Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 710MBS

Authors

S 710MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

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

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (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_710MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "564652" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(98276) "& p p i c s tat e w i d e s u r v e y Californians Mark Baldassare Dean Bonner Sonja Petek Nicole Willcoxon in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation CONTENTS About the Survey 2 Press Release 3 Climate Change, Energy Policy, Air Pollution 6 Environmental Politics and Preferences 18 Regional Map 24 Methodology 25 Questionnaire and Results 27 the environment JULY 2010 July 2010 Californians and the Environment 2 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Sur vey 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 108th PPIC Statewide Sur vey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 230,000 Californians. This sur vey is the 10th annual PPIC Statewide Sur vey on the environment . It is par t of a series conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and intended to inform state, local, and federal policymakers, to encourage discussion about environmental topics, and to raise public awareness about environmental issues. The current sur vey focuses on climate change, energy policy, and air pollution—current topics of policy discussion in local, state, and federal government s. The context for this year’s sur vey includes the November general election for governor, congressional representatives, and the U.S. senate, as well as a controversial initiative on the ballot that would suspend California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) until the state’s job situation markedly improves. T o reach the goals of AB 32, officials in state and local government are currently working on ways to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions . At the federal level, what President Obama has deemed the countr y’s worst environmental disaster —the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico— continues to be a major focus. Also at the federal level, the Senate has been debating a comprehensive energy bill; the House of Representatives has already approved its version. This sur vey presents the responses of 2,502 adult residents throughout California, inter viewed in multiple languages by landline or cell phone. It includes findings on the following :  Opinions about climate change, energy policy, and air pollution, including perceptions of global warming, att itudes toward government regulation of greenhouse gases, preferences regarding the state law requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and whether Californians think action on global warming will affect the number of jobs in the state. It examines preferences for more specific state emissions policies, such as increased use of renewable energy, reductions in tailpipe emissions, cap and trade, and carbon taxes, as well as attitudes about U.S. energy policies, including proposals for increased oil dr illing off the California coast and more nuclear power plants . It also looks at perceptions of regional air pollution and preferences for tougher air pollution standards.  Environmental politics and preferences, including job approval ratings of the governor and president and ratings of their handling of environmental issues; attitudes about the adequacy of government action on global warming at the state and federal levels and the effect of action on the number of jobs in the U.S. ; confidence in the federal government ’s ability to handle the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and prevent a future spill; preferences in the November gubernatorial and senate r aces and per ceived impor tance of candidates’ positions on the environment.  Time trends, national comparisons, and variations in environmental perceptions, attitudes, and preferences across the five major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Inland Empire, and Orange/San Diego Counties), among Asians, blacks, Latin os, and non- Hispanic whites, and across socioeconomic and political groups. This repor t may be downloaded free of charge from our website ( www.ppic.org). For questions about the sur vey, please contact sur vey@ppic.org. View our searchable PPIC Statewide Sur vey database online at http://www.ppic.org/main/sur vAdvancedSearch.asp. July 2010 Californians and the Environment 3 PPIC Statewide Survey CONTACT Linda Strean 415-291-4412 Andrew Hattori 415- 291-4417 NEWS RELEASE EMBARGOED: Do not publish or broadcast until 9:00 p.m. PDT on Wednesday , July 28, 2010. 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 In Big Shift, Californians Oppose Offshore Oil Drilling SUPPORT FOR POLICIES TO COUNTER GLOBAL WARMING HOLDS STEADY SAN FRANCISCO , July 28, 2010— Three months after a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Californians’ support for more drilling off their coast has plunged, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). A solid majority of the state’s residents now oppose more offshore drilling (59% oppose, 36% favor) —a 16 -point increase in opposition from last year (43% oppose, 51% favor). The PPIC survey was conducted with support from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and is the 10th in a series about C alifornians and the environment. In contrast to the shift in opinion on drilling, Californians’ views on another contentious environmental policy issue have held steady since last year. Two- thirds (67% today, 66% in 2009) favor the state law (AB 32) that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 is the focus of renewed debate because Proposition 23 on the November ballot asks whether the law should be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5% or below for a minimum of one year . Because t he ballot language has not been finalized, we posed a more general question about timing: Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53%) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait. “Two crises —a major oil spill and a major recession— have affected Californians’ views on environmental policy in very different ways,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and C EO. “After consistently opposing more offshore oil drilling, residents began to waver as gas prices increased. But events in the g ulf appear to have renewed opposition to more drilling here. In contrast, the lingering effect of the recession and a continuing state budget crisis haven’t changed Californians’ overall view of AB 32. While support has declined somewhat since 2007, a solid majority still favors the law.” LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN FEDERA L SPILL RESPONSE Partisan divisions are stark in many of the environmental survey findings. On the question of allowing more drilling, Democrats (72%) and independents (64%) oppose it, while Republicans (64%) favor it. Californians are more united in their low levels of confidence in the federal government’s handling of the oil spill. Just 21 percent have either a great deal (8%) or good amount (13%) of confidence in the government to make the right decisions in dealing with the spill. Fewer than one i n five residents across political, regional, and demographic groups expre ss a great deal of confidence. Residents also lack confidence in the federal government’s ability to prevent future spill s. About three in 10 are very (7%) or fairly (21%) confident, 32 percent are not very confident , an d 37 percent are not confident at all. PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 4 BUILD MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS? CALIFORNIANS DIVIDED The question about oil drilling is one of four that PPIC asked about U.S. energy policies. On another issue —nuclear power —California ns are divided (49% oppose, 44% favor) about building more nuclear power plants at this time to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources. On this question, too, partisan differences emerge: 57 percent of Democrats are opposed, while 67 percent of Republicans and half of independents (51%) favor building more plants now. There is considerably more consensus on the two other policies. To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources , ov erwhelming majorities favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology (83%) , and favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country (83%). Strong majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups hold these views. (This year we asked these energy policy questions in two ways. Half of our sample was asked the questions as we have in the past, with the introductory phrase, “Thinking about the country as a whole, to ad dress the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals?” Half of the sample was asked the policy questions without this introductory phrase , to test whether or not the framing of the question influenced responses. Results for the four questions asked with the introductory phrase and without it are similar. Details on page 31.) WILL ACTION TO CURB WARMING LEAD TO LOST JOBS ? MOST SAY NO Most Californians (54%) say global warming is already having an impact but are somewhat less likely to hold this view than they were last July (61%). Today 28 percent say global warming’s effects will be felt sometime in the future —up 6 points since last y ear—while just 16 percent say they will never happen. Nearly three -fourths say global warming is a very serious (44%) or somewhat serious (29%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. These findings are similar to last year but have decl ined since July 2007 (54% very serious, 28% somewhat serious). Against a backdrop of state and national debates over climate change policies, Californians (76%) support government regulation of emissions from sources like power plants, cars, and factories, with 85 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents, and 51 percent of Republicans holding this view. Although a majority (67%) support the idea of AB 32, party divisions are strong : 80 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are in favor, but only 39 percent of Republicans share this view. Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until unemployment in the state is 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. We asked Californians how the state’s actions to reduce global warming would af fect employment . Forty -five percent say the result would be more jobs, 23 percent say fewer jobs, and 24 percent say the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected. Most Democrats (57%) and half of independents (50%) foresee more jobs in California as a result of action on global warming. Forty -three percent of Republicans foresee fewer jobs; half of Republicans say there would be more jobs (24%) or no effect on jobs (25%). About half of Californians say the state (48%) and federal (52%) governments are not doing enough to address global warming. When it comes to ideas about state and federal actions to address global warming, strong majorities of Californians think the government should require: increased use of renewable energy sources by utilities (85%); indust rial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce emissions (81%); all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (79%) ; and an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appl iances (75%). They also favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people can drive less (77%). Support for all of these policies is similar to last year. PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 5 Most Californians (54%) have not heard of one policy being discussed , the cap and trade system of setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions. After being read a brief description of the idea, 50 percent would support a cap and trade system and 40 percent would oppose it. They are much more likely to support a carbon tax (60% favor, 33% oppose). CLOSE RACES FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR AND U.S. SENATE SEAT With the November election approaching, an overwhelming majority (79%) of likely voters say the gubernatorial candidates’ positions on the environment are at least somewhat important. Likely voters are closely divided between Democrat Jerry Brown (37%) and Republican Meg Whitman (34 %), with 23 percent undecided. Of those saying that a candidate’s environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, 50 percent would vote for Brown and 16 percent would vote for Whitman. Among those who say a candidate’s environmental positions are somewhat important, Whitman is favored (42% to 33%). Preferences follow party lines , with independents split (30% Brown, 28% Whitman , 30% undecided). (The survey questionnaire lists results for all six candidates listed on the November ballot.) Most likely voters (79%) also view the U.S. Senate candidates’ positions on the environment as at least somewhat important. Thirty -nine percent of likely voters support Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer , 34 percent support Republican Carly Fiorina, and 22 percent are undecided. Those who view candidates ’ positions on the environment as very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54%) as Fior ina (18%). Among those who say candidates ’ views on the environment are somewhat important, support is evenly divided (37% to 37%). Each candidate has the support of her party’s likely voters. Among independents, 35 percent support Boxer, 29 percent support Fiorina, and 25 percent are undecided. President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped 9 points since last July and 16 points since his record high (72%) in May 2009. Approval of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s handling of environmental issues (34% ) is higher than his overall rating (25%). The state legislature ’s approval rating is 15 percent. MOST SUPPORT TOUGHER POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR NEW VEHICLES When asked the open-ended question of what is the most important environmental issue facing Califor nians, air pollution is most often mentioned, as it has been since 2000. But it has declined in importance to residents from 33 percent in 2000 to 23 percent today. Other frequently named issues this year are water supply (12%), energy and oil drilling (11%), and water pollution (6%). Similar to last year (23%), one in four Californians consider air pollution in their region a big problem (25%) . Majorities of residents in Los Angeles (63%), the Inland Empire (57%), and the Central Valley (54%) consider air pollution a very serious or somewhat serious health threat, and 43 percent of Californians say they or an immediate family member has asthma or other respiratory problems. When it comes to air quality policies, a s trong majority (70%) would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles. But there is much less agreement across party lines: 86 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are willing to see stricter standards, compared to 45 percent of Republicans. The California Air Resources Board is poised to consider easing or delaying implementation of diesel pollution rules because of their economic impact on truck owners and businesses . Asked about tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, an overw helming majority (75%) of Californians are willing to see stricter standards, a view held by solid majorities across political, regional, and demographic groups. Similarly, 75 percent would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. A smaller majority (58%) would be willing to see tougher standards on agriculture and farm activities. July 2010 Californians and the Environment 6 CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY POLICY, AIR POLLUTION KEY FINDINGS  Most Californians say the effects of global warming have already begun, but the share holding this view is down 7 points since 2009 (61% to 54%). The share saying effects will happen sometime later is up 6 points. Three in four believe the government should regulate emissions to reduce global warming. ( pages 7, 8)  Two in three continue to support the state law requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; 53 percent say the state government should take action now and 42 percent believe that action should wait until the economy and employment improve. (page 9)  Majorities of voters across parties continue to favor specific ways to reduce emissions, such as those aimed at automobiles. Voters are divided along party lines over cap and trade, an idea many have never heard of. ( pages 10, 11 )  Since last year, support for allowing more oil drilling off the California coast has dropped 15 points: A solid majority now oppose it. Strong majorities of Californians favor requiring increased fuel efficiency and funding the development of renewable energy, but they are divided about building more nuclear power plants. (pages 12, 13)  One in four Californians consider air pollution to be a big problem in their region, with Los Angeles residents (41%) most likely to hold this view. Los Angeles residents are also more likely to consider regional air pollution a serious health threat. (pages 14, 15 )  Solid majorities of Californians are willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new vehicles, diesel engines, farming, and industrial activities. (pages 16, 17 ) 39 44 41 42 4151 51 36 54 5053 5152 45 4359 0 20 40 60 80 Jul y03 July 04 July 05 Ju l y 06 Jul y07 July 08 July 09 Ju l y 10 Percent all adults Favor Oppose Allow ing More O il D rilling O ff the California Coast 65 78 73 6667 19 14 1723 21 0 20 40 60 80 100 July06 Jul y 07 July 08 July 09 Jul y 10 Percent all adults Favor Oppose State Law Requiring Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions to 1990 Levels by 2020 53 63 2755 48 42 3466 4048 0 20 40 60 80 100 All adults Dem Rep Ind L ikely voters Percent all adults Take action right away Wait until state economy and job situation improve State Government's Plans for Reducing Greenhouse Gases PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 7 PERCEPTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE When asked in an open-ended question to name the most important environmental issue facing the state today, 23 percent of Californians mention air pollution. Air pollution has been the top issue mentioned by Californians since we first asked this question in June 2000. The percentage calling it the top issue today is lower than it was then (33%), but is similar to last July (20%). This year, 12 percent mention water supply as the most important issue, 11 percent energy and oil drilling, and 6 percent water pollution. The share naming global warming has dropped to 4 percent from a high of 11 percent in July 2007. Most Californians (54%) believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen, but they are somewhat less likely to hold this view than last July (61%). The belief that effects will happen at some future time is up 6 points since last year (22% to 28%). Just 16 percent believe global warming’s effects will never happen. Nationally, half of adults in a March Gallup poll said the effects had already begun, 29 percent said they will happen later, and 19 percent said there will be no effects. In California, most Democrats (67%) and independents (55%) say effects have already begun, compared to 30 percent of Republicans. Republicans have been increasingly likely to say global warming’s effects will never happen (18% 2007, 24% 2008, 34% 2009, 40% today). Since last year, belief that global warming has already begun has declined 9 points among Democrats and 6 points among independents, while the belief that it will happen later has increased. “Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen…?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Already begun 54% 67% 30% 55% 51% Within a few years 6 7 2 4 4 Within your lifetime 8 8 6 10 7 Not within your lifetime, but will affect future generations 14 11 18 14 13 Will never happen 16 5 40 14 22 Don’t know 2 2 4 3 3 Most Californians (74%) believe it is necessary to take steps right away to counter the effects of global warming, while 24 percent say it is not yet necessary or volunteer that it will never be necessary. Findings were similar last year. Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (87%) and independents (75%) support taking steps right away, while most Republicans think it can wait or isn’t necessary (56%). Nearly three in four Californians perceive global warming as a very serious (44%) or somewhat serious (29% ) threat to the future economy and quality of life in California. These findings are similar to last year, but have declined since July 2007 (54% very, 28% somewhat serious). “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Very serious 44% 51% 18% 50% 36% Somewhat serious 29 35 23 27 27 Not too serious 11 7 20 10 15 Not at all serious 14 5 35 12 20 Don’t know 2 2 4 1 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 8 REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS With controversy swirling at both the state and national levels about climate change mitigation and adaptation, what do Californians say about the fundamental idea of emissions regulation? Strong majorities of Californ ians (76%) and likely voters (70%) believe the government should regulate the release of greenhouse gas emissions from sources like power plants, cars, and factories , in an effort to reduce global warming; 19 percent of Californians and 25 percent of likely voters think it should not. Findings were nearly identical last year. In a similar ABC News/ Washington Post question (which asked about the federal government specifically rather than government in general), 71 percent of adults nationwide said the federal government should regulate the release of greenhouse gas emissions. In California, at least eight in 10 Democrats and independents believe the government should regulate greenhouse gas emissions; 51 percent of Republicans agree. More than two in three ac ross regions and across racial/ethnic and other demographic groups believe the government should regulate emissions. Latinos (87%) are the most likely racial/ethnic group to express this view (79% Asians, 70% blacks, 70% whites). Residents age 18– 34 (83%) and those with annual household incomes under $40,000 (84%) are more likely than older and more affluent residents to say the government should regulate emissions. “Do you think the government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Should 76% 85% 51% 81% 70% Should not 19 11 41 16 25 Don’t know 5 4 8 3 5 California has a history of enacting environmental policies that are more stringent than national policies . Most Californians (57%) and likely voters (56%) favor the state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming. In July 2005, 54 percent favored this idea, and the percentage expressing support climbed to 67 percent in July 2007 but has declined since then. At present, no major federal climate change policy has been enacted. At least six in 10 Democrats and indep endents favor the state making its own global warming policies, compared to 43 percent of Republicans; 50 percent of Republicans are opposed. Across regions, Los Angeles residents (62%) are the most likely to favor independent action by the state, followed by residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (57%), Central Valley (56%), Orange/San Diego Counties (53%), and the Inland Empire (51%). Latinos (62%) and whites (57%) are more likely than Asians (52%) and blacks (48%) to express support. On this idea, younger residents are much more likely than middle - and older -aged residents, and college graduates are more likely than those with less education, to approve. “Do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the f ederal government, to address the issue of global warming?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 57% 63% 43% 60% 56% Oppose 35 30 50 30 38 Don’t know 8 7 7 10 6 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 9 CALIFORNIA POLICY ON CLIMATE CHANGE California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by the year 2020. An initiative that qualified for this November’s ballot — Proposition 23 —would suspend AB 32 until unemployment in the state is at 5.5 perc ent or lower for four consecutive quarters. Proposition 23 proponents argue that AB 32 negatively affects jobs and the economy; initiative opponents argue that AB 32 spurs growth in green jobs and that Proposition 23, because of the unemployment requirement, would in effect repeal AB 32. (A draft copy of the Proposition 23 ballot title and label were made public the day we completed survey interviews. The title and label language is still subject to review and will not be official until mid -August. Because of this timing, we were unable to ask about the specific initiative, but we continued to track attitudes about AB 32 and asked additional questions about state action on global warming.) As they did last year, two in three Californians (67%) and six in 10 likely voters (61%) favor the state law (AB 32) requiring California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Support peaked at 78 percent in July 2007; the level of support this year and last year is similar to July 2006 (65%). Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (80%) and independents (73%) favor this law, compared to 39 percent of Republicans; 49 percent of Republicans oppose it. “To address global warming, do you favor or oppose the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 67% 80% 39% 73% 61% Oppose 21 10 49 16 28 Don’t know 12 10 12 11 11 When it comes to state government plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 53 percent of Californians think the state should act right away, while 42 percent say it should wait until the state’s economy and job situation improve. Likely voters are evenly split (48% now, 48% wait) and this issue deeply divides voters: 63 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents believe the state should act now, while 66 percent of Republicans say it should wait. When asked how jobs in the state would be affec ted by California’s efforts to reduce global warming, 45 percent say there would be more jobs, 23 percent say fewer jobs, and 24 percent say the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected. Democrats (57%) and independents (50%) foresee more jobs in California resulting from action on global warming, while 43 percent of Republicans foresee fewer jobs. Half of Republicans either say there would be more jobs (24%) or the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected (25%). “Do you think that California doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the state, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wouldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the state?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind More jobs 45% 57% 24% 50% 43% Fewer jobs 23 14 43 25 28 Wouldn’t affect number of jobs 24 21 25 18 21 Don’t know 8 8 8 7 8 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 10 EMISSIONS POLICIES When presented with several ways state and federal government could address global warming, strong majorities of Californians favor requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources by utilities (85%), requiring industrial plants, oil refineries , and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions (81%), and requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (79%). Support today (85%) for requiring utilities to increase their use of renewable energy is identical to last year’s survey. Eight in 10 likely voters and more than two in three across parties, regions, and demographic groups favor increased use of renewable energy by utilities. Solid majorities are in favor even among those who think it’s not yet necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming, and those who think the state should wait until the economy and job situation improve. The Pew Research Center asked adults nationwide a similar question in June: In thinking about what shoul d be included in a comprehensive energy bill, 87 percent favored including requirements that utilities produce more energy from renewable sources. About eight in 10 California adults today and last year have favored requiring industrial plants, oil refiner ies, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions. This idea has the support of 77 percent of likely voters and strong majorities across parties. At least seven in 10 across regions and demographic groups favor requiring such enterprises to reduce e missions. Among those who believe it is not yet necessary to take steps to counter global warming, opinion is divided. Among those who think the state should wait until the economy and job situation improve to take action, 68 percent still favor this idea. Since June 2002, more than three in four have expressed support for requiring all automakers to further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (between 2002 and 2008, the question was asked in relation to California and not to both state and federal government). California passed a measure in 2002 requiring reduced emissions from cars beginning in 2009, but permission to enact this law —which was more stringent than federal requirements —wasn’t granted by the federal government until last year. Both the state and federal government are now working on enacting this type of policy. This idea is supported by nearly three in four likely voters and majorities across parties; however, Republicans (54%) are far less likely than independents (82%) and De mocrats (90%) to favor it. More than seven in 10 Californians across regions and demographic groups favor this idea. Among those who say action on global warming is not yet needed, 43 percent favor this idea. Among those who think the state should wait to take action until the economy and job situation improve, 64 percent favor it. “Officials in the state and federal governments are discussing ways to address global warming. Please tell me if you favor or oppose the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How about…” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities? Favor 85% 92% 69% 87% 81% Oppose 13 6 29 11 17 Don't know 2 2 2 2 2 Requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions? Favor 81 90 61 87 77 Oppose 16 8 36 12 21 Don't know 3 2 3 1 2 Requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars? Favor 79 90 54 82 73 Oppose 19 8 44 17 25 Don't know 2 2 2 1 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 11 EMISSIONS POLICIES (CONTINUED) Regarding two additional ideas for addressing global warming, 75 percent of Californians favor requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances and 77 percent favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less. The percentage (75%) favoring increased energy efficiency requirements for residential and commercial buildings and for appliances was similar last July (76%). This idea is supported by seven in 10 likely voters and majorities across parties, but Democrats (85%) and independents (82%) are far more likely to favor it than Republicans (56%). At least two in three across regions and demographic groups favor this idea. Among those who think action to mitigate global warming is not yet needed, 47 percent favor the idea and 49 percent oppose it. Among those who believe state government should wait until the economy and job situation improve to take action, 63 percent favor more stringent building and appliance requirements. In the June Pew Research Center survey, 78 percent of adults nationwide favored including tougher efficiency standards for buildings and major appliances in an energy bill. Similar to last July’s environment survey, more than three in four Californians favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning to reduce driving. Three in four likely voters, strong majorities across parties, and more than two in three across regions and demographic groups favor this proposal. Among those who think it is not yet necessary to take steps to counter global warming, 52 percent support this idea. Among those who think the state government should wait until the economy and job situation improve, 67 percent favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning to reduce driving. “Officials in the state and federal governments are discussing ways to address global warming. Please tell me if you favor or oppose the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How about…” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances? Favor 75% 85% 56% 82% 71% Oppose 21 12 39 16 25 Don't know 4 3 5 2 4 Encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less? Favor 77 84 63 79 74 Oppose 20 13 34 19 23 Don't know 3 3 3 2 3 A policy under discussion at the state and federal levels is a “cap and trade” system. Most Californians (54%) have never heard of this idea, which would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Eighteen percent have heard a lot and 27 percent have heard a little about it. In a February Pew Research Center survey, adults nationwide were more likely to have heard of cap and trade (17% heard a lot, 37% heard some, 46% heard nothing at all). After being read a brief description of the idea (see question 29 on page 30), 50 percent of Californians would favor a cap and trade system and 40 percent would oppose it; findings were nearly identical last year. Democrats (57%) and independents (55%) are far more likely than Republicans (28%) to support it. In an Assoc iated Press–Stanford University survey last November, 50 percent of adults nationwide favored cap and trade, while 47 percent opposed it. Californians are much more likely to favor a carbon tax on companies for their greenhouse gas emissions than to favor cap and trade. Sixty percent favor a carbon tax, and 33 percent oppose it, but this idea again divides voters along party lines. Last year, 56 percent of adults expressed support. PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 12 U.S. ENERGY POLICIES As we have in previous surveys, we asked four questions on U.S. energy policies —but did so this year using an alternative technique. Half of the sample of Californians we interviewed were asked the questions preceded by the introductory phrase, “Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources.” Half of the sample was asked the questions without this introductory phrase. The technique lets us test whether respondents are influenced by the phrase itself. Results for the four questions with and without the phrase are similar; the results reported below are for the half -sample that heard the introductory phrase (used since 2003). Results for the half- sample without the phrase are reported on page 31 . To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil, 83 percent of Californians favor having automakers significantly improve fuel efficiency in cars sold in the U.S. Support has been above 80 percent since 2003. At least seven in 10 across political, regional, and demographic groups favor requiring automakers to significantly improve fuel efficiency in cars. Democrats (90%), liberals (90%), and moderates (89%) are the most likely among political groups to express fav or, while Republicans (71%) and conservatives (75%) are the least likely. Women (89%) are much more likely than men (77%) to favor this proposal. “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? How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 83% 90% 71% 85% 83% Oppose 15 7 29 11 16 Don’t know 2 3 – 4 1 In the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, how do Californians view allowing more drilling off the California coast? Fifty- nine percent oppose allowing more oil drilling. Opposition increased 16 points since last year, setting a new high for our annual environment surveys. Americans nationwide are not so opposed, according to the responses to a similar question asked in the June Pew Research Center survey: 44 percent favor offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters and 52 percent oppose it. Acros s parties, seven in 10 Democrats (72%) and 64 percent of independents oppose allowing more oil drilling off the California coast, while 64 percent of Republicans are in favor. Since 2009, opposition increased 15 points among Democrats and favor decreased 12 points among Republicans. A majority of independents favored increasing drilling last year, but a strong majority oppose it this year. San Francisco Bay Area residents (71%) are the most likely to oppose more drilling, followed by adults in Los Angeles ( 61%), the Central Valley (53%), and the Other Southern California region (52%). “…How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 36% 25% 64% 31% 37% Oppose 59 72 34 64 59 Don’t know 5 3 2 5 4 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 13 U.S. ENERGY POLICIES (CONTINUED) While solid majorities of Californians oppose allowing more offshore oil drilling, an overwhelming majority (83%) favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources. Seventy -nine percent in July 2009 and 83 percent in July 2008 were in favor of this proposal. Strong majorities of adults nationwide are also in favor, according to the June P ew Research Center survey (75% favor, 21% oppose). Although strong majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups are in favor, Democrats (90%) and independents (83%) are much more likely than Republicans (70%) to favor increasing federal fundi ng to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology. At least three in four across regions are in favor. Latinos (87%) are somewhat more likely than whites (79%) to express favor. “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? How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 83% 90% 70% 83% 80% Oppose 15 9 28 14 19 Don’t know 2 1 2 3 1 Another potential source for the country’s energy needs is nuclear power. Californians are more divided about building more nuclear power plants at this time (44% favor, 49% oppose). Results today are similar to last July and July 2008 and at least half opposed this idea between 2005 and 2007. Adults nationwide are also divided on promoting more nuclear power, according to the June Pew Research Center survey (47% favor, 47% oppose). Across parties, 57 percent of Democrats oppose building more nuclear power plants, while two in three Republicans (67%) and half of independents (51%) are in favor. Differences also emerge across regions: Adults in the San Francisco Bay Area (50%) and Other Southern California region (48%) are somewhat more likely than those in the Central Valley (40%) and Los Angeles (39%) to be in favor. Los Angeles is the only region where a majority (57%) oppose this proposal. Whites (53%) are far more likely than Latinos (33%) and men (55%) are far more likely than women (33%) to say they fav or increasing the number of nuclear power plants. Favor increases as age, education, and income increase. “…How about building more nuclear power plants at this time?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 44% 36% 67% 51% 53% Oppose 49 57 30 40 41 Don’t know 7 7 3 9 6 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 14 REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION More than six in 10 Californians consider air pollution in their region a big problem (25%) or somewhat of a problem (38%). The perception of regional air pollution as a big problem is similar to last year (23%), but lower than in previous years. In June 2000, 28 percent held this view; the share rose to a high of 41 percent in July 2006. Los Angeles (41%), Inland Empire (31%), and Central Valley (29%) residents are far more likely than those in the San Francisco Bay Area (14%) and Orange/San Diego Counties (10%) to describe air pollution in their regions as a big problem. Across regions, perceptions of air pollution have fluctuated over time. In Los Angeles for example, the proportion calling air pollution a big problem reached a record high of 54 percent in July 2006, but dipped to 30 percent in July 2009. In the Central Valley, a record low 28 percent called it a big problem in June 2000 and a record high 51 percent said the same in July 2006 and July 2008. In the Inland Empire, the record high was 49 percent in July 2007 and the record low was 27 percent in July 2009. Blacks (38%) and Latinos (33%) are mu ch more likely than whites (20%) and Asians (19%) to say air pollution is a big problem in their region. The percentage of respondents who call it a big problem declines as age and income rise. “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?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Big problem 25% 29% 14% 41% 10% 31% Somewhat of a problem 38 42 40 37 43 36 Not a problem 36 28 46 22 46 33 Don’t know 1 1 – – 1 – About one in five adults in California (22%) say they are very satisfied with the air quality in their region today, while 47 percent are somewhat satisfied, 20 percent are somewhat dissatisfied, and 11 percent are very dissatisfied. About one in five said they were very satisfied with their regional air quality in July 2006 (18%), July 2007 (19%), and July 2008 (17%). Last July, 24 percent said they were very satisfied. Residents in Orange/San Diego Counties (28%) are the most likely to be very satisfied with their regional air quality, followed by those in the San Francisco Bay Area (26%), Central Valley (22%), Inland Empire (18%), and Los Angeles (11%). Los Angeles residents (44%) are the most likely to be very or somewhat dissatisfied, followed by Inland Empire (36%), Central Valley (35%), Orange/San Diego County (20%), and San Francisco Bay Area (19%) residents. Whites (26%) are the most likely racial/ethnic group to be very satisfied, while blacks (12%) are the least likely. High satisfaction with air quality increases with age. “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today?” All Adults Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos White Very satisfied 22% 18% 12% 19% 26% Somewhat satisfied 47 53 46 48 46 Somewhat dissatisfied 20 23 26 20 18 Very dissatisfied 11 5 16 13 10 Don’t know – 1 – – – PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 15 AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH Similar to last year, half of Californians consider air pollution to be a very (17%) or somewhat serious (33%) health threat to themselves and their families. Majorities of Los Angeles (63%), Inland Empire (57%), and Central Valley (54%) residents consider air pollution a very or somew hat serious health threat, while majorities of San Francisco Bay Area (61%) and Orange/San Diego County (57%) residents say it is a not too serious or not at all serious health threat. Blacks (27%) and Latinos (24%) are much more likely than whites (13%) a nd Asians (10%) to consider air pollution a very serious health threat. Respondents with asthma or with an asthmatic in their immediate family (25%) are more than twice as likely as those without (11%) to consider air pollution a very serious health threat . “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?