Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 708MBS

Authors

S 708MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_708MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1291726" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(94961) "july 2008 &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 is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute’s goal is to raise public awareness and to give elected representatives and other decisionmakers a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. The institute’s research focuses on the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including economic development, education, environment and resources, governance, population, public finance, and social and health policy. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. 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 600 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 Air Pollution Global Warming Energy and Environmental Policy Regional Map Methodology Questionnaire and Results 1 3 7 13 19 26 27 29 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 88th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 187,000 Californians. This survey is the eighth 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 to raise public awareness about environment, education, and population issues. The current survey focuses on the related issues of air quality, global warming, and energy and the environment because these are current topics of public policy discussion in local, state, and federal government. California public opinion is relevant for several reasons. The state has several regions with high air pollution levels. State residents have dealt with significant multi-year increases in gasoline prices. The California coastline has been the focus of a federal policy debate on expanding offshore oil drilling. California has taken the lead nationally in efforts to address issues of air quality, global warming, and alternative energy. In 2002, California passed the Clean Cars Act, which has been adopted by more than a dozen other states, and is the subject of an ongoing dispute between the state and federal governments. California is preparing to implement its landmark Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. This survey presents the responses of 2,504 adult residents interviewed in multiple languages and reached by landline and cell phone throughout the state. This survey examined the following: „ Air quality and health issues, including perceptions of regional air pollution and its threat to individual health; beliefs about the causes of air pollution; standards that residents are willing to support to improve air quality; and perceptions of the most important environment issue facing the state today. „ Global warming, including perceptions of its onset and effects on California’s future; attitudes about when action should be taken to curb global warming and on the role of local, state, and federal government in that effort; and support for state laws addressing global warming and for several proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. „ Energy and environment policy, including approval ratings for the governor and the president on their handling of environment issues and for their overall job performance; presidential election preferences and level of trust in candidates to handle environment and energy issues; opinions about addressing U.S. energy needs through higher fuel efficiency standards, more offshore oil drilling, new nuclear power plants, and increased federal funding for alternative energy sources; automobile driving trends 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 the Inland Empire); among Asians, blacks, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites; across age, education, and income levels, and across political groups. 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 Californians Back Offshore Drilling by Slim Margin GAS PRICES SPUR CHANGE IN VIEWS, BEHAVIOR — BUT RESIDENTS STILL WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 30, 2008 — Fifty-one percent of Californians favor more oil drilling off the coast – a 10-point increase since July 2007 – according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). This is the first time since 2003, when PPIC first posed the question, that more Californians favor offshore drilling than oppose it (45%), a shift caused in large part by a surge in support among Republicans. It is also one of many reactions to soaring gas prices that the PPIC survey reveals. The survey was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and is the eighth in a series about Californians and the environment. As the national debate intensifies over how to respond to rising energy costs in a lagging economy, Californians report that they are changing their behavior. The number of workers who drive to work alone has dropped 11 points in five years (73% 2003, 62% 2008). Nearly seven in 10 residents (69%) report cutting back significantly on their driving, and nearly three in four (74%) are seriously considering a more fuel-efficient car the next time they buy a vehicle. WORRYING ABOUT WARMING Despite the pain at the pump, residents are concerned that global warming is a threat to California, which has the nation’s toughest goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Half of Californians (52%) say global warming is a very serious threat to the state’s economy and quality of life, and more than six in 10 (64%) say its effects have already begun, a 7-point increase from 2005. But here, too, a partisan divide exists, with nearly seven in 10 Democrats (67%) saying global warming is a very serious threat, compared to about half of independents (49%) and just one in four Republicans (25%). Similarly, 74 percent of Democrats say the effects of warming have already begun, compared to 64 percent of independents and just 41 percent of Republicans. Majorities of Californians say governments are not doing enough to address global warming at any level – federal (66%), state (51%), or local (52%). However, opinion is again divided along party lines, with less than half of Republicans saying that federal (43%), state (29%), or local (33%) governments are not doing enough about global warming. The barrage of bad news about the economy has not dampened residents’ enthusiasm for taking immediate action against global warming. Eight in 10 (80%) believe steps should be taken right away, a percentage that has increased 7 points since 2003. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents express this view. Californians disagree with the notion that state leaders, who must fill a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, should wait to implement AB32, the 2006 law that set goals to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly six in 10 (57%) say the state should take steps right away, while a little over a third (36%) say that government should wait until the economy and budget have improved. 3 Californians and the Environment “Tough economic times have not diminished the importance of environmental issues for Californians,” says Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of PPIC. “The environment is seen as a matter of health and well-being, and residents don’t want to cut corners there.” “At the same time, Californians are living with the financial hardship of higher gas prices, and they’re changing their behavior. They’re driving less, which is an environmental win because auto emissions increase global warming. The issue for the state’s leaders is to transform Californians’ values and their day-to-day economic challenges into a policy that moves the state forward.” TRANSIT ROUTINES SHIFT – MAINLY FOR YOUNGER, POORER COMMUTERS Three in four Californians (76%) say that increases in gasoline prices have caused financial hardship in their households. A majority of workers (62%) report that they drive alone to work, but more workers are carpooling (17% today, 13% 2007). Since last year, about the same percentage of workers report walking, bicycling, or working at home (13% today, 12% 2007), or taking public transit (7% today and in 2007), perhaps reflecting that these commuting choices are not available to all Californians. Those who are richer and older are more likely to drive to work alone: An overwhelming percentage (70%) of residents with household incomes above $80,000 are solo commuters, compared to less than half (44%) of those with incomes under $40,000. While more than 68 percent of Californians between ages 35 and 54 drive to work alone, 52 percent of Californians between ages 18 and 34 do. Among Californians who drive to work alone, 31 percent own or lease an SUV and 6 percent own or lease a hybrid. WHERE SHOULD THE ENERGY COME FROM? POLITICAL VIEWS VARY How should the nation meet its energy needs? The new support for offshore oil drilling (51% today, 41% 2007) has come from all adults -- Republicans (77%, up from 60%), independents (44%, up from 33%), and Democrats (35%, up from 29%). Still, most Democrats (60%) and half of independents (50%) oppose more drilling. Support for building more nuclear power plants has also increased. Four in 10 (44%) residents support it and half (50%) are opposed. The partisan divide is wide on this issue, with Republicans supporting it (66% in favor, 29% opposed), independents slightly in favor (51% in favor, 42% opposed), and Democrats opposed (60% opposed, 34% in favor). But there is bipartisan support for alternative proposals to meet the nation's energy needs. More than eight in 10 Californians (83%) support federal funding for research on renewable technologies, such as wind, solar, and hydrogen. Across political parties, more than three in four voters agree with this view. Seven in 10 Californians say automakers should be required to significantly improve fuel efficiency in cars, even if this increases the cost of buying a car. This view also has strong backing across party lines, with support from 81 percent of independents, 80 percent of Democrats, and 68 percent of Republicans. TOP WORRIES: AIR POLLUTION, GAS AND ENERGY, GLOBAL WARMING, WILDFIRES Californians rank air pollution as the most important environmental issue facing the state. This issue has consistently ranked number one since PPIC began asking this open-ended question eight years ago. But air quality has dipped in importance, with 33 percent of residents listing it as the top issue in 2000, 29 percent in 2007, and 23 percent this year. This decline comes as two other issues – energy costs and the state’s wildfires – have significantly increased in importance on Californians’ list of concerns. The percentage of residents who named gas 4 PPIC Statewide Survey Press Release prices as their top concern increased 11 points since last year (12% today, 1% 2007). The next most frequently named issues are energy and oil drilling (10% today, 6% 2007), global warming (10% today, 11% 2007), and wildfires and loss of forests (10% today, 4% 2007). Although air quality is the most frequently named issue across the state’s regions and demographic groups, big differences arise when Californians are asked about the air they breathe. Seven in 10 residents statewide say air pollution is a big problem (34%) or somewhat of a problem (37%) in their region. But those in the Central Valley (51%) and Los Angeles (47%) are much more likely than residents in the Inland Empire (30%), San Francisco Bay Area (22%), and Orange/San Diego counties (19%) to say it is a big problem. Fewer than one in four Californians are very satisfied (17%) with the air quality in their region, with residents in Los Angeles (10%), the Central Valley (12%), and the Inland Empire (14%) far less likely than those in the San Francisco Bay Area (20%) and Orange/San Diego counties (23%) to hold this view. Nearly one in three (31%) Central Valley residents are very dissatisfied with the air quality in their region. There is a wide racial and ethnic divide in perceptions of regional air quality, with whites the most likely (23%) to be very satisfied, followed by Asians (16%), Latinos (11%), and blacks (7%). BLACKS, LATINOS VIEW AIR QUALITY AS THREAT Nearly six in 10 Californians (58%) say regional air pollution is at least somewhat of a serious health threat to themselves or their immediate families, a finding that has changed little since PPIC first asked the question in 2003. But here, too, there is a racial and ethnic divide, with blacks and Latinos (31% each) much more likely than whites (16%) or Asians (8%) to say air pollution is a very serious health threat. Asked whether air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas, Californians overall are evenly divided (48% yes, 46% no). But Latinos are far more likely to hold this view (70%) than Asians (55%), blacks (48%), or whites (33%). CLEARING THE AIR: STRICT RULES GET STRONG BACKING Solid majorities of residents favor tougher regulations to combat regional air pollution, but far more favor stricter curbs on commercial and industrial activities (79%) or diesel-fueled vehicles like trucks or buses (80%) than on agriculture (58%). A bill in the legislature that is intended to ease air pollution and traffic congestion at California seaports by charging a container fee has the support of 61 percent of residents. MORE KEY FINDINGS: War on warming is worth waging, requires sacrifices – Page 15 Three in four Californians (75%) believe it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, while 18 percent believe it isn’t. About half (51%) believe people will have to make major sacrifices to reduce global warming’s impact, while 17 percent say technology can do so without major sacrifices necessary. California greening: Residents back state against feds – Page 17 Majorities of voters across parties say the state should continue to set its own policies on global warming, and they back the 2002 law – which has been the focus of a battle with the federal government – to reduce emissions from new cars beginning in 2009. Schwarzenegger, Bush approval ratings down – Page 20 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s job approval rating (43% approve, 45% disapprove) is down 9 points since July 2007, but is about the same as in May of this year. His approval rating on handling the environment July 2008 5 Californians and the Environment (46% approve, 36% disapprove) is similar to 2007. President Bush’s job approval rating (26% approve, 69% disapprove) continues to hover near the historic low recorded in March of this year (24% approve, 72% disapprove). Ratings of his handling of the environment are similar (24% approve, 66% disapprove). Obama leads McCain, 50 percent to 35 percent -- Page 21 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has strong support among Democratic (79%) and independent (57%) likely voters. His lead is similar to the 17-point advantage he held over Sen. John McCain in May, when Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton was still a contender. Obama is the choice of men, women, and Latinos, while whites are divided (43% Obama, 41% McCain). McCain has strong support (72%) among Republicans. Regardless of who they support, likely voters trust Obama over McCain to handle environmental issues (52% to 28%) and energy policy (51% to 33%). ABOUT THE SURVEY This is the eighth PPIC Statewide Survey on the environment since 2000. It was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. It is based on a telephone survey of 2,504 adult residents interviewed in multiple languages, and reached by landline and on cell phones throughout the state. Interviews were conducted from July 8 to July 22, 2008. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and is larger for subgroups. For more information on methodology, see page 27. 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. This is the 88th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 187,000 Californians. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. 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. 6 PPIC Statewide Survey AIR POLLUTION KEY FINDINGS „ Californians continue to name air pollution as the most important state environmental issue, and most residents say that air pollution is at least somewhat of a problem in their region. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos and blacks are far more likely to call regional air pollution a big problem, and residents in the Central Valley and Los Angeles are much more likely than those in other regions to hold this view. (pages 8, 9) „ Majorities of Californians say that air pollution is at least somewhat of a health threat to themselves and their families, and nearly half believe that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than in other areas in their region. Again, there are major differences across regions and racial/ethnic groups. (page 10) „ Many residents are willing to see tougher air pollution standards on cars, even if it makes them more expensive to buy or lease. Many Californians would like to see tougher air pollution standards on farm and agricultural activities, commercial and industrial activities, and diesel engine vehicles, and they favor efforts to clean up air pollution caused by port traffic. Support for increased standards to improve air quality is strong across regions and demographic groups, with differences across political parties. (pages 11, 12) Regional Air Pollution 60 Percent saying it is a big problem Percent all adults 50 40 45 40 30 20 21 27 10 0 Asian Black Latino White Personal Health Threat of Regional Air Pollution 80 Somewhat serious Very serious Percent all adults 60 38 40 37 20 31 0 C ent ral Valley 15 SF Bay Area 45 35 35 27 15 19 LA Orange/ Inland San Empire D ie go Willingness to See Tougher Air Pollution Standards on Automobiles 100 Percent saying yes, even if more costly 80 60 64 72 64 54 40 Percent all adults 20 0 All adults Dem Rep Ind 7 Californians and the Environment MOST IMPORTANT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE Californians continue to say that air pollution is the most important environmental issue facing the state today, but the percentage saying so has dropped 10 points since June 2000 (33% to 23%). No single factor explains this decline. A sizable percentage of residents today cite gas prices (12%) as their top environmental concern, an increase of 11 points since last July (1% to 12%). With wildfires in the news, one in 10 Californians identify the loss of forests as a top issue—the highest level reported in the eight-year period, and up from 4 percent last year. Energy and oil drilling, along with global warming, are also major environmental issues concerning Californians (10% each). The percent naming energy and oil drilling is up 4 points from last year, while the percentage naming global warming is similar to July 2007 (11%). “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top five issues mentioned in 2008 June 00 June 02 July 03 July 04 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 Air pollution 33% 34% 30% 33% 26% 24% 29% 23% Gas prices - - - - 1 2 1 12 Energy, oil drilling - 2 3 5 6 12 6 10 Global warming - - 1 1 2 8 11 10 Loss of forests, wildfires 1 - - - 3 2 4 10 Across California’s regions, air pollution is deemed the most important environmental issue facing the state. However, Central Valley residents (28%) are the most likely to name air pollution, followed by Los Angeles (24%), San Francisco Bay Area (21%), Inland Empire (20%), and Orange/San Diego (18%) residents. Air pollution is also the top issue of concern across all demographic groups. Across racial/ethnic groups, air pollution is mentioned by 26 percent of both Asians and blacks, 23 percent of Latinos, and 21 percent of whites as the top state environmental issue. Across parties, independents (26%), Democrats (24%), and Republicans (17%) all name air pollution as the most important environmental issue, but Republicans (16%) are most likely to name energy and oil drilling as their main concern, with Democrats (14%) most likely to name global warming. When it comes to gas prices, 16 percent of Inland Empire residents name this issue as their highest concern, followed by residents in Los Angeles (14%), the San Francisco Bay Area (12%), Orange/San Diego counties (11%), and the Central Valley (8%). Blacks (20%) are much more likely than whites (9%), and somewhat more likely than Latinos (15%) and Asians (13%) to say that gas prices are of highest concern. Adults under 35 (17%) are nearly twice as likely as adults 55 and older (9%) to say that gas prices are of primary importance. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top five issues mentioned by all adults Air pollution All Adults 23% Central Valley 28% San Francisco Bay Area 21% Region Los Angeles 24% Orange/ San Diego 18% Inland Empire 20% Gas prices 12 8 12 14 11 16 Energy, oil drilling 10 8 11 10 9 10 Global warming 10 7 13 13 9 8 Loss of forests, wildfires 10 13 11 6 6 8 8 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution REGIONAL PERCEPTIONS OF AIR POLLUTION When residents were asked how much of a problem air pollution is in their region, seven in 10 describe it as a big (34%) or somewhat (37%) of a problem. Central Valley (51%) and Los Angeles (47%) residents are much more likely than those in the Inland Empire (30%), the San Francisco Bay Area (22%), and Orange/San Diego counties (19%) to say air pollution in their region is a big problem. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (45%) and blacks (40%) are much more likely than whites (27%) and Asians (21%) to say air pollution is a big problem. This belief decreases with higher age and income. The perception among all adults that regional air pollution is a big problem is similar to last year (35%); however, across regions, the percent saying air pollution is a big problem has increased 9 points among Central Valley residents and has dropped 19 points among Inland Empire residents. Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem “Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region?” All Adults 34% Central Valley 51% San Francisco Bay Area 22% Region Los Angeles 47% Orange/ San Diego 19% 37 30 47 35 42 29 19 31 18 39 Inland Empire 30% 35 35 When asked how satisfied they are with air quality in their region today, nearly six in 10 Californians say they are very (17%) or somewhat satisfied (41%), while four in 10 say they are somewhat (24%) or very dissatisfied (17%). The percentage of Californians who say they are satisfied with the air quality in their region today (58%) is slightly lower than it was last July (62%) and July 2006 (62%). Today, fewer than one in four Californians across regions say they are very satisfied with the air quality in their region. Residents in Los Angeles (10%), the Central Valley (12%), and the Inland Empire (14%) are less likely than those in the San Francisco Bay Area (20%) and Orange/San Diego counties (23%) to hold this view. Residents in the Central Valley (31%) are the most likely to say they are very dissatisfied with the air quality in their region today. Across racial/ethnic groups, whites (23%) are the most likely to say they are very satisfied with regional air quality, followed by Asians (16%), Latinos (11%), and blacks (7%). “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today?” Very satisfied All Adults 17% Central Valley 12% San Francisco Bay Area 20% Region Los Angeles 10% Orange/ San Diego 23% Somewhat satisfied 41 29 44 43 48 Somewhat dissatisfied 24 28 26 27 20 Very dissatisfied 17 31 10 19 9 Don't know 1- - 1 - Inland Empire 14% 47 23 15 1 When asked about sources of regional air pollution, four in 10 Californians (41%) respond correctly that vehicle emissions are the lead contributor; 23 percent specify personal vehicle emissions, while 18 percent cite commercial vehicle emissions. Other causes? About one in 10 residents believes air pollution is mostly caused by industry and agriculture (13%), pollution from outside the area (12%), population growth and development (11%), or weather and geography (9%). At least four in 10 residents have blamed vehicle emissions for regional air pollution since we first asked this question in July 2003. July 2008 9 Californians and the Environment AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH Nearly six in 10 Californians believe that regional air pollution is a very (21%) or somewhat serious (37%) health threat to themselves and their immediate families. Since we first asked this question in 2003, about six in 10 Californians have consistently said that air pollution is at least a somewhat serious health threat. Today, there are large differences across racial/ethnic groups, with blacks and Latinos (31% each) much more likely than whites (16%) and Asians (8%) to say that air pollution is a very serious health threat. There are also differences across regions, with residents in the Central Valley (31%) and Los Angeles (27%) much more likely than residents of the Inland Empire (19%), Orange/San Diego counties (15%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (15%) to say that air pollution is a very serious health threat. This belief is greater among less educated and lower-income adults. This view is also held more by women than men. “How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” All Adults Asian Race/Ethnicity Black Latino White Very serious 21% 8% 31% 31% 16% Somewhat serious 37 46 39 43 33 Not too serious 38 42 29 25 46 Not at all serious (volunteered) 33 - 14 Don't know 11 1 - 1 Californians are divided on whether air pollution is a more serious heath threat in lower-income areas in their regions (48% yes, 46% no). The percentage holding this perception has been consistent over time, with about half of residents holding this view in 2007 (50% yes, 42% no) and 2006 (47% yes, 45% no). Today, this belief is more widely held in Los Angeles (61%), the San Francisco Bay Area (51%), and Orange/San Diego counties (50%) than in the Inland Empire (42%) and the Central Valley (30%). Latinos (70%) are far more likely to hold this view than other racial/ethnic groups. The belief that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas is more widely held by younger, less educated, and less affluent residents. This perception also cuts across party lines, with 55 percent of Democrats saying air pollution is a greater threat in lower-income areas and 64 percent of Republicans saying it is not. 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 Asian Race/Ethnicity Black Latino 48% 55% 48% 70% 46 39 43 27 66 9 3 White 33% 61 6 Given the link between poor air quality and respiratory problems, how many residents report suffering from these conditions? About four in 10 Californians (43%) say they or a family member suffer from asthma or respiratory problems, 6 points higher than in July 2003 (37%). Residents in the Central Valley (50%) are most likely to say they or a family member suffer from asthma, followed by those in the Inland Empire (44%), San Francisco Bay Area (44%), Los Angeles (41%), and Orange/San Diego counties (38%). Blacks (56%) and Latinos (48%) are more likely than whites (39%) and Asians (31%), and women (50%) are more likely than men (35%), to report such a condition. 10 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution AIR QUALITY POLICIES Residents were asked about several ideas for reducing regional air pollution and solid majorities of them express support for each idea. Seven in 10 residents would support tougher standards on new cars, and 64 percent that say they favor this proposal even if it meant their next vehicle would be more expensive to buy or lease. In 2005 and 2006, similarly high proportions of residents expressed support. Today, more than half of residents across political groups (72% Democrats, 64% independents, 54% Republicans) and in all regions and demographic groups support tougher standards despite the costs. Fifty-eight percent of residents and 55 percent of likely voters say they would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities, levels similar to those of last July and July 2006. Today, a majority of Californians across regions hold this belief; residents in Los Angeles (62%), the Central Valley (59%), and San Francisco Bay Area (59%) are the most likely . Across political groups, Democrats (67%) and independents (58%) are more likely than Republicans (44%) to hold this view. Across racial/ethnic groups, Asians (66%), blacks (66%), and Latinos (63%) are more likely than whites (54%) to favor tougher air pollution standards for agriculture and farm activities. Majorities of men and women favor this idea, while support decreases as age and income increase. Support for tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities is widely held among those who view air pollution as a big problem (65%) and as a very serious health threat (67%). “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities?” All Adults Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 58% 59% 59% 62% 55% 54% No 34 35 33 29 36 39 Don't know 86 8 9 9 7 Many more Californians would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. About eight in 10 residents and likely voters (79% each) hold this view. Support for tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities was also high last year. Across regions today, at least three in four Californians hold this view, with residents in the San Francisco Bay Area being the most likely (85%). While a strong majority of voters across parties support tougher standards on commercial and industrial activities, Democrats (88%) and independents (84%) are more likely than Republicans (65%) to hold this view. More than three in four residents across racial/ethnic groups say they would be willing to see tougher standards, with blacks (93%) and Asians (87%) being the most likely. Women (83%) are also more likely than men (75%) to hold this view; support declines with increasing age. Again, support for tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities is widely held among those that view air pollution as a big problem (84%) and as a very serious health threat (86%). “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities?” All Adults Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 79% 76% 85% 80% 75% 79% No 18 19 12 16 21 18 Don't know 35 3 4 4 3 July 2008 11 Californians and the Environment AIR QUALITY POLICIES (CONTINUED) Strong majorities of California residents and likely voters (80% each) are also willing to see tougher air pollution standards for diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses. A plan to reduce diesel emissions by replacing or retrofitting high-polluting diesel trucks and buses is currently under discussion at the state level. More than three in four residents across regions would support tougher standards on diesel engine vehicles. At least seven in 10 across parties also support these tougher standards, with Democrats (87%) and independents (83%) being more likely than Republicans (70%) to hold this view. Tougher air pollution standards for diesel engine vehicles are also overwhelmingly supported by blacks (89%), Asians (87%), whites (79%), and Latinos (77%). Women (83%) and men (76%) both would be willing to see such standards implemented. This view is also widely held among those who view air pollution as a big problem (83%) and a very serious health threat (86%). Yes No Don't know “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses?” All Adults 80% Central Valley 77% San Francisco Bay Area 83% Region Los Angeles 81% Orange/ San Diego 79% 17 20 14 16 18 33 3 3 3 Inland Empire 84% 13 3 What do Californians think about a legislative proposal to charge a container fee on owners of cargo moving through California’s ports? This bill is aimed at relieving traffic congestion at California’s major seaports and cleaning up air pollution caused by port traffic. Six in 10 Californians (61%) and likely voters (57%) favor this proposal. Democrats (69%) and independents (59%) are much more likely than Republicans (48%) to express support. Across regions, about six in 10 favor this proposal. Support is stronger among blacks (71%), Asians (69%), and Latinos (67%) than among whites (54%). 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 61% Central Valley 58% San Francisco Bay Area 61% Region Los Angeles 62% Orange/ San Diego 59% 30 32 28 29 31 9 10 11 9 10 Inland Empire 62% 28 10 12 PPIC Statewide Survey GLOBAL WARMING KEY FINDINGS „ Large majorities of Californians believe that the effects of global warming have already begun, that global warming threatens California’s future, and that we should take steps right away to counter the effects of global warming. (pages 14, 15) „ Most Californians believe that federal government action to address global warming is inadequate, and majorities of residents also believe that their local and state governments are not doing enough. Large percentages of residents across regions and racial/ethnic groups share these perceptions. (page 16) „ Overwhelming majorities of adults and likely voters continue to favor the state’s efforts to reduce the effects of global warming, including state laws requiring a reduction in auto emissions and in greenhouse gas emissions. Majority support for these state laws is found in all political, regional, and demographic groups. (page 17) „ The public overwhelmingly supports the adoption by state government of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: increasing the use of renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, by utilities; requiring lower emissions from industrial plants, refineries, and commerce; encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people drive less; and requiring greater energy efficiency in homes and business. (page 18) Taking Steps to Counter Global Warming Should take steps right away Not necessary to take steps yet 100 Percent all adults 80 73 60 76 79 81 80 40 20 20 19 15 14 15 0 July July July July July 03 04 06 07 08 Federal Government Action on Global Warming Percent saying it is 100 not doing enough Percent all adults 80 60 66 83 70 40 43 20 0 All adults Dem Rep Ind State Law Requiring Reduction in Auto Emissions by 2009 100 Favor Oppose 80 81 80 81 77 78 84 81 60 Percent all adults 40 20 16 14 12 17 16 13 16 0 June July July July July July July 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 13 Californians and the Environment PERCEPTIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING A strong majority of Californians (64%) believe the effects of global warming have already begun to take place, while just 10 percent believe there will be no effects. One in four residents believes the effects will ultimately occur (5% within a few years, 8% within their lifetime, 10% by future generations). Findings today are nearly identical to July 2006 and July 2007, but the percent saying global warming has already begun is up 7 points since July 2005 (57%). Californians today are similar to adults nationwide in their perceptions of global warming. In a March Gallup poll, 61 percent nationally said the effects of global warming had already begun; just 11 percent said they would never happen. Although majorities of residents and likely voters say the effects are underway, there is a split along party lines: 74 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents say the effects are underway now, but only 41 percent of Republicans agree. Nearly one in four Republicans say global warming effects will never occur. Women are more likely than men to believe the effects are being felt now (70% to 58%). “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 64% 74% 41% 64% Within a few years 5564 Within your lifetime 8 8 9 11 Not within lifetime, but will 10 9 13 11 affect future generations Will never happen 10 4 24 7 Don't know 3 - 73 Likely Voters 61% 4 8 10 13 4 Eight in 10 residents believe global warming poses a very (52%) or somewhat serious (27%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. These findings are similar to last July’s, but the percentage calling the threat of global warming very serious has increased 13 points since 2005 (39% to 52%). Opinion today is divided sharply along partisan lines, with 67 percent of Democrats saying it is very serious, compared to just 25 percent of Republicans. Half of independents (49%) hold this view. Across regions, Los Angeles (58%) and San Francisco Bay Area (56%) residents are more likely than Central Valley (51%), Orange/San Diego (47%), and Inland Empire (45%) residents to call the threat very serious. “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?” Very serious All Adults 52% Central Valley 51% San Francisco Bay Area 56% Region Los Angeles 58% Orange/ San Diego 47% Inland Empire 45% Somewhat serious 27 27 25 26 27 36 Not too serious 9 10 10 8 12 7 Not at all serious 9 11 6 7 11 11 Don't know 31 3 1 3 1 When asked about the current drought affecting the state, 46 percent of residents believe it is mostly due to natural weather patterns, while 37 percent say it is mostly due to global warming. As for the recent wildfires in the state, 56 percent say they are mostly due to weather patterns, while 27 percent believe global warming is to blame. 14 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming ATTITUDES TOWARD TAKING ACTION Most Californians (75%) believe it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, while 18 percent believe it is not possible. Half of residents (51%) believe people will have to make major sacrifices to reduce the effects, while 17 percent believe technology can solve the problem without requiring major sacrifices. Californians are similar to adults nationwide. In an April Pew Research Center survey, 74 percent of adults nationwide said it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, with 47 percent saying sacrifice would be needed, and 23 percent saying technology could solve the problem. Californians do not only believe it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, they also think steps should be taken immediately to do so. Large majorities of residents (80%), likely voters (75%), Democrats (94%), and independents (81%) express this view; a smaller majority of Republicans (54%) also say steps must be taken right away. Since 2003, the belief that immediate action is required has risen 7 points (73% 2003, 76% 2004, 79% 2006, 81% 2007, 80% today). Californians’ views are similar to those of adults nationwide: In a CBS News/New York Times national poll conducted in April 2007, 78 percent said steps should be taken right away to deal with global warming. “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?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind Right away 80% 94% 54% 81% Not necessary yet 15 5 34 15 Neither, never necessary (volunteered) 2 - 8 1 Don't know 3143 Likely Voters 75% 18 4 3 The California Air Resources Board has proposed plans to implement the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), signed into law in 2006. These plans, once adopted, would be rolled out over the next several years. As state leaders confront a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, some have suggested that California should wait to adopt these plans until after the economy and state budget situation have improved. A majority of residents (57%) believe state government should adopt these plans right away, and 36 percent say it should wait until the economy and budget are in better shape. Opinion is again divided along party lines: 68 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of independents favor action now, while 57 percent of Republicans prefer to wait for better economic and budgetary times. Majorities of residents across racial/ethnic, gender, age, education, and income groups believe the state should adopt its plans now. Majorities across regions, except in the Inland Empire (46%), agree. Of those who say action is needed now, 67 percent also say the state should adopt its greenhouse gas reduction plans right away. “When it comes to making efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, should the state government adopt its plans right away, or should it wait until the state economy and budget situation improve to adopt its plans?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind Adopt plans right away 57% 68% 35% 59% Wait until economy and 36 27 57 36 budget improve Don't know 7585 Likely Voters 55% 39 6 July 2008 15 Californians and the Environment LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY When it comes to addressing global warming, a strong majority of residents (66%) think the federal government is not doing enough, while 20 percent say it is doing just enough, and 8 percent say it is doing more than enough. Large majorities of Democrats (83%) and independents (70%) say the federal government is falling short, compared to 43 percent of Republicans. Half of Republicans say the federal government is doing just enough (30%) or more than enough (19%). Half of residents (51%) believe California’s state government could be doing more to address global warming, while 43 percent believe it is already doing just enough (33%) or more than enough (10%). A solid majority of Democrats (63%) think the state is not doing enough, compared to 29 percent of Republicans. Independents are divided (48% not enough, 40% just enough, 9% more than enough). Blacks (63%) and Latinos (61%) are especially likely to say the state is not doing enough. This perception is held by more residents in Los Angeles (59%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (51%) than elsewhere. Of those who believe the effects of global warming have already begun, 60 percent believe the state government is coming up short in addressing the issue. Of those who believe the state should adopt its global warming plans right away, 62 percent also think the state government is not doing enough. More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know “Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 10% 4% 24% 9% 33 29 38 40 51 63 29 48 6493 Likely Voters 14% 34 47 5 Ratings of local government action on global warming are similar to ratings of state government: 52 percent think their local government is not doing enough, while 40 percent believe it is already doing just enough (31%) or more than enough (9%). Partisan differences also exist on this issue. While 62 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents think local government is not doing enough, just 33 percent of Republicans agree. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans say local government is doing just enough (38%) or more than enough (20%). Pluralities across regions think their local governments could be doing more. Of those residents who believe the effects of global warming are already underway, 61 percent think their local government is not doing enough to address this issue. More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know “Overall, do you think that your local government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming?” All Adults 9% Central Valley 10% San Francisco Bay Area 7% Region Los Angeles 8% Orange/ San Diego 12% Inland Empire 6% 31 34 33 25 30 33 52 49 50 58 49 54 87 10 9 9 7 Likely Voters 12% 31 48 9 16 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS POLICY In light of residents’ opinions about government action on global warming, what do they think about the state of California making its own policies, separate from the federal government’s? Two in three residents (66%) and likely voters (67%), and majorities of voters across parties (54% Republicans, 70% independents, 75% Democrats) favor the state making its own policies. The percentage of adults favoring independent state action was similar last year (67%) and has risen 12 points since 2005 (54% to 66%). Reflecting these sentiments, eight in 10 residents (81%) and likely voters (79%) say they favor the 2002 state law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars beginning in 2009. This law is the focus of an ongoing dispute between the state and federal governments and has not been implemented. Since we first asked about this law in 2002, similarly high percentages of residents have expressed support (81% June 2002, 80% July 2003, 81% July 2004, 77% July 2005, 78% July 2006, 84% July 2007, 81% today). Strong majorities across parties and more than three in four residents in all demographic groups favor this law today. 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 81% 89% 67% 79% 79% 16 8 29 17 18 33443 About seven in 10 adults (73%) and likely voters (72%) support the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32, which sets a goal of reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Support has declined somewhat since last July (78% all adults, 76% likely voters). However, when asked about this proposal in 2006, two in three adults (65%) and likely voters (66%) expressed support. This state policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has majority support across parties, although Democrats (83%) and independents (77%) are far more in favor than Republicans (57%). This state law also has support from at least two in three residents across regions and demographic groups. Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (79%) are the most likely to say they favor AB32, while residents in the Inland Empire (68%) are least likely. Whites (70%) are less likely than blacks (77%), Latinos (79%), and Asians (80%) to favor the law. Of those who support California having its own global warming policies, 83 percent favor AB32. 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 73% 83% 57% 77% 17 10 33 15 10 7 10 8 Likely Voters 72% 20 8 July 2008 17 Californians and the Environment CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS POLICY (CONTINUED) The California Air Resources Board has recently proposed plans to implement AB32, the state global warming law, which would involve changes by government, industry, public utilities, manufacturers, and residents. Key to the board’s plans is enactment of the state law to reduce auto emissions, strongly supported by Californians (see page 17), but now on hold because of a disagreement between the state and federal governments. When asked about four other ideas to implement the global warming law, residents also express strong support for each of them. Eighty-seven percent of residents and 86 percent of likely voters favor requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities. This proposal receives support from eight in 10 or more voters across parties and all demographic groups. Ninety-one percent of those who favor the state adopting its plans now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also support this idea. Eighty-three percent of residents and 82 percent of likely voters favor requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions. This idea receives support from seven in 10 or more voters across parties and demographic groups. Of those who favor the state adopting its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions right away, 91 percent favor this idea. About eight in 10 residents (81%) and likely voters (79%) support encouraging local governments to change their land use and transportation planning so that local residents could drive less. The proposal also receives strong support across parties and demographic groups. Eighty-eight percent of those who support the state adopting its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now also support this idea. Finally, about eight in 10 residents (80%) and likely voters (81%) favor a proposal to require increased energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings, and in appliances. This idea is also favored by strong majorities of voters across parties and all demographic groups. Of those who favor the state adopting its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions right away, 86 percent favor this idea. “Please tell me if you favor or oppose the state government adopting the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. How about…” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind …requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities? Favor Oppose Don’t know 87% 91% 82% 90% 11 8 16 8 21 2 2 …requiring industrial plants, oil Favor 83 89 72 87 refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their Oppose 13 9 23 10 emissions? Don’t know 4 2 5 3 …encouraging local governments Favor 81 87 70 85 to change land use and transportation planning so that Oppose 15 11 25 11 people could drive less? Don’t know 4 2 5 4 …requiring an increase in energy Favor 80 87 70 83 efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and Oppose 18 10 28 16 appliances? Don’t know 2 3 2 1 Likely Voters 86% 12 2 82 14 3 79 18 4 81 17 2 18 PPIC Statewide Survey ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY KEY FINDINGS „ Governor Schwarzenegger’s overall job approval rating has dropped from a year ago, but approval of his handling of environmental issues remains similar. Large percentages of Californians give President Bush low approval marks for both his overall performance and his handling of environmental issues. (page 20) „ Sen. Barack Obama continues to hold a double-digit lead over Sen. John McCain in the presidential election. The margin in favor of Obama is also large when likely voters are asked which candidate they trust more to handle environmental issues and energy policy. (page 21) „ California adults narrowly support allowing more oil drilling off the California coast and narrowly oppose building more nuclear power plants, with deeply divided opinions across party lines. By comparison, there is solid support and consensus for increasing fuel efficiency of automobiles and increasing federal funding for research on alternative energy sources. (pages 22, 23) „ Growing proportions of residents say that gasoline prices are causing them financial hardship, and declining percentages of commuters are driving alone to work. Majorities of Californians say that rising gasoline prices have caused them to cut back on their driving, think about buying a more fuel-efficient car, and use alternative means to travel. Lower-income and Latino residents are among the most likely to say they have experienced financial hardships and changed their behavior as a result of rising gas prices. (pages 24, 25) Governor's Approval Ratings 70 60 57 50 40 39 30 Job overall Environmental issues 52 42 47 34 39 32 46 43 Percent all adults 20 10 0 July July July July July 04 05 06 07 08 Oil Drilling off the California Coast 80 Favor Oppose 60 54 50 53 51 52 51 40 39 44 41 42 41 45 Percent all adults 20 Percent all adults 0 July July July July July July 03 04 05 06 07 08 Effect of Increases in Gasoline Prices 100 Percent saying prices have caused financial hardship 80 76 60 67 65 55 57 40 20 0 July Sept July July July 04 05 06 07 08 19 Californians and the Environment ELECTED OFFICIALS’ APPROVAL RATINGS Governor Schwarzenegger’s approval rating today (43% approve, 45% disapprove) is similar to his rating in May and is 9 points lower than last July (52% approve, 34% disapprove). Today, likely voters are somewhat more approving of the governor than all adults. Republicans (57%) are more likely than independents (49%) to approve of the governor’s performance, while half of Democrats (50%) disapprove. Whites (53%) and Asians (50%) are far more likely than blacks (32%) and Latinos (29%) to approve. The governor’s approval rating on handling environmental issues in California (46% approve, 36% disapprove) is similar to his approval rating on the environment last July (47% approve, 31% disapprove). Today, 52 percent of likely voters approve of his performance in this area. Republicans (55%) and independents (51%) approve of his performance, while Democrats are divided (43% approve, 40% disapprove). Whites (53%) and Asians (50%) are again more likely to approve of the governor on the environment than are blacks (39%) and Latinos (35%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling…” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind …his job as governor of California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know 43% 40% 57% 49% 49% 45 50 35 39 42 12 10 8 12 9 …environmental issues in California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know 46 43 55 51 52 36 40 29 34 32 18 17 16 15 16 President Bush’s job approval rating (26%) continues to hover near his low point recorded in March (24% approve, 72% disapprove). Findings are similar among likely voters. Californians’ negative assessments of the president are similar to adults nationwide, according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (28% approve, 69% disapprove). A majority of Republicans (57%) approve of the president, while strong majorities of independents (78%) and Democrats (88%) disapprove. Across racial/ethnic groups, disapproval is greatest among blacks (81%) and Latinos (74%). The president’s approval rating on the environment is similarly low. Just one in four residents (24%) and likely voters (25%) approve of his handling of environmental issues; two in three in each group (66%) disapprove. Strong majorities of Democrats (86%) and independents (73%) disapprove of the president, while 48 percent of Republicans approve. Majorities of residents across regions and demographic groups disapprove of the way President Bush is handling environmental issues. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling…” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind …his job as president of the United States? Approve Disapprove Don’t know 26% 9% 69 88 53 57% 18% 28% 38 78 69 5 43 …environmental issues in the United States? Approve Disapprove Don’t know 24 9 48 19 25 66 86 38 73 66 10 5 14 8 9 20 PPIC Statewide Survey Energy and Environmental Policy 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION With the Democratic and Republican conventions fast approaching, 86 percent of likely voters say they are following news about the candidates at least fairly closely, with 42 percent saying they are following the news very closely. In the November presidential race, California’s likely voters prefer Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain by 15 points (50% to 35%). Obama’s lead over McCain today is similar to his 17-point margin in May (54% to 37%). Today, Obama enjoys strong support among Democrats (79%) and independents (57%), while McCain has strong support among Republicans (72%). Obama leads among both men and women. Among Latino likely voters, Obama leads by a three-to-one margin (65% to 22%), while among whites, support is divided (43% Obama, 41% McCain). Likely voters under age 35 strongly favor Obama over McCain (71% to 20%), while support among likely voters over 55 is divided (41% each). “If the November 4th presidential election were being held today, would you vote for Barack Obama, the Democrat, or John McCain, the Republican?” Likely voters only Barack Obama John McCain Someone else Don't know All Likely Voters 50% 35% 2% 13% Democrat 79 9 1 11 Party Republican 13 72 2 13 Independent 57 21 5 17 Gender Men Women 48 36 4 12 51 34 1 14 Race/Ethnicity* Latino White 65 22 2 11 43 41 3 13 * Sample sizes for Asian and black likely voters are too small for separate analysis. Majorities of California likely voters say they trust Obama over McCain to handle global warming and other environmental issues (52% to 28%) and energy policy (51% to 33%). Strong partisan differences arise, with Democrats and independents favoring Obama and Republicans favoring McCain on environmental issues and energy policy. In addition, Latino likely voters are over three times more likely to say they trust Obama over McCain on each issue. “Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle…” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Barack Obama 52% 80% 19% 56% …global warming and other environmental issues? John McCain Both (volunteered) Neither (volunteered) 28 1 10 8 4 55 17 21 13 18 Don’t know 9 8 11 8 Barack Obama 51 79 16 54 John McCain 33 9 65 27 …energy policy? Both (volunteered) 1 - 1 - Neither (volunteered) 7 4 8 11 Don’t know 8 8 10 8 Latinos 64% 19 2 6 9 64 20 1 6 9 July 2008 21 Californians and the Environment U.S. ENERGY SUPPLY To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil, 86 percent of residents favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the U.S., with 73 percent favoring this action even if it increases the cost of buying a new car. Support for this proposal is high among likely voters and across all political groups, and has been at a similarly high level since we began asking this question in July 2003. Support for increasing automobile fuel efficiency, even with increased costs, is high across regional and demographic groups and is similarly high among men and women and across age groups. Across income groups, two-thirds of residents with household incomes under $40,000 (66%) favor this requirement, even if would be more costly to purchase a new car, and eight in 10 of those with household incomes above $40,000 would agree. Among SUV owners, 72 percent favor improving the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the U.S., even if it costs more to buy a new car. Among non-SUV owners, 74 percent say the same. “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?)” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Favor, even if more costly 73% 80% 68% 81% 78% Favor, but not if more costly 13 11 9 9 8 Oppose 11 7 18 8 11 Don't know 32523 Recent national news coverage and debate regarding offshore oil drilling has increased attention to this domestic energy policy issue. So where do Californians stand? Today, 51 percent of residents and likely voters favor allowing more oil drilling off the California coast, while 45 percent in each group are opposed. This is the first time since we began asking this question in July 2003 that more residents favor than oppose more oil drilling. Support for this proposal has increased since last year among all adults (41% to 51%) and among Republicans (60% to 77%), independents (33% to 44%), and Democrats (29% to 35%). Still, most Democrats (60%) and half of independents (50%) today oppose more drilling off the California coast. Across regions, support for drilling is highest in the Inland Empire (56%), Central Valley (55%), and Orange/San Diego counties (54%); residents in Los Angeles are divided (48% favor, 47% oppose) and residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (54%) oppose more coastal oil drilling. Across racial/ethnic groups, a majority of whites (55%) favor more drilling, a majority of blacks oppose it (53%), and both Asians (47% favor, 47% oppose) and Latinos (48% favor, 46% oppose) are divided. Support for more drilling increases with age, and is slightly higher among men than women (53% to 48%). Favor Oppose Don't know “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 51% 35% 77% 44% 45 60 20 50 4536 Likely Voters 51% 45 4 22 PPIC Statewide Survey Energy and Environmental Policy ALTERNATIVE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY Forty-four percent of residents favor building more nuclear power plants at this time, and 50 percent oppose it. Among likely voters, half (50%) say they would favor more plants, while 44 percent are opposed. Among residents, favor for building more nuclear power plants has increased 7 points since last July (37% favor, 54% oppose). In a similar question asked by the Pew Research Center earlier this year, adults nationwide were also divided on building more nuclear power plants (44% favor, 48% oppose). Across political groups, Republicans (66%) are much more likely to favor this proposal than independents (51%), while Democrats (60%) are much more likely to oppose it. Across regions, opposition to building more nuclear power plants is lowest in Orange/San Diego counties (43%), while it is higher in Los Angeles (58%), the Central Valley (51%), San Francisco Bay Area (48%), and Inland Empire (47%). Across racial/ethnic groups, a majority of whites (55%) favor building more nuclear plants, while a strong majority of Asians (57%), Latinos (62%), and blacks (66%) oppose it. Men are much more likely than women (54% to 34%) to favor more nuclear power plants, and support for building more plants increases 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 44% 34% 66% 51% 50 60 29 42 6657 Likely Voters 50% 44 6 By contrast, Californians are highly supportive of a proposal to increase federal funding for renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydrogen technology. Fully 83 percent of residents and likely voters favor this proposal. According to the Pew survey conducted earlier this year, Californians are as likely as adults nationwide (81% favor, 14% oppose) to favor the proposal. The same high levels of support were found among Californians in a similar question we asked last year about spending more government money to develop renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power (84% favor, 12% oppose). Moreover, at least three in four in every political group favor this alternative energy proposal, with Democrats (88%), independents (86%), and Republicans (76%) in rare agreement on energy policy. Support for increasing federal funding for research of alternate energy technologies is high across all regions of the state and all demographic groups. Asians (88%) and whites (84%) have the highest levels of support for increasing this federal funding, followed by Latinos (81%) and blacks (77%). Support for increasing federal funding for these technologies increases with education. “How about increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar, and hydrogen technology?