S 713MBS
Database
This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.
object(Timber\Post)#3875 (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_713MBS.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(6) "514734"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(91689) "CONTENTS About the Survey 2 Press Release 3 Climate Change, Energy Policy 6 Government Ratings, Air Pollution 18 Regional Map 24 Methodology 25 Questionnaire and Results 27 the environment J U LY 2 0 1 3 & P P I C S TAT E W I D E S U R V E Y Californians Mark Baldassare Dean Bonner Sonja Petek Jui Shrestha i T July 2013 Californians and the Environment 2 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Sur vey provides policymakers, the media, and the public with objective, advocacy- free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. This is the 136th PPIC Statewide Sur vey in a series that was inaugurated in April 1998 and has generated a database of responses from more than 2 86,000 Californians. The current s u r v e y, Californians and the Environment, was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Its goal is to inform state policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about Californi ans’ opinions on global warming, energy policy, and air pollution. It is the 13 th annual PPIC Statewide Sur vey on environmental issues since 2000. In his second inaugural address, President Obama vowed to address climate change. In late June, he introduced a plan to both mitigate the release of greenhouse gases, including regulating power plants, and plan for the future effects of climate change. At the state level, effor ts continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of renewable energy , and state and local governments are devising plans to address the impacts of climate change. R evenues from California’s cap- and- trade program are being loaned to the state’s general fund this year, and discussions continue about the best way to spend cap- and-trade revenues in later years. The revenues must be spent to fur ther the goals of AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, and a cer tain percentage must be used to improve environmental conditions in lower -income and disadvantaged communities. The controversial practice of fracking continues in California, which is believed to have the countr y’s largest shale oil deposit s. Legislative effor ts to impose stricter fracking regulations have thus far been unsuccessful. In this context, t his year’s sur vey presents the responses of 2, 103 adult residents throughout California, inter viewed in multiple languages by landline or cell phone. It includes findings on: Clima te change, including perceptions of global warming’s onset and concerns about its possible impacts; preferences for AB 32 and views of the impact of state action on global warming on employment; views on ways government can regulate emissions, including setting stricter emissions limits on power plants; and preferences for how to spend cap- and-trade revenues. It also measures attitudes toward energy policy, including fuel economy standards, oil drilling, nuclear plants, renewable energy, the Keystone XL pipeline, and fracking. Government ratings and air pollution, including approval ratings of the governor, legislature, president, and Congress on overall job performance and handling of environmental issues; assessment of local, state, and federal effor ts to address global warming; perceptions of regional air pollution and its potential health risks; commuting trends ; and vehicle ownership. Time trends, national comparisons, and the extent to which Californians may differ in their perceptions, attitudes, and preferences based on political par ty affiliation, likelihood of voting, region of residence (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Inland Empire, and Orange/San Diego Counties), race/ethnicity (Asian, black, Latino, and non-Hispanic white) , and other demographic characteristics . This repor t may be downloaded free of charge from our website ( www.ppic.org). Please email questions about the sur vey to sur vey@ppic.org . Tr y our PPIC Statewide Sur vey interactive tools online at www.ppic.org/main/sur vAdvancedSearch.asp . PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 4 Most residents (60%) and likely voters (62%) continue to favor the idea of California making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address global warming. Solid majorities of adult s (67%) and likely voters (63%) continue to support the principle behind the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. Also known as AB 32 , this law requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2010, there was a sharp partisan divide in opinions, with 80 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans favoring the law . Today, the gap has narrowed: 77 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans are in favor. Most Californians don’t view government action s to reduce global warming as a tradeoff between the environment and jobs. Just 24 percent say state action to reduce global warming will result in fewer jobs for state residents , while 45 percent say it will result in more jobs and 21 percent see no effect on jobs. One of California’s signature programs to reduce emissions is cap -and -trade, which includes auctions of emissions allowances that began last November . Most residents (54%) have heard nothing about the program ; 33 percent have heard a little and 12 percent a lot. The program’s revenues are being loaned to the state’s general fund this year . In the future, they will be used to further the goals of AB 32, with a portion spent to improve environmental conditi ons in lower-income or disadvantaged communities. An overwhelming majority say it is very (52%) or somewhat important (31%) to spend the money on these communities , while 15 percent say it is not too important. A large share of cap -and- trade revenue will likely go to transportation —the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California —and housing infrastructure. How should this money be spent? Overwhelming majorities favor spending it on public transit, such as more buses or reduced transit fares (7 8%), and repaving roads and highways (72%). A smaller majority (60%) favor spending on housing and commercial developments near mass transit hubs. Many policies to address global warming are being proposed or enacted, at both the state and federal level. T he survey— which began shortly after President Barack Obama announced his Climate Action Plan —asked about several policy ideas and finds majority support for all of them: Requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions (81% adul ts, 77% likely voters favor) Requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions (80% adults,78% likely voters favor) Requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse g ases from new cars (8 0% adults, 76% likely voters favor) Requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances (76% adults, 74% likely voters favor) Encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that peopl e could drive less (76% adults, 72% likely voters favor) Setting stricter emissions limits on power plants (76% adults, 73% likely voters favor) How do Californians assess government efforts to address global warming? A majority of adults (53%) say the federal government is not doing enough. Fewer say state government (44%) and local government (44%) are not doing enough . JOB APPROVAL AMONG LIKELY VOTERS AT 54 PERCENT FOR BR OWN, OBAMA Asked how they r ate elected leaders, 48 percent of California adults approve of the overall job performance of Governor Jerry Brown. A record -high 54 percent of likely voters approve. His rating for handling environmental issues is lower: 39 percent of adults and 44 percent of likely voters approve. The state legislature’s overall approval rating is 36 percent among adults and 33 percent among likely voters. On environmental issues, the legislature has an approval rating of 38 percent among adults and 34 percent among likely voters. PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 5 A solid majority of Californians (61%) approve of President Obama’s job performance, as do 54 percent of likely voters . About half of adult s (53%) and 46 percent of likely voters approve of his handling of environmental issues. Just 30 percent of adults and 18 percent of l ikely voters approve of the overall job Congress is doing. Congress’ rating on environmental issues is similar (29% adults, 18% likely voters). AMONG THOSE WHO FAVOR MORE FRACKING, MOS T WANT STRICTER REGULATION As state legislators debate stricter regulations on fracking —already under way in California —51 percent oppose increased use of the drilling method used to extract oil and natural gas (35% favor it, 14% don’t know) . Asked whether they favor or oppose stricter regulation of fracking, 50 percent say t hey are in favor . Among those who favor increased use of fracking, 62 percent also favor stricter regulation. The survey asked about another hotly debated plan to increase the supply of oil: construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to Texas refineries. Half of Californians (51%) favor building the pipeline, 34 percent oppose it , and 15 percent don’t know. “Californians are conflicted when it comes to controversial efforts to expand the oil supply,” said Baldassare. “ Slim majorities favor building the Keystone XL pipeline but also oppose fracking, with many wanting stricter regulation of the practice. ” Offshore oil drilling and nuclear power have been contentious issues in energy policy, and the survey shows that most residents today oppose the expansion of either. Asked about more oil drilling off California’s coast , 54 percent oppose and 41 percent favor it. Among those living in coastal areas, 57 percent oppose more drilling, while those inland are divided (49% favor, 47% oppose). In the wake of the closure of San Onofre nuclear power plant —one of two in the state —63 percent oppose building more plants. Majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups are opposed. Asked about renewable sources of energy, 79 percent favor an increase in federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technologies. And 70 percent favor a 2011 state law that requires a third of California’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. But support drops to 44 percent i f this will result in higher electricity bills. MOST SAY AIR POLLUTI ON IS A PROBLEM A majority of Californians say air pollution is a big problem (28%) or somewhat of a problem (34%) in the region where they live. Adults living in the Inland Empire (44%) , Los Angeles (40%), and Central Valley (31%) are much more likely to say it is a big problem than those living in the San Francisco Bay Area (16%) and Orange/San Diego (14%). Latinos (41%) and blacks (40%) are much more likely to express this view than Asians (23%) and whites (20%). About half of Californians say air pollution in their region is a very serious (22%) or somewhat serious (30%) threat to their health or the health of their immediate families. Residents are divided when asked if they think air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas of their region (48% yes, 46% no). A MAJORITY OF WORKERS ARE SOLO DRIVERS Two-third s of residents (67%) who work full or part time drive alone to work. Just 14 percent say they carpool, and fewer take public transportation (8%), walk (4%), or bike (3%) to work. Another 4 percent volunteer that they work at home. The percentage of Californians driving solo