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Very serious 17% 20% 9% 22% 13% 23% Somewhat serious 33 34 30 41 29 34 Not too serious 46 43 58 35 52 39 Not at all serious (volunteered) 3 3 3 1 5 2 Don’t know 1 – – 1 1 2 Forty-one percent of Californians consider air pollution in their region a more serious health threat in lower -income areas than in other areas. The share who believe this is the lowest it’s been since we first asked the question in July 2006 (47% 2006, 50% 2007, 48% 2008, 48% 2009, 41% today). Latinos (62%) are by far the most likely among racial/ethnic groups to consider air pollution a more serious health threat in lower -income areas and whites (29%) are by far the least likely. Half of Los Angeles residents (52%) believe air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas and are the most likely to hold this belief, while Central Valley residents (27%) are the least likely to do so. Among Los Angeles (down 11 points), Inland Empire (down 6 points), and Central Valley (down 7 points) residents, the perception that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas has declined since last year. This belief decreases as household income increases. “Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region, or not ?” All Adults Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Yes 41% 44% 47% 62% 29% No 52 51 51 34 62 Don’t know 7 5 2 4 9 Forty-three percent of respondents report having asthma or other respiratory problems, or have an immediate family member who has it. Orange/San Diego Counties (38%) have the smallest proportion of people who either have asthma or have family members who have it, compared to Los Angeles (43%), the San Francisco Bay Area (44%), the Inland Empire (49%), and the Central Valley (50%). A strong majority of blacks (64%) report having asthma or an asthmatic family member, compared to 44 percent of Latinos, 42 percent of whites, and 37 percent of Asians. PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 16 AIR QUALITY POLICIES Seven in 10 Californians would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles. This sentiment today is similar to last July (71%) and at least seven in 10 Californians have expressed willingness since 2005 (77% 2005, 77% 2006, 75% 2008, 71% 2009, 70% today). Stark partisan differences emerge on the issue of tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles: 86 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents favor tougher standards, compared to 45 percent of Republicans. Although six in 10 or more across regional and demographic groups support higher standards, there are some differences: Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (77%) are the most likely to say yes to higher standards, follow ed by those in Los Angeles (74%), the Central Valley (69%), Orange/San Diego Counties (65%), and the Inland Empire (63%). Whites (62%) are far less likely than Asians (80%), Latinos (81%), and blacks (84%) to be willing to see tougher standards. Willingness decreases as age rises and lower -income residents are more likely than more affluent adults to be willing. Eighty -four percent of adults who call air pollution in their region a big problem, and 79 percent who think air pollution is a very serious health threat, would be willing to see tougher standards. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and SUVs, or not?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 70% 69% 77% 74% 65% 63% No 27 29 21 23 32 32 Don’t know 3 2 2 3 3 5 The California Air Resources Board will soon consider proposals that would ease or delay implementation of diesel pollution rules, in an effort to lighten the economic burden on truck owners and businesses during this economic downturn. Three in four Californians —including solid majorities across political, regional, and demographic groups —would be willing to s ee tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles. Support for tougher diesel standards is similar to last July (76%) and is slightly lower than July 2008 (80%). Today, Democrats (86%) and independents (78%) are far more likely than Republicans (58%) to express willingness. Across regions, Inland Empire residents (65%) are the least willing to see tougher diesel standards. Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks (90%) are the most willing, followed by Asians (80%), Latinos (78%) and whites (71%). “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses, or not?” Eight-three percent of adults who call air pollution in their region a big problem would be willing to see tougher standards for diesels. Among those who say regional air pollution is a very serious health threat, 80 percent support tougher diesel rules. All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 75% 73% 80% 78% 70% 65% No 23 23 19 20 27 33 Don’t know 2 4 1 2 3 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 17 AIR QUALITY POLICIES (CONTINUED) When it comes to agriculture and farm activities, fewer Californians —although still a solid majority of 58 percent —are willing to see tougher air pollution standards. Majorities over time have been in support of such policies (61% 2005, 63% 2006, 57% 2007, 58% 2008, 56% 2009, 58% today). Again a wide partisan divide is clear, with seven in 10 Democrats (72%) and 55 percent of independents willing to see tougher standards on agriculture and farm activities, compared to 32 percent of Republicans (and 63% of Republicans not willing). More than half across regions support these tougher standards, as do at least half across all demographic groups: Latinos (71%), younger adults (67%), those with a high school diploma or less (66%), those in households with annual incomes less than $40,000 (66%), and women (62%) are among those most likely to support tougher agriculture pollution standards. Seventy percent of adults who call air pollution in their region a big problem and 69 percent who think air pollution is a very serious health threat favor tougher standards. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities, or not?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 58% 55% 61% 61% 57% 53% No 36 40 33 33 38 41 Don’t know 6 5 6 6 5 6 Three in four Californians also support tougher air pollution standards for commercial and industrial activities. Three -quarters or more of Californians have expressed such support each of the four times we have asked this question (77% 2007, 79% 2008, 75% 2009, 75% today). Majorities across parties are also in support, but Republicans (57%) are far less likely than independents (79%) and Democrats (88%) to be. Across regions, residents in the Central Valley (70%) are the least likely —and San Francisco Bay Area residents (80%) the most likely— to express willingness to see tougher air pollution standards for commercial and industrial activities. More than two in three across demographic groups express willingness, but there are some differences across groups. Blacks (91%) are the most willing to support tougher standards, followed by Asians (81%), Latinos (77%), and whites (73%). Women (79%) are somewhat more likely than men (71%) to express support, and willingness to support tougher standards decreases as age and income increase. Eighty -six percent of adults who call air pollution in their region a big problem and 84 percent who think air pollution is a very serious health threat support tougher standards. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities, or not?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 75% 70% 80% 77% 73% 75% No 21 25 18 19 25 22 Don’t know 4 5 2 4 2 3 July 2010 Californians and the Environment 18 ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND PREFERENCES KEY FINDINGS  Californians continue to be pessimistic about the state’s direction and their elected leaders. Only 15 percent approve of the state legislature, and only 25 percent approve of Governor Schwarzenegger—near record lows. (page 19)  The governor’s approval on environmental issues (34%) is similar to last July (35%). Half say the state is not doing enough to address global warming. (pages 19, 20 )  A majority of Californians (56%) approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance—but this is a 9-point drop since last July and a record low in the state. The president’s rating on environmental issues (49%) also dropped 9 points. (pages 19, 20 )  Half say the federal government is not doing enough to address the issue of global warming; a plurality (45%) think the United States taking actions to reduce global warming would create more jobs. (page 20)  Confidence is low concerning the federal government’s ability to deal with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and to prevent future oil spills like it. Adults, likely voters, and partisans express low levels of confidence about each of these issues. (page 21)  Four in 10 consider gubernatorial and senate candidates’ positions on the environment very important in determining their vote. In the governor’s race, 37 percent support Democrat Jerry Brown and 34 percent Republican Meg Whitman; 23 percent are undecided. Support follows party lines and independents are divided. In the senate race, 39 percent back Democrat Barbara Boxer and 34 percent Republican Carly Fiorina; 22 percent are undecided. (pages 22, 23 ) 65 56 58 49 0 20 40 60 80 July 0 9 Jul y 1 0 Percent all adults Job overall Environmental issues President Obama's Approval Ratings 50 45 18 23 31 22 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Adults nationwide* Californians Percent all adults More jobs Fewer jobs No effect Effect on Number of U.S. Jobs if the U.S. Does Things to Reduce Global Warming * Stanford Global Warming Poll, June 2010 57 344252 432825 39 323947 46 3534 0 20 40 60 80 July04 Jul y05 Jul y 06 Jul y 07 July 08 July 09 July 10 Percent all adults Job overall Environmental issues Governor Schwarzenegger's Approval Ratings PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 19 ELECTED OFFICIALS’ APPROVAL RATINGS Continuing a year-long trend, Governor Schwarzenegger receives a near -record low approval rating (25% approve, 62% disapprove) . In July 2009, the governor held similarly negative ratings (28% approve, 59% disapprove) . Th e feeling is widespread: A n overwhelming majority of Democrats disapprove, as do majorities of Republicans and independents. Three in four blacks, seven in 10 Latinos, six in 10 whites, and half of Asians express disapproval of the governor’s job performance. Similar to last July , approval of the governor on environment al issues today (34%) is higher than overall job approval , but still approaches record lows . Approval has dipped 21 point s since January 2007, when he enjoyed majority approval in the wake of passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) . Pluralities of Democrats and independents disapprove, while Republicans are divided. A near record -low 15 percent of adults approve and 68 percent disapprove of the legislature ’s job performance . Likely voters (82%), and strong majorities across political groups and regions disapprove. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling…” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind His job as governor of California? Approve 25% 17% 34% 26% 25% Disapprove 62 73 57 56 66 Don't know 13 10 9 18 9 Environmental issues in California? Approve 34 32 40 31 36 Disapprove 43 48 38 45 44 Don't know 23 20 22 24 20 President Obama’s job approval in the state dips to a new record low ( 56%), a 9 -point drop since last July and a 16 -point drop since his record high (72%) in May 2009. According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 47 percent of adults nationwide approve of the president . Most Democrat s (77%) and independents (56%) approve; most Republicans (76%) disapprove. Blacks (85%), Latinos (68%), and Asians (67%) approve, w ith whites divided (45% approve, 50% disapprove). Majorities in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles approve; adults are divided in the other three regions. R atings of the president’s handling of the environment (49%) have dropped 9 points since July 2009. On this issue, Californians ’ approv al is similar to adults’ nationwide (50 %) according to a June Associated Press –GfK Poll . Two -thirds of Democrats approve, three- fourths of Republicans disapprove, and independents are divided (46% approve, 42% disapprove) . “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Barack Obama is handling…” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind His job as president of the United States? Approve 56% 77% 19% 56% 50% Disapprove 38 18 76 37 46 Don't know 6 5 5 7 4 Environmental issues in the United States? Approve 49 67 16 46 45 Disapprove 40 24 75 42 48 Don't know 11 9 9 12 7 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 20 STATE AND FEDERAL POLICY About half of California adults and likely voters say the federal government is not doing enough to address global warming . This view is similar to last July, but is 14 points lower than the previous July (66%), when George W. Bush was president. Most Democrats (64%) and independents (54%) think not enough is being done. A plurality of Republicans (34%) say more than enough is being done, but almost as many say not enough (31%); 28 percent say just eno ugh. Across regions, adults most often say the federal government is not doing enough. Latinos (61%) are the most likely to hold this view , followed by Asians (51%), whites (48%), and blacks (47%). No more than 20 percent in any demographic group say more than enough is being done. Californians hold similar views about their state government on the issue of global warming: About half say it is not doing enough. Results were similar in July 2008 and 2009. S ix in 10 Democrats and half of independents say not enough. A plurality of Republicans say more than enough, yet a majority say either just or not enough is being done. A plurality across regions say not enough, with Inland Empire residents (55%) the most likely and Central Valley residents (39%) the least likely to say this. “Overall, do you think that the … is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Federal government More than enough 14% 5% 34% 13% 21% Just enough 28 27 28 26 26 Not enough 52 64 31 54 48 Don't know 6 4 7 7 5 State government More than enough 16 7 37 15 23 Just enough 29 28 29 27 29 Not enough 48 60 26 50 43 Don't know 7 5 8 8 5 A plurality of Californians (45%) think the United States doing things to reduce global warming will result in more jobs around the country, and about one in five (22%) say it wouldn’t affect the number of jobs; 23 percent say fewer jobs would result. Most a dults nationwide say there would be more jo bs (50%) or there would be no effect (31%), according to a Global Warming Poll conducted by Stanford University in June. Just 18 percent of adults nationwide say fewer jobs would result. Californians hold similar views whe n asked a related question about the effect on jobs in the state (45% more, 23% fewer, 24% no effect). “Do you think that the United States doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the country, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wouldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the country?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind More jobs 45% 56% 23% 50% 42% Fewer jobs 23 14 43 26 28 Wouldn’t affect number of jobs 22 20 23 17 21 Don’t know 10 10 11 7 9 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 21 OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico —which began when the oil rig exploded in April —has been d eemed by President Obama the worst environmental disaster in United States history. As efforts are still underway to cap the leak , how much confidence do Californians have in the federal government to make the right decisions about the disaster? Just 21 percent have either a great deal (8%) or good amount (13%) of confidence, four in 10 have just some confidence, and 36 percent have none at all. According to a June ABC/ Washington Post Poll, 27 percent of adults say they have either a great deal or good amount of confidence, 45 percent have just some, and 28 percent none at all. Republicans are the most pessimistic , with 59 percent saying they have no confidence at all; 43 percent of independents say the same. Comparatively, one- quarter of Democrats say no confidence at all, while three in 10 say either a good amount or great deal of confidence. Less than one in five across political, regional, and demographic groups express a great deal of confidence. The response of no confidence at all increases as age and education increase. “How much confidence do you have in the federal government to make the right decisions in dealing with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Great deal 8% 10% 2% 5% 7% Good amount 13 21 7 9 13 Just some 41 42 30 41 35 None at all 36 24 59 43 43 Don’t know 2 3 2 2 2 Californians also have low levels of confidence in the federal government ’s ability to prevent a future oil spill like the one in the gulf . About three in 10 say they are either very (7%) or fairly (21%) confident, 32 percent are not very confident, and 37 percent are not confident at all. Californians are more negative than adults nationwide: according to a June CNN/Opinion Research Poll, 41 percent said they were very (9%) or fairly (32%) confident, 34 percent said not very confident, and 24 percent said not confident at all. Majorities across political, regional, and demographic groups say they are either not very or not at all confident the federal government can prevent another oil spill like the current one . Two -thirds of Democrats, seven in 10 independents, and nearly eight in 10 Republicans hold this view. Two in three liberals, and seven in 10 moderates and conservatives also hold this view. About six in 10 Asians, blacks, and Latinos say they are not very or not at all confident , as do three in four whites. “How confident are you that the federal government can prevent another oil spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico? ” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Very confident 7% 8% 4% 6% 5% Fairly confident 21 22 17 21 16 Not very confident 32 37 28 27 32 Not confident at all 37 30 50 44 44 Don’t know 3 3 1 2 3 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 22 2010 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION With the November general e lection nearly three months away, an overwhelming majority of Californians (79%) say the gubernatorial candidate s’ positions on the environment are at least somewhat important to how they will vote. Just one in five say this issue is not too important in t hat decision. A majority of Democrats say candidates’ positions on the environment are very important and a plurality of independents say the same; a plurality of Republicans say somewhat important. Republicans are nearly tw ice as likely as independents and three times as likely as Democrats to say this issue is not too important. Among likely voters, Latino s (64%) are far more likely than whites (36%) to say candidates’ positions are very important. Samples for other likely vot er groups are too small for separate analysis. “In thinking about the California governor’s election in November, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the env ironment—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy —in determining your vote?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Party Latinos Dem Rep Ind Very important 41% 55% 21% 44% 64% Somewhat important 38 33 45 39 24 Not too important 21 11 33 17 11 Don’t know -- 1 1 -- 1 In the governor’s race, Californians are divided . Democrat Jerry Brown (37%), and Republican Meg Whitman (34%) hold similar levels of support, with nearly one in four undecided. Of those who say candidates’ environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, half favor Brown and only 16 percent favor Whitman. Whitman is favored among those who consider candidate s’ environment positions somewhat important. Gubernatorial preference follows party lines, with each candidate receiving support from about two in three in their respective parties . Independents are divided (30% Brown, 28% Whitman) and are 9 points more likely than Democrats and Republicans to be undecided. Two in three liberals and a plurality of moderates (41%) favor Brown, while six in 10 conservatives prefer Whitman. Latinos are more than twice as likely to favor Brown (42%) over Whitman (18%), whereas whites slightly prefer Whitman (40% to 34 % for Brown). Four in 10 women support Brown ; men support Whitman at the same rate. Brown holds a 7 -point lead among adults aged 18 to 34, while adults 35 and older are divided in their support for each candidate. Those earning less than $40,000 per year are far more likely to vote for Brown (40%) than Whitman (23%). Both candidates hold identical levels of support among voters earning $40,000 per year or more. At least one in five across demographic groups are undecided. Seven in 10 are following news about the governor’s race very (22%) or fairly (48%) closely. In July 2006, when Governor Schwarzenegger ran for reelect ion, seven in 10 (19 % very, 49% fairly) said the same . “If the November 2nd election for governor were being held today, would you vote for…?