 in 10 favor the idea of including professionals with knowledge of health and environmental issues.” THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY In this survey, additional interviews were conducted to provide an in-depth analysis of attitudes in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley – home to some of the worst air pollution in the nation. Compared to residents in the rest of the state, far more San Joaquin Valley residents say air pollution is a big problem in their region (35% to 56%, respectively). Thirty percent of people in the San Joaquin Valley say they are very dissatisfied with air quality in their regions, compared to 14 percent of all Californians. But perhaps July 2007 5 Californians and the Environment most troubling, significantly more San Joaquin Valley residents (35%) than residents statewide (25%) identify air pollution as a very serious health threat to them and their families. Other San Joaquin Valley findings are presented on pages 17, 19, 21, and 23 of the survey. All the San Joaquin Valley survey questions and responses are available on pages 41-46. MORE KEY FINDINGS Better fuel efficiency or more oil drilling? No contest — Page 12 To reduce dependency on foreign oil, residents are decidedly in favor of requiring automakers to improve fuel efficiency on cars (75%), but not of allowing more oil drilling off California’s coast (52% oppose, 41% favor). Renewable energy, yes; nuclear power, probably not — Page 13 Californians (84%) heartily support spending more government money to develop solar, geothermal, and wind power. Far fewer (37%) support the idea of building more nuclear power plants; however, likely voters are closely divided on the issue (44% favor, 47% oppose). A solitary commute — Page 29 The number of Californians who drive alone to work (66%) dwarfs the number who carpool (13%) or take public transit (7%). Among likely voters, the drive-alone share jumps even higher (72%). Pain at the pump pressuring preferences? — Page 31 Two-thirds of residents (65%) say gas prices have caused them financial hardship – and 69 percent say they would now seriously consider buying a more fuel-efficient car… even if it cost more. ABOUT THE SURVEY This edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey is part of a three-year series that is supported by funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The intent of this survey series is to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about Californians’ attitudes toward environment, education, and population issues. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,500 California adult residents interviewed between June 28 and July 15, 2007. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for the 1,814 registered voters is +/-2.5%, and for the 1,238 likely voters it is +/- 3%. Findings are also based on a telephone survey of an additional 766 San Joaquin Valley residents interviewed between July 11 and July 18, 2007. These interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The total sample for the San Joaquin Valley region is 1,001 adult residents. The sampling error is +/-3%. For more information on methodology, see pages 33 and 34. Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) after 10 p.m. on July 25, 2007. 6 PPIC Statewide Survey GLOBAL WARMING AND ENERGY KEY FINDINGS Air pollution (29%) tops the list of the most important state environmental issues across all regions. The share of Californians naming global warming (11%) and the water supply (8%) as the biggest environmental issues in the state is increasing. (page 8) Two in three residents believe the effects of global warming have already begun and growing proportions say this poses a very serious threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life. (page 9) Majorities of residents are very concerned about more severe droughts and increased air pollution due to global warming in California, while 37 percent are very concerned about increased flooding. The percentage of residents who are very concerned about droughts has increased sharply in two years. (page 10) Residents are highly supportive of measures to address global warming, including the tailpipe emissions law (84%) and the law to roll back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (78%). Two in three believe California should make its own global warming policies, separate from the federal government. (page 11) To reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, Californians strongly favor requiring automakers to improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles. Republicans and Democrats are divided over allowing more oil drilling off the coast. (page 12) Overwhelming majorities of residents favor spending more government money on alternative fuels and energy development; they are split along party lines over building more nuclear power plants. (page 13) Percent all adults Most Important Environmental Issue Facing California 50 Air pollution Global warming 40 Water supply 30 20 10 0 June June July July July July July 00 02 03 04 05 06 07 Threat of Global Warming to California's Future Economy and Quality of Life 80 Percent saying "very serious threat" 60 54 49 40 39 Percent all adults 20 0 July 2005 July 2006 July 2007 Building More Nuclear Power Plants 80 57 60 59 54 52 Percent all adults 40 39 20 0 July 01 39 33 37 Favor Oppose July July July 05 06 07 7 Californians and the Environment MOST IMPORTANT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE Californians continue to name air pollution as the state’s most important environmental issue, but public attention to global warming continues to increase. Three in 10 Californians (29%) think that air pollution is the most important environmental issue, while 11 percent think that global warming is the top issue. Air pollution has been the top environmental issue for Californians since we first asked this question in June 2000. The percent naming global warming has increased 3 points since last July and 9 points since July 2005. Compared to a year ago, twice as many residents name water supply (4% 2006, 8% today), while half as many say energy (12% 2006, 6% today). Equal percentages of residents name pollution in general (5%) and water pollution (5%), similar to last year and 2005. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top six issues mentioned in 2007 June 00 June 02 July 03 July 04 July 05 July 06 July 07 Air pollution 33% 34% 30% 33% 26% 24% 29% Global warming - - 1 1 2 8 11 Water supply 6 97 6 5 4 8 Energy - 2 3 5 6 12 6 Pollution in general 9 5 6 8 6 5 5 Water pollution 6 12 10 7 6 4 5 Across California’s regions, air pollution is considered the most important environmental issue, but residents of the Central Valley (33%), Los Angeles (32%), and the Inland Empire (31%) are slightly more likely than those in Orange/San Diego counties (27%) or the San Francisco Bay Area (25%) to have this perception. Across racial/ethnic groups, air pollution is the most important issue, but Asians (38%) and Latinos (33%) more often than whites (27%) and blacks (23%) hold this view. San Francisco Bay Area residents (14%) are the most likely to hold the perception that global warming is the most important environmental issue, followed by residents of Los Angeles (11%), the Inland Empire (10%), the Central Valley (8%), and Orange/San Diego counties (7%). Blacks (18%) are the most likely racial/ethnic group to name global warming as the top environmental issue, then whites (12%), Asians (9%), and Latinos (9%). Across political parties, independents (32%), Democrats (29%), and Republicans (28%) all name air pollution as the most important environmental issue, but Democrats (18%) are more likely than independents (11%) or Republicans (8%) to name global warming as the top issue. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top six issues mentioned Air pollution All Adults 29% Central Valley 33% San Francisco Bay Area 25% Region Los Angeles 32% Orange/ San Diego 27% Inland Empire 31% Global warming 11 8 14 11 7 10 Water supply 8 10 10 5 9 5 Energy 6 4 7 5 78 Pollution in general 5 5 4 6 44 Water pollution 5 3 6 5 84 8 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming and Energy PERCEPTIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING When do Californians believe the effects of global warming will begin? Two in three Californians (66%) think they already have. This is a 3-point increase from last July and a 9-point increase from July 2005. Californians are somewhat more likely than Americans nationwide (60%) to think global warming has already begun, according to a March Gallup poll. Significant partisan differences exist in views of global warming, with more than three in four Democrats (77%) and seven in 10 independents (69%) thinking the effects of global warming have already begun, whereas nearly half of Republicans (47%) hold this view. Latinos (72%), blacks (66%), and whites (65%) are more likely than Asians (59%) to think the effects of global warming have already begun. “Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen…?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind Already begun 66% 77% 47% 69% Within a few years 44 3 2 Within your lifetime 7 5 10 8 Not within lifetime, but will 11 9 16 8 affect future generations Will never happen 7 3 18 8 Don’t know 52 6 5 Likely Voters 64% 3 6 11 11 5 Eight in 10 Californians believe global warming will be a very (54%) or somewhat serious (28%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. This is the first time a majority of Californians are saying that the threat of global warming is very serious, a 5-point increase from last July and a 15-point increase from July 2005. Across political parties, Democrats (65%) and independents (59%) are much more likely than Republicans (29%) to say this threat is very serious, although all parties have experienced increases since July 2005 (49% Democrats, 43% independents, 21% Republicans). At least half of residents across all of California’s regions hold this view, but residents in Los Angeles (59%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (56%) are the most likely to say the threat is very serious. Latinos (68%) and blacks (59%) are much more likely than whites (47%) and Asians (41%) to say that the threat of global warming is very serious. Women (59%) are more likely than men (50%) to hold this view. “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?” Very serious All Adults 54% Central Valley 50% San Francisco Bay Area 56% Region Los Angeles 59% Orange/ San Diego 52% Inland Empire 52% Somewhat serious 28 31 27 27 28 25 Not too serious 8 8 10 7 8 8 Not at all serious 7 8 6 4 10 10 Don’t know 3 31325 Large and growing shares of Californians also believe it is necessary to take immediate steps to counter the effects of global warming (73% July 2003, 76% July 2004, 79% July 2006, 81% today). At least three in four in all regions and racial/ethnic groups hold this view today and majorities of Democrats (92%), independents (82%), and Republicans (60%) say that steps should be taken right away. July 2007 9 Californians and the Environment EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING How concerned are Californians when it comes to the possible impacts of global warming? It depends on the impact. Majorities of Californians are very concerned about droughts that are more severe (60%) and increased air pollution (55%), while 37 percent are very concerned about increased flooding. Since 2005, more Californians have become very concerned about increased flooding (27% to 37%) and even more about the possibility of more severe droughts (41% to 60%). The percentage of Californians who are very concerned about increased air pollution is three points higher than in 2005 (52% 2005, 55% today). “Now I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. How about…” …droughts that are more severe? …increased air pollution? …increased flooding? 