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Favor 83% 88% 76% 86% 83% Oppose 15 10 23 13 15 Don't know 22112 July 2008 23 Californians and the Environment AUTOMOBILE DRIVING TRENDS A five-year trend shows an 11-point decrease in the number of employed Californians commuting to work by driving alone (73% July 2003, 62% today). What are they doing instead? Compared to a year ago, there has been somewhat of an increase in carpooling to work (13% July 2007, 17% today). Self reports of walking, bicycling, or working from home are similar to what Californians reported last year (12%), but have increased somewhat since 2003 (8% July 2003, 13% today). Only seven percent of Californians say they take a public bus or transit to work today, which is the same as last year and similar to 2003. “How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle?” Employed adults only (full- or part-time) July 03 July 04 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 Drive alone 73% 71% 67% 70% 66% 62% Carpool 13 12 15 14 13 17 Walk/bicycle/work at home 8 10 11 8 12 13 Take public bus or transit 557677 Other 12 - 221 While more than half of employed Californians in all age groups report that they commute to work by driving alone, young adults (52%) are much less likely to do so than middle-aged adults (68%) and older adults (62%). An overwhelming percentage of residents who earn over $80,000 (70%) drive alone to work, while under half (44%) of those who earn less than $40,000 do the same. Compared to higherincome earners, more lower-income earners carpool (24%), use transit (13%), or walk, bicycle, or work at home (18%). Regionally, 58 percent of Los Angeles residents report that they drive alone to work, compared to slightly higher rates for the Central Valley (63%), San Francisco Bay Area (63%), Orange/San Diego counties (64%), and Inland Empire (64%). Los Angeles (11%) and San Francisco Bay Area (10%) residents are the most likely to use transit. Inland Empire residents are the least likely to use transit (3%), but the most likely to carpool (26%). While majorities across racial/ethnic groups commute to work by driving alone, Latinos (52%) are far less likely to do so than whites (69%) and are more likely to carpool (25% Latinos, 10% whites) and take public transit (12% Latinos, 4% whites). “How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle?” Employed adults only (full- or part-time) Drive alone All Employed Adults 62% Race/Ethnicity* Latino White 52% 69% Household Income Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more 44% 66% 70% Carpool 17 25 10 24 15 13 Walk/bicycle/work at home 13 11 16 18 12 11 Take public bus or transit 7 12 4 13 6 4 Other 1- 1 112 * Sample sizes for Asian and black employed adults are too small for separate analysis. Overall, 24 percent of Californians today say that they own or lease an SUV and 5 percent own or lease a hybrid vehicle, which is similar to reports from 2007 and 2006. Among Californians who drive alone to work, 31 percent say that they own or lease an SUV, and 6 percent say that they own or lease a hybrid. SUV owners (69%) are somewhat more likely than all employed adults (62%) to drive alone and are just as likely to carpool (17%), but are less likely to walk, bicycle or work at home (9%) or to use transit (4%). 24 PPIC Statewide Survey Energy and Environmental Policy EFFECTS OF GASOLINE PRICES An overwhelming number of Californians today (76%) report that increases in gasoline prices have caused financial hardship for themselves or their household. Californians say that rising gasoline prices have caused hardship at a somewhat higher rate than adults nationwide (71%), according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. There has been a sharp increase since last year in the number of Californians saying that high gas prices have caused hardship (65% July 2007, 76% today). “Have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household?” All Adults Asian Race/Ethnicity Black Latino White Household Income Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more Yes 76% 73% 79% 91% 67% 88% 77% 66% No 23 25 19 9 33 12 23 34 Don't know 1 2 2 - - - - - Strong majorities across income groups report hardship, yet there are differences (88% under $40,000, 66% over $80,000). Latinos (91%) are more likely than blacks (79%), Asians (73%), and whites (67%) to report hardship. Inland Empire residents (85%) are most likely to report hardship, followed by Los Angeles (79%), Central Valley (78%), Orange/San Diego (72%), and San Francisco Bay Area residents (68%). Rising gas prices have contributed to more California adults considering getting a more fuel-efficient vehicle this year (74%) compared to 2007 (69%), 2006 (69%), and 2005 (64%). Californians are also far more likely to have cut back significantly on how much they drive (69% today, 54% 2006, 43% 2005), and many this year report using alternative means of travel (54%). According to a recent survey by USA Today/Gallup, Californians (69%) are similar to adults nationwide (71%) in considering a more fuelefficient vehicle, but are much more likely to have used alternative means of transportation (54% California, 31% nationwide). In a survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, adults nationwide (66%) are about as likely as Californians (69%) to report cutting back significantly on how much they drive. Across California’s demographic groups, Latinos, lower-income, and younger adults are more likely than whites, upper-income, and older adults to report reacting to rising gas prices in these three ways. SUV drivers are similar to all adults in thinking about buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle (76%) and cutting back on driving (67%), but report a much lower rate of using alternative modes of travel (44%). “As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have—or have not—done each of the following? Have you…” All Adults …seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? …cut back significantly on how much you drive? Yes No NA/ Don’t know Yes No NA 74% 16 10 69 24 7 Asian 75% 14 11 66 22 12 Race/Ethnicity Black Latino 68% 81% 26 13 66 78 77 17 17 56 White 69% Household Income Under $40,000 76% $40,000 to $79,999 75% $80,000 or more 73% 18 15 15 16 13 9 10 11 64 75 73 63 29 16 22 31 79 5 6 …used alternative means of travel, such as bus, subway, bicycle, or walking? Yes No NA 54 59 57 66 44 44 34 42 33 54 27112 64 33 3 53 46 1 42 57 1 July 2008 25 REGIONAL MAP 26 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 from Sonja Petek, project manager for this survey, survey research associates Dean Bonner and Jennifer Paluch, and survey intern Nicole Fox. This survey was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation as part of a three-year grant on K-12 and higher education, environment, and population issues. We benefited from discussions with Hewlett program staff and others; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were determined solely by Mark Baldassare and the survey staff. Findings in this report are based on a telephone survey of 2,504 California adult residents, including 2,253 interviewed on landline telephones and 251 interviewed on cell phones. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days from July 8 to 22, 2008. Interviews took an average of 18 minutes to complete. Landline interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All landline telephone exchanges in California were eligible for selection and the sample telephone numbers 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. Cell phone interviews were included in this survey to account for the growing number of Californians who use cell phones. These interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of cell phone numbers. All cell phone numbers with California area codes were eligible for selection and the sample telephone numbers were called up to eight times to increase the likelihood of reaching an eligible respondent. Once a cell phone user was reached, it was verified that this person was age 18 or older, a resident of California, and in a safe place to continue the survey (e.g., not driving). Cell phone respondents were offered a small reimbursement for their time to help defray the potential cost of the call. Cell phone interviews were conducted with adults who have cell phone service only and with those who have both a cell phone and landline service in the household. Landline and cell phone interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean, according to respondents’ preferences. 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, Inc. translated the survey into Spanish, with assistance from Renatta DeFever. Abt SRBI Inc. translated the survey into Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean, and conducted all interviewing. With assistance from Abt SRBI, we used recent U.S. Census and state figures 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. Abt SRBI used data from the 2006 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for the Pacific Census Division and from the JanuaryJuly 2007 NHIS to estimate landline and cell phone service in California and to compare it against landline and cell phone service reported in the survey. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any differences in demographics and telephone service. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,504 adults 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 27 Californians and the Environment 1,925 registered voters, it is +/- 2.5 percent; for the 1,401 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” refers to 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 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 four self-identified racial/ethnic groups: Asian, black, Latino, and non-Hispanic white. We also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents (i.e., registered as “decline to state”). We also analyze the responses of likely voters—those who are the most likely to participate in the state’s elections. We compare current PPIC Statewide Survey results to those in earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys and to those in recent surveys by ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Gallup, The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, and USA Today/Gallup. 28 PPIC Statewide Survey QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT July 8-22, 2008 2,504 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? 43% approve 45 disapprove 12 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 46% approve 36 disapprove 18 don’t know 3. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 15% good times 78 bad times 7 don’t know 4. On another topic, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [code, don’t read] 23% air pollution, vehicle emissions 12 gas prices 10 energy, oil drilling 10 global warming, global climate change, greenhouse gases 10 loss of forests, forest fires, wildfires 5 water pollution 5 water supply 3 pollution in general 2 immigration, immigrants 2 landfill, garbage, waste 9 other 9 don’t know 5. 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? 34% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 29 not a problem 6. 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? 17% very satisfied 41 somewhat satisfied 24 somewhat dissatisfied 17 very dissatisfied 1 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? 21% very serious 37 somewhat serious 38 not too serious 3 not at all serious (volunteered) 1 don’t know 8. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region? 48% yes 46 no 6 don’t know 29 Californians and the Environment 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?) 11% yes, respondent 25 yes, someone in immediate family 7 yes, both 57 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?”] 23% personal vehicle emissions 18 commercial vehicle emissions 13 industry and agriculture 12 pollution from outside the area 11 population growth and development 9 weather and geography 9 all of the above (volunteered) 2 something else (specify) 3 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 11 to 14] 11.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and SUVs (sport-utility vehicles)? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 64% yes, even if more costly 7 yes, but not if more costly 2 yes, but don’t drive/won’t buy or lease another vehicle 22 no 5 don’t know 12.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? 58% yes 34 no 8 don’t know 30 PPIC Statewide Survey 13.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? 79% yes 18 no 3 don’t know 14.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses? 80% yes 17 no 3 don’t know 15.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? 61% favor 30 oppose 9 don’t know 16.On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen—[rotate order] (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? 64% already begun 5 within a few years 8 within your lifetime 10 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 10 will never happen 3 don’t know 17.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? 80% right away 15 not necessary yet 2 neither, never necessary (volunteered) 3 don’t know 18.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 27 somewhat serious 9 not too serious 9 not at all serious 3 don’t know Next, from what you’ve read and heard, please tell me which of these statements is closer to your view. [rotate questions 19a and 19b; rotate responses in same order] 19a.The state’s current drought is [rotate] (1) mostly a result of global warming, [or] (2) mostly a result of natural weather patterns. 37% global warming 46 natural weather patterns 10 both (volunteered) 2 neither (volunteered) 5 don’t know 19b.The state’s current wildfires are [rotate] (1) mostly a result of global warming, [or] (2) mostly a result of natural weather patterns. 27% global warming 56 natural weather patterns 8 both (volunteered) 5 neither (volunteered) 4 don’t know Next, please tell me whether you favor or oppose the following state laws that are being used to address global warming. [rotate questions 20 and 21] 20.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? 81% favor 16 oppose 3 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 21.What about the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020? 73% favor 17 oppose 10 don’t know Next, please tell me if you favor or oppose the state government adopting the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. [rotate questions 22 to 25] 22.How about requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities? 87% favor 11 oppose 2 don’t know 23.How about requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances? 80% favor 18 oppose 2 don’t know 24.How about requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions? 83% favor 13 oppose 4 don’t know 25.How about encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less? 81% favor 15 oppose 4 don’t know 26.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? 66% favor 28 oppose 6 don’t know July 2008 31 Californians and the Environment 26a.When it comes to making efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, should the state government [rotate] (1) adopt its plans right away [or should it] (2) wait until the state economy and budget situation improve to adopt its plans? 57% adopt plans right away 36 wait until economy and budget improve 7 don’t know 27.Do you think it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, or not? (if yes: To reduce the effects of global warming will we have to make major sacrifices, or can technology solve the problem without requiring major sacrifices?) 51% yes, with major sacrifices 17 yes, technology can solve the problem 7 yes, don’t know 18 no, not possible 7 don’t know 28.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 69 disapprove 5 don’t know 29.Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 24% approve 66 disapprove 10 don’t know [rotate order for questions 30 to 32] 30.Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 8% more than enough 20 just enough 66 not enough 6 don’t know 31.Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 10% more than enough 33 just enough 51 not enough 6 don’t know 32.Overall, do you think that your local government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 9% more than enough 31 just enough 52 not enough 8 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 33 to 36] 33.How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if favor: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 73% favor, even if more costly 13 favor, but not if more costly 11 oppose 3 don’t know 34.How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 51% favor 45 oppose 4 don’t know 35.How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 44% favor 50 oppose 6 don’t know 32 PPIC Statewide Survey 36.How about increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar, and hydrogen technology? 83% favor 15 oppose 2 don’t know 37.Next, have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? 76% yes, caused hardship 23 no, have not caused hardship 1 don’t know As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have—or have not— done each of the following? [rotate questions 38 to 40] 38.Have you cut back significantly on how much you drive? 69% yes 24 no 4 don’t drive/don’t have a car (volunteered) 3 yes, have cut back, but not significantly (volunteered) 39.Have you seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? 74% yes 16 no 6 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 40.Have you used alternative means of travel, such as bus, subway, bicycle, or walking? 54% yes 44 no 2 already do this/don’t drive/don’t have a car (volunteered) Questionnaire and Results 41.Next, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote in California? 77% yes [ask q41a] 23 no [skip to q41b] 41a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [skip to q42] 34 Republican [skip to q42] 4 another party (specify) [skip to q42] 19 independent [ask q41b] 41b.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 19% Republican Party 47 Democratic Party 26 neither (volunteered) 8 don’t know [responses recorded for questions 42 to 45 are for likely voters only] 42.If the November 4th presidential election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate names] (1) Barack Obama, the Democrat, [or] (2) John McCain, the Republican? 50% Barack Obama, the Democrat 35 John McCain, the Republican 2 someone else (specify) 13 don’t know [rotate questions 43 and 44] 43.Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle global warming and other environmental issues? [rotate names] 52% Barack Obama 28 John McCain 1 both (volunteered) 10 neither (volunteered) 9 don’t know July 2008 33 Californians and the Environment 44.Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle energy policy? [rotate names] 51% Barack Obama 33 John McCain 1 both (volunteered) 7 neither (volunteered) 8 don’t know 45.How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2008 presidential election? 42% very closely 44 fairly closely 12 not too closely 2 not at all closely 46.Next, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 11% very liberal 19 somewhat liberal 30 middle-of-the-road 24 somewhat conservative 12 very conservative 4 don’t know 47.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 26% great deal 37 fair amount 29 only a little 8 none [d1-d5: demographic questions] D6. [if employed full or part time] How do you usually commute to work? 62% drive alone 17 carpool 7 take public bus or transit 5 walk 3 bicycle 5 work at home (volunteered) 1 other (specify) D7.Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sport-utility vehicle)? 24% yes 76 no D7a.Do you personally own or lease a hybrid vehicle? 5% yes 95 no [d8-d18: demographic questions] 34 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 Executive Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Washington Center 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 Robert K. Ross, M.D. President and Chief Executive Officer The California Endowment 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 Emeritus 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 Ruben Barrales President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, 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 Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Leon E. Panetta Director The Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy 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 Emeritus Great Valley Center Copyright © 2008 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 600 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) "