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Party Candidate s’ positions on the environment Dem Rep Ind Very important Somewhat important Jerry Brown, the Democrat 37% 64% 8% 30% 50% 33% Meg Whitman, the Republican 34 11 67 28 16 42 Other candidates* 6 4 4 12 8 5 Don’t know 23 21 21 30 26 20 * For full list of candidates, see question 44 on page 32. PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 23 2010 U.S. SENATE ELECTION Likely voters in the senate election also say the candidate s’ positions on the environment are very important in determining their vote. About eight in 10 say the issue is either very (41%) or somewhat (38%) important, with one in five saying not too important. Partisan differences also emerge in this election, with a majority of Democrats and a plurality of independents considering the issue very important, while a plurality of Republicans call it somewhat important. Again, Republicans (36%) are far more likely than independents (17%) and Democrats (10%) to say it is not too important, and are the most likely across all party, regional, and demographic groups to say this. Latinos (62%) are far more likely than whites (34%) to consider candidates’ positions on the environment very important. The share of those saying very important is similar across age groups, but decline s with rising income . “In thinking about the California U.S. S enate election in November, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment —such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy —in determining your vote?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Party Latinos Dem Rep Ind Very important 41% 53% 22% 46% 62% Somewhat important 38 36 42 36 27 Not too important 21 10 36 17 11 Don’t know -- 1 -- 1 -- Thirty-nine percent of likely voters support i ncumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and 34 percent support Republican challenger Carly Fiorina; 22 percent of likely voters are undecided. Likely voters who say candidates’ positions on the environment are very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54%) than they are Fiorina (18%). Among those who say candidates’ environmental positions are somewhat important, support is evenly divided. About seven in 10 Democrats favor Boxer, and seven in 10 Republicans favor Fiorina; Boxer holds a slight 6-point lead among independents. Seven in 10 liberals and a plurality of moderates (45%) would vote for Boxer, while 63 percent of conservatives prefer Fiorina. Support for each candidate varies across regions: V oters in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are far more likely to support Boxe r, while voters in the Central Valley and Other Southern California region are far more likely to support Fiorina. Latinos are far more likely to say they will vote for Boxer (52%) over Fiorina (16%), while whites are more likely to support Fiorina (42%) over Boxer (33%). More than four in 10 women prefer Boxer, whereas four in 10 men would vote for Fiorina. Voters younger than 55 years of age are more likely to favor Boxer, while those 55 and older are divided. Voters with household incomes under $40,000 per year are far more likely to favor Boxer (43%) over Fiorina (24%), while those earning $40,000 per year or more are divided. “If the November 2 nd election for U.S. Senate were being held today, would you vote for…?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Party Candidate s’ positions on the environment Dem Rep Ind Very important Somewhat important Barbara Boxer, the Democrat 39% 68% 6% 35% 54% 37% Carly Fiorina, the Republican 34 10 72 29 18 37 Other candidates* 5 4 2 11 7 5 Don’t know 22 18 20 25 21 21 * For full list of candidates, see question 47 on page 33. July 2010 Californians and the Environment 24 REGIONAL MAP July 2010 Californians and the Environment 25 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 Nicole Willcoxon, and survey intern David Ezekiel . 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 2,502 California adult residents, including 2,2 52 interviewed on landline telephones and 250 interviewed on cell phones. Interview s took place on weekday nights and weekend days from July 6–20 , 2010 and took an average of 18 minutes to complete. Landline interviews were conducted u sing 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 as many as 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 phon e interviews were included in this survey to account for the growing number of Californians who use them. 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 as many as 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 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 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 demo- graphic 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 2008 National Health Interview Survey and data from the 2005 –2007 American Community Survey for California, both 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 of 2,502 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 i n California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger: For the 1,971 registered PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 26 voters, it is ±2.2 percent; for the 1,321 likely voters, it is ±2.7 percent ; and for half- samples on questions 36 –39 (1,233 adults) and 36a–39a (1,269 adults), it is ±2.8 percent . When the design effect from weighting is taken into consideration, the overall sample has a margin of error of ± 2.7 percent ; for registered voters, it is ±3%, for likely voters, it is ±3.7 %, and for the half -samples on the 36 –39 and 36a– 39a series, it is ±3.8 %. 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. We asked four tracking questions on U.S. energy polici es. This year, half of the sample was asked these questions with the introduction we’ve used since 2003 (questions 36 –39) . The introduction frames the questions as proposals to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. The ot her half of the sample was asked the questions without this introduction (questions 36a–39a) . We wanted to see if the introduction was affecting responses ; we find that results are nearly the same with or without the introduction. Both sets of findings are included in the questionnaire on page 31. The report itself focuses on findings and time trends from the question format that has been repeated over time (questions 36 –39). Sample sizes for some racial/ethnic groups and regions are too small for separate analysis on these questions. Throughout the report, we refer to five geographic regions that account 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. In reporting results for the half-samples on pages 12 and 13 and for likely voters on pages 22 and 23 , we combine Orange/San Diego and Inland Empire into the “Other Southern California” region because sample sizes would otherwise be too small for separate analysis . Residents from other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but 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., those registered as “decline to state”). We a lso 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 our earlier surveys and those in recent national surveys by ABC News/ Washington Post, the Associated Press –GfK, the Associated Press – Stanford University, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Gallup, the Pew Research Center , and Stanford University. July 2010 Californians and the Environment 27 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT July 6–20, 2010 2,502 California Adult Residents: English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese MARGIN OF ERROR ±2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMP LE 1. First, ov erall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 25% approve 62 disapprove 13 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the wa y that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environm ental issues in California? 34% approve 43 disapprove 23 don’t know 3. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling its job? 15% approve 68 disapprove 17 don’t know 4. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 15% right direction 79 wrong direction 6 don’t know 5. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 25% good times 67 bad times 8 don’t know 6. 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 water supply, drought 11 energy , oil drilling 6 water pollution 4 global warming, global climate change, greenhouse gases 4 landfills, garbage, waste 3 gas prices 3 jobs, economy 3 oil spill, Gulf Coast /BP oil spill 2 immigration, immigrants 2 loss of forests, forest fires, wildfires 2 pollution in general 8 other 17 don’t know 7. 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? 25% big problem 38 somewhat of a problem 36 not a problem 1 don’t know 8. 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? 22% very satisfied 47 somewhat satisfied 20 somewhat dissatisfied 11 very dissatisfi ed PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 28 9. 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? 17% very serious 33 somewhat serious 46 not too seri ous 3 not at all serious (volunteered ) 1 don’t know 10. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas than other areas in your region, or not? 41% yes 52 no 7 don’t know 11. 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 24 yes, someone in immediate family 8 yes, both 57 no We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 12 to 15] 12. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and S UVs, or not? 70% yes 27 no 3 don’t know 13. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities, or not? 58% yes 36 no 6 don’t know 14. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities, or not? 75% yes 21 no 4 don’t know 15. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses, or not? 75% yes 23 no 2 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 h ave 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? 54% already begun 6 within a few years 8 within lifetime 14 not within lifetime, but will affect futu re generations 16 will never happen 2 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? 74% right away 21 not n ec essary yet 3 neither, never necessary (volunteered) 2 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 29 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? 44% very serious 29 somewhat serious 11 not too serious 14 not at all serious 2 don’t know 19 . Next, to address global warming, do you favor or oppose the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020? 67% favor 21 oppose 12 don’t know 20 . 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? 57% favor 35 oppose 8 don’t know 21. When it comes to the state government’s plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, should it [rotate ] (1) take action right away [ or should it ] (2) wait until the state economy and job situation improve to take action? 53% take action right away 42 wait until state economy and job situation improve 5 don’t know 22 . Do you think the government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce global warming? 76% sho uld 19 should not 5 don’t know Next, officials in the state and federal governments are discussing ways to address global warming. Please tell me if you favor or oppose the following plans to help r educe greenhouse gas emissions. [rotate questions 23 t o 27] 23. How about requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities? 85% favor 13 oppose 2 don’t know 24 . How about requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances? 75% favor 21 oppose 4 don’t know 25 . How about requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions? 81% favor 16 oppose 3 don’t know 26 . How about encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning s o that people could drive less? 77% favor 20 oppose 3 don’t know 27 . How about requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars? 79% favor 19 oppose 2 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 30 28. Next, how much, if anything, have you heard about a policy being considered called “cap and trade” that would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all? 18% a lot 27 a little 54 nothing at all 1 don’t know 29. In the proposed system called “cap and trade,” the government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you favor or oppose this system? 50% favor 40 oppose 10 don’t know 30. Would you favor or oppose a carbon tax on companies for their greenhouse gas emissions? 60% favor 33 oppose 7 don’t know 31 . Changing topics, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as president of the United States? 56% approve 38 disapprove 6 don’t know 32 . Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Obama is handling environmental issues in the United States? 49% approve 40 disapprove 11 don’t know 33. Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 14% more than enough 28 just enough 52 not enough 6 don’t know 34. Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 16% more than enough 29 just enough 48 not enough 7 don’t know 35 . Do you think that the United States doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the country, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wou ldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the country? 45% more jobs 23 fewer jobs 22 wouldn’t affect number of jobs 10 don’t know 35a. Do you think that California doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the state, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wouldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the state? 45% more jobs 23 fewer jobs 24 wouldn’t affect number of jobs 8 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 31 [ questions 36 to 39 asked of a random half sample of respondents ] 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 36 to 39 ] 36. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? 83% favor 15 oppose 2 don’t know 37 . How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 36% favor 59 oppose 5 don’t know 38 . How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 44% favor 49 oppose 7 don’t know 39 . How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology? 83% favor 15 oppose 2 don’t know [questions 36a to 39a asked o f a random half sample of respondents ] Next, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 36a to 39a ] 36a. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? 86% favor 13 oppose 1 don’t know 37a.How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 34% favor 61 oppose 5 don’t know 38a. How about building more nuclear power plants at th is time? 44% favor 50 oppos e 6 don’t know 39a. How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology ? 80% favor 17 oppose 3 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 32 40. How much confidence do you have in the federal government to make the right decisions in dealing with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? 8% great deal 13 good amount 41 just some 36 none at all 2 don’t know 41. How confident are you that the federal government can prevent another oil spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico? 7% very confident 21 fairly confident 32 not very confident 37 not confident at all 3 don’t know 42 . Next, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are regi stered to vote in California? 79% yes [ask q 42a] 21 no [skip to q43b ] 42a. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent 45% Democrat [ask q43 ] 31 Republican [skip to q43 a] 2 another party ( specify) [skip to q44 ] 22 independent [skip to q43b ] 43 . Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 52% strong 45 not very strong 3 don’t know [skip to q44 ] 43a.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 53% strong 44 not very strong 3 don’t know [skip to q4 4] 43b.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republ ican Party or Democratic Party? 20% Republ ican Party 45 Democratic Party 28 neither (volunteered ) 7 don’t know [if q42=no, skip to q49] [ responses recorded for questions 44 to 48 are for likely voters] 44. If the November 2nd election for governor were being held today, would you vote for : [rotate names and then ask “or someone else” ] (1) Meg Whitman, the Republican; (2) Jerry Brown, the Democrat; (3) Dale Ogden, the Libertarian; (4) Chelene Nightingale, the American Independent; (5) Laura Wells, the Green; (6) Carlos Alvarez, the Peace and F reedom candidate; or someone else? 34% Meg Whitman, the Republican 37 Jerry Brown, the Democrat 1 Dale Ogden, the Libertarian 1 Chelene Nightingale, the American Independent 1 Laura Wells, the Green 2 Carlos Alvarez, the Peace and Freedom candidate 1 someone else (specify) 23 don’t k now 45. How closely are you following news about candidates for the 20 10 governor’s election? 22% very closely 48 fairly closely 23 not too closely 7 not at all closely 46. In thinking about the California governor’s election in November, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment —such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy —in determining your vote? 41% very important 38 somewhat important 21 not too important PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 33 47. If the November 2nd election for U.S. Senate were being held today, would you vote for : [rotate names and then ask “or someone else”] (1) Carly Fiorina, the Republican; (2) Barbara Boxer, the Democrat; (3) Gail Lightfoot, the Libertarian; (4) Edward Noonan, the American Independent; (5) Duane Roberts, the Green; (6) Marsha Feinland, the Peace and Freedom candidate; or someone else? 34% Carly Fiorina, the Republican 39 Barbara Boxer, the Democrat 2 Gail Lightfoot, the Libertarian 2 Edward Noonan, the American Independent 1 Duane Roberts, the Green – Marsha Feinland, the Peace and Freedom candidate – someone else (specify) 22 don’t know 48. In thinking about the California U.S. Senate election in November, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment —such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy —in determining your vote? 41% very important 38 somewhat important 21 not too important 49. Next, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom ] 11% very liberal 20 somewhat liberal 30 middle -of -the -road 24 somewhat conservative 13 very conservative 2 don’t know 50 . Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics ? 23% great deal 38 fair amount 32 only a little 7 none [d1 to d23: demographic questions] 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 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 Donna Lucas La Opinión 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 Most Reverend Jaime Soto Bishop of Sacramento Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Raymond L. Watson Orange County Register 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. PPIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS Walter B. Hewlett, Chair Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities Mark Baldassare President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of C alifornia Ruben Barrales President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce John E. Bryson Retired Chairman and CEO Edison International Gary K. Hart Former State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California Robert M. Hertzberg Partner Mayer Brown, LLP Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs David Mas Masumoto Author and farmer Steven A. Merksamer Senior Partner Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Carol Whiteside President Emeritus Great Valley Center 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 operating foundation. 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. Walter B. Hewlett is Chair of the Board of Directors. 