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 Very concerned 41% 60% 52% 55% 27% 37% Somewhat concerned 37 25 34 31 33 28 Not too concerned 12 6 7 6 23 18 Not at all concerned 9 7 6 7 15 15 Don’t know 1 2 1122 The percentage that is very concerned about more severe droughts due to global warming is much higher among Democrats (69%) and independents (58%) than among Republicans (42%). Latinos (70%) are far more likely than Asians (55%), whites (55%), and blacks (51%) to be very concerned about droughts, and women (65%) are more likely than men (55%) to hold this view. The proportion of residents that is very concerned about increased air pollution caused by global warming is also much greater among Democrats (67%) and independents (54%) than among Republicans (36%). Blacks (68%) and Latinos (64%) are more likely than Asians (55%) and whites (47%) to be very concerned about increased air pollution. Concern is much greater among women (62%) than men (48%). High levels of concern about increased flooding due to global warming are more common among Democrats (43%) and independents (34%) than among Republicans (20%). Half of Latinos (51%) and blacks (50%) are very concerned about increased flooding, while far fewer Asians (34%) and whites (27%) hold this view. Once again, concern about this effect of global warming is higher for women (42%) than men (32%). Majorities across regions are very concerned about more severe droughts and increased air pollution, while fewer than half in all regions are very concerned about increased flooding in California. Percent saying “very concerned” All Adults …droughts that are more severe? …increased air pollution? …increased flooding? 60% 55 37 “How about…” Central Valley 56% 53 37 San Francisco Bay Area 60% 57 39 Region Los Angeles 63% 60 41 Orange/ San Diego 59% 52 30 Inland Empire 58% 55 33 10 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming and Energy CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS POLICY California was an early leader in state-level efforts to curb the effects of global warming, having passed legislation in 2002. Since then, policymakers have been active in proposing new laws on this issue. In recent years, as public concern about the effects of global warming has risen, we find that large and growing proportions of residents are in favor of California making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address global warming (54% July 2005, 65% July 2006, 67% today). Majorities of Democrats (74%), independents (72%), and Republicans (59%) hold this view today. Reflecting their strong support for state-level efforts, more than eight in 10 Californians (84%) and likely voters (81%) favor the 2002 state law that requires all automakers to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars in California beginning in 2009. Favor for this policy has been overwhelming among California adult residents each time we asked about it over the past five years (81% June 2002, 80% July 2003, 81% July 2004, 77% July 2005, 78% July 2006, 84% today). Today, majorities of Democrats (92%), independents (84%), and Republicans (71%) favor the 2002 state law. Overwhelming majorities across regions and racial/ethnic and demographic groups favor the law. Favor Oppose Don't know “What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind 84% 92% 71% 84% 81% 13 7 26 12 16 31343 A more recent state law (AB 32) that requires California to cut its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020 continues to enjoy favor among Californians. When asked about the proposed legislation last July, two in three Californians (65%) and likely voters (66%) were in favor. One year later, more than three in four adults (78%) and likely voters (76%) are in favor of this new law. Majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (80%), and Republicans (65%) today favor this state law, as do at least seven in 10 across regions and across racial/ethnic and demographic groups. Favor Oppose Don't know “What about the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 78% 87% 65% 80% 14 6 26 11 8799 Likely Voters 76% 16 8 In January, Governor Schwarzenegger issued an executive order to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. Today, a majority of Californians and likely voters (77% each) are in favor of this order. Favor is high among Democrats (82%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) and across California’s regions and racial/ethnic and demographic groups. July 2007 11 Californians and the Environment U.S. ENERGY SUPPLY To reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, how do Californians feel about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in America? More than eight in 10 residents (85%) and likely voters (88%) favor this proposal and 75 percent of Californians and eight in 10 likely voters (82%) would be in favor even if it increased the cost of buying a new car. The level of support for this policy among California adult residents, even if it were more costly, was similar in July 2003 (75%), July 2004 (73%), July 2005 (73%), and July 2006 (74%) to today (75%). Percentages favoring this policy, even if more costly, are high across political parties, although partisan differences do exist, with more than eight in 10 Democrats (86%) and independents (82%) in favor, compared to seven in 10 Republicans (71%). Support for this proposal is high across all regions, but favor is highest in the San Francisco Bay Area (82%). Across racial/ethnic groups, at least two in three favor this proposal, with support greatest among whites (83%). The level of support for this policy increases with higher age, education, and income. “How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Favor, even if more costly 75% 86% 71% 82% 82% Favor, but not if more costly 10 6 10 5 6 Oppose 10 5 14 8 9 Don't know 53553 By contrast, a majority of residents are unwilling to allow more oil drilling off the California coast to help reduce dependence on foreign oil. Opposition to allowing more drilling off the California coast has hovered around 50 percent when we have asked this question in the past (54% July 2003, 50% July 2004, 53% July 2005, 51% July 2006, 52% today). Sizeable majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (60%) today oppose this proposal, whereas 60 percent of Republicans favor more oil drilling off the coast. Across regions, opposition is strongest among residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (66%), while fewer in Los Angeles (51%) and Orange/San Diego counties (49%) and still fewer in the Inland Empire (45%) and the Central Valley (42%) are opposed. Blacks and whites (56% each) are more likely than Asians and Latinos (45% each) to oppose allowing more oil drilling off the California coast. Opposition to allowing more oil drilling off the coast increases with higher education and income and declines with age (56% under age 35, 53% age 35 to 54, 45% age 55 and older). Favor Oppose Don't know “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 41% 29% 60% 33% 52 65 34 60 7667 Likely Voters 40% 55 5 12 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming and Energy ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Aside from increasing fuel efficiency or increasing the U.S. supply of oil, alternative energy development might also reduce dependence on foreign oil. Where do Californians stand on this issue? Eight in 10 Californians (84%) and likely voters (85%) favor spending more government money to develop renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power. Similar percentages of Californians (83%) and likely voters (87%) were in favor of this proposal last July. Californians’ views are similar to Americans nationwide (81% favor, 17% oppose), according to a March Gallup poll. While support is very high among all party groups in California today, it is greater among Democrats (90%) and independents (86%) than among Republicans (79%). Support for spending more on renewable energy stands at 80 percent or higher across California’s regions and racial/ethnic and demographic groups. About eight in 10 Californians and likely voters (78% each) favor spending more government money to develop alternative fuel sources, such as biofuels and ethanol, for automobiles. Last July, support for this idea was similar among all adults (81%) but somewhat higher among likely voters (86%). On a similar question asked in a March Gallup poll, Americans nationwide (86% favor, 12% oppose) were more supportive of this idea than Californians are today. Democrats (84%) and independents (79%) are more supportive than Republicans (70%). About three in four or more are in favor of this proposal across the state’s regions and racial/ethnic and demographic groups. “How about spending more government money to develop…” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind …renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power? Favor Oppose Don't know 84% 90% 79% 86% 12 8 18 11 4 233 …alternative sources of fuel, such as biofuels and ethanol, for automobiles? Favor Oppose Don't know 78 84 70 79 18 12 27 16 4 435 Likely Voters 85% 12 3 78 19 3 By contrast, only 37 percent of California adults support building more nuclear power plants, while 54 percent oppose the idea. Likely voters are divided on this issue (44% favor, 47% oppose). Opposition to more nuclear power plants is similar to last July (52%), but is 5 points less than July 2005 (59%). While 58 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents oppose building more nuclear power plants, 55 percent of Republicans favor this idea. Across regions, opposition is lowest in Orange/San Diego counties (48%), while it is higher in the Central Valley (53%), Los Angeles (55%), the San Francisco Bay Area (55%), and the Inland Empire (57%). Opposition is lower among men (49%) than among women (59%), and is lower among whites (47%) than among Latinos (62%), Asians, and blacks (61% each). Opposition to building more nuclear power plants decreases with higher age, education, and income. Favor Oppose Don't know “How about building more nuclear power plants at this time?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 37% 31% 55% 38% 54 58 37 55 9 11 8 7 Likely Voters 44% 47 9 July 2007 13 AIR POLLUTION KEY FINDINGS Thirty-five percent of California residents say regional air pollution is a big problem. This perception varies sharply across regions; 56 percent in the San Joaquin Valley say air pollution is a big problem. Half of residents statewide, and 64 percent in the San Joaquin Valley, say that regional air quality has gotten worse. (pages 16, 17) One in four Californians say regional air pollution is a very serious health threat, and 50 percent think this health threat is more serious in lower-income areas. Thirty-five percent of San Joaquin Valley residents say air pollution is a very serious health threat; 36 percent say the threat is more serious in lower-income areas. (pages 18, 19) Californians and San Joaquin Valley residents are most likely to say that the state government should set regional air quality standards, rather than federal, regional, or local entities. While most have no opinion of their regional air district, disapproval is higher among likely voters in the San Joaquin Valley (23%) than it is statewide (16%). (pages 20, 21) Half of Californians and San Joaquin Valley residents want tougher air pollution standards on farm and agriculture activities, even if it is more costly for businesses. Even higher proportions (68% California, 65% San Joaquin Valley) want tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. (page 22, 23) Nearly seven in 10 Californians want stricter air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport goods, even if it is more costly for businesses. Solid majorities across regions would favor assessing container fees on owners of cargo moving through California’s ports as a way to clean up air pollution. (page 24) Regional Air Quality as Compared to 10 Years Ago 80 Percent saying it has "gotten worse" 60 56 50 45 50 38 40 Percent all adults 20 0 CV SF Bay LA O/SD IE Personal Health Threat of Regional Air Pollution 60 Percent saying it is a "very serious health threat" 50 40 40 35 Percent all adults 30 19 20 16 10 0 Asian Black Latino White Willingness to See Tougher Air Pollution Standards On... 100 Percent saying "yes, even if more costly for businesses to operate" 80 68 68 60 50 40 Percent all adults 20 0 Commercial, industrial activities Ships, trucks, trains Agriculture, farm activities 15 Californians and the Environment PERCEPTIONS OF AIR POLLUTION – STATEWIDE TRENDS Seven in 10 residents describe air pollution in their region as a big problem (35%) or somewhat of a problem (37%). Los Angeles (49%), Inland Empire (49%), and Central Valley (42%) residents are much more likely than Orange/San Diego (24%) and San Francisco Bay Area residents (22%) to say air pollution is a big problem in their region today. Compared to a year ago, the percentage saying air pollution is a big problem has dropped statewide (41% to 35%) and across all regions except for the Inland Empire (47% to 49%). Comparing 2000 to today, the proportion holding this view has grown most in the Inland Empire (28% to 49%), Central Valley (28% to 42%), and Los Angeles (40% to 49%), and has changed least in Orange/San Diego counties (20% to 24%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (26% to 22%). Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know “Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region?” All Adults 35% Central Valley 42% San Francisco Bay Area 22% Region Los Angeles 49% Orange/ San Diego 24% 37 33 47 34 43 27 25 30 16 31 1- 112 Inland Empire 49% 27 23 1 Relatively few Californians (20%) say that their regional air quality has improved over the last 10 years, while half (48%) say it has worsened and 15 percent volunteer that it is the same. The proportion saying air quality has worsened is similar to last July (50%) and July 2005 (47%), but is much higher than July 2003 (38%). Central Valley (56%), Los Angeles (50%), and Inland Empire residents (50%) are more likely than others to say air quality has worsened. Latinos (62%) are far more likely than blacks (49%), Asians (46%), or whites (39%) to hold this view, as are women (53%) more than men (43%). While six in 10 Californians are very (19%) or somewhat satisfied (43%) with their regional air quality, about four in 10 are somewhat (23%) or very dissatisfied (14%). San Francisco Bay Area and Orange/San Diego residents (73% each) are much more likely to be satisfied than Central Valley (56%), Inland Empire (50%), and Los Angeles (47%) residents. Majorities across demographic groups express satisfaction with their air quality, while blacks (55%) are less likely than Latinos (61%), whites (64%), or Asians (69%) to hold this view, and women (59%) are less satisfied with their regional air quality than men (66%). Satisfaction with regional air quality was similar a year ago. Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today?” All Adults 19% Central Valley 15% San Francisco Bay Area 24% Region Los Angeles 11% Orange/ San Diego 20% 43 41 49 36 53 23 21 20 32 20 14 21 6 21 6 12 1 - 1 Inland Empire 14% 36 26 23 1 16 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution PERCEPTIONS OF AIR POLLUTION – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY For this survey, we completed additional interviews for an in-depth analysis of the eight-county San Joaquin Valley (SJV), which experiences some of the worst air pollution in the country (see Methodology section). This region is particularly susceptible to air pollution because of commercial and personal vehicle traffic, agricultural and industrial activities, and its physical geography. San Joaquin Valley residents are 21 points more likely than statewide residents to say that regional air pollution is a big problem (56% to 35%). Perceptions within the region vary: South SJV residents (64%) are far more likely than North SJV residents (42%) to call regional air pollution a big problem. Among racial/ethnic groups, whites (62%) are more likely than Latinos (50%) to hold this view. Across political parties, majorities of Republicans (61%), Democrats (60%), and independents (55%) say air pollution is a big problem. San Joaquin Valley residents only Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know “Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region?” All SJV Adults 56% Region North San Joaquin South San Joaquin Valley Valley 42% 64% Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 50% 62% 28 37 22 30 24 15 20 13 19 13 11 1 1 1 Despite the efforts made by the California Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to reduce air pollution, about two in three SJV residents (64%) believe their regional air quality has worsened in the past 10 years and only 12 percent say it has improved. Compared to statewide residents (48% worsened), SJV residents (64% worsened) are far more pessimistic. North SJV (63%) residents are as likely as South SJV residents (65%) to say air quality has worsened and about six in 10 or more across political parties, and among Latinos, whites, men, and women say air quality has worsened. Over half of SJV residents are somewhat (25%) or very dissatisfied (30%) with their regional air quality. As a result, SJV residents are 18 points more likely than statewide residents to say they are dissatisfied (55% to 37%). South SJV residents (64%) are far more likely than North SJV residents (43%) to be dissatisfied with their air quality and are twice as likely to be very dissatisfied (38% to 18%). While about half or more across political parties and racial/ethnic groups say they are at least somewhat dissatisfied, Democrats (37%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (32%) and independents (28%) to be very dissatisfied with air quality, and whites (37%) are more likely than Latinos (21%) to be very dissatisfied. San Joaquin Valley residents only Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today?” All SJV Adults 11% Region North San Joaquin South San Joaquin Valley Valley 11% 11% Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 11% 11% 32 45 24 40 25 25 25 26 27 27 30 18 38 21 37 21 1 1 - July 2007 17 Californians and the Environment AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH – STATEWIDE TRENDS Six in 10 Californians believe that regional air pollution is a very (25%) or somewhat serious (34%) health threat to themselves and their immediate families. Similar percentages have held this view since 2003, but the proportion saying that air pollution is a very serious health threat has been growing steadily since that time (18% July 2003, 20% 2004, 21% 2005, 23% 2006, 25% today). Across regions, Inland Empire (34%), Los Angeles (32%), and Central Valley residents (30%) are the most likely to say the health threat of air pollution is very serious, while San Francisco Bay Area and Orange/San Diego residents (19% each) are less likely to hold this view. Differences are stark across racial/ethnic groups, with 40 percent of blacks and 35 percent of Latinos saying air pollution poses a very serious health threat, compared to 19 percent of Asians and 16 percent of whites. Of those who say regional air pollution is a big problem, nine in 10 say it poses a very (52%) or somewhat serious (37%) health threat. “How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” Very serious All Adults 25% Central Valley 30% San Francisco Bay Area 19% Region Los Angeles 32% Orange/ San Diego 19% Inland Empire 34% Somewhat serious 34 33 34 41 33 31 Not too serious 36 34 41 23 44 33 Not at all serious 3 2 5 1 3 1 Don't know 211311 Four in 10 residents (40%) report that they or a family member suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems, which is similar to last year (41%) and 2003 (37%). Central Valley (46%) and Inland Empire residents (43%) are more likely than others to report asthma or respiratory problems (39% Los Angeles, 39% San Francisco Bay Area, 35% Orange/San Diego counties). Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks (51%) are much more likely than others to say that they or a family member suffer from asthma or respiratory problems (41% Latinos, 38% whites, 27% Asians). Half of Californians think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas in their region, and four in 10 think it is not. Californians in last year’s survey were more divided on this issue (47% yes, 45% no). At least half of residents in Orange/San Diego counties, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Los Angeles believe the health threat from air pollution is greater in lower-income areas, while four in 10 residents in the Inland Empire and Central Valley hold this view. Latinos (68%), blacks (63%), and Asians (55%), are much more likely than whites (37%) to believe that lower-income areas are at greater risk, and this belief is higher for lower-income than upper-income residents. There is also a partisan divide, with Democrats (54%) and independents (43%) much more likely than Republicans (29%) to perceive disparities. Yes No Don't know “Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region?” All Adults 50% Central Valley 38% San Francisco Bay Area 55% Region Los Angeles 58% Orange/ San Diego 50% 42 54 36 34 43 88987 Inland Empire 42% 50 8 18 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY About seven in 10 SJV residents believe regional air pollution is a very (35%) or somewhat serious (37%) health threat to themselves and their immediate family. Residents in this region are 13 points more likely than statewide residents to believe air pollution poses at least a somewhat serious threat (72% to 59%) and 10 points more likely to say the threat is very serious (35% to 25%). Regional variations exist on the threat perception of air pollution: Although 42 percent of South SJV residents say air pollution is a very serious health threat, just 25 percent of North SJV residents hold this perception. Assessing the health threat of air pollution, Latinos (38%) are slightly more likely than whites (33%) to believe it is very serious. “How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” San Joaquin Valley residents only Very serious All SJV Adults 35% Region North San Joaquin South San Joaquin Valley Valley 25% 42% Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 38% 33% Somewhat serious 37 40 36 41 38 Not too serious 25 32 20 21 25 Not at all serious 11 2 - 2 Don't know 22 - -2 Fifty-two percent of SJV residents report that they or a family member suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems, 12 points higher than self-reported incidence rates statewide (40%). Reports of these types of health problems are higher in the South SJV (55%) than North SJV (48%), and are much higher among women (61%) than men (44%). Fifty-four percent of Latinos and 50 percent of whites report that they or a family member suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems. In the context of higher levels of dissatisfaction with regional air quality and personal concerns about the health threat of air pollution in their region, it is noteworthy that a solid majority of SJV residents (57%) do not think the health threat of air pollution is any more serious in lower-income areas of their region than in other areas. By contrast, half of residents statewide believe that disparities exist. North (56%) and South (58%) SJV residents hold similar views that air pollution does not pose a more serious health threat in lower-income areas. Among racial/ethnic groups however, Latinos (58%) are far more likely than whites (19%) to believe air pollution more adversely affects lower-income areas, and this belief is far higher among lower-income than upper-income residents. Republicans (74%) are more likely than independents (58%) or Democrats (53%) to say that air pollution is not a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than in others.. San Joaquin Valley residents only Yes No Don’t know “Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region?” All SJV Adults 36% Region North San Joaquin South San Joaquin Valley Valley 38% 35% Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 58% 19% 57 56 58 40 72 76 7 2 9 July 2007 19 Californians and the Environment REGIONAL AIR DISTRICTS – STATEWIDE TRENDS Almost half of Californians (47%) respond correctly that vehicle emissions are the lead contributor to regional air pollution, with 29 percent blaming personal vehicles and 18 percent saying the main culprit in creating pollution is commercial vehicles. Other causes of air pollution were chosen by fewer residents (15% population growth and development, 14% industry and agriculture, 7% pollution from outside the area, 4% weather and geography). Similar responses were found in 2003, 2005, and 2006. In general, the California Air Resources Board sets air quality standards for mobile sources of air pollution, while regional air districts cover stationary sources. Nearly four in 10 Californians say the state government (37%) should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in their region; fewer choose the federal government (21%), local government (17%), or their regional air district (16%). Californians favored the lead role for state government by similar percentages in 2003, 2005, and 2006. Since 2003, fewer Californians mention their regional air district (26% to 16%), while more mention the federal government (14% to 21%). Today, pluralities across regions, political parties, and gender, age, education, and income groups choose state government when asked who should take the lead. State government Federal government Local government Regional air district Other (specify) Don’t know “Which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region?” All Adults 37% Central Valley 36% San Francisco Bay Area 38% Region Los Angeles 35% Orange/ San Diego 39% Inland Empire 32% 21 19 23 24 21 20 17 19 15 17 16 13 16 17 16 13 17 24 35 3 3 2 3 64 5 8 5 8 Likely Voters 42% 18 16 18 3 3 Thirty-five regional air districts are primarily responsible for controlling emissions from stationary sources. Asked for an assessment of the way their regional air district is handling air quality issues, about seven in 10 residents and likely voters don’t know enough to say. Those with opinions are equally divided between approval and disapproval. Republicans (21%) are more likely than independents (14%) or Democrats (13%) to say they approve, but across political parties, the most striking finding also is the lack of familiarity with regional air districts. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that your regional air district is handling air quality issues, or don’t you know enough to say?” Approve All Adults 15% Central Valley 14% San Francisco Bay Area 17% Region Los Angeles 12% Orange/ San Diego 17% Inland Empire 11% Disapprove 14 19 11 16 10 12 Don’t know enough to say 71 67 72 72 73 77 Likely Voters 17% 16 67 Some have proposed that boards of regional air districts, which are typically composed of local elected officials who are appointed by city, county, or state government, should also include professionals with knowledge of health and environmental issues. Most residents (81%) and likely voters (83%), and more than three in four residents across parties, regions, and racial/ethnic and demographic groups, say they would favor this idea. 20 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution REGIONAL AIR DISTRICTS – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY Compared to statewide, SJV residents are more divided in their views about the causes of regional air pollution. Although a plurality of SJV residents believe vehicle emissions contribute the most to regional air pollution, just three in 10 say commercial vehicles (12%) and personal vehicles (16%). After vehicle emissions, 20 percent blame industry and agriculture, 15 percent blame pollution from outside the area, 11 percent point to population growth and development, and 9 percent say weather and geography. When it comes to setting air quality standards, what are the preferences of SJV residents? Much as residents statewide do, a plurality of SJV residents (36%) believe the state government should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards. One in five would choose their local government (20%), while fewer would choose the federal government (17%) or their regional air district (16%). Pluralities of likely voters (42%), Republicans (48%), Democrats (35%), independents (31%), North (38%) and South (35%) SJV residents, Latinos (34%), whites (39%), and men (35%) and women (37%) think the state government should have the primary responsibility for regulating regional air quality. San Joaquin Valley Residents Only State government Local government Federal government Regional air district Other (specify) Don’t know “Which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region?” All SJV Adults Region North San Joaquin Valley South San Joaquin Valley 36% 38% 35% 20 18 22 17 16 17 16 15 17 45 3 78 6 SJV Likely Voters 42% 20 15 17 2 4 The vast majority of SJV residents (70%) and likely voters (60%) don’t know enough to have an opinion about the performance of their regional air district. Residents in the San Joaquin Valley (18%) are slightly more likely than residents statewide (14%) to disapprove of the way the regional air district is handling air quality issues and SJV likely voters (23%) are more inclined to disapprove than likely voters statewide (16%). Disapproval is higher in South (21%) than North (14%) SJV. Across political parties, Republicans (19%) are more likely than Democrats (12%) and independents (11%) to approve of their performance. Once again, though, the most striking finding is the lack of familiarity with the regional air district. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that your regional air district is handling air quality issues, or don’t you know enough to say?” San Joaquin Valley Residents Only Approve All SJV Adults 12% Region North San Joaquin Valley South San Joaquin Valley 14% 12% Dem 12% Party Rep 19% Ind 11% Disapprove 18 14 21 24 19 20 Don't know enough to say 70 72 67 64 62 69 SJV Likely Voters 17% 23 60 In patterns that mirror the statewide trends, SJV residents (76%) and likely voters (80%) overwhelmingly favor the addition of professionals with knowledge of health and environmental issues to the board of their regional air district. Republicans (82%), Democrats (79%) and independents (78%) are similarly supportive, and support for this proposal is high in the North (75%) and South (77%) SJV regions, and across racial/ethnic (80% whites, 71% Latinos) and all demographic groups. Of those SJV residents who consider air pollution a big problem in their region today, 80 percent support this proposal. July 2007 21 Californians and the Environment AIR QUALITY POLICIES – STATEWIDE TRENDS To combat regional air pollution, a majority of California residents (55%) say they would be willing to see tougher standards imposed on agriculture and farm activities. Half of adults and 54 percent of likely voters are in favor of this policy, even if it made it more costly for businesses to operate. Support for tougher regulations on agriculture and farm activities, even if costs increase for businesses, has dropped since last July (57%) and July 2005 (54%), but support is slightly higher today than in July 2003 (47%). Today, residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (56%) are the most likely to support stricter regulations, followed by the Inland Empire (51%), Los Angeles (49%), the Central Valley (48%), and Orange/San Diego counties (47%). Across political parties, Democrats (63%) are more likely than independents (54%) and much more likely than Republicans (40%) to favor tougher regulations on agriculture and farm activities, even if it raised costs. Latinos (45%) are the least likely to support stricter regulations, whereas more than half of whites (52%), Asians (58%), and blacks (68%) are in favor. Support for greater restrictions increases with higher education and income. Among those who say regional air pollution is a big problem, 55 percent support tougher standards on farming and agriculture as a way to mitigate air pollution. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” Yes, even if more costly All Adults 50% Central Valley 48% San Francisco Bay Area 56% Region Los Angeles 49% Orange/ San Diego 47% Inland Empire 51% Yes, but not if more costly 5 7 5 5 4 4 No 34 34 27 34 37 36 Don't know 11 11 12 12 12 9 Californians (74%) and likely voters (78%) are much more likely to support tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities than on farm and agriculture activities. Sixty-eight percent of residents and 74 percent of likely voters support more regulation on commerce and industry, even if it makes it more costly for businesses to operate. San Francisco Bay Area residents (76%) are again the most likely to favor such standards although more than six in 10 residents in other regions are in favor as well (72% Inland Empire, 66% Los Angeles, 65% Central Valley, 64% Orange/San Diego counties). Eight in 10 Democrats (82%), seven in 10 independents (72%), and six in 10 Republicans (61%) support stricter regulation of commercial and industrial activities. Latinos (57%) are much less likely than Asians (70%), whites (75%), and blacks (78%) to support tougher standards. Majorities across all demographic groups are in favor, and favor increases with age, education, and income. Of those who say air pollution is a big problem, 71 percent favor tougher air pollution standards for commercial and industrial activities. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” Yes, even if more costly All Adults 68% Central Valley 65% San Francisco Bay Area 76% Region Los Angeles 66% Orange/ San Diego 64% Inland Empire 72% Yes, but not if more costly 6 6 2 7 7 5 No 18 20 17 19 21 15 Don't know 89 5 8 8 8 22 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution AIR QUALITY POLICIES – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY San Joaquin Valley residents (57%) are about as likely as residents statewide (55%) to favor tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities. About half of SJV residents (50%) and likely voters (53%) would favor tougher standards, even if it made it more costly for businesses to operate. About half of residents in the North (48%) and South (52%) SJV regions support stricter regulations, even with higher costs. There are, however, differences across parties: Although 59 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independents would support tougher standards on farming and agriculture, 48 percent of Republicans say they would. About half of Latinos (51%) and whites (49%), and women (53%) and men (48%) support greater restrictions. Of those who say air pollution is a big problem, 57 percent would like to see tougher air pollution standards on farming and agriculture, even with increased costs. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” San Joaquin Valley residents only Yes, even if more costly All SJV Adults 50% Region North San Joaquin Valley South San Joaquin Valley 48% 52% Dem 59% Party Rep 48% SJV Likely Ind Voters 58% 53% Yes, but not if more costly 7 5 8 575 4 No 35 41 32 30 38 30 38 Don't know 86 8 677 5 Just as residents statewide are more willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities than on farming and agriculture, so are SJV residents. About seven in 10 SJV residents (71%) and likely voters (72%) would favor stricter air pollution regulations on commercial and industrial activities. Two in three SJV adult residents (65%) and likely voters (67%) would still be in favor, even if it made it more costly for businesses to operate. South SJV residents (66%) are as likely as North SJV residents (64%) to favor greater restrictions, even with higher costs for businesses. Majorities across political parties support tougher standards, although this preference is held by higher percentages of Democrats (77%) than independents (68%) or Republicans (62%). Among racial/ethnic groups, whites (70%) are much more likely than Latinos (57%) to support tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities; women (69%) are more likely than men (61%) to be in favor. Of those residents who perceive air pollution as a big problem, 71 percent favor stricter air pollution standards on commerce and industry. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” San Joaquin Valley residents only Yes, even if more costly All SJV Adults 65% Region North San Joaquin Valley South San Joaquin Valley 64% 66% Dem 77% Party Rep 62% SJV Likely Ind Voters 68% 67% Yes, but not if more costly 6 7 5 4 7 10 5 No 21 20 21 13 22 14 20 Don't know 89 8 698 8 July 2007 23 Californians and the Environment GOODS MOVEMENT AND AIR QUALITY – STATEWIDE TRENDS Goods movement is one of several causes of air pollution in California today. Three in four Californians would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains carrying freight and cargo. Moreover, 68 percent of residents and 73 percent of likely voters would be in favor, even if it made it more costly for businesses to operate. Support today among all adults (68%) is similar to last July (71%) and July 2005 (70%). Today, Democrats (82%) are more likely than independents (71%) and Republicans (62%) to favor stricter standards on ships, trucks, and trains. San Francisco Bay Area residents (77%) are the most likely to favor increased regulation of transport vehicles, but support is also strong in other regions. Solid majorities across all demographic groups support tougher standards. Of those who view air pollution as a big problem, 71 percent are in favor of this policy idea. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?)” Yes, even if more costly All Adults 68% Central Valley 64% San Francisco Bay Area 77% Region Los Angeles 67% Orange/ San Diego 65% Yes, but not if more costly 6 7 4 7 4 No 18 20 15 17 22 Don't know 89 4 9 9 Inland Empire 72% 5 15 8 To relieve traffic at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland, and to help fund an air pollution reduction program, the state legislature is considering a bill to assess container fees on owners of cargo moving through the ports. About two in three residents (68%) and likely voters (65%) favor charging these fees. Democrats (72%) and independents (71%) show more support than Republicans (58%), although strong majorities across parties, racial/ethnic, and demographic groups are in favor. Los Angeles residents are more likely than others to favor this idea, but there is solid support across regions. Seventy-five percent who support tougher standards on transport vehicles also favor this fee proposal. Favor Oppose Don't know “To help relieve traffic congestion at California’s major seaports, and to help clean up air pollution caused by port traffic, would you favor or oppose charging a container fee on owners of cargo moving through these ports?” All Adults 68% Central Valley 67% San Francisco Bay Area 67% Region Los Angeles 72% Orange/ San Diego 68% 23 24 25 20 24 9 9888 Inland Empire 63% 25 12 A separate program proposed by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would attempt to mitigate air pollution by replacing or retrofitting high-polluting trucks moving through these ports. To fund this, a fee would be assessed on truck owners at the terminal gates. Seventy-one percent of residents and 67 percent of likely voters would favor this idea. Once again, majorities of Democrats (77%), independents (68%), and Republicans (57%) support this proposal to reduce air pollution, though at varying levels. Residents in the areas most affected by Southern California port traffic are most in favor (74% Los Angeles, 72% Orange/San Diego counties), but more than two in three residents in other regions also support this idea. Solid majorities across racial/ethnic and demographic groups are in favor. Seventyeight percent of those who favor tougher standards on transport vehicles also favor this fee proposal. 24 PPIC Statewide Survey ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND PREFERENCES KEY FINDINGS About half of Californians approve of Governor Schwarzenegger’s overall job performance (52%) and his handling of state environmental issues (47%). These approval ratings are both up sharply from last July’s but have declined since January. (page 26) About one in four residents approve of President Bush’s overall job performance (26%) and his handling of environmental issues in the U.S. (25%). These approval ratings have both declined in the last year. (page 27) Two in three Californians say the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment; half say state government is also not doing enough. (page 28) A majority of likely voters (54%) say that 2008 presidential candidates’ positions on the environment will be very important for how they vote. This is twice as true for Democratic voters (70%) as for Republican voters (34%). (page 29) Two in three employed residents drive alone to work, and the percentage rises with income. About one in five residents own or lease an SUV, while six in 10 residents would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle, even if it were more costly. (pages 29, 30) Two in three residents say gasoline price increases have caused them financial hardship, but there are strong differences across racial/ethnic and income groups. Higher gas prices have made seven in 10 consider buying a more fuel efficient car. (page 31) Governor's Approval Percent all adults 100 80 57 60 40 39 20 Overall Environment 42 34 39 32 58 55 52 47 0 July July July January July 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 President's Approval 100 Overall Environment Percent all adults 80 65 60 53 40 38 40 39 37 32 32 20 36 26 30 25 0 June July July July July July 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Automobile Driving Trends 100 80 75 73 71 Drive alone to work Own SUV 67 70 66 60 Percent all adults 40 20 23 21 23 22 23 22 0 2002* July 2003 July 2004 July 2005 July 2006 July 2007 *In 2002, SUV questio n was asked in June and co mmuting questio n was asked in No vember 25 Californians and the Environment GOVERNOR’S APPROVAL RATINGS Although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s job approval ratings remain high, they are lower than they were when his newest term began in January, but higher than they were a year ago. Today, 52 percent of all adults and 59 percent of likely voters approve of the way Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor, down from 58 percent and 61 percent, respectively, in January. Still, these ratings are much higher than they were last July (42% all adults, 49% likely voters). Republicans (75%) continue to give the governor much higher ratings than Democrats (46%) and independents (52%) do. Democrats and independents are more likely to approve of the governor today than they were last July (25% Democrats, 42% independents), but less likely than they were in January (55% Democrats, 60% independents). Among racial/ethnic groups, blacks are divided in their opinion of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s job performance (40% approve, 46% disapprove), while a majority of whites (64%) and Asians (57%) approve, and a majority of Latinos disapprove (52%). The governor’s ratings vary across regions, with at least half approving in the Central Valley (63%), Orange/San Diego counties (54%), and the Inland Empire (50%), but fewer than half approving in the San Francisco Bay Area (47%) and Los Angeles (44%). His approval rating is significantly higher among men than women (56% to 47%) and it increases with higher age, education, and income. Approve Disapprove Don't know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Race/Ethnicity Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 52% 46% 75% 52% 57% 40% 34% 64% 34 41 17 33 17 46 52 23 14 13 8 15 26 14 14 13 Likely Voters 59% 31 10 Today, 47 percent of adults and 51 percent of likely voters approve of how the governor is handling environmental issues in California. However, like his overall ratings, his environmental ratings have declined since January (55% adults, 57% likely voters), but are still much higher than they were last July (39% all adults, 44% likely voters). As is true for his overall rating, Republicans (62%) are much more likely than Democrats (44%) and independents (49%) to approve of how the governor is handling environmental issues. Across other groups, Asians (43%), blacks (41%), and Latinos (38%) give him lower ratings than whites (54%) do. He also receives higher environmental approval ratings in the Central Valley (51%) and in Orange/San Diego counties (49%) than in other regions (46% San Francisco Bay Area, 44% Inland Empire, 39% Los Angeles). Approval of his environmental performance increases with higher age, education, and income. Approve Disapprove Don't know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Race/Ethnicity Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 47% 44% 62% 49% 43% 41% 38% 54% 31 37 19 29 23 49 40 24 22 19 19 22 34 10 22 22 Likely Voters 51% 32 17 26 PPIC Statewide Survey Environmental Politics and Preferences PRESIDENT’S APPROVAL RATINGS President Bush’s job approval ratings reached another historic low this month. Only 26 percent of California residents approve of the way the president is handling his job, 3 points down from January (29%) and ten points down from last July (36%). Seven in 10 adults (68%) and likely voters (71%) now disapprove of the president’s performance. Californians are slightly less favorable than adults nationwide toward the president, according to a July 18 Gallup poll (31% approve, 63% disapprove). In sharp contrast to President Bush’s low approval ratings among Democrats (10%) and independents (21%), a majority of Republicans still approve of how he is handling his job (52%). However, even among Republicans, disapproval of the president’s job performance has risen since last July (24% to 42%) and since January (37% to 42%). Across all regions, a majority of residents disapprove of Bush’s performance, but disapproval is highest in the San Francisco Bay Area (77%). Strong majorities in all racial/ethnic groups also disapprove of the president’s performance, with blacks (85%) the most likely to disapprove, followed by whites (69%), Latinos (66%), and Asians (61%). Approve Disapprove Don't know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Race/Ethnicity Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 26% 10% 52% 21% 29% 7% 29% 26% 68 87 42 76 61 85 66 69 6 3 6 3 10 8 5 5 Likely Voters 25% 71 4 President Bush’s handling of environmental issues gets ratings similar to his overall performance. Only one in four California residents (25%) and likely voters (23%) approve; about two in three disapprove (63% all adults, 69% likely voters). Although his approval ratings on the environment had hovered around 30 percent since July 2004 (32% July 2004, 32% July 2005, 30% July 2006), they dropped 5 points in the past year, reaching a historic low this month. Strong majorities of Democrats (85%) and independents (67%) disapprove of the president’s performance on environmental issues, while more Republicans approve (45%) than disapprove (39%). Although majorities of all racial/ethnic groups disapprove, blacks (80%) and whites (65%) disapprove more than Latinos (57%) and Asians (56%). Across regions, disapproval is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (69%) and Los Angeles (66%) than in the Inland Empire (60%), the Central Valley (58%), and Orange/San Diego counties (57%). Disapproval of Bush’s handling of environmental issues increases with higher age, education, and income. Approve Disapprove Don't know “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Race/Ethnicity Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 25% 8% 45% 19% 20% 11% 31% 23% 63 85 39 67 56 80 57 65 12 7 16 14 24 9 12 12 Likely Voters 23% 69 8 July 2007 27 Californians and the Environment FEDERAL AND STATE INVOLVEMENT More than two in three Californians (67%) and likely voters (71%) think the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment in the United States, a perception that has been increasing over time (52% July 2003, 56% July 2004, 61% July 2006.) An overwhelming majority of Democrats (83%) and independents (71%) believe that the federal government is not doing enough, and even half of Republicans agree (49%). Strong majorities across all regions and age, education, and income groups believe that the federal response is inadequate. Across racial/ethnic groups, that perception is considerably higher among blacks (85%) than among whites (69%), Asians (63%), or Latinos (62%). “Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind More than enough 5% 2% 12% 3% 5% Just enough 23 13 34 21 21 Not enough 67 83 49 71 71 Don't know 52553 Californians are much more positive about the efforts of their state government: 45 percent think the state is doing more than enough (9%) or just enough (36%) to protect the environment in California. Still, almost half of adults (49%) believe that state efforts are falling short, which is the highest percentage in recent years (46% July 2006, 42% July 2004, 46% July 2003) and similar to the perceptions of state actions during the first term of Gov. Gray Davis (50% June 2000, 51% June 2002). Democrats (59%) and independents (52%) are far more likely than Republicans (32%) to say the state is not doing enough to protect the environment. This belief is more prevalent in Los Angeles (56%) and the Inland Empire (52%) than elsewhere, and it is higher among blacks (72%) and Latinos (58%) than among whites (43%) or Asians (42%). It is also greater among women than men (52% to 46%), but this belief declines with higher age, education, and income. “Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind More than enough 9% 4% 20% 