to work declined 11 points between 200 3 (73%) and 2008 (62%) but has remained above 65 percent since 2011 . About half of Californians (53%) say that they have seriously considered getting a more fuel -efficient vehicle the next time they buy or lease one; 24 percent say they already have a fuel -efficient car. H alf (51%) say that have seriously considered a hybrid or electric vehicle, while 6 percent say they already have one. July 2013 Californians and the Environment 6 CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY POLICY KEY FINDINGS Most Californians say the effects of global warming have already begun. The wide partisan divide over whether steps should be taken right away to counter these effects has narrowed slightly since last July. (page 7 ) A majority are very concerned about more severe wildfires as a result of global warming; 49 percent are very concerned about more severe droughts. (page 9) Two in three Californians continue to favor the goal of AB 32—to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. (page 10) Most Californians say it is at least somewhat important for the state to both reduce global warming and plan for its effects. Strong majorities favor several measures to reduce greenhouse gases, including setting stricter emissions limits on power plants and requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions. ( pages 11, 12) Forty-five percent are aware of the state’s cap-and-trade program, similar to last July. Strong majorities favor spending cap-and- trade revenues on transportation, transit, and—to a lesser degree—housing-related projects. (pages 13, 14 ) Opposition to off-shore oil drilling is up slightly since last year, and most Californians remain opposed to building more nuclear plants. (page 15) There continues to be strong support for renewable energy, although support for the state’s renewable goal declines if it means higher electricity bills. ( page 16) Californians are more likely to favor (50%) than oppose (36%) stricter state regulation of fracking. ( page 17) 4853 31 29 0 20 40 60 80 100 Reduce globalwarming Plan for effects of global warming Percent all adults Somewhat important Very important Importance of State Passing Regulations and Spending Money to... 50 36 13 Favor Oppose Don't know Stricter State Regulation of Fracking All adults 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent registered voters Take Steps "Right Away" to Counter the Effects of Global Warming Dem Ind Rep PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 7 ONSET OF GLOBAL WARMING Most Californians (63%) continue to say that the effects of global warming have already begun; 22 percent say they will happen at some point in the future and 11 percent say they will never happen. Majorities have said the effects were already happening since we first asked this question in July 2005 (with a high of 66% in 2007). More than seven in 10 Democrats (73%) and six in 10 independents (59%) say the effects have already begun; among Republicans, fewer than four in 10 (38%) say this and 27 percent say effects will never happen. Majorities across regions and demographic groups say that the effects have al ready begun, though there are some differences. Latinos (73%) are much more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to say effects have already begun. Across regions, Orange/San Diego (55%) residents are the least likely to hold this view. In a March Gallup poll, just over half of adults nationwide (54%) said effects had already begun (27% effects will happen in the future, 15% effects will never happen). “Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen— they have already begun to happen; they will start h appening within a few years; they will start happening within your lifetime; they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; or they will never happen?” Have already begun to happen Will happen in the future Will never happen Don’t know All adults 63% 22% 11% 4% Party Democrats 73 21 4 2 Republicans 38 30 27 6 Independents 59 24 13 3 Race/ Ethnicity Asians 59 29 4 8 Blacks 54 35 8 3 Latinos 73 19 3 4 Whites 57 22 19 3 Region Central Valley 63 21 15 1 San Francisco Bay Area 69 18 8 5 Los Angeles 63 22 8 6 Orange/San Diego 55 29 15 1 Inland Empire 66 22 9 4 Most Californians (75%) and likely voters (69%) say it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away; fewer than three in 10 say it is not necessary yet. Since July 2003, m ore than seven in 10 adults have said steps should be taken right away. Democrats (89%) and independen ts (71%) say action should be taken right away; Republicans are divided (47% right away, 50% not necessary yet). The belief that action should be taken right away declines as age increases and is higher among lower - income residents. W hites are much less li kely than other racial/ethnic groups to hold this view. “Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or do you think it is not necessary to take steps yet? ” All adults Age Likely voters 18–34 35 –54 55 and older Right away 75% 83% 75% 68% 69% Not necessary yet/ Never necessary (vol) 21 16 22 27 28 Don’t know 3 1 3 5 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 8 GLOBAL WARMING AND CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE Three in four Californians view global warming as a very (50%) or somewhat serious (27%) threat to the economy and quality of life in California’s future; one in five say it is not too serious (11%) or not at all serious (9%) of a threat. The percentage saying global warming poses a very serious threat was lowest in July 2005 (39%), the first time we asked th e question, and highest in July 2007 (54%). Most Latinos (67%) and blacks (63%) say the threat of global warming is very serious, while far fewer white s (40%) and Asians (38%) hold this view. Democrats (59%) are much more likely than independents (41%) and far more likely than Republicans (24%) to say the threat is very serious. Residents in the Inland Empire (59%) are the most likely to hold this view, followed by those in the San Francisco Bay Area (55%), the Central Valley (49%), Los Angeles (49%), and Orange/San Diego (38%). The perception that global warming is a very serious threat declines as education and income levels rise. Residents age 55 and o lder are less likely than younger Californians to hold this view. “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?” All adults Race/Ethnicity Likely voters Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very serious 50% 38% 63% 67% 40% 42% Somewhat serious 27 40 27 24 27 27 Not too serious 11 14 6 6 15 14 Not at all serious 9 3 3 2 17 14 Don’t know 3 6 1 1 2 2 Two in three Californians (65%) and six in 10 likely voters (59%) say the state government should take action right away to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while 30 percent of adults and 36 percent of likely voters say it should wait until the state economy and job situation improve to take action. The perception that action should be taken right away has increased 9 points since last year and is at a record high . Democrats (73%) are much more likely than independe nts (58%) and far more likely than Republicans (41%) to say that action should be taken right away to reduce emissions . Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (75%) and the Inland Empire (74%) are more likely than residents in Los Angeles (63%), the Central Valley (59%), and Orange/San Diego (59%) to say that action should be taken right away. Latinos (82%) are by far the m ost likely across racial/ethnic groups to hold this view (60% blacks, 56% whites, 53% Asians) . The belief that action should be taken right away decreases as education and income levels rise . Among those who see global warming as a very serious threat to C alifornia’s future, 85 percent say action should be taken right away. Among those who say the threat is not too or not at all serious, 23 percent say action should be taken right away (69% say wait for the economy and job situation to improve). “When it comes to the state government’s plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, should it take action right away, or should it wait until the state economy and job situation improve to take action? ” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Take action right away 65% 73% 41% 58% 59% Wait for state economy and job situation to improve 30 23 53 37 36 Don’t know 4 3 6 4 5 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 9 IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING IN CALIFORNIA Majorities of residents are at least somewhat concerned about four possible impacts of global warming in California. Nearly six in 10 Californians (57%) are very concerned about wildfires that are more severe, and half (49%) are very concerned about droughts that are more severe. Fewer express this level of concern when it comes to increased flooding (28%) or storms that are more severe (28%). Views on wildfires that are more severe, droughts that are more severe, and increased flooding were fairly similar in July 2011 and July 2009 (this is the first time we have asked about storms). We started asking about droughts and flooding in July 2005 and concern peaked in 2007 (60% very concerned about droughts; 37% very concerned about flooding). “I am going to name a few of the possible impacts of global warming in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. How about…?” Wildfires that are more severe Droughts that are more severe Increased flooding Storms that are more severe Very concerned 57% 49% 28% 28% Somewhat concerned 25 29 28 30 Not too concerned 9 11 24 24 Not at all concerned 8 10 18 17 Don’t know 1 1 1 2 On each of these four possible impacts, Democrats are more likely than independents and Republicans to be very concerned , and concern is highest among lower -income residents . B lacks , Latinos , and Inland Empire residents are more likely than whites , Asians, and residents in other regions to be very concerned about wildfires that are more severe. Latinos are more likely than others to be very concerned about droughts that are more severe. Latinos and blacks are about twice as likely as whites and Asians to say they are very concerned about increased flooding and storms that are more severe. Percent saying very concerned Wildfires that are more severe Droughts that are more severe Increased flooding Storms that are more severe All adults 57% 49% 28% 28% Party Democrats 65 60 32 36 Republicans 39 29 15 14 Independents 50 43 21 22 Race/ Ethnicity Asians 47 37 22 19 Blacks 74 50 40 40 Latinos 67 61 42 40 Whites 53 45 20 20 Region Central Valley 55 53 27 27 San Francisco Bay Area 53 46 31 28 Los Angeles 62 51 33 34 Orange/San Diego 54 43 23 19 Inland Empire 71 52 29 30 Household income Under $40,000 65 53 36 33 $40,000 to $80,000 56 47 22 26 $80,000 or more 45 46 21 19 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 10 CALIFORNIA POLICIES ON GLOBAL WARMING Californians view the mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of global warming as important. Eight in 10 say it is very (48%) or somewhat important (31%) that the state government pass regulations and spend money now on efforts to reduce global warmin g. Eight in 10 Californians also say it is very (53%) or somewhat important (29%) for the state government to pass regulations and spend money now on efforts to prepare for the effects of global warming , such as flooding, storms, and wildfires. Solid majorities of Californians and likely voters continue to support the principle behind the 2006 Global Warming Solution s Act (also known as Assembly Bill 32 or AB 32), which requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Sixty -seven percent of Californians and 63 percent of likely voters favor this law. Since this question was first asked in July 2006, at least two in three Californians have expressed support, with support peaking at 7 8 percent in 2007 . When this question was f irst asked , two in three Democrats and Republicans expressed support, but by July 2010 there was a 41 -point partisan divide (80% Democrats in favor , 39% Republicans in favor ). Today, the divide has narrowed to 28 points (77% Democrats, 49% Republicans). Sixty -three percent of independents favor this law. Latinos (78%) and Asians (74%) are much more likely than blacks (62%) and whites (58%) to express favor. At least six in 10 across regions and age, education, and income groups favor this law. “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% 77% 49% 63% 63% Oppose 22 11 39 29 25 Don’t know 11 12 12 9 12 Most Californians (60%) continue to favor the California state government making its own policies — separate from the federal government —to address the issue of global warming; 32 percent are opposed. The views of likely voters are similar. Majorities of Californians have favored California making its own policies since this question was first asked in July 2005. Today, solid majorities of Democrats (71%) and independents (60%) are in favor, while Republicans are divided (47% favor, 48% oppose). Los Angeles (65%), Orange/San Diego (64%), and San Francisco Bay Area residents (63%) favor California making its own policies, while fewer in the Inland Empire (54%) and the Central Valley (53%) hold this v iew. Solid majorities of Asians (65%), Latinos (61%), and whites (60%) are in favor, while blacks are divided (49% favor, 46% oppose). Among those who favor AB 32, 71 percent favor California making its own policies. Most of those who oppose AB 32 also oppose the state making its own policies (66%) . “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? ” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 60% 71% 47% 60% 62% Oppose 32 24 48 35 34 Don’t know 8 5 5 5 5 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 11 CALIFORNIA POLICIES ON GLOBAL WARMING (CONTINUED) A plurality of Californians (45%) believe that state actions to reduce global warming would cause there to be more jobs for people around the state and 21 percent say this wouldn’t affect the number of jobs; 24 percent believe fewer jobs would result. Findings have been similar since we first asked this question in July 2010. Among likely voters, a smaller plurality (39%) s ay more jobs would result, 24 percent see no effect on jobs, and 26 percent believe action would result in fewer jobs. Across parties, views about the effect on employment differ: while most Democrats (52%) and a plurality of independents (38%) foresee job growth, Republicans offer mixed views (34% fewer jobs, 31% more jobs, 28% no effect). And those who support AB 32 are far more likely than those who oppose it to anticipate an increase in job s (53% to 24%). “Do you think that California doing things to re duce 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% 52% 31% 38% 39% Fewer jobs 24 15 34 29 26 Wouldn’t affect number of jobs 21 22 28 25 24 Don’t know 10 11 7 8 11 REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISS IONS At both the state and federal level, numerous policies have been enacted or proposed in an effort to address global warming. Strong majorities of Californians express support for six policy ideas addressed in the survey— among them, requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances ( 76%) and encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less (76%). Support is also high among likely voters (74% energy efficiency, 72% local land use planning). Since we started asking these two questions in July 2008, more than seven in 10 adults and likely voters have expressed support. Although Democrats, followed by independents, are most likely to favor each policy, majorities of Republicans also support i ncreasing the energy efficiency of buil dings and appliances (63%) and changing land -use planning to reduce miles driven (58%). There have been state and regional efforts on both fronts, and President Obama made energy efficiency in homes and businesses a key plank in the Climate Action Plan he released in June. “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 76% 86% 63% 76% 74% Oppose 19 12 32 22 23 Don ’t know 5 3 5 2 4 Encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less Favor 76 83 58 74 72 Oppose 21 14 40 23 26 Don ’t know 3 3 1 2 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 12 REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISS IONS (CONTINUED) Eight in 10 Californians (80%) and likely voters (78%) favor requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions , and more than 70 percent have expressed support since July 2008. At the state level, enforcement of caps on such emissions began in January 2013 (as part of the cap -and- trade prog ram). Solid majorities across parties favor this idea, with Democrats (93%) the most likely to express support (77% independents, 64% Republicans). Three in four Californians (76%) and likely voters (73%) favor setting stricter emissions limits on power pl ants and majorities across parties agree, although Republicans (59%) are the least likely to express support (71% independents, 85 % Democrats). California already limits emissions from power plants, and President Obama proposed federal standards in his Cli mate Action Plan, stating that a third of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions come from power plants. In a February survey by the Pew Research Center /USA Today , 62 percent of adults nationwide favored setting stricter emissions limits on power plants in order to address climate change. “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 industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions Favor 80% 93% 64% 77% 78% Oppose 16 6 34 22 19 Don ’t know 4 1 2 1 2 Setting stricter emissions limits on power plants Favor 76 85 59 71 73 Oppose 19 11 38 25 23 Don ’t know 5 4 3 3 4 About eight in 10 adults (81%) and likely voters (77%) favor requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions ; there is majority support across parties (63% Republicans, 77% independents, 89% Democrats). In California, transportation fuels will face emissions limits under the cap -and- trade program begi nning in 2015. More than three in four adults (80%) and likely voters (76%) favor requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars. At least seven in 10 adults and likely voters have expressed support since we first ask ed this question in July 2002 . California has been a leader in this area, and its policy (AB 1493) has served as a model for other state s and for federal regulations . There is majority support across parties —but again, support is lowest among Republicans (59%), while strong majorities of independents (77%) and Democrats (91%) express support. “How about…?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions Favor 81% 89% 63% 77% 77% Oppose 16 9 34 19 21 Don ’t know 4 3 3 3 3 Requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars Favor 80 91 59 77 76 Oppose 17 7 39 21 22 Don ’t know 3 2 2 2 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 13 CAP-AND -TRADE REVENUES One of the state’s signature emissions reductions programs is cap- and-trade. Enforcement of emissions “caps” took effect in January 2013 and the program’s quarterly auctions of emissions allowances began last November. A majority of Californians (54%) have heard nothing about the cap -and -trade program, while 45 percent have heard either a lot (12%) or a little (33%). There was a similar lack of awareness last July (57% heard nothing) and in July 2010 (54% heard nothing). Awareness among likely voters today is mu ch higher than among all adults: Six in 10 likely voters (18% a lot, 43% a little) have heard of cap - and- trade, while 38 percent have heard nothing about it. Results were similar last July. Across parties, 55 percent of Republicans, 50 percent of independents, and 49 percent of Democrats have heard either a lot or a little about cap -and -trade. Awareness is highest in Orange/San Diego (56%), followed by the San Francisco Bay Area (47%), the Central Valley (45%), the Inland Empire (39%), and Los Angeles (37%). Whites (53%) are much more likely to have heard of cap -and -trade than Asians (40%), Latinos (35 %), or blacks (34%) and awareness rises as age, education, and income increase. “How much, if anything, have you heard about the state government policy called ‘cap -and -trade ’ that sets limits on carbon dioxide emissions? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind A lot 12% 10% 15% 19% 18% A little 33 39 40 31 43 Nothing at all 54 50 44 50 38 Don’t know 1 – – – – The revenues generated by the cap-and-trade program are being loaned to the state’s general fund in this fiscal year. In subsequent years, these revenues will be spent to further the goals of AB 32, and a proportion is supposed to be spent on projects to improve environmental conditions in lower -income and disadvantaged communities. More than eight in 10 Californians say it is very (52%) or somewha t (31%) important to spend these revenues on projects to improve environmental conditions in lower -income and disadvantaged communities. Just 15 percent say it is not too important to spend the money this way. Although majorities across parties consider th is policy at least somewhat important, Democrats (60%) are far more likely than independents (38%) or Republicans (28%) to say it is very important. The percentage saying it is very important declines sharply as income levels rise; it is far higher among b lacks (78%) and Latinos (71%) than among whites and Asians (39% each). Los Angeles (60%) and Inland Empire (58%) residents are the most likely across regions to say this is very important , followed by San Francisco Bay Area (54%), Central Valley (50%), and Orange/San Diego (41%) residents. “How important to you is it that some of the cap -and-trade revenues are spent on projects to improve environmental conditions in lower-income and disadvantaged communities? ” All adults Household income Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very important 52% 63% 47% 36% 39% 78% 71% 39% Somewhat important 31 28 33 38 48 8 24 34 Not too important 15 8 18 24 11 10 3 25 Don’t know 2 2 2 2 3 4 1 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 14 CAP-AND -TRADE REVENUES (CONTINUED) Revenues from the cap- and-trade program could be spent in three main areas, with a large share going to transportation and housing infrastructure projects (transportation is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state). Among Californians, 32 percent think transportation and housing infrastructure should have top priority when it comes to spending cap -and -trade revenues, 36 percent say energy efficiency and clean energy projects should have top priority , and 23 percent prefer natural resources and waste management projects. Findings are similar among likely voters. Republicans and independents are more likely than Democrats to say the money should be spent on natural resources and waste management projects while Democrats are the most likely to select energy projects. “The market for permits created by California’s cap-and-trade program will generate state revenue to spend on programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whic h of the following do you think should have top priority when it comes to spending revenues from the cap -and-trade program?