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 copyright notice below is included. Copyright © 2010 Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved. San Francisco, CA PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 PPIC SACRAMENTO CENT ER 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 710MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(107) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-the-environment-july-2010/s_710mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8771) ["ID"]=> int(8771) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:41" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(4103) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 710MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_710mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_710MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "564652" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(98276) "& p p i c s tat e w i d e s u r v e y Californians Mark Baldassare Dean Bonner Sonja Petek Nicole Willcoxon in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation CONTENTS About the Survey 2 Press Release 3 Climate Change, Energy Policy, Air Pollution 6 Environmental Politics and Preferences 18 Regional Map 24 Methodology 25 Questionnaire and Results 27 the environment JULY 2010 July 2010 Californians and the Environment 2 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Sur vey 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 108th PPIC Statewide Sur vey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 230,000 Californians. This sur vey is the 10th annual PPIC Statewide Sur vey on the environment . It is par t of a series conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and intended to inform state, local, and federal policymakers, to encourage discussion about environmental topics, and to raise public awareness about environmental issues. The current sur vey focuses on climate change, energy policy, and air pollution—current topics of policy discussion in local, state, and federal government s. The context for this year’s sur vey includes the November general election for governor, congressional representatives, and the U.S. senate, as well as a controversial initiative on the ballot that would suspend California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) until the state’s job situation markedly improves. T o reach the goals of AB 32, officials in state and local government are currently working on ways to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions . At the federal level, what President Obama has deemed the countr y’s worst environmental disaster —the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico— continues to be a major focus. Also at the federal level, the Senate has been debating a comprehensive energy bill; the House of Representatives has already approved its version. This sur vey presents the responses of 2,502 adult residents throughout California, inter viewed in multiple languages by landline or cell phone. It includes findings on the following :  Opinions about climate change, energy policy, and air pollution, including perceptions of global warming, att itudes toward government regulation of greenhouse gases, preferences regarding the state law requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and whether Californians think action on global warming will affect the number of jobs in the state. It examines preferences for more specific state emissions policies, such as increased use of renewable energy, reductions in tailpipe emissions, cap and trade, and carbon taxes, as well as attitudes about U.S. energy policies, including proposals for increased oil dr illing off the California coast and more nuclear power plants . It also looks at perceptions of regional air pollution and preferences for tougher air pollution standards.  Environmental politics and preferences, including job approval ratings of the governor and president and ratings of their handling of environmental issues; attitudes about the adequacy of government action on global warming at the state and federal levels and the effect of action on the number of jobs in the U.S. ; confidence in the federal government ’s ability to handle the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and prevent a future spill; preferences in the November gubernatorial and senate r aces and per ceived impor tance of candidates’ positions on the environment.  Time trends, national comparisons, and variations in environmental perceptions, attitudes, and preferences across the five major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Inland Empire, and Orange/San Diego Counties), among Asians, blacks, Latin os, and non- Hispanic whites, and across socioeconomic and political groups. This repor t may be downloaded free of charge from our website ( www.ppic.org). For questions about the sur vey, please contact sur vey@ppic.org. View our searchable PPIC Statewide Sur vey database online at http://www.ppic.org/main/sur vAdvancedSearch.asp. July 2010 Californians and the Environment 3 PPIC Statewide Survey CONTACT Linda Strean 415-291-4412 Andrew Hattori 415- 291-4417 NEWS RELEASE EMBARGOED: Do not publish or broadcast until 9:00 p.m. PDT on Wednesday , July 28, 2010. 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 In Big Shift, Californians Oppose Offshore Oil Drilling SUPPORT FOR POLICIES TO COUNTER GLOBAL WARMING HOLDS STEADY SAN FRANCISCO , July 28, 2010— Three months after a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Californians’ support for more drilling off their coast has plunged, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). A solid majority of the state’s residents now oppose more offshore drilling (59% oppose, 36% favor) —a 16 -point increase in opposition from last year (43% oppose, 51% favor). The PPIC survey was conducted with support from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and is the 10th in a series about C alifornians and the environment. In contrast to the shift in opinion on drilling, Californians’ views on another contentious environmental policy issue have held steady since last year. Two- thirds (67% today, 66% in 2009) favor the state law (AB 32) that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 is the focus of renewed debate because Proposition 23 on the November ballot asks whether the law should be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5% or below for a minimum of one year . Because t he ballot language has not been finalized, we posed a more general question about timing: Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53%) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait. “Two crises —a major oil spill and a major recession— have affected Californians’ views on environmental policy in very different ways,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and C EO. “After consistently opposing more offshore oil drilling, residents began to waver as gas prices increased. But events in the g ulf appear to have renewed opposition to more drilling here. In contrast, the lingering effect of the recession and a continuing state budget crisis haven’t changed Californians’ overall view of AB 32. While support has declined somewhat since 2007, a solid majority still favors the law.” LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN FEDERA L SPILL RESPONSE Partisan divisions are stark in many of the environmental survey findings. On the question of allowing more drilling, Democrats (72%) and independents (64%) oppose it, while Republicans (64%) favor it. Californians are more united in their low levels of confidence in the federal government’s handling of the oil spill. Just 21 percent have either a great deal (8%) or good amount (13%) of confidence in the government to make the right decisions in dealing with the spill. Fewer than one i n five residents across political, regional, and demographic groups expre ss a great deal of confidence. Residents also lack confidence in the federal government’s ability to prevent future spill s. About three in 10 are very (7%) or fairly (21%) confident, 32 percent are not very confident , an d 37 percent are not confident at all. PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 4 BUILD MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS? CALIFORNIANS DIVIDED The question about oil drilling is one of four that PPIC asked about U.S. energy policies. On another issue —nuclear power —California ns are divided (49% oppose, 44% favor) about building more nuclear power plants at this time to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources. On this question, too, partisan differences emerge: 57 percent of Democrats are opposed, while 67 percent of Republicans and half of independents (51%) favor building more plants now. There is considerably more consensus on the two other policies. To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources , ov erwhelming majorities favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology (83%) , and favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country (83%). Strong majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups hold these views. (This year we asked these energy policy questions in two ways. Half of our sample was asked the questions as we have in the past, with the introductory phrase, “Thinking about the country as a whole, to ad dress the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals?” Half of the sample was asked the policy questions without this introductory phrase , to test whether or not the framing of the question influenced responses. Results for the four questions asked with the introductory phrase and without it are similar. Details on page 31.) WILL ACTION TO CURB WARMING LEAD TO LOST JOBS ? MOST SAY NO Most Californians (54%) say global warming is already having an impact but are somewhat less likely to hold this view than they were last July (61%). Today 28 percent say global warming’s effects will be felt sometime in the future —up 6 points since last y ear—while just 16 percent say they will never happen. Nearly three -fourths say global warming is a very serious (44%) or somewhat serious (29%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. These findings are similar to last year but have decl ined since July 2007 (54% very serious, 28% somewhat serious). Against a backdrop of state and national debates over climate change policies, Californians (76%) support government regulation of emissions from sources like power plants, cars, and factories, with 85 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents, and 51 percent of Republicans holding this view. Although a majority (67%) support the idea of AB 32, party divisions are strong : 80 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are in favor, but only 39 percent of Republicans share this view. Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until unemployment in the state is 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. We asked Californians how the state’s actions to reduce global warming would af fect employment . Forty -five percent say the result would be more jobs, 23 percent say fewer jobs, and 24 percent say the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected. Most Democrats (57%) and half of independents (50%) foresee more jobs in California as a result of action on global warming. Forty -three percent of Republicans foresee fewer jobs; half of Republicans say there would be more jobs (24%) or no effect on jobs (25%). About half of Californians say the state (48%) and federal (52%) governments are not doing enough to address global warming. When it comes to ideas about state and federal actions to address global warming, strong majorities of Californians think the government should require: increased use of renewable energy sources by utilities (85%); indust rial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce emissions (81%); all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (79%) ; and an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appl iances (75%). They also favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people can drive less (77%). Support for all of these policies is similar to last year. PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 5 Most Californians (54%) have not heard of one policy being discussed , the cap and trade system of setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions. After being read a brief description of the idea, 50 percent would support a cap and trade system and 40 percent would oppose it. They are much more likely to support a carbon tax (60% favor, 33% oppose). CLOSE RACES FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR AND U.S. SENATE SEAT With the November election approaching, an overwhelming majority (79%) of likely voters say the gubernatorial candidates’ positions on the environment are at least somewhat important. Likely voters are closely divided between Democrat Jerry Brown (37%) and Republican Meg Whitman (34 %), with 23 percent undecided. Of those saying that a candidate’s environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, 50 percent would vote for Brown and 16 percent would vote for Whitman. Among those who say a candidate’s environmental positions are somewhat important, Whitman is favored (42% to 33%). Preferences follow party lines , with independents split (30% Brown, 28% Whitman , 30% undecided). (The survey questionnaire lists results for all six candidates listed on the November ballot.) Most likely voters (79%) also view the U.S. Senate candidates’ positions on the environment as at least somewhat important. Thirty -nine percent of likely voters support Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer , 34 percent support Republican Carly Fiorina, and 22 percent are undecided. Those who view candidates ’ positions on the environment as very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54%) as Fior ina (18%). Among those who say candidates ’ views on the environment are somewhat important, support is evenly divided (37% to 37%). Each candidate has the support of her party’s likely voters. Among independents, 35 percent support Boxer, 29 percent support Fiorina, and 25 percent are undecided. President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped 9 points since last July and 16 points since his record high (72%) in May 2009. Approval of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s handling of environmental issues (34% ) is higher than his overall rating (25%). The state legislature ’s approval rating is 15 percent. MOST SUPPORT TOUGHER POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR NEW VEHICLES When asked the open-ended question of what is the most important environmental issue facing Califor nians, air pollution is most often mentioned, as it has been since 2000. But it has declined in importance to residents from 33 percent in 2000 to 23 percent today. Other frequently named issues this year are water supply (12%), energy and oil drilling (11%), and water pollution (6%). Similar to last year (23%), one in four Californians consider air pollution in their region a big problem (25%) . Majorities of residents in Los Angeles (63%), the Inland Empire (57%), and the Central Valley (54%) consider air pollution a very serious or somewhat serious health threat, and 43 percent of Californians say they or an immediate family member has asthma or other respiratory problems. When it comes to air quality policies, a s trong majority (70%) would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles. But there is much less agreement across party lines: 86 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are willing to see stricter standards, compared to 45 percent of Republicans. The California Air Resources Board is poised to consider easing or delaying implementation of diesel pollution rules because of their economic impact on truck owners and businesses . Asked about tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, an overw helming majority (75%) of Californians are willing to see stricter standards, a view held by solid majorities across political, regional, and demographic groups. Similarly, 75 percent would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. A smaller majority (58%) would be willing to see tougher standards on agriculture and farm activities. July 2010 Californians and the Environment 6 CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY POLICY, AIR POLLUTION KEY FINDINGS  Most Californians say the effects of global warming have already begun, but the share holding this view is down 7 points since 2009 (61% to 54%). The share saying effects will happen sometime later is up 6 points. Three in four believe the government should regulate emissions to reduce global warming. ( pages 7, 8)  Two in three continue to support the state law requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; 53 percent say the state government should take action now and 42 percent believe that action should wait until the economy and employment improve. (page 9)  Majorities of voters across parties continue to favor specific ways to reduce emissions, such as those aimed at automobiles. Voters are divided along party lines over cap and trade, an idea many have never heard of. ( pages 10, 11 )  Since last year, support for allowing more oil drilling off the California coast has dropped 15 points: A solid majority now oppose it. Strong majorities of Californians favor requiring increased fuel efficiency and funding the development of renewable energy, but they are divided about building more nuclear power plants. (pages 12, 13)  One in four Californians consider air pollution to be a big problem in their region, with Los Angeles residents (41%) most likely to hold this view. Los Angeles residents are also more likely to consider regional air pollution a serious health threat. (pages 14, 15 )  Solid majorities of Californians are willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new vehicles, diesel engines, farming, and industrial activities. (pages 16, 17 ) 39 44 41 42 4151 51 36 54 5053 5152 45 4359 0 20 40 60 80 Jul y03 July 04 July 05 Ju l y 06 Jul y07 July 08 July 09 Ju l y 10 Percent all adults Favor Oppose Allow ing More O il D rilling O ff the California Coast 65 78 73 6667 19 14 1723 21 0 20 40 60 80 100 July06 Jul y 07 July 08 July 09 Jul y 10 Percent all adults Favor Oppose State Law Requiring Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions to 1990 Levels by 2020 53 63 2755 48 42 3466 4048 0 20 40 60 80 100 All adults Dem Rep Ind L ikely voters Percent all adults Take action right away Wait until state economy and job situation improve State Government's Plans for Reducing Greenhouse Gases PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 7 PERCEPTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE When asked in an open-ended question to name the most important environmental issue facing the state today, 23 percent of Californians mention air pollution. Air pollution has been the top issue mentioned by Californians since we first asked this question in June 2000. The percentage calling it the top issue today is lower than it was then (33%), but is similar to last July (20%). This year, 12 percent mention water supply as the most important issue, 11 percent energy and oil drilling, and 6 percent water pollution. The share naming global warming has dropped to 4 percent from a high of 11 percent in July 2007. Most Californians (54%) believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen, but they are somewhat less likely to hold this view than last July (61%). The belief that effects will happen at some future time is up 6 points since last year (22% to 28%). Just 16 percent believe global warming’s effects will never happen. Nationally, half of adults in a March Gallup poll said the effects had already begun, 29 percent said they will happen later, and 19 percent said there will be no effects. In California, most Democrats (67%) and independents (55%) say effects have already begun, compared to 30 percent of Republicans. Republicans have been increasingly likely to say global warming’s effects will never happen (18% 2007, 24% 2008, 34% 2009, 40% today). Since last year, belief that global warming has already begun has declined 9 points among Democrats and 6 points among independents, while the belief that it will happen later has increased. “Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen…?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Already begun 54% 67% 30% 55% 51% Within a few years 6 7 2 4 4 Within your lifetime 8 8 6 10 7 Not within your lifetime, but will affect future generations 14 11 18 14 13 Will never happen 16 5 40 14 22 Don’t know 2 2 4 3 3 Most Californians (74%) believe it is necessary to take steps right away to counter the effects of global warming, while 24 percent say it is not yet necessary or volunteer that it will never be necessary. Findings were similar last year. Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (87%) and independents (75%) support taking steps right away, while most Republicans think it can wait or isn’t necessary (56%). Nearly three in four Californians perceive global warming as a very serious (44%) or somewhat serious (29% ) threat to the future economy and quality of life in California. These findings are similar to last year, but have declined since July 2007 (54% very, 28% somewhat serious). “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Very serious 44% 51% 18% 50% 36% Somewhat serious 29 35 23 27 27 Not too serious 11 7 20 10 15 Not at all serious 14 5 35 12 20 Don’t know 2 2 4 1 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 8 REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS With controversy swirling at both the state and national levels about climate change mitigation and adaptation, what do Californians say about the fundamental idea of emissions regulation? Strong majorities of Californ ians (76%) and likely voters (70%) believe the government should regulate the release of greenhouse gas emissions from sources like power plants, cars, and factories , in an effort to reduce global warming; 19 percent of Californians and 25 percent of likely voters think it should not. Findings were nearly identical last year. In a similar ABC News/ Washington Post question (which asked about the federal government specifically rather than government in general), 71 percent of adults nationwide said the federal government should regulate the release of greenhouse gas emissions. In California, at least eight in 10 Democrats and independents believe the government should regulate greenhouse gas emissions; 51 percent of Republicans agree. More than two in three ac ross regions and across racial/ethnic and other demographic groups believe the government should regulate emissions. Latinos (87%) are the most likely racial/ethnic group to express this view (79% Asians, 70% blacks, 70% whites). Residents age 18– 34 (83%) and those with annual household incomes under $40,000 (84%) are more likely than older and more affluent residents to say the government should regulate emissions. “Do you think the government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Should 76% 85% 51% 81% 70% Should not 19 11 41 16 25 Don’t know 5 4 8 3 5 California has a history of enacting environmental policies that are more stringent than national policies . Most Californians (57%) and likely voters (56%) favor the state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming. In July 2005, 54 percent favored this idea, and the percentage expressing support climbed to 67 percent in July 2007 but has declined since then. At present, no major federal climate change policy has been enacted. At least six in 10 Democrats and indep endents favor the state making its own global warming policies, compared to 43 percent of Republicans; 50 percent of Republicans are opposed. Across regions, Los Angeles residents (62%) are the most likely to favor independent action by the state, followed by residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (57%), Central Valley (56%), Orange/San Diego Counties (53%), and the Inland Empire (51%). Latinos (62%) and whites (57%) are more likely than Asians (52%) and blacks (48%) to express support. On this idea, younger residents are much more likely than middle - and older -aged residents, and college graduates are more likely than those with less education, to approve. “Do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the f ederal government, to address the issue of global warming?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 57% 63% 43% 60% 56% Oppose 35 30 50 30 38 Don’t know 8 7 7 10 6 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 9 CALIFORNIA POLICY ON CLIMATE CHANGE California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by the year 2020. An initiative that qualified for this November’s ballot — Proposition 23 —would suspend AB 32 until unemployment in the state is at 5.5 perc ent or lower for four consecutive quarters. Proposition 23 proponents argue that AB 32 negatively affects jobs and the economy; initiative opponents argue that AB 32 spurs growth in green jobs and that Proposition 23, because of the unemployment requirement, would in effect repeal AB 32. (A draft copy of the Proposition 23 ballot title and label were made public the day we completed survey interviews. The title and label language is still subject to review and will not be official until mid -August. Because of this timing, we were unable to ask about the specific initiative, but we continued to track attitudes about AB 32 and asked additional questions about state action on global warming.) As they did last year, two in three Californians (67%) and six in 10 likely voters (61%) favor the state law (AB 32) requiring California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Support peaked at 78 percent in July 2007; the level of support this year and last year is similar to July 2006 (65%). Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (80%) and independents (73%) favor this law, compared to 39 percent of Republicans; 49 percent of Republicans oppose it. “To address global warming, do you favor or oppose the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 67% 80% 39% 73% 61% Oppose 21 10 49 16 28 Don’t know 12 10 12 11 11 When it comes to state government plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 53 percent of Californians think the state should act right away, while 42 percent say it should wait until the state’s economy and job situation improve. Likely voters are evenly split (48% now, 48% wait) and this issue deeply divides voters: 63 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents believe the state should act now, while 66 percent of Republicans say it should wait. When asked how jobs in the state would be affec ted by California’s efforts to reduce global warming, 45 percent say there would be more jobs, 23 percent say fewer jobs, and 24 percent say the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected. Democrats (57%) and independents (50%) foresee more jobs in California resulting from action on global warming, while 43 percent of Republicans foresee fewer jobs. Half of Republicans either say there would be more jobs (24%) or the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected (25%). “Do you think that California doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the state, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wouldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the state?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind More jobs 45% 57% 24% 50% 43% Fewer jobs 23 14 43 25 28 Wouldn’t affect number of jobs 24 21 25 18 21 Don’t know 8 8 8 7 8 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 10 EMISSIONS POLICIES When presented with several ways state and federal government could address global warming, strong majorities of Californians favor requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources by utilities (85%), requiring industrial plants, oil refineries , and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions (81%), and requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (79%). Support today (85%) for requiring utilities to increase their use of renewable energy is identical to last year’s survey. Eight in 10 likely voters and more than two in three across parties, regions, and demographic groups favor increased use of renewable energy by utilities. Solid majorities are in favor even among those who think it’s not yet necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming, and those who think the state should wait until the economy and job situation improve. The Pew Research Center asked adults nationwide a similar question in June: In thinking about what shoul d be included in a comprehensive energy bill, 87 percent favored including requirements that utilities produce more energy from renewable sources. About eight in 10 California adults today and last year have favored requiring industrial plants, oil refiner ies, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions. This idea has the support of 77 percent of likely voters and strong majorities across parties. At least seven in 10 across regions and demographic groups favor requiring such enterprises to reduce e missions. Among those who believe it is not yet necessary to take steps to counter global warming, opinion is divided. Among those who think the state should wait until the economy and job situation improve to take action, 68 percent still favor this idea. Since June 2002, more than three in four have expressed support for requiring all automakers to further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (between 2002 and 2008, the question was asked in relation to California and not to both state and federal government). California passed a measure in 2002 requiring reduced emissions from cars beginning in 2009, but permission to enact this law —which was more stringent than federal requirements —wasn’t granted by the federal government until last year. Both the state and federal government are now working on enacting this type of policy. This idea is supported by nearly three in four likely voters and majorities across parties; however, Republicans (54%) are far less likely than independents (82%) and De mocrats (90%) to favor it. More than seven in 10 Californians across regions and demographic groups favor this idea. Among those who say action on global warming is not yet needed, 43 percent favor this idea. Among those who think the state should wait to take action until the economy and job situation improve, 64 percent favor it. “Officials in the state and federal governments are discussing ways to address global warming. Please tell me if you favor or oppose the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How about…” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities? Favor 85% 92% 69% 87% 81% Oppose 13 6 29 11 17 Don't know 2 2 2 2 2 Requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions? Favor 81 90 61 87 77 Oppose 16 8 36 12 21 Don't know 3 2 3 1 2 Requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars? Favor 79 90 54 82 73 Oppose 19 8 44 17 25 Don't know 2 2 2 1 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 11 EMISSIONS POLICIES (CONTINUED) Regarding two additional ideas for addressing global warming, 75 percent of Californians favor requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances and 77 percent favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less. The percentage (75%) favoring increased energy efficiency requirements for residential and commercial buildings and for appliances was similar last July (76%). This idea is supported by seven in 10 likely voters and majorities across parties, but Democrats (85%) and independents (82%) are far more likely to favor it than Republicans (56%). At least two in three across regions and demographic groups favor this idea. Among those who think action to mitigate global warming is not yet needed, 47 percent favor the idea and 49 percent oppose it. Among those who believe state government should wait until the economy and job situation improve to take action, 63 percent favor more stringent building and appliance requirements. In the June Pew Research Center survey, 78 percent of adults nationwide favored including tougher efficiency standards for buildings and major appliances in an energy bill. Similar to last July’s environment survey, more than three in four Californians favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning to reduce driving. Three in four likely voters, strong majorities across parties, and more than two in three across regions and demographic groups favor this proposal. Among those who think it is not yet necessary to take steps to counter global warming, 52 percent support this idea. Among those who think the state government should wait until the economy and job situation improve, 67 percent favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning to reduce driving. “Officials in the state and federal governments are discussing ways to address global warming. Please tell me if you favor or oppose the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How about…” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances? Favor 75% 85% 56% 82% 71% Oppose 21 12 39 16 25 Don't know 4 3 5 2 4 Encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less? Favor 77 84 63 79 74 Oppose 20 13 34 19 23 Don't know 3 3 3 2 3 A policy under discussion at the state and federal levels is a “cap and trade” system. Most Californians (54%) have never heard of this idea, which would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Eighteen percent have heard a lot and 27 percent have heard a little about it. In a February Pew Research Center survey, adults nationwide were more likely to have heard of cap and trade (17% heard a lot, 37% heard some, 46% heard nothing at all). After being read a brief description of the idea (see question 29 on page 30), 50 percent of Californians would favor a cap and trade system and 40 percent would oppose it; findings were nearly identical last year. Democrats (57%) and independents (55%) are far more likely than Republicans (28%) to support it. In an Assoc iated Press–Stanford University survey last November, 50 percent of adults nationwide favored cap and trade, while 47 percent opposed it. Californians are much more likely to favor a carbon tax on companies for their greenhouse gas emissions than to favor cap and trade. Sixty percent favor a carbon tax, and 33 percent oppose it, but this idea again divides voters along party lines. Last year, 56 percent of adults expressed support. PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 12 U.S. ENERGY POLICIES As we have in previous surveys, we asked four questions on U.S. energy policies —but did so this year using an alternative technique. Half of the sample of Californians we interviewed were asked the questions preceded by the introductory phrase, “Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources.” Half of the sample was asked the questions without this introductory phrase. The technique lets us test whether respondents are influenced by the phrase itself. Results for the four questions with and without the phrase are similar; the results reported below are for the half -sample that heard the introductory phrase (used since 2003). Results for the half- sample without the phrase are reported on page 31 . To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil, 83 percent of Californians favor having automakers significantly improve fuel efficiency in cars sold in the U.S. Support has been above 80 percent since 2003. At least seven in 10 across political, regional, and demographic groups favor requiring automakers to significantly improve fuel efficiency in cars. Democrats (90%), liberals (90%), and moderates (89%) are the most likely among political groups to express fav or, while Republicans (71%) and conservatives (75%) are the least likely. Women (89%) are much more likely than men (77%) to favor this proposal. “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? How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 83% 90% 71% 85% 83% Oppose 15 7 29 11 16 Don’t know 2 3 – 4 1 In the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, how do Californians view allowing more drilling off the California coast? Fifty- nine percent oppose allowing more oil drilling. Opposition increased 16 points since last year, setting a new high for our annual environment surveys. Americans nationwide are not so opposed, according to the responses to a similar question asked in the June Pew Research Center survey: 44 percent favor offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters and 52 percent oppose it. Acros s parties, seven in 10 Democrats (72%) and 64 percent of independents oppose allowing more oil drilling off the California coast, while 64 percent of Republicans are in favor. Since 2009, opposition increased 15 points among Democrats and favor decreased 12 points among Republicans. A majority of independents favored increasing drilling last year, but a strong majority oppose it this year. San Francisco Bay Area residents (71%) are the most likely to oppose more drilling, followed by adults in Los Angeles ( 61%), the Central Valley (53%), and the Other Southern California region (52%). “…How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 36% 25% 64% 31% 37% Oppose 59 72 34 64 59 Don’t know 5 3 2 5 4 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 13 U.S. ENERGY POLICIES (CONTINUED) While solid majorities of Californians oppose allowing more offshore oil drilling, an overwhelming majority (83%) favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources. Seventy -nine percent in July 2009 and 83 percent in July 2008 were in favor of this proposal. Strong majorities of adults nationwide are also in favor, according to the June P ew Research Center survey (75% favor, 21% oppose). Although strong majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups are in favor, Democrats (90%) and independents (83%) are much more likely than Republicans (70%) to favor increasing federal fundi ng to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology. At least three in four across regions are in favor. Latinos (87%) are somewhat more likely than whites (79%) to express favor. “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? How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 83% 90% 70% 83% 80% Oppose 15 9 28 14 19 Don’t know 2 1 2 3 1 Another potential source for the country’s energy needs is nuclear power. Californians are more divided about building more nuclear power plants at this time (44% favor, 49% oppose). Results today are similar to last July and July 2008 and at least half opposed this idea between 2005 and 2007. Adults nationwide are also divided on promoting more nuclear power, according to the June Pew Research Center survey (47% favor, 47% oppose). Across parties, 57 percent of Democrats oppose building more nuclear power plants, while two in three Republicans (67%) and half of independents (51%) are in favor. Differences also emerge across regions: Adults in the San Francisco Bay Area (50%) and Other Southern California region (48%) are somewhat more likely than those in the Central Valley (40%) and Los Angeles (39%) to be in favor. Los Angeles is the only region where a majority (57%) oppose this proposal. Whites (53%) are far more likely than Latinos (33%) and men (55%) are far more likely than women (33%) to say they fav or increasing the number of nuclear power plants. Favor increases as age, education, and income increase. “…How about building more nuclear power plants at this time?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 44% 36% 67% 51% 53% Oppose 49 57 30 40 41 Don’t know 7 7 3 9 6 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 14 REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION More than six in 10 Californians consider air pollution in their region a big problem (25%) or somewhat of a problem (38%). The perception of regional air pollution as a big problem is similar to last year (23%), but lower than in previous years. In June 2000, 28 percent held this view; the share rose to a high of 41 percent in July 2006. Los Angeles (41%), Inland Empire (31%), and Central Valley (29%) residents are far more likely than those in the San Francisco Bay Area (14%) and Orange/San Diego Counties (10%) to describe air pollution in their regions as a big problem. Across regions, perceptions of air pollution have fluctuated over time. In Los Angeles for example, the proportion calling air pollution a big problem reached a record high of 54 percent in July 2006, but dipped to 30 percent in July 2009. In the Central Valley, a record low 28 percent called it a big problem in June 2000 and a record high 51 percent said the same in July 2006 and July 2008. In the Inland Empire, the record high was 49 percent in July 2007 and the record low was 27 percent in July 2009. Blacks (38%) and Latinos (33%) are mu ch more likely than whites (20%) and Asians (19%) to say air pollution is a big problem in their region. The percentage of respondents who call it a big problem declines as age and income rise. “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?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Big problem 25% 29% 14% 41% 10% 31% Somewhat of a problem 38 42 40 37 43 36 Not a problem 36 28 46 22 46 33 Don’t know 1 1 – – 1 – About one in five adults in California (22%) say they are very satisfied with the air quality in their region today, while 47 percent are somewhat satisfied, 20 percent are somewhat dissatisfied, and 11 percent are very dissatisfied. About one in five said they were very satisfied with their regional air quality in July 2006 (18%), July 2007 (19%), and July 2008 (17%). Last July, 24 percent said they were very satisfied. Residents in Orange/San Diego Counties (28%) are the most likely to be very satisfied with their regional air quality, followed by those in the San Francisco Bay Area (26%), Central Valley (22%), Inland Empire (18%), and Los Angeles (11%). Los Angeles residents (44%) are the most likely to be very or somewhat dissatisfied, followed by Inland Empire (36%), Central Valley (35%), Orange/San Diego County (20%), and San Francisco Bay Area (19%) residents. Whites (26%) are the most likely racial/ethnic group to be very satisfied, while blacks (12%) are the least likely. High satisfaction with air quality increases with age. “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your region today?” All Adults Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos White Very satisfied 22% 18% 12% 19% 26% Somewhat satisfied 47 53 46 48 46 Somewhat dissatisfied 20 23 26 20 18 Very dissatisfied 11 5 16 13 10 Don’t know – 1 – – – PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 15 AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH Similar to last year, half of Californians consider air pollution to be a very (17%) or somewhat serious (33%) health threat to themselves and their families. Majorities of Los Angeles (63%), Inland Empire (57%), and Central Valley (54%) residents consider air pollution a very or somew hat serious health threat, while majorities of San Francisco Bay Area (61%) and Orange/San Diego County (57%) residents say it is a not too serious or not at all serious health threat. Blacks (27%) and Latinos (24%) are much more likely than whites (13%) a nd Asians (10%) to consider air pollution a very serious health threat. Respondents with asthma or with an asthmatic in their immediate family (25%) are more than twice as likely as those without (11%) to consider air pollution a very serious health threat . “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?