6% 11% Just enough 36 34 43 35 37 Not enough 49 59 32 52 48 Don't know 63574 28 PPIC Statewide Survey Environmental Politics and Preferences 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Californians’ interest in the upcoming presidential election is high, and environmental issues may be crucial to their decisions. Seventy-nine percent of likely voters say they are following news about candidates for the presidential election at least fairly closely, and a majority of likely voters (54%) say candidates’ positions on the environment will be very important in determining their vote. Voters’ emphasis on this issue has grown significantly since July 2003 (39%) and July 2004 (37%), when fewer than four in 10 said that the 2004 presidential candidates’ positions on the environment were very important in their voting decision. As in July 2003 and July 2004, Democrats and independents today are more likely than Republicans to consider the candidates’ environmental positions very important, but that importance has risen in all partisan groups. While solid majorities of Latinos and whites now say a candidate’s environmental stance is at least somewhat important, Latinos (68%) are more likely than whites (51%) to call it very important. Likely voters in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area place more importance than voters living in the Central Valley or the Other Southern California Region on the environmental positions of the 2008 presidential candidates. (Orange/San Diego counties and the Inland Empire are combined for this analysis and in the table below due to small sample sizes for likely voters in these regions.) “In thinking about the presidential election in 2008, how important to you are the candidates' positions on the environment—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy—in determining your vote?” Likely voters only Very important Somewhat important Not too important Don't know All Likely Voters 54% 29% 16% 1% Democrat 70 23 6 1 Party Republican 34 37 28 1 Independent 52 29 17 2 Central Valley 48 27 23 2 Region San Francisco Bay Area 60 28 12 - Los Angeles 60 26 12 2 Other Southern California 46 33 20 1 AUTOMOBILE DRIVING TRENDS For most Californians, the commute to work is solitary: 66 percent of employed residents report driving alone to work; far fewer carpool or take public transit. Solo driving increases with affluence, with about three in four with household incomes over $80,000, homeowners, and college graduates driving alone to work. One in three Latinos carpool or take public transit, compared to just 12 percent of whites. “How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle?” Drive alone All Adults 66% Under $40,000 53% Income $40,000 to $79,999 71% $80,000 or more 78% Likely Voters 72% Carpool 13 22 9 8 9 Take public bus or transit 7 11 6 4 5 Other 14 14 14 10 14 July 2007 29 Californians and the Environment AUTOMOBILE DRIVING TRENDS (CONTINUED) Across regions, residents in the Inland Empire and Orange/San Diego counties (72% each) report the highest levels of driving alone, followed by Central Valley (68%), Los Angeles (66%), and San Francisco Bay Area residents (61%). Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area residents (10% each) are the most likely to take public transit, compared to 5 percent or fewer in other regions. What vehicles are Californians driving? Twenty-two percent of residents own or lease an SUV, and SUV ownership increases significantly with household income levels. Whites and Asians (25% each) and blacks (21%) are more likely than Latinos (17%) to own or lease an SUV. Owning or leasing an SUV is twice as high among adults with children under 18 as it is among people with no children under 18 (30% to 16%). It is also higher for men than women (25% to 20%) and for those 35 to 54 (31%) than for adults under 35 (17%) or older than 54 (16%). Conservatives (26%) are more likely than liberals (18%) to own or lease an SUV. “Do you personally own or lease an SUV?” All Adults Under $40,000 Income $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more Likely Voters Yes 22% 11% 23% 36% 25% No 78 89 77 64 75 We also asked residents if they would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle. Nearly six in 10 residents and likely voters (58% each) say they would, even if it would be more costly. A majority of residents across all income levels, and 63 percent who own or lease an SUV, would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid automobile even if it costs more. Six in 10 Latinos and whites (60% each) and more than half of blacks (56%) and Asians (55%) say the same. Giving serious consideration to purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle increases with higher education and income. “Would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine?” (if yes: “Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?)” Yes, even if more costly All Adults 58% Under $40,000 54% Income $40,000 to $79,999 62% $80,000 or more 65% Yes, but not if more costly 12 15 11 11 No 18 18 18 15 Already have a hybrid/don’t drive/won’t buy or lease 4 3 2 4 another vehicle (volunteered) Don't know 8 10 7 5 Likely Voters 58% 12 19 5 6 30 PPIC Statewide Survey Environmental Politics and Preferences EFFECTS OF GASOLINE PRICES As gasoline prices continue to rise nationwide, are Californians feeling the effects in their pocketbooks? Today, 65 percent of residents say price increases in gasoline have caused financial hardship for themselves or their households. That proportion is similar to a year ago (67%) and is higher than in September 2005 (57%) and July 2004 (55%). “Have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household?” All Adults Asians Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites Under $40,000 Income $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more Yes 65% 62% 67% 83% 54% 79% 65% 52% No 34 35 33 16 45 20 35 48 Don't know 1 3 - 1 1 1 - - Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (83%) are far more likely than blacks (67%), Asians (62%), and whites (54%) to report a financial hardship from increased gasoline prices. Across income groups, residents with incomes less than $40,000 are far more likely than others to report a hardship. However, even among those with incomes of $80,000 or more, about half (52%) say increased gas prices caused a hardship. Regionally, a majority of residents report such a hardship, but it seems to have hit harder in the Inland Empire (73%) and Los Angeles (71%) than in the Central Valley (64%), Orange/San Diego counties (62%), and the San Francisco Bay Area (54%). Across demographic groups, majorities report gasoline-related financial hardship, with younger, less educated, and less affluent residents reporting the highest levels. With gasoline prices continuing to rise over the past few years, have residents considered any longer-term actions to reduce their gasoline use? Sixty-nine percent of residents say they are considering getting a more fuel-efficient car, and 8 percent report owning such a vehicle already. Findings are nearly identical to last year’s. Of the California residents who say increased gas prices are causing them financial hardships, 77 percent say they would consider getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time they buy a vehicle. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (81%) and Asians (77%) are more likely than whites (64%) and blacks (61%) to consider a more fuel-efficient car for their next vehicle. Across income groups, that likelihood is higher among those with household incomes less than $40,000 than among more affluent residents. Younger residents are much more likely than older residents to consider a more fuel-efficient car as their next vehicle. A majority of SUV owners (66%) say the same. “As a result of the rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle?” Yes, have considered All Adults 69% Asians 77% Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 61% 81% Whites 64% Under $40,000 74% Income $40,000 to $79,999 71% $80,000 or more 66% No, have not considered 19 12 29 14 21 16 17 20 My current vehicle is fuelefficient (volunteered) 8 7 3 3 11 4 9 13 Don't drive (volunteered) 3 2 6 1 4 4 2 1 Don't know 12 1 1 - 2 1 - July 2007 31 REGIONAL MAPS San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin North San Joaquin Valley Stanislaus Merced Madera Fresno South San Joaquin Valley Kings Tulare Kern 32 METHODOLOGY The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, president and CEO and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Sonja Petek, project manager for this survey, and from survey research associates Dean Bonner and Jennifer Paluch, and survey intern Stephanie Stone. The survey was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation as part of a three-year series on education, environment, and population issues. We benefited from discussions with Hewlett staff, PPIC researchers, and other policy experts; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of this report were determined solely by Mark Baldassare. Statewide Survey Sample The findings in this report are based on a telephone survey of 2,500 California adult residents interviewed from June 28 to July 15, 2007. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Interviews took an average of 18 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean. We chose these languages because Spanish is the dominant language among non-English speaking adults in California, followed in prevalence by the three Asian languages. Accent on Languages translated the survey into Spanish, with assistance from Renatta DeFever and Stephanie Stone. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. translated the survey into Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean, and conducted the telephone interviewing for this survey. We used recent U.S. Census and state data to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,500 California adult residents is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger: For the 1,814 registered voters, it is +/- 2.5 percent; for the 1,238 likely voters, it is +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to five geographic regions accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba counties. “San Francisco Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, “Inland Empire” includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego counties. Residents from other geographic areas are included in the statewide results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters. However, sample sizes for these less populated areas are not large enough to report separately in tables and text. We present specific results for respondents in the statewide sample in four self-identified racial/ethnic groups: Asian, black, Latino, 33 Methodology and non-Hispanic white. We also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents (i.e. registered as “decline to state”) and we analyze the responses of likely voters—those who are the most likely to participate in the state’s elections. We compare current statewide survey responses both to responses in earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys and to responses in national surveys conducted by Gallup and New York Times/CBS News. San Joaquin Valley Survey Oversample We include an analysis of San Joaquin Valley residents in this report because of the important air quality issues in this region of the state. We present the findings for 1,001 adult residents living in the eightcounty San Joaquin Valley region, 235 of whom are part of the statewide survey sample and 766 of whom are a part of a survey oversample of residents in the San Joaquin Valley region interviewed from July 11 to July 18, 2007. The methodology for the San Joaquin Valley survey oversample was the same as for the statewide survey sample. The telephone interviewing was conducted in English and Spanish, which are the two primary languages spoken in the San Joaquin Valley region. We used recent U.S. Census and state data to compare demographic characteristics of the overall San Joaquin Valley survey sample with San Joaquin Valley’s adult population. This sample was also comparable to the census and state figures and the survey data were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the San Joaquin Valley sample of 1,001 adults is +/- 3 percent, while the sampling errors for subgroups in this region are larger: For the 728 registered voters, it is +/- 3.5 percent; for the 446 likely voters, it is +/- 4.5 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. When reporting the results for the San Joaquin Valley, we refer to two geographic subregions that we have identified in our Central Valley survey series, in collaboration with the Great Valley Center: “North San Joaquin Valley” includes Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties, and “South San Joaquin Valley” includes Kern, Kings, Fresno, Madera, and Tulare counties. We present specific results for the San Joaquin Valley in two self-identified racial/ethnic groups: Latino and non-Hispanic white. The sample sizes for blacks and Asians in this region are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. For the San Joaquin Valley, we also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and we analyze the responses of likely voters. 