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Transportation and housing infrastructure projects 32% 36% 31% 31% 36% Energy efficiency and clean energy projects 36 42 30 32 36 Natural resources and waste management projects 23 16 30 28 20 Don’t know 8 6 8 9 8 When it comes to some possible transportation and housing infrastructure projects, most adults (78%) and likely voters (72%) favor spending cap -and- trade revenues on public transit, such as more buses or reduced transit fares. Democrats (83%) are the most likely to express support, followed by independents (72%), and Republicans (59%). Seven in 10 adults (72%) and likely voters (70%) also favor repaving roads and highways . This idea garners support from mo re than six in 10 across parties. Strong majorities in all regions and demographic groups favor spending cap -and -trade revenues on public transit or repaving projects. Smaller majorities of adults (60%) and likely voters (55%) favor using the revenues on housing and commercial developments near mass transit hubs. Sixty-six percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents favor this idea. Republicans are divided (44% favor, 48% oppose). Majorities across regions and demographic groups favor this idea, but support is lower among whites (53%) than among other racial/ethnic groups and among those age 55 and older (52%) than among younger residents. “Please say if you favor or oppose spending cap- and-trade revenues on the following transportation and housing infrastructure projects. How about spe nding cap-and-trade revenues on…?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Public transit, such as more buses or reduced transit fares Favor 78% 83% 59% 72% 72% Oppose 19 13 36 24 24 Don ’t know 4 4 5 4 5 Repaving roads and highways Favor 72 74 70 63 70 Oppose 24 22 24 34 25 Don ’t know 4 3 7 3 5 Housing and commercial developments near mass transit hubs Favor 60 66 44 53 55 Oppose 32 26 48 41 37 Don ’t know 8 8 8 6 8 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 15 ENERGY POLICY The survey included several questions about federal energy policy. About eight in 10 Californians (83%) and likely voters (82%) favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the United States. More than eight in 10 Californians have supported this proposal since we started asking this question in 2004. Overwhelming majorities across parties support this proposal. More than two in three across regions and racial/ethnic, age, gender, education, and income groups expre ss support. Californians are much more likely to oppose (54%) than favor (41%) allowing more oil drilling off the California coast. Views today are similar to wh at we found between July 2004 and July 2007 . Californians were more likely to favor than oppose more oil drilling in July 2008 (51% favor, 45% oppose) and July 2009 (51% favor, 43% oppose). Support dropped to 34 percent in 2010 after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Californians were divided on this issue in 2011 and 2012. Likely voters today hold similar views to all adults. But there is sharp division across party lines : two -thirds of Democrats (65%) are opposed , while a similar share of Republicans (65%) favor more drilling. Independents are more likely to be opposed than in favor (54% to 43%). Seven in 10 San Francisco Bay Area residents (70%) and a slim majority of Los Angeles residents (53%) oppose more oil drilling in California. Those in the Central Valley (51% favor, 47% oppose) , Orange/San Diego (45% favor, 50% oppose) , and the Inland Empire (44% favor, 49% oppose) are divided. Fifty -seven percent of Californians living in coastal areas oppose more drilling (68% North -Central coast, 51% South coast) . Those in inland areas are divided ( 49% favor, 47% oppose). “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 41% 30% 62% 43% 43% Oppose 54 65 36 54 53 Don’t know 5 5 1 3 4 In the wake of the closure of one of California’s two nuclear plants —San Onofre in San Diego County— m ore than six in 10 Californians remain opposed (63%) to building more nuclear power plants at this time ; three in 10 favor (31%) th is idea. Opposition has been similar since 20 11, following the nuclear disaster in Japan. Californians were closely divided in 2009 and 2010, while they were more likely to be opposed between July 2005 and July 2008. Majorities across parties oppose building more nuclear plants, with opposition highest among Democrats at 72 percent (59% independents, 55% Republicans) . Majorities across regions and demographic groups also oppose this idea. Inland Empire residents (73%) are the most opposed, followed by residents in Los Angeles (66% ), the Central Valley (64%), the San Francisco Bay Area (60%), and Orange/San Diego (58%). Women (72%) are much more likely than men (54%) to oppose building more nuclear plants . Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks (80%) are much more likely than Latinos ( 68%), whites (60%), and Asians (59%) to be opposed. Lower - (68%) and middle- income (65%) r esidents are more opposed than upper -income residents (55%). “How about building more nuc lear power plants at this time?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 31% 24% 39% 37% 37% Oppose 63 72 55 59 58 Don’t know 5 5 6 4 5 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 16 ENERGY POLICY (CONTINUED) When it comes to renewables , nearly eight in 10 Californians (79%) favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology. Overwhelming majorities have expressed support for this idea since we first asked this question in July 2008. Nearly all Democrats (90%) favor increased federal spending in this area and solid majorities of independents (79%) and Republicans (63%) also favor it. Three in four or more across regions and racial/ethnic groups are in favor. Support is lower among those age 55 and older (68%) than among younger residents (84% age 18 to 34, 83% age 35 to 54). “How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 79% 90% 63% 79% 76% Oppose 16 8 33 18 21 Don’t know 5 3 3 2 3 At the state level, a 2011 law requires that a third of California’s electricity come from renewable energy sources by 2020. Seventy -nine percent of Californians favor this law ; 44 percent favor it even if it means an increase in their electricity bill s and 35 percent favor it but not if it costs more. Seventeen percent oppose this law. Levels of support were similar in July 2011 (46% favor even with increased electricity bill s, 31% do not favor if it increases electricity bill s) and July 2012 (44% favor even with increased electricity bill s, 33% do not favor if it increases electricity bill s). Among l ikely voters , 75 percent favor this policy ( 48% favor even if it raises electricity bill s, 27 % favor only if electricity does not cost more) . Solid majorities of Democrats (88%), independents (75%), and Republicans (64%) favor this law, but support drops about 30 points in each group if it means higher electricity bills (57% Democrats, 47% independents, 32% Republicans). Across regions and demographic groups, strong majorit ies favor this policy, but levels of support differ if it means an increase in electricity bills. A majority of San Francisco Bay Area residents (56%) support the law even if it means an increase in their electricity bill s, compared to fewer in Los Angeles (44%) , Orange/San Diego (43%), the Inland Empire (41%) , and the Central Valley (32%) . Among racial/ethnic groups, whites (49%) are the most likely to support this state law regardless of electricity costs, followed by Asians (43%), Latinos (40%), and blacks (33%). Support increases as education levels rise. Across income groups, the percentage who are in favor even if it means higher electricity bills is somewhat lower among those with incomes under $40,000 (40% under $40,000, 48% $40,000 to $80,000, 51% $80,000 or more). “How about requiring one -third of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by the year 2020? Do you favor or oppose this state law?” (if favor: “Do you still favor this state law if it me ans an increase in your own electricity bill?”) All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 79% 88% 64% 75% 75% Favor, even if it means an increase in electricity bill 44 57 32 47 48 Favor, but not if it means an increase in electricity 35 31 32 28 27 Oppose 17 10 34 23 22 Don’t know 4 2 2 2 3 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 17 FRACKING AND KEYSTONE PIPELINE When asked about increasing the use of fracking for oil and natural gas extraction, 35 percent of Californians say they are in favor, 51 percent are opposed , and 14 percent are unsure. Californians held similar views in May (39% favor, 47% oppose, 14% unsure). In a March Pew Research Center survey among adults nationwide, 48 percent were in favor (38% oppose, 14% unsure). Six in 10 Democrats oppose the increased use of fracking, while half of Republicans (49%) favor it, and independents are divided (43% favor, 48% oppose). San Francisco Bay Area residents (57%) are the most likely to oppose this idea, followed by residents in the Central Valley and the Inland Empire (52% each), Los Angeles (47%), and Orange/San Diego (48%). Men are divided (44% favor, 47% oppose), while 55 percent of women oppose it . At least half of Latinos (56%) and whites (51%) oppose increased fracking ; blacks are more likely to oppose (46%) than favor (37%) it and Asians are divided (43% favor, 41% oppose). “Do you favor or oppose increased use of fracking, a drilling method that uses high- pressure water and chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations? ” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 35% 30% 49% 43% 39% Oppose 51 60 35 48 49 Don’t know 14 10 16 10 12 Fracking already takes place in California , and state legislators have been debating having stricter regulations on it. Half of Californians (50 %) and 56 percent of likely voters fav or stricter state regulation of fracking. Democrats (59%) and independents (57%) are more likely than Republicans (48%) to favor stricter regulations. Asians (60%), whites (54%), and blacks (50%) favor stricter regulation, while Latinos are divided (41% favor, 45% oppose). Those in the San Francisco Bay Area (61%) are most likely to favor stricter regulation, followed by residents in Orange/San Diego (56%), the Central Valley (47%), Los Angeles (45%), and the Inland Empire (39%). Support for stricter regulation increases with education. Among those who favor increased use of fracking, 62 percent also favor stricter regulation. Those who oppose fracking are divided about stricter regulation (49% favor, 46% oppose). There is much debate around building the Keystone XL pipeline to transport oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. Today, 51 percent of Californians favor, 34 percent oppose, and 15 percent ar e unsure about this proposal. Views were nearly identical in May (53% favor, 35% oppose, 12% unsure). The Pew survey found 66 percent of adults nationwide in favor (23% oppose). In California, 70 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents favor building the pipeline, while Democrats are more likely to oppose (48%) than favor (38%) this project. About half of whites (54%), Asians (50%), and Latinos (49%) are in favor, while blacks are divided (42% favor, 41% oppose). Among those who approve of the p resident’s handling of environmental issues, 52 percent favor this proposal, as do 56 percent of those who disapprove of the p resident on these issues . “Do you favor or oppose building the Keystone X L pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region through the Midwest to refineries in Texas?