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Very serious 17% 20% 9% 22% 13% 23% Somewhat serious 33 34 30 41 29 34 Not too serious 46 43 58 35 52 39 Not at all serious (volunteered) 3 3 3 1 5 2 Don’t know 1 – – 1 1 2 Forty-one percent of Californians consider air pollution in their region a more serious health threat in lower -income areas than in other areas. The share who believe this is the lowest it’s been since we first asked the question in July 2006 (47% 2006, 50% 2007, 48% 2008, 48% 2009, 41% today). Latinos (62%) are by far the most likely among racial/ethnic groups to consider air pollution a more serious health threat in lower -income areas and whites (29%) are by far the least likely. Half of Los Angeles residents (52%) believe air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas and are the most likely to hold this belief, while Central Valley residents (27%) are the least likely to do so. Among Los Angeles (down 11 points), Inland Empire (down 6 points), and Central Valley (down 7 points) residents, the perception that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas has declined since last year. This belief decreases as household income increases. “Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income areas than other areas in your region, or not ?” All Adults Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Yes 41% 44% 47% 62% 29% No 52 51 51 34 62 Don’t know 7 5 2 4 9 Forty-three percent of respondents report having asthma or other respiratory problems, or have an immediate family member who has it. Orange/San Diego Counties (38%) have the smallest proportion of people who either have asthma or have family members who have it, compared to Los Angeles (43%), the San Francisco Bay Area (44%), the Inland Empire (49%), and the Central Valley (50%). A strong majority of blacks (64%) report having asthma or an asthmatic family member, compared to 44 percent of Latinos, 42 percent of whites, and 37 percent of Asians. PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 16 AIR QUALITY POLICIES Seven in 10 Californians would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles. This sentiment today is similar to last July (71%) and at least seven in 10 Californians have expressed willingness since 2005 (77% 2005, 77% 2006, 75% 2008, 71% 2009, 70% today). Stark partisan differences emerge on the issue of tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles: 86 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents favor tougher standards, compared to 45 percent of Republicans. Although six in 10 or more across regional and demographic groups support higher standards, there are some differences: Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (77%) are the most likely to say yes to higher standards, follow ed by those in Los Angeles (74%), the Central Valley (69%), Orange/San Diego Counties (65%), and the Inland Empire (63%). Whites (62%) are far less likely than Asians (80%), Latinos (81%), and blacks (84%) to be willing to see tougher standards. Willingness decreases as age rises and lower -income residents are more likely than more affluent adults to be willing. Eighty -four percent of adults who call air pollution in their region a big problem, and 79 percent who think air pollution is a very serious health threat, would be willing to see tougher standards. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and SUVs, or not?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 70% 69% 77% 74% 65% 63% No 27 29 21 23 32 32 Don’t know 3 2 2 3 3 5 The California Air Resources Board will soon consider proposals that would ease or delay implementation of diesel pollution rules, in an effort to lighten the economic burden on truck owners and businesses during this economic downturn. Three in four Californians —including solid majorities across political, regional, and demographic groups —would be willing to s ee tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles. Support for tougher diesel standards is similar to last July (76%) and is slightly lower than July 2008 (80%). Today, Democrats (86%) and independents (78%) are far more likely than Republicans (58%) to express willingness. Across regions, Inland Empire residents (65%) are the least willing to see tougher diesel standards. Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks (90%) are the most willing, followed by Asians (80%), Latinos (78%) and whites (71%). “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses, or not?” Eight-three percent of adults who call air pollution in their region a big problem would be willing to see tougher standards for diesels. Among those who say regional air pollution is a very serious health threat, 80 percent support tougher diesel rules. All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 75% 73% 80% 78% 70% 65% No 23 23 19 20 27 33 Don’t know 2 4 1 2 3 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 17 AIR QUALITY POLICIES (CONTINUED) When it comes to agriculture and farm activities, fewer Californians —although still a solid majority of 58 percent —are willing to see tougher air pollution standards. Majorities over time have been in support of such policies (61% 2005, 63% 2006, 57% 2007, 58% 2008, 56% 2009, 58% today). Again a wide partisan divide is clear, with seven in 10 Democrats (72%) and 55 percent of independents willing to see tougher standards on agriculture and farm activities, compared to 32 percent of Republicans (and 63% of Republicans not willing). More than half across regions support these tougher standards, as do at least half across all demographic groups: Latinos (71%), younger adults (67%), those with a high school diploma or less (66%), those in households with annual incomes less than $40,000 (66%), and women (62%) are among those most likely to support tougher agriculture pollution standards. Seventy percent of adults who call air pollution in their region a big problem and 69 percent who think air pollution is a very serious health threat favor tougher standards. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities, or not?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 58% 55% 61% 61% 57% 53% No 36 40 33 33 38 41 Don’t know 6 5 6 6 5 6 Three in four Californians also support tougher air pollution standards for commercial and industrial activities. Three -quarters or more of Californians have expressed such support each of the four times we have asked this question (77% 2007, 79% 2008, 75% 2009, 75% today). Majorities across parties are also in support, but Republicans (57%) are far less likely than independents (79%) and Democrats (88%) to be. Across regions, residents in the Central Valley (70%) are the least likely —and San Francisco Bay Area residents (80%) the most likely— to express willingness to see tougher air pollution standards for commercial and industrial activities. More than two in three across demographic groups express willingness, but there are some differences across groups. Blacks (91%) are the most willing to support tougher standards, followed by Asians (81%), Latinos (77%), and whites (73%). Women (79%) are somewhat more likely than men (71%) to express support, and willingness to support tougher standards decreases as age and income increase. Eighty -six percent of adults who call air pollution in their region a big problem and 84 percent who think air pollution is a very serious health threat support tougher standards. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities, or not?” All Adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Yes 75% 70% 80% 77% 73% 75% No 21 25 18 19 25 22 Don’t know 4 5 2 4 2 3 July 2010 Californians and the Environment 18 ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND PREFERENCES KEY FINDINGS  Californians continue to be pessimistic about the state’s direction and their elected leaders. Only 15 percent approve of the state legislature, and only 25 percent approve of Governor Schwarzenegger—near record lows. (page 19)  The governor’s approval on environmental issues (34%) is similar to last July (35%). Half say the state is not doing enough to address global warming. (pages 19, 20 )  A majority of Californians (56%) approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance—but this is a 9-point drop since last July and a record low in the state. The president’s rating on environmental issues (49%) also dropped 9 points. (pages 19, 20 )  Half say the federal government is not doing enough to address the issue of global warming; a plurality (45%) think the United States taking actions to reduce global warming would create more jobs. (page 20)  Confidence is low concerning the federal government’s ability to deal with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and to prevent future oil spills like it. Adults, likely voters, and partisans express low levels of confidence about each of these issues. (page 21)  Four in 10 consider gubernatorial and senate candidates’ positions on the environment very important in determining their vote. In the governor’s race, 37 percent support Democrat Jerry Brown and 34 percent Republican Meg Whitman; 23 percent are undecided. Support follows party lines and independents are divided. In the senate race, 39 percent back Democrat Barbara Boxer and 34 percent Republican Carly Fiorina; 22 percent are undecided. (pages 22, 23 ) 65 56 58 49 0 20 40 60 80 July 0 9 Jul y 1 0 Percent all adults Job overall Environmental issues President Obama's Approval Ratings 50 45 18 23 31 22 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Adults nationwide* Californians Percent all adults More jobs Fewer jobs No effect Effect on Number of U.S. Jobs if the U.S. Does Things to Reduce Global Warming * Stanford Global Warming Poll, June 2010 57 344252 432825 39 323947 46 3534 0 20 40 60 80 July04 Jul y05 Jul y 06 Jul y 07 July 08 July 09 July 10 Percent all adults Job overall Environmental issues Governor Schwarzenegger's Approval Ratings PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 19 ELECTED OFFICIALS’ APPROVAL RATINGS Continuing a year-long trend, Governor Schwarzenegger receives a near -record low approval rating (25% approve, 62% disapprove) . In July 2009, the governor held similarly negative ratings (28% approve, 59% disapprove) . Th e feeling is widespread: A n overwhelming majority of Democrats disapprove, as do majorities of Republicans and independents. Three in four blacks, seven in 10 Latinos, six in 10 whites, and half of Asians express disapproval of the governor’s job performance. Similar to last July , approval of the governor on environment al issues today (34%) is higher than overall job approval , but still approaches record lows . Approval has dipped 21 point s since January 2007, when he enjoyed majority approval in the wake of passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) . Pluralities of Democrats and independents disapprove, while Republicans are divided. A near record -low 15 percent of adults approve and 68 percent disapprove of the legislature ’s job performance . Likely voters (82%), and strong majorities across political groups and regions disapprove. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling…” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind His job as governor of California? Approve 25% 17% 34% 26% 25% Disapprove 62 73 57 56 66 Don't know 13 10 9 18 9 Environmental issues in California? Approve 34 32 40 31 36 Disapprove 43 48 38 45 44 Don't know 23 20 22 24 20 President Obama’s job approval in the state dips to a new record low ( 56%), a 9 -point drop since last July and a 16 -point drop since his record high (72%) in May 2009. According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 47 percent of adults nationwide approve of the president . Most Democrat s (77%) and independents (56%) approve; most Republicans (76%) disapprove. Blacks (85%), Latinos (68%), and Asians (67%) approve, w ith whites divided (45% approve, 50% disapprove). Majorities in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles approve; adults are divided in the other three regions. R atings of the president’s handling of the environment (49%) have dropped 9 points since July 2009. On this issue, Californians ’ approv al is similar to adults’ nationwide (50 %) according to a June Associated Press –GfK Poll . Two -thirds of Democrats approve, three- fourths of Republicans disapprove, and independents are divided (46% approve, 42% disapprove) . “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Barack Obama is handling…” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind His job as president of the United States? Approve 56% 77% 19% 56% 50% Disapprove 38 18 76 37 46 Don't know 6 5 5 7 4 Environmental issues in the United States? Approve 49 67 16 46 45 Disapprove 40 24 75 42 48 Don't know 11 9 9 12 7 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 20 STATE AND FEDERAL POLICY About half of California adults and likely voters say the federal government is not doing enough to address global warming . This view is similar to last July, but is 14 points lower than the previous July (66%), when George W. Bush was president. Most Democrats (64%) and independents (54%) think not enough is being done. A plurality of Republicans (34%) say more than enough is being done, but almost as many say not enough (31%); 28 percent say just eno ugh. Across regions, adults most often say the federal government is not doing enough. Latinos (61%) are the most likely to hold this view , followed by Asians (51%), whites (48%), and blacks (47%). No more than 20 percent in any demographic group say more than enough is being done. Californians hold similar views about their state government on the issue of global warming: About half say it is not doing enough. Results were similar in July 2008 and 2009. S ix in 10 Democrats and half of independents say not enough. A plurality of Republicans say more than enough, yet a majority say either just or not enough is being done. A plurality across regions say not enough, with Inland Empire residents (55%) the most likely and Central Valley residents (39%) the least likely to say this. “Overall, do you think that the … is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Federal government More than enough 14% 5% 34% 13% 21% Just enough 28 27 28 26 26 Not enough 52 64 31 54 48 Don't know 6 4 7 7 5 State government More than enough 16 7 37 15 23 Just enough 29 28 29 27 29 Not enough 48 60 26 50 43 Don't know 7 5 8 8 5 A plurality of Californians (45%) think the United States doing things to reduce global warming will result in more jobs around the country, and about one in five (22%) say it wouldn’t affect the number of jobs; 23 percent say fewer jobs would result. Most a dults nationwide say there would be more jo bs (50%) or there would be no effect (31%), according to a Global Warming Poll conducted by Stanford University in June. Just 18 percent of adults nationwide say fewer jobs would result. Californians hold similar views whe n asked a related question about the effect on jobs in the state (45% more, 23% fewer, 24% no effect). “Do you think that the United States doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the country, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wouldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the country?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind More jobs 45% 56% 23% 50% 42% Fewer jobs 23 14 43 26 28 Wouldn’t affect number of jobs 22 20 23 17 21 Don’t know 10 10 11 7 9 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 21 OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico —which began when the oil rig exploded in April —has been d eemed by President Obama the worst environmental disaster in United States history. As efforts are still underway to cap the leak , how much confidence do Californians have in the federal government to make the right decisions about the disaster? Just 21 percent have either a great deal (8%) or good amount (13%) of confidence, four in 10 have just some confidence, and 36 percent have none at all. According to a June ABC/ Washington Post Poll, 27 percent of adults say they have either a great deal or good amount of confidence, 45 percent have just some, and 28 percent none at all. Republicans are the most pessimistic , with 59 percent saying they have no confidence at all; 43 percent of independents say the same. Comparatively, one- quarter of Democrats say no confidence at all, while three in 10 say either a good amount or great deal of confidence. Less than one in five across political, regional, and demographic groups express a great deal of confidence. The response of no confidence at all increases as age and education increase. “How much confidence do you have in the federal government to make the right decisions in dealing with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Great deal 8% 10% 2% 5% 7% Good amount 13 21 7 9 13 Just some 41 42 30 41 35 None at all 36 24 59 43 43 Don’t know 2 3 2 2 2 Californians also have low levels of confidence in the federal government ’s ability to prevent a future oil spill like the one in the gulf . About three in 10 say they are either very (7%) or fairly (21%) confident, 32 percent are not very confident, and 37 percent are not confident at all. Californians are more negative than adults nationwide: according to a June CNN/Opinion Research Poll, 41 percent said they were very (9%) or fairly (32%) confident, 34 percent said not very confident, and 24 percent said not confident at all. Majorities across political, regional, and demographic groups say they are either not very or not at all confident the federal government can prevent another oil spill like the current one . Two -thirds of Democrats, seven in 10 independents, and nearly eight in 10 Republicans hold this view. Two in three liberals, and seven in 10 moderates and conservatives also hold this view. About six in 10 Asians, blacks, and Latinos say they are not very or not at all confident , as do three in four whites. “How confident are you that the federal government can prevent another oil spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico? ” All Adults Party Likely Voters Dem Rep Ind Very confident 7% 8% 4% 6% 5% Fairly confident 21 22 17 21 16 Not very confident 32 37 28 27 32 Not confident at all 37 30 50 44 44 Don’t know 3 3 1 2 3 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 22 2010 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION With the November general e lection nearly three months away, an overwhelming majority of Californians (79%) say the gubernatorial candidate s’ positions on the environment are at least somewhat important to how they will vote. Just one in five say this issue is not too important in t hat decision. A majority of Democrats say candidates’ positions on the environment are very important and a plurality of independents say the same; a plurality of Republicans say somewhat important. Republicans are nearly tw ice as likely as independents and three times as likely as Democrats to say this issue is not too important. Among likely voters, Latino s (64%) are far more likely than whites (36%) to say candidates’ positions are very important. Samples for other likely vot er groups are too small for separate analysis. “In thinking about the California governor’s election in November, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the env ironment—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy —in determining your vote?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Party Latinos Dem Rep Ind Very important 41% 55% 21% 44% 64% Somewhat important 38 33 45 39 24 Not too important 21 11 33 17 11 Don’t know -- 1 1 -- 1 In the governor’s race, Californians are divided . Democrat Jerry Brown (37%), and Republican Meg Whitman (34%) hold similar levels of support, with nearly one in four undecided. Of those who say candidates’ environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, half favor Brown and only 16 percent favor Whitman. Whitman is favored among those who consider candidate s’ environment positions somewhat important. Gubernatorial preference follows party lines, with each candidate receiving support from about two in three in their respective parties . Independents are divided (30% Brown, 28% Whitman) and are 9 points more likely than Democrats and Republicans to be undecided. Two in three liberals and a plurality of moderates (41%) favor Brown, while six in 10 conservatives prefer Whitman. Latinos are more than twice as likely to favor Brown (42%) over Whitman (18%), whereas whites slightly prefer Whitman (40% to 34 % for Brown). Four in 10 women support Brown ; men support Whitman at the same rate. Brown holds a 7 -point lead among adults aged 18 to 34, while adults 35 and older are divided in their support for each candidate. Those earning less than $40,000 per year are far more likely to vote for Brown (40%) than Whitman (23%). Both candidates hold identical levels of support among voters earning $40,000 per year or more. At least one in five across demographic groups are undecided. Seven in 10 are following news about the governor’s race very (22%) or fairly (48%) closely. In July 2006, when Governor Schwarzenegger ran for reelect ion, seven in 10 (19 % very, 49% fairly) said the same . “If the November 2nd election for governor were being held today, would you vote for…?