S 708MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(107) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-the-environment-july-2008/s_708mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8666) ["ID"]=> int(8666) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:39:39" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3937) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 708MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_708mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_708MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1291726" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(94961) "july 2008 &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 is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute’s goal is to raise public awareness and to give elected representatives and other decisionmakers a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. The institute’s research focuses on the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including economic development, education, environment and resources, governance, population, public finance, and social and health policy. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. 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 600 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 Air Pollution Global Warming Energy and Environmental Policy Regional Map Methodology Questionnaire and Results 1 3 7 13 19 26 27 29 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 88th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 187,000 Californians. This survey is the eighth 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 to raise public awareness about environment, education, and population issues. The current survey focuses on the related issues of air quality, global warming, and energy and the environment because these are current topics of public policy discussion in local, state, and federal government. California public opinion is relevant for several reasons. The state has several regions with high air pollution levels. State residents have dealt with significant multi-year increases in gasoline prices. The California coastline has been the focus of a federal policy debate on expanding offshore oil drilling. California has taken the lead nationally in efforts to address issues of air quality, global warming, and alternative energy. In 2002, California passed the Clean Cars Act, which has been adopted by more than a dozen other states, and is the subject of an ongoing dispute between the state and federal governments. California is preparing to implement its landmark Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. This survey presents the responses of 2,504 adult residents interviewed in multiple languages and reached by landline and cell phone throughout the state. This survey examined the following: „ Air quality and health issues, including perceptions of regional air pollution and its threat to individual health; beliefs about the causes of air pollution; standards that residents are willing to support to improve air quality; and perceptions of the most important environment issue facing the state today. „ Global warming, including perceptions of its onset and effects on California’s future; attitudes about when action should be taken to curb global warming and on the role of local, state, and federal government in that effort; and support for state laws addressing global warming and for several proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. „ Energy and environment policy, including approval ratings for the governor and the president on their handling of environment issues and for their overall job performance; presidential election preferences and level of trust in candidates to handle environment and energy issues; opinions about addressing U.S. energy needs through higher fuel efficiency standards, more offshore oil drilling, new nuclear power plants, and increased federal funding for alternative energy sources; automobile driving trends 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 the Inland Empire); among Asians, blacks, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites; across age, education, and income levels, and across political groups. 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 Californians Back Offshore Drilling by Slim Margin GAS PRICES SPUR CHANGE IN VIEWS, BEHAVIOR — BUT RESIDENTS STILL WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 30, 2008 — Fifty-one percent of Californians favor more oil drilling off the coast – a 10-point increase since July 2007 – according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). This is the first time since 2003, when PPIC first posed the question, that more Californians favor offshore drilling than oppose it (45%), a shift caused in large part by a surge in support among Republicans. It is also one of many reactions to soaring gas prices that the PPIC survey reveals. The survey was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and is the eighth in a series about Californians and the environment. As the national debate intensifies over how to respond to rising energy costs in a lagging economy, Californians report that they are changing their behavior. The number of workers who drive to work alone has dropped 11 points in five years (73% 2003, 62% 2008). Nearly seven in 10 residents (69%) report cutting back significantly on their driving, and nearly three in four (74%) are seriously considering a more fuel-efficient car the next time they buy a vehicle. WORRYING ABOUT WARMING Despite the pain at the pump, residents are concerned that global warming is a threat to California, which has the nation’s toughest goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Half of Californians (52%) say global warming is a very serious threat to the state’s economy and quality of life, and more than six in 10 (64%) say its effects have already begun, a 7-point increase from 2005. But here, too, a partisan divide exists, with nearly seven in 10 Democrats (67%) saying global warming is a very serious threat, compared to about half of independents (49%) and just one in four Republicans (25%). Similarly, 74 percent of Democrats say the effects of warming have already begun, compared to 64 percent of independents and just 41 percent of Republicans. Majorities of Californians say governments are not doing enough to address global warming at any level – federal (66%), state (51%), or local (52%). However, opinion is again divided along party lines, with less than half of Republicans saying that federal (43%), state (29%), or local (33%) governments are not doing enough about global warming. The barrage of bad news about the economy has not dampened residents’ enthusiasm for taking immediate action against global warming. Eight in 10 (80%) believe steps should be taken right away, a percentage that has increased 7 points since 2003. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents express this view. Californians disagree with the notion that state leaders, who must fill a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, should wait to implement AB32, the 2006 law that set goals to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly six in 10 (57%) say the state should take steps right away, while a little over a third (36%) say that government should wait until the economy and budget have improved. 3 Californians and the Environment “Tough economic times have not diminished the importance of environmental issues for Californians,” says Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of PPIC. “The environment is seen as a matter of health and well-being, and residents don’t want to cut corners there.” “At the same time, Californians are living with the financial hardship of higher gas prices, and they’re changing their behavior. They’re driving less, which is an environmental win because auto emissions increase global warming. The issue for the state’s leaders is to transform Californians’ values and their day-to-day economic challenges into a policy that moves the state forward.” TRANSIT ROUTINES SHIFT – MAINLY FOR YOUNGER, POORER COMMUTERS Three in four Californians (76%) say that increases in gasoline prices have caused financial hardship in their households. A majority of workers (62%) report that they drive alone to work, but more workers are carpooling (17% today, 13% 2007). Since last year, about the same percentage of workers report walking, bicycling, or working at home (13% today, 12% 2007), or taking public transit (7% today and in 2007), perhaps reflecting that these commuting choices are not available to all Californians. Those who are richer and older are more likely to drive to work alone: An overwhelming percentage (70%) of residents with household incomes above $80,000 are solo commuters, compared to less than half (44%) of those with incomes under $40,000. While more than 68 percent of Californians between ages 35 and 54 drive to work alone, 52 percent of Californians between ages 18 and 34 do. Among Californians who drive to work alone, 31 percent own or lease an SUV and 6 percent own or lease a hybrid. WHERE SHOULD THE ENERGY COME FROM? POLITICAL VIEWS VARY How should the nation meet its energy needs? The new support for offshore oil drilling (51% today, 41% 2007) has come from all adults -- Republicans (77%, up from 60%), independents (44%, up from 33%), and Democrats (35%, up from 29%). Still, most Democrats (60%) and half of independents (50%) oppose more drilling. Support for building more nuclear power plants has also increased. Four in 10 (44%) residents support it and half (50%) are opposed. The partisan divide is wide on this issue, with Republicans supporting it (66% in favor, 29% opposed), independents slightly in favor (51% in favor, 42% opposed), and Democrats opposed (60% opposed, 34% in favor). But there is bipartisan support for alternative proposals to meet the nation's energy needs. More than eight in 10 Californians (83%) support federal funding for research on renewable technologies, such as wind, solar, and hydrogen. Across political parties, more than three in four voters agree with this view. Seven in 10 Californians say automakers should be required to significantly improve fuel efficiency in cars, even if this increases the cost of buying a car. This view also has strong backing across party lines, with support from 81 percent of independents, 80 percent of Democrats, and 68 percent of Republicans. TOP WORRIES: AIR POLLUTION, GAS AND ENERGY, GLOBAL WARMING, WILDFIRES Californians rank air pollution as the most important environmental issue facing the state. This issue has consistently ranked number one since PPIC began asking this open-ended question eight years ago. But air quality has dipped in importance, with 33 percent of residents listing it as the top issue in 2000, 29 percent in 2007, and 23 percent this year. This decline comes as two other issues – energy costs and the state’s wildfires – have significantly increased in importance on Californians’ list of concerns. The percentage of residents who named gas 4 PPIC Statewide Survey Press Release prices as their top concern increased 11 points since last year (12% today, 1% 2007). The next most frequently named issues are energy and oil drilling (10% today, 6% 2007), global warming (10% today, 11% 2007), and wildfires and loss of forests (10% today, 4% 2007). Although air quality is the most frequently named issue across the state’s regions and demographic groups, big differences arise when Californians are asked about the air they breathe. Seven in 10 residents statewide say air pollution is a big problem (34%) or somewhat of a problem (37%) in their region. But those in the Central Valley (51%) and Los Angeles (47%) are much more likely than residents in the Inland Empire (30%), San Francisco Bay Area (22%), and Orange/San Diego counties (19%) to say it is a big problem. Fewer than one in four Californians are very satisfied (17%) with the air quality in their region, with residents in Los Angeles (10%), the Central Valley (12%), and the Inland Empire (14%) far less likely than those in the San Francisco Bay Area (20%) and Orange/San Diego counties (23%) to hold this view. Nearly one in three (31%) Central Valley residents are very dissatisfied with the air quality in their region. There is a wide racial and ethnic divide in perceptions of regional air quality, with whites the most likely (23%) to be very satisfied, followed by Asians (16%), Latinos (11%), and blacks (7%). BLACKS, LATINOS VIEW AIR QUALITY AS THREAT Nearly six in 10 Californians (58%) say regional air pollution is at least somewhat of a serious health threat to themselves or their immediate families, a finding that has changed little since PPIC first asked the question in 2003. But here, too, there is a racial and ethnic divide, with blacks and Latinos (31% each) much more likely than whites (16%) or Asians (8%) to say air pollution is a very serious health threat. Asked whether air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas, Californians overall are evenly divided (48% yes, 46% no). But Latinos are far more likely to hold this view (70%) than Asians (55%), blacks (48%), or whites (33%). CLEARING THE AIR: STRICT RULES GET STRONG BACKING Solid majorities of residents favor tougher regulations to combat regional air pollution, but far more favor stricter curbs on commercial and industrial activities (79%) or diesel-fueled vehicles like trucks or buses (80%) than on agriculture (58%). A bill in the legislature that is intended to ease air pollution and traffic congestion at California seaports by charging a container fee has the support of 61 percent of residents. MORE KEY FINDINGS: War on warming is worth waging, requires sacrifices – Page 15 Three in four Californians (75%) believe it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, while 18 percent believe it isn’t. About half (51%) believe people will have to make major sacrifices to reduce global warming’s impact, while 17 percent say technology can do so without major sacrifices necessary. California greening: Residents back state against feds – Page 17 Majorities of voters across parties say the state should continue to set its own policies on global warming, and they back the 2002 law – which has been the focus of a battle with the federal government – to reduce emissions from new cars beginning in 2009. Schwarzenegger, Bush approval ratings down – Page 20 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s job approval rating (43% approve, 45% disapprove) is down 9 points since July 2007, but is about the same as in May of this year. His approval rating on handling the environment July 2008 5 Californians and the Environment (46% approve, 36% disapprove) is similar to 2007. President Bush’s job approval rating (26% approve, 69% disapprove) continues to hover near the historic low recorded in March of this year (24% approve, 72% disapprove). Ratings of his handling of the environment are similar (24% approve, 66% disapprove). Obama leads McCain, 50 percent to 35 percent -- Page 21 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has strong support among Democratic (79%) and independent (57%) likely voters. His lead is similar to the 17-point advantage he held over Sen. John McCain in May, when Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton was still a contender. Obama is the choice of men, women, and Latinos, while whites are divided (43% Obama, 41% McCain). McCain has strong support (72%) among Republicans. Regardless of who they support, likely voters trust Obama over McCain to handle environmental issues (52% to 28%) and energy policy (51% to 33%). ABOUT THE SURVEY This is the eighth PPIC Statewide Survey on the environment since 2000. It was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. It is based on a telephone survey of 2,504 adult residents interviewed in multiple languages, and reached by landline and on cell phones throughout the state. Interviews were conducted from July 8 to July 22, 2008. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and is larger for subgroups. For more information on methodology, see page 27. 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. This is the 88th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 187,000 Californians. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. 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. 6 PPIC Statewide Survey AIR POLLUTION KEY FINDINGS „ Californians continue to name air pollution as the most important state environmental issue, and most residents say that air pollution is at least somewhat of a problem in their region. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos and blacks are far more likely to call regional air pollution a big problem, and residents in the Central Valley and Los Angeles are much more likely than those in other regions to hold this view. (pages 8, 9) „ Majorities of Californians say that air pollution is at least somewhat of a health threat to themselves and their families, and nearly half believe that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than in other areas in their region. Again, there are major differences across regions and racial/ethnic groups. (page 10) „ Many residents are willing to see tougher air pollution standards on cars, even if it makes them more expensive to buy or lease. Many Californians would like to see tougher air pollution standards on farm and agricultural activities, commercial and industrial activities, and diesel engine vehicles, and they favor efforts to clean up air pollution caused by port traffic. Support for increased standards to improve air quality is strong across regions and demographic groups, with differences across political parties. (pages 11, 12) Regional Air Pollution 60 Percent saying it is a big problem Percent all adults 50 40 45 40 30 20 21 27 10 0 Asian Black Latino White Personal Health Threat of Regional Air Pollution 80 Somewhat serious Very serious Percent all adults 60 38 40 37 20 31 0 C ent ral Valley 15 SF Bay Area 45 35 35 27 15 19 LA Orange/ Inland San Empire D ie go Willingness to See Tougher Air Pollution Standards on Automobiles 100 Percent saying yes, even if more costly 80 60 64 72 64 54 40 Percent all adults 20 0 All adults Dem Rep Ind 7 Californians and the Environment MOST IMPORTANT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE Californians continue to say that air pollution is the most important environmental issue facing the state today, but the percentage saying so has dropped 10 points since June 2000 (33% to 23%). No single factor explains this decline. A sizable percentage of residents today cite gas prices (12%) as their top environmental concern, an increase of 11 points since last July (1% to 12%). With wildfires in the news, one in 10 Californians identify the loss of forests as a top issue—the highest level reported in the eight-year period, and up from 4 percent last year. Energy and oil drilling, along with global warming, are also major environmental issues concerning Californians (10% each). The percent naming energy and oil drilling is up 4 points from last year, while the percentage naming global warming is similar to July 2007 (11%). “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top five issues mentioned in 2008 June 00 June 02 July 03 July 04 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 Air pollution 33% 34% 30% 33% 26% 24% 29% 23% Gas prices - - - - 1 2 1 12 Energy, oil drilling - 2 3 5 6 12 6 10 Global warming - - 1 1 2 8 11 10 Loss of forests, wildfires 1 - - - 3 2 4 10 Across California’s regions, air pollution is deemed the most important environmental issue facing the state. However, Central Valley residents (28%) are the most likely to name air pollution, followed by Los Angeles (24%), San Francisco Bay Area (21%), Inland Empire (20%), and Orange/San Diego (18%) residents. Air pollution is also the top issue of concern across all demographic groups. Across racial/ethnic groups, air pollution is mentioned by 26 percent of both Asians and blacks, 23 percent of Latinos, and 21 percent of whites as the top state environmental issue. Across parties, independents (26%), Democrats (24%), and Republicans (17%) all name air pollution as the most important environmental issue, but Republicans (16%) are most likely to name energy and oil drilling as their main concern, with Democrats (14%) most likely to name global warming. When it comes to gas prices, 16 percent of Inland Empire residents name this issue as their highest concern, followed by residents in Los Angeles (14%), the San Francisco Bay Area (12%), Orange/San Diego counties (11%), and the Central Valley (8%). Blacks (20%) are much more likely than whites (9%), and somewhat more likely than Latinos (15%) and Asians (13%) to say that gas prices are of highest concern. Adults under 35 (17%) are nearly twice as likely as adults 55 and older (9%) to say that gas prices are of primary importance. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top five issues mentioned by all adults Air pollution All Adults 23% Central Valley 28% San Francisco Bay Area 21% Region Los Angeles 24% Orange/ San Diego 18% Inland Empire 20% Gas prices 12 8 12 14 11 16 Energy, oil drilling 10 8 11 10 9 10 Global warming 10 7 13 13 9 8 Loss of forests, wildfires 10 13 11 6 6 8 8 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution REGIONAL PERCEPTIONS OF AIR POLLUTION When residents were asked how much of a problem air pollution is in their region, seven in 10 describe it as a big (34%) or somewhat (37%) of a problem. Central Valley (51%) and Los Angeles (47%) residents are much more likely than those in the Inland Empire (30%), the San Francisco Bay Area (22%), and Orange/San Diego counties (19%) to say air pollution in their region is a big problem. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (45%) and blacks (40%) are much more likely than whites (27%) and Asians (21%) to say air pollution is a big problem. This belief decreases with higher age and income. The perception among all adults that regional air pollution is a big problem is similar to last year (35%); however, across regions, the percent saying air pollution is a big problem has increased 9 points among Central Valley residents and has dropped 19 points among Inland Empire residents. Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem “Would you say that air pollution is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region?” All Adults 34% Central Valley 51% San Francisco Bay Area 22% Region Los Angeles 47% Orange/ San Diego 19% 37 30 47 35 42 29 19 31 18 39 Inland Empire 30% 35 35 When asked how satisfied they are with air quality in their region today, nearly six in 10 Californians say they are very (17%) or somewhat satisfied (41%), while four in 10 say they are somewhat (24%) or very dissatisfied (17%). The percentage of Californians who say they are satisfied with the air quality in their region today (58%) is slightly lower than it was last July (62%) and July 2006 (62%). Today, fewer than one in four Californians across regions say they are very satisfied with the air quality in their region. Residents in Los Angeles (10%), the Central Valley (12%), and the Inland Empire (14%) are less likely than those in the San Francisco Bay Area (20%) and Orange/San Diego counties (23%) to hold this view. Residents in the Central Valley (31%) are the most likely to say they are very dissatisfied with the air quality in their region today. Across racial/ethnic groups, whites (23%) are the most likely to say they are very satisfied with regional air quality, followed by Asians (16%), Latinos (11%), and blacks (7%). “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today?” Very satisfied All Adults 17% Central Valley 12% San Francisco Bay Area 20% Region Los Angeles 10% Orange/ San Diego 23% Somewhat satisfied 41 29 44 43 48 Somewhat dissatisfied 24 28 26 27 20 Very dissatisfied 17 31 10 19 9 Don't know 1- - 1 - Inland Empire 14% 47 23 15 1 When asked about sources of regional air pollution, four in 10 Californians (41%) respond correctly that vehicle emissions are the lead contributor; 23 percent specify personal vehicle emissions, while 18 percent cite commercial vehicle emissions. Other causes? About one in 10 residents believes air pollution is mostly caused by industry and agriculture (13%), pollution from outside the area (12%), population growth and development (11%), or weather and geography (9%). At least four in 10 residents have blamed vehicle emissions for regional air pollution since we first asked this question in July 2003. July 2008 9 Californians and the Environment AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH Nearly six in 10 Californians believe that regional air pollution is a very (21%) or somewhat serious (37%) health threat to themselves and their immediate families. Since we first asked this question in 2003, about six in 10 Californians have consistently said that air pollution is at least a somewhat serious health threat. Today, there are large differences across racial/ethnic groups, with blacks and Latinos (31% each) much more likely than whites (16%) and Asians (8%) to say that air pollution is a very serious health threat. There are also differences across regions, with residents in the Central Valley (31%) and Los Angeles (27%) much more likely than residents of the Inland Empire (19%), Orange/San Diego counties (15%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (15%) to say that air pollution is a very serious health threat. This belief is greater among less educated and lower-income adults. This view is also held more by women than men. “How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” All Adults Asian Race/Ethnicity Black Latino White Very serious 21% 8% 31% 31% 16% Somewhat serious 37 46 39 43 33 Not too serious 38 42 29 25 46 Not at all serious (volunteered) 33 - 14 Don't know 11 1 - 1 Californians are divided on whether air pollution is a more serious heath threat in lower-income areas in their regions (48% yes, 46% no). The percentage holding this perception has been consistent over time, with about half of residents holding this view in 2007 (50% yes, 42% no) and 2006 (47% yes, 45% no). Today, this belief is more widely held in Los Angeles (61%), the San Francisco Bay Area (51%), and Orange/San Diego counties (50%) than in the Inland Empire (42%) and the Central Valley (30%). Latinos (70%) are far more likely to hold this view than other racial/ethnic groups. The belief that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas is more widely held by younger, less educated, and less affluent residents. This perception also cuts across party lines, with 55 percent of Democrats saying air pollution is a greater threat in lower-income areas and 64 percent of Republicans saying it is not. 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 Asian Race/Ethnicity Black Latino 48% 55% 48% 70% 46 39 43 27 66 9 3 White 33% 61 6 Given the link between poor air quality and respiratory problems, how many residents report suffering from these conditions? About four in 10 Californians (43%) say they or a family member suffer from asthma or respiratory problems, 6 points higher than in July 2003 (37%). Residents in the Central Valley (50%) are most likely to say they or a family member suffer from asthma, followed by those in the Inland Empire (44%), San Francisco Bay Area (44%), Los Angeles (41%), and Orange/San Diego counties (38%). Blacks (56%) and Latinos (48%) are more likely than whites (39%) and Asians (31%), and women (50%) are more likely than men (35%), to report such a condition. 10 PPIC Statewide Survey Air Pollution AIR QUALITY POLICIES Residents were asked about several ideas for reducing regional air pollution and solid majorities of them express support for each idea. Seven in 10 residents would support tougher standards on new cars, and 64 percent that say they favor this proposal even if it meant their next vehicle would be more expensive to buy or lease. In 2005 and 2006, similarly high proportions of residents expressed support. Today, more than half of residents across political groups (72% Democrats, 64% independents, 54% Republicans) and in all regions and demographic groups support tougher standards despite the costs. Fifty-eight percent of residents and 55 percent of likely voters say they would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities, levels similar to those of last July and July 2006. Today, a majority of Californians across regions hold this belief; residents in Los Angeles (62%), the Central Valley (59%), and San Francisco Bay Area (59%) are the most likely . Across political groups, Democrats (67%) and independents (58%) are more likely than Republicans (44%) to hold this view. Across racial/ethnic groups, Asians (66%), blacks (66%), and Latinos (63%) are more likely than whites (54%) to favor tougher air pollution standards for agriculture and farm activities. Majorities of men and women favor this idea, while support decreases as age and income increase. Support for tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities is widely held among those who view air pollution as a big problem (65%) and as a very serious health threat (67%). “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities?” All Adults Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 58% 59% 59% 62% 55% 54% No 34 35 33 29 36 39 Don't know 86 8 9 9 7 Many more Californians would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. About eight in 10 residents and likely voters (79% each) hold this view. Support for tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities was also high last year. Across regions today, at least three in four Californians hold this view, with residents in the San Francisco Bay Area being the most likely (85%). While a strong majority of voters across parties support tougher standards on commercial and industrial activities, Democrats (88%) and independents (84%) are more likely than Republicans (65%) to hold this view. More than three in four residents across racial/ethnic groups say they would be willing to see tougher standards, with blacks (93%) and Asians (87%) being the most likely. Women (83%) are also more likely than men (75%) to hold this view; support declines with increasing age. Again, support for tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities is widely held among those that view air pollution as a big problem (84%) and as a very serious health threat (86%). “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities?” All Adults Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Region Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 79% 76% 85% 80% 75% 79% No 18 19 12 16 21 18 Don't know 35 3 4 4 3 July 2008 11 Californians and the Environment AIR QUALITY POLICIES (CONTINUED) Strong majorities of California residents and likely voters (80% each) are also willing to see tougher air pollution standards for diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses. A plan to reduce diesel emissions by replacing or retrofitting high-polluting diesel trucks and buses is currently under discussion at the state level. More than three in four residents across regions would support tougher standards on diesel engine vehicles. At least seven in 10 across parties also support these tougher standards, with Democrats (87%) and independents (83%) being more likely than Republicans (70%) to hold this view. Tougher air pollution standards for diesel engine vehicles are also overwhelmingly supported by blacks (89%), Asians (87%), whites (79%), and Latinos (77%). Women (83%) and men (76%) both would be willing to see such standards implemented. This view is also widely held among those who view air pollution as a big problem (83%) and a very serious health threat (86%). Yes No Don't know “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses?” All Adults 80% Central Valley 77% San Francisco Bay Area 83% Region Los Angeles 81% Orange/ San Diego 79% 17 20 14 16 18 33 3 3 3 Inland Empire 84% 13 3 What do Californians think about a legislative proposal to charge a container fee on owners of cargo moving through California’s ports? This bill is aimed at relieving traffic congestion at California’s major seaports and cleaning up air pollution caused by port traffic. Six in 10 Californians (61%) and likely voters (57%) favor this proposal. Democrats (69%) and independents (59%) are much more likely than Republicans (48%) to express support. Across regions, about six in 10 favor this proposal. Support is stronger among blacks (71%), Asians (69%), and Latinos (67%) than among whites (54%). 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 61% Central Valley 58% San Francisco Bay Area 61% Region Los Angeles 62% Orange/ San Diego 59% 30 32 28 29 31 9 10 11 9 10 Inland Empire 62% 28 10 12 PPIC Statewide Survey GLOBAL WARMING KEY FINDINGS „ Large majorities of Californians believe that the effects of global warming have already begun, that global warming threatens California’s future, and that we should take steps right away to counter the effects of global warming. (pages 14, 15) „ Most Californians believe that federal government action to address global warming is inadequate, and majorities of residents also believe that their local and state governments are not doing enough. Large percentages of residents across regions and racial/ethnic groups share these perceptions. (page 16) „ Overwhelming majorities of adults and likely voters continue to favor the state’s efforts to reduce the effects of global warming, including state laws requiring a reduction in auto emissions and in greenhouse gas emissions. Majority support for these state laws is found in all political, regional, and demographic groups. (page 17) „ The public overwhelmingly supports the adoption by state government of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: increasing the use of renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, by utilities; requiring lower emissions from industrial plants, refineries, and commerce; encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people drive less; and requiring greater energy efficiency in homes and business. (page 18) Taking Steps to Counter Global Warming Should take steps right away Not necessary to take steps yet 100 Percent all adults 80 73 60 76 79 81 80 40 20 20 19 15 14 15 0 July July July July July 03 04 06 07 08 Federal Government Action on Global Warming Percent saying it is 100 not doing enough Percent all adults 80 60 66 83 70 40 43 20 0 All adults Dem Rep Ind State Law Requiring Reduction in Auto Emissions by 2009 100 Favor Oppose 80 81 80 81 77 78 84 81 60 Percent all adults 40 20 16 14 12 17 16 13 16 0 June July July July July July July 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 13 Californians and the Environment PERCEPTIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING A strong majority of Californians (64%) believe the effects of global warming have already begun to take place, while just 10 percent believe there will be no effects. One in four residents believes the effects will ultimately occur (5% within a few years, 8% within their lifetime, 10% by future generations). Findings today are nearly identical to July 2006 and July 2007, but the percent saying global warming has already begun is up 7 points since July 2005 (57%). Californians today are similar to adults nationwide in their perceptions of global warming. In a March Gallup poll, 61 percent nationally said the effects of global warming had already begun; just 11 percent said they would never happen. Although majorities of residents and likely voters say the effects are underway, there is a split along party lines: 74 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents say the effects are underway now, but only 41 percent of Republicans agree. Nearly one in four Republicans say global warming effects will never occur. Women are more likely than men to believe the effects are being felt now (70% to 58%). “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 64% 74% 41% 64% Within a few years 5564 Within your lifetime 8 8 9 11 Not within lifetime, but will 10 9 13 11 affect future generations Will never happen 10 4 24 7 Don't know 3 - 73 Likely Voters 61% 4 8 10 13 4 Eight in 10 residents believe global warming poses a very (52%) or somewhat serious (27%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. These findings are similar to last July’s, but the percentage calling the threat of global warming very serious has increased 13 points since 2005 (39% to 52%). Opinion today is divided sharply along partisan lines, with 67 percent of Democrats saying it is very serious, compared to just 25 percent of Republicans. Half of independents (49%) hold this view. Across regions, Los Angeles (58%) and San Francisco Bay Area (56%) residents are more likely than Central Valley (51%), Orange/San Diego (47%), and Inland Empire (45%) residents to call the threat very serious. “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?” Very serious All Adults 52% Central Valley 51% San Francisco Bay Area 56% Region Los Angeles 58% Orange/ San Diego 47% Inland Empire 45% Somewhat serious 27 27 25 26 27 36 Not too serious 9 10 10 8 12 7 Not at all serious 9 11 6 7 11 11 Don't know 31 3 1 3 1 When asked about the current drought affecting the state, 46 percent of residents believe it is mostly due to natural weather patterns, while 37 percent say it is mostly due to global warming. As for the recent wildfires in the state, 56 percent say they are mostly due to weather patterns, while 27 percent believe global warming is to blame. 14 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming ATTITUDES TOWARD TAKING ACTION Most Californians (75%) believe it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, while 18 percent believe it is not possible. Half of residents (51%) believe people will have to make major sacrifices to reduce the effects, while 17 percent believe technology can solve the problem without requiring major sacrifices. Californians are similar to adults nationwide. In an April Pew Research Center survey, 74 percent of adults nationwide said it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, with 47 percent saying sacrifice would be needed, and 23 percent saying technology could solve the problem. Californians do not only believe it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, they also think steps should be taken immediately to do so. Large majorities of residents (80%), likely voters (75%), Democrats (94%), and independents (81%) express this view; a smaller majority of Republicans (54%) also say steps must be taken right away. Since 2003, the belief that immediate action is required has risen 7 points (73% 2003, 76% 2004, 79% 2006, 81% 2007, 80% today). Californians’ views are similar to those of adults nationwide: In a CBS News/New York Times national poll conducted in April 2007, 78 percent said steps should be taken right away to deal with global warming. “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?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind Right away 80% 94% 54% 81% Not necessary yet 15 5 34 15 Neither, never necessary (volunteered) 2 - 8 1 Don't know 3143 Likely Voters 75% 18 4 3 The California Air Resources Board has proposed plans to implement the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), signed into law in 2006. These plans, once adopted, would be rolled out over the next several years. As state leaders confront a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, some have suggested that California should wait to adopt these plans until after the economy and state budget situation have improved. A majority of residents (57%) believe state government should adopt these plans right away, and 36 percent say it should wait until the economy and budget are in better shape. Opinion is again divided along party lines: 68 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of independents favor action now, while 57 percent of Republicans prefer to wait for better economic and budgetary times. Majorities of residents across racial/ethnic, gender, age, education, and income groups believe the state should adopt its plans now. Majorities across regions, except in the Inland Empire (46%), agree. Of those who say action is needed now, 67 percent also say the state should adopt its greenhouse gas reduction plans right away. “When it comes to making efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, should the state government adopt its plans right away, or should it wait until the state economy and budget situation improve to adopt its plans?