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 51% 38% 70% 57% 54% Oppose 34 48 20 31 34 Don’t know 15 14 10 12 11 July 2013 Californians and the Environment 18 GOVERNMENT RATINGS, AIR POLLUTION KEY FINDINGS Nearly half of Californians approve of Governor Brown’s job performance overall. Fewer approve of his handling of environmental issues but—as they were last July—Californians are more likely to be unsure of his performance in this area. Fewer than four in 10 approve of the state legislature overall and of its handling of environmental issues. (page 19) Six in 10 approve of President Obama’s overall job performance. As with Governor Brown, fewer approve of the president on environmental issues but more are unsure. Three in 10 approve of the overall job Congress is doing and of its handling of environmental issues. (page 20) Pluralities say all levels of government— federal, state, and local—are not doing enough to address global warming, but Californians are more likely to hold this view of the federal government. (page 21) About three in 10 Californians say air pollution in their region is a big problem, with Inland Empire and Los Angeles residents the most likely to express this view. While only one in five consider air pollution to be a very serious health threat, this view is more widely held among those with household incomes under $40,000 and by Latinos and blacks. (page 22) Following past trends, a strong majority of employed Californians drive to work alone; far fewer carpool (14%) or take public transit (8%). Most Californians say they have seriously considered getting, or already have, a more fuel-efficient vehicle or hybrid or electric vehicle. (page 23) 1416 3140 44 3638 3835 30 0 20406080 Orange/ San Diego SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Inland Empire Percent all adults Big problemSomewhat of a problem Perceptions of Regional Air Pollution 6130 53 29 0 20 40 60 80 President Obama U.S. Congress Percent all adults Job overall Environmental issues Approval Ratings of Federal Elected Officials 48 36 39 38 0 20 40 60 80 Governor Brown California Legislature Percent all adults Job overall Environmental issues Approval Ratings of Federal Elected Officials PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 19 APPROVAL RATINGS OF STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS Governor Brown continues to have the approval of about half of Californians (48%) when they are asked how he is handling his job overall. The governor’s overall approval ratings were also at 48 percent in May and have been at around 50 percent in our polling s ince the November 2012 election. Last July, 42 p ercent approved. Among likely voters today, a record -high 54 percent approve of the governor ; this share is 6 points higher than in May (48%) and 8 points higher than last July (46%). While 67 percent of Democrats approve of the g overnor today, 52 pe rcent of Republicans disapprove ; 44 percent of independents approve (31% disapprove) . When it comes to the governor’s handling of environmental issues, Californians are more likely to say that they approve (39%) than disapprove (29%), while 32 percent are unsure. Among likely voters, 44 percent approve, 31 percent disapprove, and 25 percent are unsure. Opinion on this topic is divided along party lines: Democrats are more likely to approve than disapprove and Republicans are more likely to disapprove than approve, while independents are divided. Results among all adults were similar last July (39% approve, 31% disapprove, 30% unsure). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Jerry Brown is handling …?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind His job as governor of California Approve 48% 67% 29% 44% 54% Disapprove 27 14 52 31 31 Don ’t know 26 18 19 26 15 Environmental issues in California Approve 39 55 30 33 44 Disapprove 29 17 43 34 31 Don ’t know 32 28 28 32 25 The state legislature’s current approval ratings (36%) are similar to those in May (35%) and slightly higher than they were last July (29%). Among likely voters, 33 percent approve of the state legislature’s performance, while 55 percent disapprove. Majori ties of Republicans (67%) and independents (52%) disapprove, while Democrats are divided (45% approve, 39% disapprove). Californians’ approval ratings of the legislature’s handling of environmental issues (38%) are similar to those of its job overall (36%) . M ore Republicans (56% disapprove, 27% approve) and independents (44% disapprove, 31% approve) disapprove than approve of the legislature on this issue, while Democrats are more divided (42% approve, 38% disapprove). Approval ratings of the legislature on environmental issues among all adults were similar last July (36%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling …?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Its job Approve 36% 45% 20% 29% 33% Disapprove 45 39 67 52 55 Don ’t know 19 16 13 19 12 Environmental issues in California Approve 38 42 27 31 34 Disapprove 41 38 56 44 47 Don ’t know 21 20 17 24 18 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 20 APPROVAL RATINGS OF FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS A solid majority of Californians (61%) approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, similar to May (62%) and last July (57%). Nationally, a recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll found the president’s approval rating at 49 percent. In California , 54 percent of likely voters approv e and 41 percent disapprov e. There are strong partisan differences, with 86 percent of Democrats approving and 74 percent of Republicans disapproving, while independents are divided (47% approve, 46% disapprove). Majorities across age, education, gender, and income groups approv e. When it comes to his handling environmental issues, 53 percent approve of the president , similar to last July (51%), but down slightly from a high of 58 percent in July 2009. Likely voters are divided (46% approve, 44% disapprove). S ixty-seven percent of Democrats approve, while 66 percent of Republicans disapprove, and independents are divided (42% approve, 42% disapprove). Blacks (74%) and Latinos (70%) are much more likely than Asians (53%) and whites (39%) to approve of his handling of environmental issues. “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 61% 86% 24% 47% 54% Disapprove 33 11 74 46 41 Don ’t know 6 3 2 7 4 Environmental issues in the United States Approve 53 67 25 42 46 Disapprove 34 21 66 42 44 Don ’t know 12 12 10 16 10 The U.S. Congress continues to have low overall approval ratings among Californians. Thirty percent approve of the way Congress is handling its job, similar to our findings for May (31%) and last July (27%). The recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll found that 21 percent of adults nationwide approve of Congress. In California, likely voters (18% approve, 77% disapprove) are much more negative than all adults in their overall evaluations of Congress. Majorities of Californians in all age groups and across par ties and regions disapprove of the way that Congress is handling its job overall. On environmental issues, 29 percent of all adults approve of the job Congress is doing, while 59 percent disapprove, similar to our findings last July (27% approve, 61% disa pprove). Likely voters (18% approve, 72% disapprove) give even more negative ratings on this topic, and more than six in 10 across parties disapprove. Californians are more likely to disapprove than approve across regions and age and income groups. “Overa ll, do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is handling…?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Its job Approve 30% 25% 20% 21% 18% Disapprove 62 68 76 74 77 Don ’t know 7 6 4 5 4 Environmental issues in the United States Approve 29 26 19 21 18 Disapprove 59 62 71 67 72 Don ’t know 12 12 11 12 10 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 21 GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING When asked for their overall views of how governments are addressing global warming today, pluralities of Californians say that their federal, state, and local governments are not doing enough. Majorities of all adults (53%) and likely voters (54%) say the federal government is not doing enough to address global warming. Findings among all adults were nearly identical last Jul y. This perception was more prevalent the first time we asked this question in July 2008 (66%) and declined to 48 percent in July 2009 . There are partisan differences in perceptions of the federal government’s actions on global warming. Democrats (66%) are more likely than independents (56%) and far more likely than Republicans (40%) to say that the federal government is not doing enough. At least half of blacks (58%), Latinos (54%), whites (52%), and Asians (50%) hold this view. What about state government ? Forty-four percent of Californians and 41 percent of likely voters say that the state government is not doing enough to address global warming. Findings among all adults were similar last July. Since July 2008, the share holding this view has ranged between 44 per cent (today) and 51 percent (July 2008). While majorities of Democrats (52%) and pluralities of independents (44%) say that the state government is not doing enough , only 33 percent of Republicans say this . Blacks and Latinos (49% each ) are somewhat more likely than whites and Asians (40% each ) to hold this view. V iews of local government are quite similar to those of state government : 44 percent of Californians and 38 percent of likely voters say their local government is not doing enough on global warming. Findings among all adults are again similar to last July. Following the trend in views of state government, the perception that the local government response is inadequate has ranged between 44 percent (today) and 52 percent (July 2008). Once again, while a majority of Democrats (51%) and a pluralit y of independents (46%) hold this view, only 36 percent of Republicans do so. Blacks a nd Latinos (52% each ) are again more likely than Asians (41%) and whites (39%) to think that local government should do more to address global warming. “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 13% 6% 27% 17% 17% Just enough 27 24 28 25 25 Not enough 53 66 40 56 54 Don ’t know 6 4 5 2 4 State government More than enough 15 8 28 18 21 Just enough 35 35 35 34 33 Not enough 44 52 33 44 41 Don ’t know 6 5 4 4 5 Local government More than enough 13 6 22 15 16 Just enough 35 36 35 35 39 Not enough 44 51 36 46 38 Don ’t know 8 7 7 4 7 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 22 REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION Six in 10 Californians (62%) say that air pollution is a big (28%) or somewhat of a problem (34%) in their region. Findings have been similar in recent years. Inland Empire (44%), Los Angeles (40%), and Central Valley (31%) residents are much more likely than those in the San Francisco Bay Area (16%) and Orange/San Diego (14%) to say that air pollution is a big problem . Lower-income residents are more likely than higher -income residents to call it a big problem. Latinos (41%) and blacks (40%) are much more likely than Asians (23%) and whites (20%) to consider air pollution a big problem. “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 Household i ncome Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Big problem 28% 35% 24% 20% 23% 40% 41% 20% Somewhat of a problem 34 32 36 39 33 29 30 39 Not a problem 36 31 40 41 44 31 28 40 Don’t