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Party Candidate s’ positions on the environment Dem Rep Ind Very important Somewhat important Jerry Brown, the Democrat 37% 64% 8% 30% 50% 33% Meg Whitman, the Republican 34 11 67 28 16 42 Other candidates* 6 4 4 12 8 5 Don’t know 23 21 21 30 26 20 * For full list of candidates, see question 44 on page 32. PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 23 2010 U.S. SENATE ELECTION Likely voters in the senate election also say the candidate s’ positions on the environment are very important in determining their vote. About eight in 10 say the issue is either very (41%) or somewhat (38%) important, with one in five saying not too important. Partisan differences also emerge in this election, with a majority of Democrats and a plurality of independents considering the issue very important, while a plurality of Republicans call it somewhat important. Again, Republicans (36%) are far more likely than independents (17%) and Democrats (10%) to say it is not too important, and are the most likely across all party, regional, and demographic groups to say this. Latinos (62%) are far more likely than whites (34%) to consider candidates’ positions on the environment very important. The share of those saying very important is similar across age groups, but decline s with rising income . “In thinking about the California U.S. S enate election in November, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment —such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy —in determining your vote?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Party Latinos Dem Rep Ind Very important 41% 53% 22% 46% 62% Somewhat important 38 36 42 36 27 Not too important 21 10 36 17 11 Don’t know -- 1 -- 1 -- Thirty-nine percent of likely voters support i ncumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and 34 percent support Republican challenger Carly Fiorina; 22 percent of likely voters are undecided. Likely voters who say candidates’ positions on the environment are very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54%) than they are Fiorina (18%). Among those who say candidates’ environmental positions are somewhat important, support is evenly divided. About seven in 10 Democrats favor Boxer, and seven in 10 Republicans favor Fiorina; Boxer holds a slight 6-point lead among independents. Seven in 10 liberals and a plurality of moderates (45%) would vote for Boxer, while 63 percent of conservatives prefer Fiorina. Support for each candidate varies across regions: V oters in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are far more likely to support Boxe r, while voters in the Central Valley and Other Southern California region are far more likely to support Fiorina. Latinos are far more likely to say they will vote for Boxer (52%) over Fiorina (16%), while whites are more likely to support Fiorina (42%) over Boxer (33%). More than four in 10 women prefer Boxer, whereas four in 10 men would vote for Fiorina. Voters younger than 55 years of age are more likely to favor Boxer, while those 55 and older are divided. Voters with household incomes under $40,000 per year are far more likely to favor Boxer (43%) over Fiorina (24%), while those earning $40,000 per year or more are divided. “If the November 2 nd election for U.S. Senate were being held today, would you vote for…?” Likely voters only All Likely Voters Party Candidate s’ positions on the environment Dem Rep Ind Very important Somewhat important Barbara Boxer, the Democrat 39% 68% 6% 35% 54% 37% Carly Fiorina, the Republican 34 10 72 29 18 37 Other candidates* 5 4 2 11 7 5 Don’t know 22 18 20 25 21 21 * For full list of candidates, see question 47 on page 33. July 2010 Californians and the Environment 24 REGIONAL MAP July 2010 Californians and the Environment 25 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 Nicole Willcoxon, and survey intern David Ezekiel . 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 2,502 California adult residents, including 2,2 52 interviewed on landline telephones and 250 interviewed on cell phones. Interview s took place on weekday nights and weekend days from July 6–20 , 2010 and took an average of 18 minutes to complete. Landline interviews were conducted u sing 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 as many as 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 phon e interviews were included in this survey to account for the growing number of Californians who use them. 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 as many as 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 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 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 demo- graphic 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 2008 National Health Interview Survey and data from the 2005 –2007 American Community Survey for California, both 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 of 2,502 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 i n California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger: For the 1,971 registered PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 26 voters, it is ±2.2 percent; for the 1,321 likely voters, it is ±2.7 percent ; and for half- samples on questions 36 –39 (1,233 adults) and 36a–39a (1,269 adults), it is ±2.8 percent . When the design effect from weighting is taken into consideration, the overall sample has a margin of error of ± 2.7 percent ; for registered voters, it is ±3%, for likely voters, it is ±3.7 %, and for the half -samples on the 36 –39 and 36a– 39a series, it is ±3.8 %. 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. We asked four tracking questions on U.S. energy polici es. This year, half of the sample was asked these questions with the introduction we’ve used since 2003 (questions 36 –39) . The introduction frames the questions as proposals to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. The ot her half of the sample was asked the questions without this introduction (questions 36a–39a) . We wanted to see if the introduction was affecting responses ; we find that results are nearly the same with or without the introduction. Both sets of findings are included in the questionnaire on page 31. The report itself focuses on findings and time trends from the question format that has been repeated over time (questions 36 –39). Sample sizes for some racial/ethnic groups and regions are too small for separate analysis on these questions. Throughout the report, we refer to five geographic regions that account 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. In reporting results for the half-samples on pages 12 and 13 and for likely voters on pages 22 and 23 , we combine Orange/San Diego and Inland Empire into the “Other Southern California” region because sample sizes would otherwise be too small for separate analysis . Residents from other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but 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., those registered as “decline to state”). We a lso 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 our earlier surveys and those in recent national surveys by ABC News/ Washington Post, the Associated Press –GfK, the Associated Press – Stanford University, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Gallup, the Pew Research Center , and Stanford University. July 2010 Californians and the Environment 27 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT July 6–20, 2010 2,502 California Adult Residents: English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese MARGIN OF ERROR ±2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMP LE 1. First, ov erall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 25% approve 62 disapprove 13 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the wa y that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environm ental issues in California? 34% approve 43 disapprove 23 don’t know 3. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling its job? 15% approve 68 disapprove 17 don’t know 4. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 15% right direction 79 wrong direction 6 don’t know 5. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 25% good times 67 bad times 8 don’t know 6. 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 water supply, drought 11 energy , oil drilling 6 water pollution 4 global warming, global climate change, greenhouse gases 4 landfills, garbage, waste 3 gas prices 3 jobs, economy 3 oil spill, Gulf Coast /BP oil spill 2 immigration, immigrants 2 loss of forests, forest fires, wildfires 2 pollution in general 8 other 17 don’t know 7. 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? 25% big problem 38 somewhat of a problem 36 not a problem 1 don’t know 8. 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? 22% very satisfied 47 somewhat satisfied 20 somewhat dissatisfied 11 very dissatisfi ed PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 28 9. 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? 17% very serious 33 somewhat serious 46 not too seri ous 3 not at all serious (volunteered ) 1 don’t know 10. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas than other areas in your region, or not? 41% yes 52 no 7 don’t know 11. 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 24 yes, someone in immediate family 8 yes, both 57 no We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 12 to 15] 12. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and S UVs, or not? 70% yes 27 no 3 don’t know 13. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities, or not? 58% yes 36 no 6 don’t know 14. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities, or not? 75% yes 21 no 4 don’t know 15. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, such as trucks and buses, or not? 75% yes 23 no 2 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 h ave 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? 54% already begun 6 within a few years 8 within lifetime 14 not within lifetime, but will affect futu re generations 16 will never happen 2 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? 74% right away 21 not n ec essary yet 3 neither, never necessary (volunteered) 2 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 29 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? 44% very serious 29 somewhat serious 11 not too serious 14 not at all serious 2 don’t know 19 . Next, to address global warming, do you favor or oppose the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020? 67% favor 21 oppose 12 don’t know 20 . 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? 57% favor 35 oppose 8 don’t know 21. When it comes to the state government’s plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, should it [rotate ] (1) take action right away [ or should it ] (2) wait until the state economy and job situation improve to take action? 53% take action right away 42 wait until state economy and job situation improve 5 don’t know 22 . Do you think the government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce global warming? 76% sho uld 19 should not 5 don’t know Next, officials in the state and federal governments are discussing ways to address global warming. Please tell me if you favor or oppose the following plans to help r educe greenhouse gas emissions. [rotate questions 23 t o 27] 23. How about requiring an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by utilities? 85% favor 13 oppose 2 don’t know 24 . How about requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances? 75% favor 21 oppose 4 don’t know 25 . How about requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions? 81% favor 16 oppose 3 don’t know 26 . How about encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning s o that people could drive less? 77% favor 20 oppose 3 don’t know 27 . How about requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars? 79% favor 19 oppose 2 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 30 28. Next, how much, if anything, have you heard about a policy being considered called “cap and trade” that would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all? 18% a lot 27 a little 54 nothing at all 1 don’t know 29. In the proposed system called “cap and trade,” the government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you favor or oppose this system? 50% favor 40 oppose 10 don’t know 30. Would you favor or oppose a carbon tax on companies for their greenhouse gas emissions? 60% favor 33 oppose 7 don’t know 31 . Changing topics, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as president of the United States? 56% approve 38 disapprove 6 don’t know 32 . Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Obama is handling environmental issues in the United States? 49% approve 40 disapprove 11 don’t know 33. Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 14% more than enough 28 just enough 52 not enough 6 don’t know 34. Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 16% more than enough 29 just enough 48 not enough 7 don’t know 35 . Do you think that the United States doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the country, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wou ldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the country? 45% more jobs 23 fewer jobs 22 wouldn’t affect number of jobs 10 don’t know 35a. Do you think that California doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the state, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wouldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the state? 45% more jobs 23 fewer jobs 24 wouldn’t affect number of jobs 8 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 31 [ questions 36 to 39 asked of a random half sample of respondents ] 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 36 to 39 ] 36. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? 83% favor 15 oppose 2 don’t know 37 . How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 36% favor 59 oppose 5 don’t know 38 . How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 44% favor 49 oppose 7 don’t know 39 . How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology? 83% favor 15 oppose 2 don’t know [questions 36a to 39a asked o f a random half sample of respondents ] Next, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 36a to 39a ] 36a. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? 86% favor 13 oppose 1 don’t know 37a.How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 34% favor 61 oppose 5 don’t know 38a. How about building more nuclear power plants at th is time? 44% favor 50 oppos e 6 don’t know 39a. How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology ? 80% favor 17 oppose 3 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 32 40. How much confidence do you have in the federal government to make the right decisions in dealing with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? 8% great deal 13 good amount 41 just some 36 none at all 2 don’t know 41. How confident are you that the federal government can prevent another oil spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico? 7% very confident 21 fairly confident 32 not very confident 37 not confident at all 3 don’t know 42 . Next, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are regi stered to vote in California? 79% yes [ask q 42a] 21 no [skip to q43b ] 42a. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent 45% Democrat [ask q43 ] 31 Republican [skip to q43 a] 2 another party ( specify) [skip to q44 ] 22 independent [skip to q43b ] 43 . Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 52% strong 45 not very strong 3 don’t know [skip to q44 ] 43a.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 53% strong 44 not very strong 3 don’t know [skip to q4 4] 43b.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republ ican Party or Democratic Party? 20% Republ ican Party 45 Democratic Party 28 neither (volunteered ) 7 don’t know [if q42=no, skip to q49] [ responses recorded for questions 44 to 48 are for likely voters] 44. If the November 2nd election for governor were being held today, would you vote for : [rotate names and then ask “or someone else” ] (1) Meg Whitman, the Republican; (2) Jerry Brown, the Democrat; (3) Dale Ogden, the Libertarian; (4) Chelene Nightingale, the American Independent; (5) Laura Wells, the Green; (6) Carlos Alvarez, the Peace and F reedom candidate; or someone else? 34% Meg Whitman, the Republican 37 Jerry Brown, the Democrat 1 Dale Ogden, the Libertarian 1 Chelene Nightingale, the American Independent 1 Laura Wells, the Green 2 Carlos Alvarez, the Peace and Freedom candidate 1 someone else (specify) 23 don’t k now 45. How closely are you following news about candidates for the 20 10 governor’s election? 22% very closely 48 fairly closely 23 not too closely 7 not at all closely 46. In thinking about the California governor’s election in November, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment —such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy —in determining your vote? 41% very important 38 somewhat important 21 not too important PPIC Statewide Survey July 2010 Californians and the Environment 33 47. If the November 2nd election for U.S. Senate were being held today, would you vote for : [rotate names and then ask “or someone else”] (1) Carly Fiorina, the Republican; (2) Barbara Boxer, the Democrat; (3) Gail Lightfoot, the Libertarian; (4) Edward Noonan, the American Independent; (5) Duane Roberts, the Green; (6) Marsha Feinland, the Peace and Freedom candidate; or someone else? 34% Carly Fiorina, the Republican 39 Barbara Boxer, the Democrat 2 Gail Lightfoot, the Libertarian 2 Edward Noonan, the American Independent 1 Duane Roberts, the Green – Marsha Feinland, the Peace and Freedom candidate – someone else (specify) 22 don’t know 48. In thinking about the California U.S. Senate election in November, how important to you are the candidates’ positions on the environment —such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy —in determining your vote? 41% very important 38 somewhat important 21 not too important 49. Next, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom ] 11% very liberal 20 somewhat liberal 30 middle -of -the -road 24 somewhat conservative 13 very conservative 2 don’t know 50 . Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics ? 23% great deal 38 fair amount 32 only a little 7 none [d1 to d23: demographic questions] 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 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 Donna Lucas La Opinión 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 Most Reverend Jaime Soto Bishop of Sacramento Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Raymond L. Watson Orange County Register 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. PPIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS Walter B. Hewlett, Chair Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities Mark Baldassare President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of C alifornia Ruben Barrales President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce John E. Bryson Retired Chairman and CEO Edison International Gary K. Hart Former State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California Robert M. Hertzberg Partner Mayer Brown, LLP Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs David Mas Masumoto Author and farmer Steven A. Merksamer Senior Partner Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Carol Whiteside President Emeritus Great Valley Center 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 operating foundation. 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. Walter B. Hewlett is Chair of the Board of Directors. 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 copyright notice below is included. Copyright © 2010 Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved. San Francisco, CA PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 PPIC SACRAMENTO CENT ER 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 09:40:41" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_710mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:41" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:41" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_710MBS.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) }