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind Adopt plans right away 57% 68% 35% 59% Wait until economy and 36 27 57 36 budget improve Don't know 7585 Likely Voters 55% 39 6 July 2008 15 Californians and the Environment LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY When it comes to addressing global warming, a strong majority of residents (66%) think the federal government is not doing enough, while 20 percent say it is doing just enough, and 8 percent say it is doing more than enough. Large majorities of Democrats (83%) and independents (70%) say the federal government is falling short, compared to 43 percent of Republicans. Half of Republicans say the federal government is doing just enough (30%) or more than enough (19%). Half of residents (51%) believe California’s state government could be doing more to address global warming, while 43 percent believe it is already doing just enough (33%) or more than enough (10%). A solid majority of Democrats (63%) think the state is not doing enough, compared to 29 percent of Republicans. Independents are divided (48% not enough, 40% just enough, 9% more than enough). Blacks (63%) and Latinos (61%) are especially likely to say the state is not doing enough. This perception is held by more residents in Los Angeles (59%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (51%) than elsewhere. Of those who believe the effects of global warming have already begun, 60 percent believe the state government is coming up short in addressing the issue. Of those who believe the state should adopt its global warming plans right away, 62 percent also think the state government is not doing enough. More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know “Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 10% 4% 24% 9% 33 29 38 40 51 63 29 48 6493 Likely Voters 14% 34 47 5 Ratings of local government action on global warming are similar to ratings of state government: 52 percent think their local government is not doing enough, while 40 percent believe it is already doing just enough (31%) or more than enough (9%). Partisan differences also exist on this issue. While 62 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents think local government is not doing enough, just 33 percent of Republicans agree. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans say local government is doing just enough (38%) or more than enough (20%). Pluralities across regions think their local governments could be doing more. Of those residents who believe the effects of global warming are already underway, 61 percent think their local government is not doing enough to address this issue. More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know “Overall, do you think that your local government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming?” All Adults 9% Central Valley 10% San Francisco Bay Area 7% Region Los Angeles 8% Orange/ San Diego 12% Inland Empire 6% 31 34 33 25 30 33 52 49 50 58 49 54 87 10 9 9 7 Likely Voters 12% 31 48 9 16 PPIC Statewide Survey Global Warming CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS POLICY In light of residents’ opinions about government action on global warming, what do they think about the state of California making its own policies, separate from the federal government’s? Two in three residents (66%) and likely voters (67%), and majorities of voters across parties (54% Republicans, 70% independents, 75% Democrats) favor the state making its own policies. The percentage of adults favoring independent state action was similar last year (67%) and has risen 12 points since 2005 (54% to 66%). Reflecting these sentiments, eight in 10 residents (81%) and likely voters (79%) say they favor the 2002 state law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars beginning in 2009. This law is the focus of an ongoing dispute between the state and federal governments and has not been implemented. Since we first asked about this law in 2002, similarly high percentages of residents have expressed support (81% June 2002, 80% July 2003, 81% July 2004, 77% July 2005, 78% July 2006, 84% July 2007, 81% today). Strong majorities across parties and more than three in four residents in all demographic groups favor this law today. 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 81% 89% 67% 79% 79% 16 8 29 17 18 33443 About seven in 10 adults (73%) and likely voters (72%) support the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32, which sets a goal of reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Support has declined somewhat since last July (78% all adults, 76% likely voters). However, when asked about this proposal in 2006, two in three adults (65%) and likely voters (66%) expressed support. This state policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has majority support across parties, although Democrats (83%) and independents (77%) are far more in favor than Republicans (57%). This state law also has support from at least two in three residents across regions and demographic groups. Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (79%) are the most likely to say they favor AB32, while residents in the Inland Empire (68%) are least likely. Whites (70%) are less likely than blacks (77%), Latinos (79%), and Asians (80%) to favor the law. Of those who support California having its own global warming policies, 83 percent favor AB32. 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 73% 83% 57% 77% 17 10 33 15 10 7 10 8 Likely Voters 72% 20 8 July 2008 17 Californians and the Environment CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS POLICY (CONTINUED) The California Air Resources Board has recently proposed plans to implement AB32, the state global warming law, which would involve changes by government, industry, public utilities, manufacturers, and residents. Key to the board’s plans is enactment of the state law to reduce auto emissions, strongly supported by Californians (see page 17), but now on hold because of a disagreement between the state and federal governments. When asked about four other ideas to implement the global warming law, residents also express strong support for each of them. Eighty-seven percent of residents and 86 percent of likely voters favor requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities. This proposal receives support from eight in 10 or more voters across parties and all demographic groups. Ninety-one percent of those who favor the state adopting its plans now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also support this idea. Eighty-three percent of residents and 82 percent of likely voters favor requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions. This idea receives support from seven in 10 or more voters across parties and demographic groups. Of those who favor the state adopting its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions right away, 91 percent favor this idea. About eight in 10 residents (81%) and likely voters (79%) support encouraging local governments to change their land use and transportation planning so that local residents could drive less. The proposal also receives strong support across parties and demographic groups. Eighty-eight percent of those who support the state adopting its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now also support this idea. Finally, about eight in 10 residents (80%) and likely voters (81%) favor a proposal to require increased energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings, and in appliances. This idea is also favored by strong majorities of voters across parties and all demographic groups. Of those who favor the state adopting its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions right away, 86 percent favor this idea. “Please tell me if you favor or oppose the state government adopting the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. How about…” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind …requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities? Favor Oppose Don’t know 87% 91% 82% 90% 11 8 16 8 21 2 2 …requiring industrial plants, oil Favor 83 89 72 87 refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their Oppose 13 9 23 10 emissions? Don’t know 4 2 5 3 …encouraging local governments Favor 81 87 70 85 to change land use and transportation planning so that Oppose 15 11 25 11 people could drive less? Don’t know 4 2 5 4 …requiring an increase in energy Favor 80 87 70 83 efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and Oppose 18 10 28 16 appliances? Don’t know 2 3 2 1 Likely Voters 86% 12 2 82 14 3 79 18 4 81 17 2 18 PPIC Statewide Survey ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY KEY FINDINGS „ Governor Schwarzenegger’s overall job approval rating has dropped from a year ago, but approval of his handling of environmental issues remains similar. Large percentages of Californians give President Bush low approval marks for both his overall performance and his handling of environmental issues. (page 20) „ Sen. Barack Obama continues to hold a double-digit lead over Sen. John McCain in the presidential election. The margin in favor of Obama is also large when likely voters are asked which candidate they trust more to handle environmental issues and energy policy. (page 21) „ California adults narrowly support allowing more oil drilling off the California coast and narrowly oppose building more nuclear power plants, with deeply divided opinions across party lines. By comparison, there is solid support and consensus for increasing fuel efficiency of automobiles and increasing federal funding for research on alternative energy sources. (pages 22, 23) „ Growing proportions of residents say that gasoline prices are causing them financial hardship, and declining percentages of commuters are driving alone to work. Majorities of Californians say that rising gasoline prices have caused them to cut back on their driving, think about buying a more fuel-efficient car, and use alternative means to travel. Lower-income and Latino residents are among the most likely to say they have experienced financial hardships and changed their behavior as a result of rising gas prices. (pages 24, 25) Governor's Approval Ratings 70 60 57 50 40 39 30 Job overall Environmental issues 52 42 47 34 39 32 46 43 Percent all adults 20 10 0 July July July July July 04 05 06 07 08 Oil Drilling off the California Coast 80 Favor Oppose 60 54 50 53 51 52 51 40 39 44 41 42 41 45 Percent all adults 20 Percent all adults 0 July July July July July July 03 04 05 06 07 08 Effect of Increases in Gasoline Prices 100 Percent saying prices have caused financial hardship 80 76 60 67 65 55 57 40 20 0 July Sept July July July 04 05 06 07 08 19 Californians and the Environment ELECTED OFFICIALS’ APPROVAL RATINGS Governor Schwarzenegger’s approval rating today (43% approve, 45% disapprove) is similar to his rating in May and is 9 points lower than last July (52% approve, 34% disapprove). Today, likely voters are somewhat more approving of the governor than all adults. Republicans (57%) are more likely than independents (49%) to approve of the governor’s performance, while half of Democrats (50%) disapprove. Whites (53%) and Asians (50%) are far more likely than blacks (32%) and Latinos (29%) to approve. The governor’s approval rating on handling environmental issues in California (46% approve, 36% disapprove) is similar to his approval rating on the environment last July (47% approve, 31% disapprove). Today, 52 percent of likely voters approve of his performance in this area. Republicans (55%) and independents (51%) approve of his performance, while Democrats are divided (43% approve, 40% disapprove). Whites (53%) and Asians (50%) are again more likely to approve of the governor on the environment than are blacks (39%) and Latinos (35%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling…” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind …his job as governor of California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know 43% 40% 57% 49% 49% 45 50 35 39 42 12 10 8 12 9 …environmental issues in California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know 46 43 55 51 52 36 40 29 34 32 18 17 16 15 16 President Bush’s job approval rating (26%) continues to hover near his low point recorded in March (24% approve, 72% disapprove). Findings are similar among likely voters. Californians’ negative assessments of the president are similar to adults nationwide, according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (28% approve, 69% disapprove). A majority of Republicans (57%) approve of the president, while strong majorities of independents (78%) and Democrats (88%) disapprove. Across racial/ethnic groups, disapproval is greatest among blacks (81%) and Latinos (74%). The president’s approval rating on the environment is similarly low. Just one in four residents (24%) and likely voters (25%) approve of his handling of environmental issues; two in three in each group (66%) disapprove. Strong majorities of Democrats (86%) and independents (73%) disapprove of the president, while 48 percent of Republicans approve. Majorities of residents across regions and demographic groups disapprove of the way President Bush is handling environmental issues. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling…” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind …his job as president of the United States? Approve Disapprove Don’t know 26% 9% 69 88 53 57% 18% 28% 38 78 69 5 43 …environmental issues in the United States? Approve Disapprove Don’t know 24 9 48 19 25 66 86 38 73 66 10 5 14 8 9 20 PPIC Statewide Survey Energy and Environmental Policy 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION With the Democratic and Republican conventions fast approaching, 86 percent of likely voters say they are following news about the candidates at least fairly closely, with 42 percent saying they are following the news very closely. In the November presidential race, California’s likely voters prefer Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain by 15 points (50% to 35%). Obama’s lead over McCain today is similar to his 17-point margin in May (54% to 37%). Today, Obama enjoys strong support among Democrats (79%) and independents (57%), while McCain has strong support among Republicans (72%). Obama leads among both men and women. Among Latino likely voters, Obama leads by a three-to-one margin (65% to 22%), while among whites, support is divided (43% Obama, 41% McCain). Likely voters under age 35 strongly favor Obama over McCain (71% to 20%), while support among likely voters over 55 is divided (41% each). “If the November 4th presidential election were being held today, would you vote for Barack Obama, the Democrat, or John McCain, the Republican?” Likely voters only Barack Obama John McCain Someone else Don't know All Likely Voters 50% 35% 2% 13% Democrat 79 9 1 11 Party Republican 13 72 2 13 Independent 57 21 5 17 Gender Men Women 48 36 4 12 51 34 1 14 Race/Ethnicity* Latino White 65 22 2 11 43 41 3 13 * Sample sizes for Asian and black likely voters are too small for separate analysis. Majorities of California likely voters say they trust Obama over McCain to handle global warming and other environmental issues (52% to 28%) and energy policy (51% to 33%). Strong partisan differences arise, with Democrats and independents favoring Obama and Republicans favoring McCain on environmental issues and energy policy. In addition, Latino likely voters are over three times more likely to say they trust Obama over McCain on each issue. “Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle…” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Barack Obama 52% 80% 19% 56% …global warming and other environmental issues? John McCain Both (volunteered) Neither (volunteered) 28 1 10 8 4 55 17 21 13 18 Don’t know 9 8 11 8 Barack Obama 51 79 16 54 John McCain 33 9 65 27 …energy policy? Both (volunteered) 1 - 1 - Neither (volunteered) 7 4 8 11 Don’t know 8 8 10 8 Latinos 64% 19 2 6 9 64 20 1 6 9 July 2008 21 Californians and the Environment U.S. ENERGY SUPPLY To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil, 86 percent of residents favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the U.S., with 73 percent favoring this action even if it increases the cost of buying a new car. Support for this proposal is high among likely voters and across all political groups, and has been at a similarly high level since we began asking this question in July 2003. Support for increasing automobile fuel efficiency, even with increased costs, is high across regional and demographic groups and is similarly high among men and women and across age groups. Across income groups, two-thirds of residents with household incomes under $40,000 (66%) favor this requirement, even if would be more costly to purchase a new car, and eight in 10 of those with household incomes above $40,000 would agree. Among SUV owners, 72 percent favor improving the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the U.S., even if it costs more to buy a new car. Among non-SUV owners, 74 percent say the same. “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?)” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Favor, even if more costly 73% 80% 68% 81% 78% Favor, but not if more costly 13 11 9 9 8 Oppose 11 7 18 8 11 Don't know 32523 Recent national news coverage and debate regarding offshore oil drilling has increased attention to this domestic energy policy issue. So where do Californians stand? Today, 51 percent of residents and likely voters favor allowing more oil drilling off the California coast, while 45 percent in each group are opposed. This is the first time since we began asking this question in July 2003 that more residents favor than oppose more oil drilling. Support for this proposal has increased since last year among all adults (41% to 51%) and among Republicans (60% to 77%), independents (33% to 44%), and Democrats (29% to 35%). Still, most Democrats (60%) and half of independents (50%) today oppose more drilling off the California coast. Across regions, support for drilling is highest in the Inland Empire (56%), Central Valley (55%), and Orange/San Diego counties (54%); residents in Los Angeles are divided (48% favor, 47% oppose) and residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (54%) oppose more coastal oil drilling. Across racial/ethnic groups, a majority of whites (55%) favor more drilling, a majority of blacks oppose it (53%), and both Asians (47% favor, 47% oppose) and Latinos (48% favor, 46% oppose) are divided. Support for more drilling increases with age, and is slightly higher among men than women (53% to 48%). Favor Oppose Don't know “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Ind 51% 35% 77% 44% 45 60 20 50 4536 Likely Voters 51% 45 4 22 PPIC Statewide Survey Energy and Environmental Policy ALTERNATIVE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY Forty-four percent of residents favor building more nuclear power plants at this time, and 50 percent oppose it. Among likely voters, half (50%) say they would favor more plants, while 44 percent are opposed. Among residents, favor for building more nuclear power plants has increased 7 points since last July (37% favor, 54% oppose). In a similar question asked by the Pew Research Center earlier this year, adults nationwide were also divided on building more nuclear power plants (44% favor, 48% oppose). Across political groups, Republicans (66%) are much more likely to favor this proposal than independents (51%), while Democrats (60%) are much more likely to oppose it. Across regions, opposition to building more nuclear power plants is lowest in Orange/San Diego counties (43%), while it is higher in Los Angeles (58%), the Central Valley (51%), San Francisco Bay Area (48%), and Inland Empire (47%). Across racial/ethnic groups, a majority of whites (55%) favor building more nuclear plants, while a strong majority of Asians (57%), Latinos (62%), and blacks (66%) oppose it. Men are much more likely than women (54% to 34%) to favor more nuclear power plants, and support for building more plants increases 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 44% 34% 66% 51% 50 60 29 42 6657 Likely Voters 50% 44 6 By contrast, Californians are highly supportive of a proposal to increase federal funding for renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydrogen technology. Fully 83 percent of residents and likely voters favor this proposal. According to the Pew survey conducted earlier this year, Californians are as likely as adults nationwide (81% favor, 14% oppose) to favor the proposal. The same high levels of support were found among Californians in a similar question we asked last year about spending more government money to develop renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind power (84% favor, 12% oppose). Moreover, at least three in four in every political group favor this alternative energy proposal, with Democrats (88%), independents (86%), and Republicans (76%) in rare agreement on energy policy. Support for increasing federal funding for research of alternate energy technologies is high across all regions of the state and all demographic groups. Asians (88%) and whites (84%) have the highest levels of support for increasing this federal funding, followed by Latinos (81%) and blacks (77%). Support for increasing federal funding for these technologies increases with education. “How about increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar, and hydrogen technology?” All Adults Dem Party Rep Likely Voters Ind Favor 83% 88% 76% 86% 83% Oppose 15 10 23 13 15 Don't know 22112 July 2008 23 Californians and the Environment AUTOMOBILE DRIVING TRENDS A five-year trend shows an 11-point decrease in the number of employed Californians commuting to work by driving alone (73% July 2003, 62% today). What are they doing instead? Compared to a year ago, there has been somewhat of an increase in carpooling to work (13% July 2007, 17% today). Self reports of walking, bicycling, or working from home are similar to what Californians reported last year (12%), but have increased somewhat since 2003 (8% July 2003, 13% today). Only seven percent of Californians say they take a public bus or transit to work today, which is the same as last year and similar to 2003. “How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle?” Employed adults only (full- or part-time) July 03 July 04 July 05 July 06 July 07 July 08 Drive alone 73% 71% 67% 70% 66% 62% Carpool 13 12 15 14 13 17 Walk/bicycle/work at home 8 10 11 8 12 13 Take public bus or transit 557677 Other 12 - 221 While more than half of employed Californians in all age groups report that they commute to work by driving alone, young adults (52%) are much less likely to do so than middle-aged adults (68%) and older adults (62%). An overwhelming percentage of residents who earn over $80,000 (70%) drive alone to work, while under half (44%) of those who earn less than $40,000 do the same. Compared to higherincome earners, more lower-income earners carpool (24%), use transit (13%), or walk, bicycle, or work at home (18%). Regionally, 58 percent of Los Angeles residents report that they drive alone to work, compared to slightly higher rates for the Central Valley (63%), San Francisco Bay Area (63%), Orange/San Diego counties (64%), and Inland Empire (64%). Los Angeles (11%) and San Francisco Bay Area (10%) residents are the most likely to use transit. Inland Empire residents are the least likely to use transit (3%), but the most likely to carpool (26%). While majorities across racial/ethnic groups commute to work by driving alone, Latinos (52%) are far less likely to do so than whites (69%) and are more likely to carpool (25% Latinos, 10% whites) and take public transit (12% Latinos, 4% whites). “How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle?” Employed adults only (full- or part-time) Drive alone All Employed Adults 62% Race/Ethnicity* Latino White 52% 69% Household Income Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more 44% 66% 70% Carpool 17 25 10 24 15 13 Walk/bicycle/work at home 13 11 16 18 12 11 Take public bus or transit 7 12 4 13 6 4 Other 1- 1 112 * Sample sizes for Asian and black employed adults are too small for separate analysis. Overall, 24 percent of Californians today say that they own or lease an SUV and 5 percent own or lease a hybrid vehicle, which is similar to reports from 2007 and 2006. Among Californians who drive alone to work, 31 percent say that they own or lease an SUV, and 6 percent say that they own or lease a hybrid. SUV owners (69%) are somewhat more likely than all employed adults (62%) to drive alone and are just as likely to carpool (17%), but are less likely to walk, bicycle or work at home (9%) or to use transit (4%). 