know 1 1 – – – – 2 1 About half of Californians (52%) view air pollution in their region as a very (22%) or somewhat serious (30%) health threat to them selves and to their immediate family. Since 2009, about half have said air pollution is a very or somewhat serious health threat. Closer to six in 10 held this view previously. Los Angel es residents (64%) are most likely to view regional air pollution as a very or somewhat serious threat, followed by residents in the Inland Empire (59 %), Central Valley (57%), San Francisco Bay Area (44%), and Orange/San Diego (42%). Latinos (66%) , Asians (52%), and blacks (51% ) are more likely than whites (41%), and lower-income residents are more likely than upper -income residents, to hold this view . “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 Household income Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very serious 22% 27% 19% 13% 13% 27% 36% 14% Somewhat serious 30 33 27 28 39 24 30 27 Not too serious/ Not at all serious (vol) 48 38 54 59 48 48 32 59 Don’t know 1 1 – – – – 2 1 Residents are divided (48% yes, 46% no) about whether air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas than in other areas in their region. This finding has been similar over the past two years. Strong majorities of Latinos (69%) and b lacks (64%) believe air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas. Belief that there is a disparity declines as income, age, and education increase. “Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income are as than other areas in your region, or not? All adults Household i ncome Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Yes 48% 59% 43% 36% 44% 64% 69% 34% No 46 36 53 58 52 34 28 59 Don’t know 5 5 4 6 4 2 4 7 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 23 COMMUTING AND VEHICLES Two in three Californians who work full - or part -time drive alone to work. Far fewer carpool (14%), use public transportation (8%), walk (4%), or bike (3%) to work ; 4 percent volunteer that they work from home. The share saying they drive alone declined 1 1 points between July 2003 (7 3%) and 2008 (6 2%) , but since 2011 it has been over 65 percent. Central Valley residents (81%) are the most likely to drive alone, followed by those in Orange/San Diego (69%), the Inland Empire (65%), Los Angeles (63%), and the San Francisco Bay Area (56%). Those earning less than $40,000 and those who have a high s chool education or less are less likely than others to say they drive to work alone. “How do you usually commute to wo rk— drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle?” Those employed full- or part-time All employed adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Drive alone 67% 81% 56% 63% 69% 65% Carpool 14 11 14 15 14 15 Take public bus or transit 8 1 16 10 6 10 Walk 4 1 5 5 2 4 Bicycle 3 2 5 3 1 4 Work at home (vol) 4 3 3 4 8 1 Other – 1 1 – – – Half of Californians have seriously considered (53%) getting a more fuel -efficient vehicle the next t ime they buy or lease a vehicle; 15 percent have not considered it . Twenty -four percent say they already have one. Half or more across racial/ethnic groups have considered this option (59% blacks, 57% Latinos, 54% Asians, 49% whites). Whites (30%) are more likely than others to report already having a fuel - efficient vehicle (22% Asians, 18% Latinos, 14% blacks). More than seven in 10 across regions have considered getting, or say they already have, a more fuel efficient vehicle. Half o f Californians (51%) have also seriously considered getting a hybrid or electric vehicle the n ext time they buy or lease a vehicle; 35 percent have not considered it . Six percent say they already have one. Latinos (58%) and Asians (56%) are more likely than whites (45%) and blacks (40%) to have consider ed getting this type of vehicle; fewer than one in 10 across racial and ethnic groups say they already have one (8% Asians, 8% whites, 5% blacks, 4% Latinos). Majorities across regions have either considered this option or say they already ha ve a hybrid or electric vehicle . San Francisco Bay Area residents (11%) are the most likely to report having one, followed by residents in Orange/San Diego (7%), Los Angeles (5%), the Inland Empire (5%), and the Central Valley (3%). “Would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a hybrid or electric vehicle the next time you buy or lease a vehicle, or do you already have one?” All adults Household income Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Yes, have considered 51% 51% 52% 56% 56% 40% 58% 45% No, have not considered 35 35 38 29 25 48 32 40 Already have one 6 3 7 12 8 5 4 8 Don’t drive, won’t be getting a vehicle (vol) 6 10 2 2 9 6 4 6 Don’t know 2 2 1 1 2 – 2 1 July 2013 Californians and the Environment 24 REGIONAL MAP July 2013 Californians and the Environment 25 METHODOLOGY The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance from Sonja Petek, project manager for this survey, and research associates Dean Bonner and Jui Shrestha. This survey, Californians and the Environment, is supported with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The PPIC Statewide Survey invites input, comments, and suggestions from policy and public opinion experts and from its own advisory comm ittee, but survey methods, questions, and content are determined solely by PPIC’s survey team. Findings in this report are based on a survey of 2, 103 California adult residents, including 1,472 intervie wed on landline telephones and 631 interviewed on cell phones. Interviews took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights from July 9– 23, 2013. Landline interviews were conducted using a computer -generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All landline telephone exchanges in California were eligible for selection, and the sample telephone numbers were called 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 phones were included in this survey to account for the growing number of Califor nians 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 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. Live landline and cell phone interviews were conducted by Abt SRBI, Inc., 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 new survey questions into Spanish, with assistance from Renatta DeFever and Belen Chavez , and Abt SRBI translated the survey into Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean. With assistance from Abt SRBI, we used data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2009– 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) through the University of Minnesota’s Integrated Public Use Microdata Series for California to co mpare certain demographic characteristics of the survey sample —region, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education— with the characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the ACS figures. To estimate landline and cell phone service in California, Abt SRBI used 2011 state- level estimates released by the National Center for Health Statistics —which used data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the ACS— and 2012 estimates for the West Census Region i n the latest NHIS report. The estimates for California were then compared against landline and cell phone service reported in this survey. We also used voter registration data from the California Secretary of State to compare the party registration of regi stered voters in our sample to party registration statewide. The landline and cell phone samples PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 26 were then integrated using a frame integration weight, while sample balancing adjusted for differences across regional, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, telephone service, and party registration groups. The sampling error, taking design effects from weighting into consideration, is ±3 percent at the 95 percent confidence level for the total unweighted sample of 2, 103 adults. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 3 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for unweighted subgroups is larger: For the 1, 691 registered voters, the sampling error is ±3.4 percent and for the 1,273 likely voters, it is ± 3.9 percent . Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. We present results for five geographic regions, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “San Francisco Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, “Inland Empire” refers to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego Counties. Residents of 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 several places, we refer to coastal and inland counties. Within coastal counties, the “north/central coast” region refers to the counties along the California coast northward from San Luis Obispo County to Del Norte County and includes all the San Francisco Bay Area c ounties. The “south coast” region includes Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. All other counties are included in the “inland” region. We present specific results for non- Hispanic whites and also for Latinos, who account for about a third of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest -growing voter groups. We also present results for non- Hispanic Asians, who make up about 14 percent of the state’s adult p opulation, and non- Hispanic blacks, who comprise about 6 percent. Results for other racial/ethnic groups —such as Native Americans —are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes are not large enou gh for separate analysis. We compare the opinions of those who report they are registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and decline- to-state or independent voters; the results for those who say they are registered to vote in other parties are not larg e enough for separate analysis. We also analyze the responses of likely voters —so designated by their responses to voter registration survey questions, previous election participation, and current interest in politics. The percentages presented in the report tables and in the questionnaire may not add to 100 due to rounding. We compare current PPIC Statewide Survey results to those in our earlier surveys and to those in national surveys by ABC News/Washington Post, Gallup, Pew Research Center, and Pew Research Center/USA Today . Ad ditional details about our methodology can be found at www.ppic.org/content/other/SurveyMethodology.pdf and are available upon request through surveys@ppic.org . July 2013 Californians and the Environment 27 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT July 9–23, 2013 2,103 California Adult Residents: English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese MARGIN OF ERROR ±3% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMP LE PERCENTAGES MAY NOT ADD TO 100 D UE TO ROUNDING 1. First, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Jerry Brown is handling his job as governor of California? 48% approve 27 disapprove 26 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Brown is handling environmental issues in California? 39% approve 29 disapprove 32 don’t know 3. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling its job? 36% approve 45 disapprove 19 don’t know 4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling environmental issues in California? 38% approve 41 disapprove 21 don’t know 5. We are interested in the region of California that you live in. Would you say that air pollution is a big pr oblem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region? 28% big problem 34 somewhat of a problem 36 not a problem 1 don’t know 6. 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? 