34 PPIC Statewide Survey QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS: CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT June 28 - July 15, 2007 2,500 California Adult Residents: English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese MARGIN OF ERROR +/-2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 52% approve 34 disapprove 14 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 47% approve 31 disapprove 22 don’t know 3. What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [code, don’t read] 29% air pollution, vehicle emissions 11 global warming, global climate change, greenhouse gases 8 water supply, reservoirs 6 energy 5 pollution in general 5 water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams 4 loss of forests, forest fires 3 immigration, immigrants 3 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 3 traffic congestion 2 population growth, overpopulation 9 other 12 don’t know 4. Next, we are interested in the region of California that you live in. Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region? 35% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 27 not a problem 1 don’t know 5. How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today—would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied? 19% very satisfied 43 somewhat satisfied 23 somewhat dissatisfied 14 very dissatisfied 1 don’t know 6. Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago? 20% better 48 worse 15 same (volunteered) 17 don’t know 7. How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, or not too serious of a health threat? 25% very serious 34 somewhat serious 36 not too serious 3 not at all serious (volunteered) 2 don’t know 35 Californians and the Environment 8. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region? 50% yes 42 no 8 don’t know 9. Do you or does anyone in your immediate family suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems? (if yes: Would that be you or someone in your family?) 12% yes, respondent 23 yes, someone in immediate family 5 yes, both 60 no 10.Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region? [read rotated list then ask, “or something else?”] 29% personal vehicle emissions 18 commercial vehicle emissions 15 population growth and development 14 industry and agriculture 7 pollution from outside the area 4 weather and geography 8 all of the above (volunteered) 3 something else (specify) 2 don’t know 11.More generally, which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region? [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 21% the federal government 37 the state government 16 the regional air district 17 the local government 3 other (specify) 6 don’t know 12.Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that your regional air district is handling air quality issues, or don’t you know enough to say? 15% approve 14 disapprove 71 don't know enough to say 13.Regional air districts are responsible for controlling air pollution from stationary sources, like industry and business, and their boards are typically comprised of local elected officials who are appointed by the city, county, or state government. Do you favor or oppose having these boards also include professionals with knowledge about health and environmental issues? 81% favor 11 oppose 8 don’t know We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 14 to 17] 14.Would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 58% yes, even if more costly 12 yes, but not if more costly 18 no 4 already have a hybrid/don’t drive/won’t buy or lease another vehicle (volunteered) 8 don’t know 15.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 50% yes, even if more costly 5 yes, but not if more costly 34 no 11 don’t know 36 PPIC Statewide Survey 16.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 68% yes, even if more costly 6 yes, but not if more costly 18 no 8 don’t know 17.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 68% yes, even if more costly 6 yes, but not if more costly 18 no 8 don’t know Next, [rotate questions 18 and 19] 18.To help relieve traffic congestion at California’s major seaports, and to help clean up air pollution caused by port traffic, would you favor or oppose charging a container fee on owners of cargo moving through these ports? 68% favor 23 oppose 9 don’t know 19.To reduce the amount of air pollution caused by trucks carrying cargo through California’s major seaports, would you favor or oppose charging a fee on truck owners to help fund a program that replaces or retrofits high polluting trucks? 71% favor 24 oppose 5 don’t know Questionnaire and Results: CALIFORNIA 20.On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen? [rotate] [1] they have already begun to happen; [2] they will start happening within a few years; [3] they will start happening within your lifetime; [4] they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] [5] they will never happen. 66% already begun 4 within a few years 7 within your lifetime 11 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 7 will never happen 5 don’t know 21.Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet? 81% right away 14 not necessary yet 2 neither, never necessary (volunteered) 3 don’t know 22.How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious of a threat? 54% very serious 28 somewhat serious 8 not too serious 7 not at all serious 3 don’t know Now I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. [rotate questions 23 to 25] July 2007 37 Californians and the Environment 23.How about increased flooding? 37% very concerned 28 somewhat concerned 18 not too concerned 15 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 24.How about droughts that are more severe? 60% very concerned 25 somewhat concerned 6 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 25.How about increased air pollution? 55% very concerned 31 somewhat concerned 6 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 1 don’t know State policies could be used to address the effects of global warming in California. Please tell me whether you favor or oppose the following policies. 26.What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009? 84% favor 13 oppose 3 don’t know 27.What about the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020? 78% favor 14 oppose 8 don’t know 28.What about the governor’s low carbon fuel standard that would require a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of fuel by the year 2020? 77% favor 13 oppose 10 don’t know 38 PPIC Statewide Survey 29.Do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming? 67% favor 26 oppose 7 don’t know 30.Changing topics, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 26% approve 68 disapprove 6 don’t know 31.Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 25% approve 63 disapprove 12 don’t know [rotate questions 32 and 33] 32.Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States? 5% more than enough 23 just enough 67 not enough 5 don’t know 33.Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 9% more than enough 36 just enough 49 not enough 6 don’t know Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 34 to 38] 34.How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if yes: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 75% favor, even if more costly 10 favor, but not if more costly 10 oppose 5 don’t know 35.How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 41% favor 52 oppose 7 don’t know 36.How about spending more government money to develop alternative sources of fuel, such as biofuels and ethanol, for automobiles? 78% favor 18 oppose 4 don’t know 37.How about spending more government money to develop renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power? 84% favor 12 oppose 4 don’t know 38.How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 37% favor 54 oppose 9 don’t know 39.Next, have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? 65% yes, caused hardship 34 no, have not caused hardship 1 don’t know Questionnaire and Results: CALIFORNIA 40.As a result of the rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuelefficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? 69% yes, have considered 19 no, have not considered 8 my current vehicle is fuel-efficient (volunteered) 3 don’t drive/don’t have a car/won’t buy another vehicle (volunteered) 1 don’t know [Responses recorded for questions 41 and 42 are for likely voters only. All other responses are from all adults, except where noted.] 41.In thinking about the presidential election in 2008, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy in determining your vote? 54% very important 29 somewhat important 16 not too important 1 don’t know 42.How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2008 presidential election? 30% very closely 49 fairly closely 17 not too closely 4 not at all closely 43.On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 72% yes [ask q43a] 27 no [skip to q44f] 1 don’t know [skip to q44f] 43a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 42% Democrat [ask q44a] 33 Republican [skip to q44b] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q45] 20 independent [skip to q44c] July 2007 39 Californians and the Environment 44a.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 56% strong 41 not very strong 3 don’t know [skip to q45] 44b.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 49% strong 49 not very strong 2 don’t know [skip to q45] 44c.Would you join a political party if it was a good reflection of your political views or do you prefer to be unaffiliated with any specific party? 27% join a political party 71 remain unaffiliated 2 don’t know 44d.And, were you previously registered with a major party or have you always been an independent? 38% previously registered [ask q44e] 59 always been an independent [skip to q44f] 3 don’t know [skip to q44f] 44e.And what party were you previously registered with? [code, don’t read] 53% Republican Party 41 Democratic Party 2 American Independent 4 other (specify) 44f.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 23% Republican Party 42 Democratic Party 24 neither (volunteered) 11 don’t know 45.Would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 11% very liberal 22 somewhat liberal 29 middle-of-the-road 24 somewhat conservative 10 very conservative 4 don’t know 46.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 22% great deal 37 fair amount 31 only a little 9 none 1 don’t know [d1--d5: demographic questions] d6. How do you usually commute to work— drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle? 66% drive alone 13 carpool 7 take public bus or transit 4 walk 3 bicycle 5 work at home (volunteered) 2 other (specify) d7. Do you personally own or lease an SUV? 22% yes 78 no d7a.Do you personally own or lease a hybrid vehicle? 5% yes 95 no [d8--d13: demographic questions] 40 PPIC Statewide Survey QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT June 28 - July 18, 2007 1,001 San Joaquin Valley Residents: English, Spanish MARGIN OF ERROR +/-3% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SAMPLE 1. First, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 54% approve 34 disapprove 12 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 50% approve 30 disapprove 20 don’t know 3. What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [code, don’t read] 35% air pollution, vehicle emissions 9 water supply, reservoirs 6 global warming, global climate change, greenhouse gases 5 pollution in general 4 immigration, immigrants 4 loss of forests, forest fires 3 energy 3 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 3 water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams 2 population growth, overpopulation 13 other 13 don’t know 4. Next, we are interested in the region of California that you live in. Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region? 56% big problem 28 somewhat of a problem 15 not a problem 1 don’t know 5. How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today—would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied? 11% very satisfied 32 somewhat satisfied 25 somewhat dissatisfied 30 very dissatisfied 2 don’t know 6. Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago? 12% better 64 worse 11 same (volunteered) 13 don’t know 7. How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, or not too serious of a health threat? 35% very serious 37 somewhat serious 25 not too serious 1 not at all serious (volunteered) 2 don’t know 41 Californians and the Environment 8. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region? 36% yes 57 no 7 don’t know 9. Do you or does anyone in your immediate family suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems? (if yes: Would that be you or someone in your family?) 14% yes, respondent 31 yes, someone in immediate family 7 yes, both 47 no 1 don’t know 10.Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region? [read rotated list then ask, “or something else?”] 20% industry and agriculture 16 personal vehicle emissions 15 pollution from outside the area 12 commercial vehicle emissions 11 population growth and development 9 weather and geography 11 all of the above (volunteered) 2 something else (specify) 4 don’t know 11.More generally, which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region? [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 17% the federal government 36 the state government 16 the regional air district 20 the local government 4 other (specify) 7 don’t know 12.Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that your regional air district is handling air quality issues, or don’t you know enough to say? 12% approve 18 disapprove 70 don't know enough to say 13.Regional air districts are responsible for controlling air pollution from stationary sources, like industry and business, and their boards are typically comprised of local elected officials who are appointed by the city, county, or state government. Do you favor or oppose having these boards also include professionals with knowledge about health and environmental issues? 76% favor 13 oppose 11 don’t know We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 14 to 17] 14.Would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 56% yes, even if more costly 13 yes, but not if more costly 19 no 3 already have a hybrid/don’t drive/won’t buy or lease another vehicle (volunteered) 9 don’t know 15.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 50% yes, even if more costly 7 yes, but not if more costly 35 no 8 don’t know 42 PPIC Statewide Survey 16.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 65% yes, even if more costly 6 yes, but not if more costly 21 no 8 don’t know 17.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 63% yes, even if more costly 5 yes, but not if more costly 21 no 11 don’t know Next, [rotate questions 18 and 19] 18.To help relieve traffic congestion at California’s major seaports, and to help clean up air pollution caused by port traffic, would you favor or oppose charging a container fee on owners of cargo moving through these ports? 66% favor 25 oppose 9 don’t know 19.To reduce the amount of air pollution caused by trucks carrying cargo through California’s major seaports, would you favor or oppose charging a fee on truck owners to help fund a program that replaces or retrofits high polluting trucks? 67% favor 27 oppose 6 don’t know Questionnaire and Results: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 20.On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen? [rotate] [1] they have already begun to happen; [2] they will start happening within a few years; [3] they will start happening within your lifetime; [4] they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] [5] they will never happen. 60% already begun 4 within a few years 8 within your lifetime 12 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 10 will never happen 6 don’t know 21.Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet? 78% right away 16 not necessary yet 2 neither, never necessary (volunteered) 4 don’t know 22.How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious of a threat? 52% very serious 28 somewhat serious 8 not too serious 10 not at all serious 2 don’t know Now I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. [rotate questions 23 to 25] July 2007 43 Californians and the Environment 23.How about increased flooding? 34% very concerned 26 somewhat concerned 21 not too concerned 17 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 24.How about droughts that are more severe? 54% very concerned 28 somewhat concerned 8 not too concerned 9 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 25.How about increased air pollution? 56% very concerned 30 somewhat concerned 6 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 1 don’t know State policies could be used to address the effects of global warming in California. Please tell me whether you favor or oppose the following policies. 26.What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009? 80% favor 17 oppose 3 don’t know 27.What about the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020? 73% favor 18 oppose 9 don’t know 28.What about the governor’s low carbon fuel standard that would require a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of fuel by the year 2020? 76% favor 13 oppose 11 don’t know 44 PPIC Statewide Survey 29.Do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming? 61% favor 30 oppose 9 don’t know 30.Changing topics, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 35% approve 59 disapprove 6 don’t know 31.Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 31% approve 53 disapprove 16 don’t know [rotate questions 32 and 33] 32.Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States? 7% more than enough 28 just enough 61 not enough 4 don’t know 33.Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 10% more than enough 38 just enough 47 not enough 5 don’t know Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 34 to 38] 34.How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if yes: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 72% favor, even if more costly 12 favor, but not if more costly 12 oppose 4 don’t know 35.How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 52% favor 41 oppose 7 don’t know 36.How about spending more government money to develop alternative sources of fuel, such as biofuels and ethanol, for automobiles? 77% favor 19 oppose 4 don’t know 37.How about spending more government money to develop renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power? 80% favor 16 oppose 4 don’t know 38.How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 40% favor 52 oppose 8 don’t know 39.Next, have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? 71% yes, caused hardship 29 no, have not caused hardship Questionnaire and Results: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 40.As a result of the rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuelefficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? 68% yes, have considered 20 no, have not considered 8 my current vehicle is fuel-efficient (volunteered) 3 don’t drive/don’t have a car/won’t buy another vehicle (volunteered) 1 don’t know [Responses recorded for questions 41 and 42 are for San Joaquin Valley likely voters only. All other responses are from all San Joaquin Valley adults, except where noted.] 41.In thinking about the presidential election in 2008, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy in determining your vote? 47% very important 31 somewhat important 21 not too important 1 don’t know 42.How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2008 presidential election? 28% very closely 49 fairly closely 18 not too closely 5 not at all closely 43.On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 73% yes [ask q43a] 27 no [skip to q44f] 43a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 37% Democrat [ask q44a] 44 Republican [skip to q44b] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q45] 14 independent [skip to q44c] July 2007 45 Californians and the Environment 44a.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 51% strong 44 not very strong 5 don’t know [skip to q45] 44b.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 51% strong 47 not very strong 2 don’t know [skip to q45] 44c.Would you join a political party if it was a good reflection of your political views or do you prefer to be unaffiliated with any specific party? 21% join a political party 76 remain unaffiliated 3 don’t know 44d.And, were you previously registered with a major party or have you always been an independent? 35% previously registered [ask q44e] 63 always been an independent [skip to q44f] 2 don’t know [skip to q44f] 44e.And what party were you previously registered with? [code, don’t read] 40% Republican Party 57 Democratic Party 2 other (specify) 1 don’t know 44f.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 23% Republican Party 39 Democratic Party 25 neither (volunteered) 13 don’t know 45.Would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 8% very liberal 17 somewhat liberal 32 middle-of-the-road 25 somewhat conservative 14 very conservative 4 don’t know 46.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 18% great deal 37 fair amount 34 only a little 10 none 1 don’t know [d1-d5: demographic questions] D6.How do you usually commute to work— drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle? 73% drive alone 18 carpool 2 take public bus or transit 2 walk 2 bicycle 2 work at home (volunteered) 1 other (specify) D7.Do you personally own or lease an SUV? 24% yes 76 no D7a.Do you personally own or lease a hybrid vehicle? 5% yes 95 no [d8-d13: demographic questions] 46 PPIC Statewide Survey PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ruben Barrales President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Angela Blackwell Founder and Chief Executive Officer PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Jon Cohen Director of Polling The Washington Post Matthew K. Fong Special Counsel Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP Russell Hancock President and Chief Executive Officer Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and Chief Executive Officer The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and Chief Executive Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center The PPIC Statewide Survey Advisory Committee is a diverse group of experts who provide advice on survey issues. However, survey methods, questions, content, and timing are determined solely by PPIC. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Mark Baldassare President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of California Linda Griego President and Chief Executive Officer Griego Enterprises, Inc. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Former State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Copyright © 2007 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, California 95814 phone: 916.440.1120 fax: 916.440.1121 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org"
["post_date_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 09:39:08"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(6) "closed"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(8) "s_707mbs"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 02:39:08"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 09:39:08"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["guid"]=>
string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_707MBS.pdf"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(15) "application/pdf"
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
["status"]=>
string(7) "inherit"
["attachment_authors"]=>
bool(false)
}