24 PPIC Statewide Survey Energy and Environmental Policy EFFECTS OF GASOLINE PRICES An overwhelming number of Californians today (76%) report that increases in gasoline prices have caused financial hardship for themselves or their household. Californians say that rising gasoline prices have caused hardship at a somewhat higher rate than adults nationwide (71%), according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. There has been a sharp increase since last year in the number of Californians saying that high gas prices have caused hardship (65% July 2007, 76% today). “Have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household?” All Adults Asian Race/Ethnicity Black Latino White Household Income Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more Yes 76% 73% 79% 91% 67% 88% 77% 66% No 23 25 19 9 33 12 23 34 Don't know 1 2 2 - - - - - Strong majorities across income groups report hardship, yet there are differences (88% under $40,000, 66% over $80,000). Latinos (91%) are more likely than blacks (79%), Asians (73%), and whites (67%) to report hardship. Inland Empire residents (85%) are most likely to report hardship, followed by Los Angeles (79%), Central Valley (78%), Orange/San Diego (72%), and San Francisco Bay Area residents (68%). Rising gas prices have contributed to more California adults considering getting a more fuel-efficient vehicle this year (74%) compared to 2007 (69%), 2006 (69%), and 2005 (64%). Californians are also far more likely to have cut back significantly on how much they drive (69% today, 54% 2006, 43% 2005), and many this year report using alternative means of travel (54%). According to a recent survey by USA Today/Gallup, Californians (69%) are similar to adults nationwide (71%) in considering a more fuelefficient vehicle, but are much more likely to have used alternative means of transportation (54% California, 31% nationwide). In a survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, adults nationwide (66%) are about as likely as Californians (69%) to report cutting back significantly on how much they drive. Across California’s demographic groups, Latinos, lower-income, and younger adults are more likely than whites, upper-income, and older adults to report reacting to rising gas prices in these three ways. SUV drivers are similar to all adults in thinking about buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle (76%) and cutting back on driving (67%), but report a much lower rate of using alternative modes of travel (44%). “As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have—or have not—done each of the following? Have you…” All Adults …seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? …cut back significantly on how much you drive? Yes No NA/ Don’t know Yes No NA 74% 16 10 69 24 7 Asian 75% 14 11 66 22 12 Race/Ethnicity Black Latino 68% 81% 26 13 66 78 77 17 17 56 White 69% Household Income Under $40,000 76% $40,000 to $79,999 75% $80,000 or more 73% 18 15 15 16 13 9 10 11 64 75 73 63 29 16 22 31 79 5 6 …used alternative means of travel, such as bus, subway, bicycle, or walking? Yes No NA 54 59 57 66 44 44 34 42 33 54 27112 64 33 3 53 46 1 42 57 1 July 2008 25 REGIONAL MAP 26 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 from Sonja Petek, project manager for this survey, survey research associates Dean Bonner and Jennifer Paluch, and survey intern Nicole Fox. This survey was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation as part of a three-year grant on K-12 and higher education, environment, and population issues. We benefited from discussions with Hewlett program staff and others; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were determined solely by Mark Baldassare and the survey staff. Findings in this report are based on a telephone survey of 2,504 California adult residents, including 2,253 interviewed on landline telephones and 251 interviewed on cell phones. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days from July 8 to 22, 2008. Interviews took an average of 18 minutes to complete. Landline interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All landline telephone exchanges in California were eligible for selection and the sample telephone numbers 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. Cell phone interviews were included in this survey to account for the growing number of Californians who use cell phones. These interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of cell phone numbers. All cell phone numbers with California area codes were eligible for selection and the sample telephone numbers were called up to eight times to increase the likelihood of reaching an eligible respondent. Once a cell phone user was reached, it was verified that this person was age 18 or older, a resident of California, and in a safe place to continue the survey (e.g., not driving). Cell phone respondents were offered a small reimbursement for their time to help defray the potential cost of the call. Cell phone interviews were conducted with adults who have cell phone service only and with those who have both a cell phone and landline service in the household. Landline and cell phone interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean, according to respondents’ preferences. 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, Inc. translated the survey into Spanish, with assistance from Renatta DeFever. Abt SRBI Inc. translated the survey into Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean, and conducted all interviewing. With assistance from Abt SRBI, we used recent U.S. Census and state figures 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. Abt SRBI used data from the 2006 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for the Pacific Census Division and from the JanuaryJuly 2007 NHIS to estimate landline and cell phone service in California and to compare it against landline and cell phone service reported in the survey. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any differences in demographics and telephone service. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,504 adults 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 27 Californians and the Environment 1,925 registered voters, it is +/- 2.5 percent; for the 1,401 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” refers to 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 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 four self-identified racial/ethnic groups: Asian, black, Latino, and non-Hispanic white. We also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents (i.e., registered as “decline to state”). We also analyze the responses of likely voters—those who are the most likely to participate in the state’s elections. We compare current PPIC Statewide Survey results to those in earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys and to those in recent surveys by ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Gallup, The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, and USA Today/Gallup. 28 PPIC Statewide Survey QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT July 8-22, 2008 2,504 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? 43% approve 45 disapprove 12 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 46% approve 36 disapprove 18 don’t know 3. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 15% good times 78 bad times 7 don’t know 4. On another topic, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [code, don’t read] 23% air pollution, vehicle emissions 12 gas prices 10 energy, oil drilling 10 global warming, global climate change, greenhouse gases 10 loss of forests, forest fires, wildfires 5 water pollution 5 water supply 3 pollution in general 2 immigration, immigrants 2 landfill, garbage, waste 9 other 9 don’t know 5. 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? 34% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 29 not a problem 6. 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? 17% very satisfied 41 somewhat satisfied 24 somewhat dissatisfied 17 very dissatisfied 1 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? 21% very serious 37 somewhat serious 38 not too serious 3 not at all serious (volunteered) 1 don’t know 8. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region? 48% yes 46 no 6 don’t know 29 Californians and the Environment 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?) 11% yes, respondent 25 yes, someone in immediate family 7 yes, both 57 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?”] 23% personal vehicle emissions 18 commercial vehicle emissions 13 industry and agriculture 12 pollution from outside the area 11 population growth and development 9 weather and geography 9 all of the above (volunteered) 2 something else (specify) 3 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 11 to 14] 11.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and SUVs (sport-utility vehicles)? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 64% yes, even if more costly 7 yes, but not if more costly 2 yes, but don’t drive/won’t buy or lease another vehicle 22 no 5 don’t know 12.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? 58% yes 34 no 8 don’t know 30 PPIC Statewide Survey 13.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities? 79% yes 18 no 3 don’t know 14.Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses? 80% yes 17 no 3 don’t know 15.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? 61% favor 30 oppose 9 don’t know 16.On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen—[rotate order] (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? 64% already begun 5 within a few years 8 within your lifetime 10 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 10 will never happen 3 don’t know 17.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? 80% right away 15 not necessary yet 2 neither, never necessary (volunteered) 3 don’t know 18.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 27 somewhat serious 9 not too serious 9 not at all serious 3 don’t know Next, from what you’ve read and heard, please tell me which of these statements is closer to your view. [rotate questions 19a and 19b; rotate responses in same order] 19a.The state’s current drought is [rotate] (1) mostly a result of global warming, [or] (2) mostly a result of natural weather patterns. 37% global warming 46 natural weather patterns 10 both (volunteered) 2 neither (volunteered) 5 don’t know 19b.The state’s current wildfires are [rotate] (1) mostly a result of global warming, [or] (2) mostly a result of natural weather patterns. 27% global warming 56 natural weather patterns 8 both (volunteered) 5 neither (volunteered) 4 don’t know Next, please tell me whether you favor or oppose the following state laws that are being used to address global warming. [rotate questions 20 and 21] 20.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? 81% favor 16 oppose 3 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 21.What about the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020? 73% favor 17 oppose 10 don’t know Next, please tell me if you favor or oppose the state government adopting the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. [rotate questions 22 to 25] 22.How about requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities? 87% favor 11 oppose 2 don’t know 23.How about requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances? 80% favor 18 oppose 2 don’t know 24.How about requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions? 83% favor 13 oppose 4 don’t know 25.How about encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less? 81% favor 15 oppose 4 don’t know 26.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? 66% favor 28 oppose 6 don’t know July 2008 31 Californians and the Environment 26a.When it comes to making efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, should the state government [rotate] (1) adopt its plans right away [or should it] (2) wait until the state economy and budget situation improve to adopt its plans? 57% adopt plans right away 36 wait until economy and budget improve 7 don’t know 27.Do you think it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, or not? (if yes: To reduce the effects of global warming will we have to make major sacrifices, or can technology solve the problem without requiring major sacrifices?) 51% yes, with major sacrifices 17 yes, technology can solve the problem 7 yes, don’t know 18 no, not possible 7 don’t know 28.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 69 disapprove 5 don’t know 29.Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 24% approve 66 disapprove 10 don’t know [rotate order for questions 30 to 32] 30.Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 8% more than enough 20 just enough 66 not enough 6 don’t know 31.Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 10% more than enough 33 just enough 51 not enough 6 don’t know 32.Overall, do you think that your local government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 9% more than enough 31 just enough 52 not enough 8 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 33 to 36] 33.How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if favor: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 73% favor, even if more costly 13 favor, but not if more costly 11 oppose 3 don’t know 34.How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 51% favor 45 oppose 4 don’t know 35.How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 44% favor 50 oppose 6 don’t know 32 PPIC Statewide Survey 36.How about increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar, and hydrogen technology? 83% favor 15 oppose 2 don’t know 37.Next, have price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? 76% yes, caused hardship 23 no, have not caused hardship 1 don’t know As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have—or have not— done each of the following? [rotate questions 38 to 40] 38.Have you cut back significantly on how much you drive? 69% yes 24 no 4 don’t drive/don’t have a car (volunteered) 3 yes, have cut back, but not significantly (volunteered) 39.Have you seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? 74% yes 16 no 6 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 40.Have you used alternative means of travel, such as bus, subway, bicycle, or walking? 54% yes 44 no 2 already do this/don’t drive/don’t have a car (volunteered) Questionnaire and Results 41.Next, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote in California? 77% yes [ask q41a] 23 no [skip to q41b] 41a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [skip to q42] 34 Republican [skip to q42] 4 another party (specify) [skip to q42] 19 independent [ask q41b] 41b.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 19% Republican Party 47 Democratic Party 26 neither (volunteered) 8 don’t know [responses recorded for questions 42 to 45 are for likely voters only] 42.If the November 4th presidential election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate names] (1) Barack Obama, the Democrat, [or] (2) John McCain, the Republican? 50% Barack Obama, the Democrat 35 John McCain, the Republican 2 someone else (specify) 13 don’t know [rotate questions 43 and 44] 43.Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle global warming and other environmental issues? [rotate names] 52% Barack Obama 28 John McCain 1 both (volunteered) 10 neither (volunteered) 9 don’t know July 2008 33 Californians and the Environment 44.Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle energy policy? [rotate names] 51% Barack Obama 33 John McCain 1 both (volunteered) 7 neither (volunteered) 8 don’t know 45.How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2008 presidential election? 42% very closely 44 fairly closely 12 not too closely 2 not at all closely 46.Next, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 11% very liberal 19 somewhat liberal 30 middle-of-the-road 24 somewhat conservative 12 very conservative 4 don’t know 47.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 26% great deal 37 fair amount 29 only a little 8 none [d1-d5: demographic questions] D6. [if employed full or part time] How do you usually commute to work? 62% drive alone 17 carpool 7 take public bus or transit 5 walk 3 bicycle 5 work at home (volunteered) 1 other (specify) D7.Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sport-utility vehicle)? 24% yes 76 no D7a.Do you personally own or lease a hybrid vehicle? 5% yes 95 no [d8-d18: demographic questions] 34 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 Executive Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Washington Center 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 Robert K. Ross, M.D. President and Chief Executive Officer The California Endowment 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 Emeritus 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 Ruben Barrales President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, 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 Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Leon E. Panetta Director The Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy 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 Emeritus Great Valley Center Copyright © 2008 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 600 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 09:39:39" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_708mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:39:39" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:39:39" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_708MBS.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) }