22% very serious 30 somewhat serious 45 not too serious 3 not at all serious (volunteered) 1 don’t know 7. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas than other areas in your region, or not? 48% yes 46 no 5 d on’t know 8. On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen — [rotate order] (1) they have already begun to happen; (2) they will start happening within a few years; (3) they will start happening within your lifetime; (4) they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] ( 5) they will never happen ? 63% already begun 5 within a few years 6 within your lifetime 11 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 11 will never happen 4 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 28 9. Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or do you think it is not necessary to take steps yet? 75% right away 20 not necessary yet 1 neither, never necessary (volunteer ed) 3 don’t know 10. 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? 50% very serious 27 somewhat serious 11 not to o serious 9 not at all serious 3 don’t know 11. [asked starting July 11] 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 an d job situation improve to take action? 65% take action right away 30 wait until state economy and job situation improve 4 don’t know Now I am going to name a few of the possible impacts of global warming in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. [rotate questions 12 to 15] 12. How about increased flooding ? 28% very concerned 28 somewhat concerned 24 not too concerned 18 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 13. How about droughts that are more severe? 49% very concerned 29 somewhat concerned 11 not too concerned 10 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 14. How about wildfires that are more severe? 57% very concerned 25 somewhat concerned 9 not too concerned 8 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 15. How about storms that are more severe? 28% very concerned 30 somewhat concerned 24 not too concerned 17 not at all concerned 2 d on’t know 16. 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 22 oppose 11 d on’t know 17. 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? 60% favor 32 oppo se 8 d on’t know 18. 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 24 fewer jobs 21 wouldn’t affect the number of jobs 10 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 29 Next, [rotate questions 19 and 20] 19. How important is it for the state government to pass regulations and spend money now on efforts to prepare for the future effects of global warming, such as flooding, storms, and wildfires —is it very important, somewhat important, or not too important? 53% very important 29 somewhat important 16 not too important 1 don’t know 20. How important is it for the state government to pass regulations and spend money now o n efforts to reduce global warming —is it very important, somewhat important, or not too important? 48% very important 31 somewhat important 20 not too important 1 don’t know Next, officials in the state and federal governments are discussing ways to ad dress global warming. Please tell me if you favor or oppose the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [rotate questions 21 to 24] 21. How about requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances? 76% favor 19 oppose 5 don’t know 21a.How about setting stricter emissions limits on power plants? 76% favor 19 oppose 5 don’t know 22. How about requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions? 80% favor 16 oppose 4 don’t know 22a.How about requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions? 81% favor 16 oppose 4 don’t know 23. How about encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less? 76% favor 21 oppose 3 don’t know 24. How about requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars? 80% favor 17 oppose 3 don’t know 25. Next, how much, if anything, have you heard about the state government policy called “cap -and -trade” that sets limits on carbon dioxide emissions? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all? 12% a lot 33 a little 54 nothing at all 1 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 30 26. The market for permits created by California’s cap -and -trade program will generate state revenue to spend on programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Which of the following do you think should have top priority when it comes to spending revenues from t he cap-and-trade program? [rotate ] (1) transportation and housing infrastructure projects; (2) energy efficiency and clean energy projects; [ or] ( 3) natural resources and waste management projects? 32% transportation and housing infrastructure projects 36 energy efficiency and clean energy projects 23 natural resources and waste management projects 8 don’t know Next, please say if you favor or oppose spending cap -and -trade revenues on the following transportation and housing infrastructure projects. [rotate questions 27 to 29 ] 27. How about spending cap -and- trade revenues on repaving roads and highways? 72% favor 24 oppose 4 don’t know 28. How about spending cap -and -trade revenues on housing and commercial devel opments near mass transit hubs? 60% favor 32 oppose 8 don’t know 29. How about spending cap -and -trade revenues on public transit, such as more buses or reduced transit fares? 78% favor 19 oppose 4 don’t know 30. Next, how important to you is it that some of the cap -and -trade revenues are spent on projects to improve environmental conditions in lower -income and disadvantaged communities —very important, somewhat important, or not too important? 52% very important 31 somewhat important 15 not too important 2 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? 61% approve 33 disapprove 6 d on’t know 32. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Obama is handling environmental issues in the United States? 53% approve 34 disapprove 12 don’t know 33. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is handling its job? 30% approve 62 disapprove 7 don’t know 34. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is handling environmental issues in the United States? 29% approve 59 disapprove 12 don’t know [rotate order of questions 35 to 37] 35. Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 13% mor e than enough 27 just enough 53 not enough 6 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 31 36. Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or n ot enough to address global warming? 15% more than enough 35 just enough 44 not enough 6 don’t know 37. Overall, do you think that your local government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 13% more than enough 35 just enough 44 not enough 8 don’t know Next, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 38 to 41] 38. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? 83% favor 15 oppose 2 don’t know 39. How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 41% favor 54 oppose 5 don’t know 40. How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 31% favor 63 oppose 5 don’t know 41. How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology? 79% favor 16 oppose 5 don’t know 42. How about requiring one -third of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by the year 2020? Do you f avor or oppose this state law? ( if favor : Do you still favor this state law if it means an increase in your own electricity bill?) 44% favor, even if it increases electricity bill 35 favor, but not if it increases electricity bill 17 oppose 4 don’t know [rotate questions 43 and 44, keeping 43a after 43] 43. Do you favor or oppose increased use of fracking, a drilling method that uses high- pressure water and chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations? 35% favor 51 oppose 14 don’t know 43a. As you may know, fracking is currently taking place in California. Do you favor or oppose stricter state regulation of fracking in California? 50% favor 36 oppose 13 don’t know 44. Do you favor or oppose building the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region through the Midwest to refineries in Texas? 51% favor 34 oppose 15 don’t know 4 5. Next, some people are registered to vote and others are n ot. Are you absolutely certain that you are reg istered to vote in California? 68% yes [ask q45a] 32 no [skip to q46b ] PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 32 45a. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or are you registered as a decline -to -state or independent voter? 44% Democrat [ask q4 6] 30 Republican [skip to q46 a] 4 another party (specify) [skip to q47] 22 i ndependent [skip to q46b] 46. Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 54% strong 44 not very strong 2 don’t know [skip to q4 7] 46a. Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 48% strong 51 not very strong 2 don’t know [skip to q4 7] 46b. Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 17% Republican Par ty 49 Democratic Party 27 neither (volunteer ed) 7 don’t know 47. Next, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 10% very liberal 18 somewhat liberal 30 middle -of -the -road 24 somewhat conservative 13 very conservative 5 don’t know 48. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics —a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 23% great deal 33 fair amount 32 only a little 11 none 1 don’t know [d1–d5a: demographic questions] D5b.[asked of those employed full - or part -time] How do you usually commute to work — drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle? 67% drive alone 14 carpool 8 take public bus or transit 4 walk 3 bicycle 4 work at home (volunteer ed) ‒ other (specify) [rotate questions d5c and d5d] D5c. Would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a hybrid or electric vehicle the next time you buy or lease a vehicle, or do you already have one? 51% have c onsidered 35 have not considered 6 already have one 6 don’t drive/don’t have a car/won’t be buying another vehicle (volunteer ed) 2 don’t know D5d. Would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuel - efficient vehicle the next time you buy or lease a vehicle, or do you already have one? 53% have considered 15 have not considered 24 already have one 6 don’t drive/don’t have a car/won’t be buying another vehicle (volunteer ed) 2 don’t know [d6–d16: demographic questions] PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ruben Barrales President and CEO GROW Elect Angela Blackwell Founder and CEO PolicyLink Mollyann Brodie Senior Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Bill Lane Center for the American West Stanford University James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Jon Cohen General Manager and Polling Director Capital Insight Washington Post Media Russell Hancock President and CEO Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Robert Lapsley President California Business Roundtable Carol S. Larson President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Lisa Pitney Vice President, Government Relations The Walt Disney Company Robert K. Ross, M.D. President and CEO The California Endowment Most Reverend Jaime Soto Bishop of Sacramento Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento 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 Gary K. Hart, Chair Former State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California Mark Baldassare President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Ruben Barrales President and CEO GROW Elect María Blanco Vice President, Civic Engagement California Community Foundation Brigitte Bren Attorney Walter B. Hewlett Chair, Board of Directors William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Mas Masumoto Author and Farmer Steven A. Merksamer Senior Partner Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni , LLP Kim Polese Chairman ClearStreet, Inc. Thomas C. Sutton Retired Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company 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 CEO of PPIC. Gary K. Hart 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 © 201 3 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) "
"
["_permalink":protected]=>
string(107) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-the-environment-july-2013/s_713mbs/"
["_next":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_prev":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_css_class":protected]=>
NULL
["id"]=>
int(8879)
["ID"]=>
int(8879)
["post_author"]=>
string(1) "1"
["post_content"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_date"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 02:41:43"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(4298)
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "inherit"
["post_title"]=>
string(8) "S 713MBS"
["post_type"]=>
string(10) "attachment"
["slug"]=>
string(8) "s_713mbs"
["__type":protected]=>
NULL
["_wp_attached_file"]=>
string(12) "S_713MBS.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(6) "514734"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(91689) "CONTENTS About the Survey 2 Press Release 3 Climate Change, Energy Policy 6 Government Ratings, Air Pollution 18 Regional Map 24 Methodology 25 Questionnaire and Results 27 the environment J U LY 2 0 1 3 & P P I C S TAT E W I D E S U R V E Y Californians Mark Baldassare Dean Bonner Sonja Petek Jui Shrestha i T July 2013 Californians and the Environment 2 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Sur vey provides policymakers, the media, and the public with objective, advocacy- free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. This is the 136th PPIC Statewide Sur vey in a series that was inaugurated in April 1998 and has generated a database of responses from more than 2 86,000 Californians. The current s u r v e y, Californians and the Environment, was conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Its goal is to inform state policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about Californi ans’ opinions on global warming, energy policy, and air pollution. It is the 13 th annual PPIC Statewide Sur vey on environmental issues since 2000. In his second inaugural address, President Obama vowed to address climate change. In late June, he introduced a plan to both mitigate the release of greenhouse gases, including regulating power plants, and plan for the future effects of climate change. At the state level, effor ts continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of renewable energy , and state and local governments are devising plans to address the impacts of climate change. R evenues from California’s cap- and- trade program are being loaned to the state’s general fund this year, and discussions continue about the best way to spend cap- and-trade revenues in later years. The revenues must be spent to fur ther the goals of AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, and a cer tain percentage must be used to improve environmental conditions in lower -income and disadvantaged communities. The controversial practice of fracking continues in California, which is believed to have the countr y’s largest shale oil deposit s. Legislative effor ts to impose stricter fracking regulations have thus far been unsuccessful. In this context, t his year’s sur vey presents the responses of 2, 103 adult residents throughout California, inter viewed in multiple languages by landline or cell phone. It includes findings on: Clima te change, including perceptions of global warming’s onset and concerns about its possible impacts; preferences for AB 32 and views of the impact of state action on global warming on employment; views on ways government can regulate emissions, including setting stricter emissions limits on power plants; and preferences for how to spend cap- and-trade revenues. It also measures attitudes toward energy policy, including fuel economy standards, oil drilling, nuclear plants, renewable energy, the Keystone XL pipeline, and fracking. Government ratings and air pollution, including approval ratings of the governor, legislature, president, and Congress on overall job performance and handling of environmental issues; assessment of local, state, and federal effor ts to address global warming; perceptions of regional air pollution and its potential health risks; commuting trends ; and vehicle ownership. Time trends, national comparisons, and the extent to which Californians may differ in their perceptions, attitudes, and preferences based on political par ty affiliation, likelihood of voting, region of residence (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Inland Empire, and Orange/San Diego Counties), race/ethnicity (Asian, black, Latino, and non-Hispanic white) , and other demographic characteristics . This repor t may be downloaded free of charge from our website ( www.ppic.org). Please email questions about the sur vey to sur vey@ppic.org . Tr y our PPIC Statewide Sur vey interactive tools online at www.ppic.org/main/sur vAdvancedSearch.asp . PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 4 Most residents (60%) and likely voters (62%) continue to favor the idea of California making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address global warming. Solid majorities of adult s (67%) and likely voters (63%) continue to support the principle behind the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. Also known as AB 32 , this law requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2010, there was a sharp partisan divide in opinions, with 80 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans favoring the law . Today, the gap has narrowed: 77 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans are in favor. Most Californians don’t view government action s to reduce global warming as a tradeoff between the environment and jobs. Just 24 percent say state action to reduce global warming will result in fewer jobs for state residents , while 45 percent say it will result in more jobs and 21 percent see no effect on jobs. One of California’s signature programs to reduce emissions is cap -and -trade, which includes auctions of emissions allowances that began last November . Most residents (54%) have heard nothing about the program ; 33 percent have heard a little and 12 percent a lot. The program’s revenues are being loaned to the state’s general fund this year . In the future, they will be used to further the goals of AB 32, with a portion spent to improve environmental conditi ons in lower-income or disadvantaged communities. An overwhelming majority say it is very (52%) or somewhat important (31%) to spend the money on these communities , while 15 percent say it is not too important. A large share of cap -and- trade revenue will likely go to transportation —the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California —and housing infrastructure. How should this money be spent? Overwhelming majorities favor spending it on public transit, such as more buses or reduced transit fares (7 8%), and repaving roads and highways (72%). A smaller majority (60%) favor spending on housing and commercial developments near mass transit hubs. Many policies to address global warming are being proposed or enacted, at both the state and federal level. T he survey— which began shortly after President Barack Obama announced his Climate Action Plan —asked about several policy ideas and finds majority support for all of them: Requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions (81% adul ts, 77% likely voters favor) Requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions (80% adults,78% likely voters favor) Requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse g ases from new cars (8 0% adults, 76% likely voters favor) Requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances (76% adults, 74% likely voters favor) Encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that peopl e could drive less (76% adults, 72% likely voters favor) Setting stricter emissions limits on power plants (76% adults, 73% likely voters favor) How do Californians assess government efforts to address global warming? A majority of adults (53%) say the federal government is not doing enough. Fewer say state government (44%) and local government (44%) are not doing enough . JOB APPROVAL AMONG LIKELY VOTERS AT 54 PERCENT FOR BR OWN, OBAMA Asked how they r ate elected leaders, 48 percent of California adults approve of the overall job performance of Governor Jerry Brown. A record -high 54 percent of likely voters approve. His rating for handling environmental issues is lower: 39 percent of adults and 44 percent of likely voters approve. The state legislature’s overall approval rating is 36 percent among adults and 33 percent among likely voters. On environmental issues, the legislature has an approval rating of 38 percent among adults and 34 percent among likely voters. PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 5 A solid majority of Californians (61%) approve of President Obama’s job performance, as do 54 percent of likely voters . About half of adult s (53%) and 46 percent of likely voters approve of his handling of environmental issues. Just 30 percent of adults and 18 percent of l ikely voters approve of the overall job Congress is doing. Congress’ rating on environmental issues is similar (29% adults, 18% likely voters). AMONG THOSE WHO FAVOR MORE FRACKING, MOS T WANT STRICTER REGULATION As state legislators debate stricter regulations on fracking —already under way in California —51 percent oppose increased use of the drilling method used to extract oil and natural gas (35% favor it, 14% don’t know) . Asked whether they favor or oppose stricter regulation of fracking, 50 percent say t hey are in favor . Among those who favor increased use of fracking, 62 percent also favor stricter regulation. The survey asked about another hotly debated plan to increase the supply of oil: construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to Texas refineries. Half of Californians (51%) favor building the pipeline, 34 percent oppose it , and 15 percent don’t know. “Californians are conflicted when it comes to controversial efforts to expand the oil supply,” said Baldassare. “ Slim majorities favor building the Keystone XL pipeline but also oppose fracking, with many wanting stricter regulation of the practice. ” Offshore oil drilling and nuclear power have been contentious issues in energy policy, and the survey shows that most residents today oppose the expansion of either. Asked about more oil drilling off California’s coast , 54 percent oppose and 41 percent favor it. Among those living in coastal areas, 57 percent oppose more drilling, while those inland are divided (49% favor, 47% oppose). In the wake of the closure of San Onofre nuclear power plant —one of two in the state —63 percent oppose building more plants. Majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups are opposed. Asked about renewable sources of energy, 79 percent favor an increase in federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technologies. And 70 percent favor a 2011 state law that requires a third of California’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. But support drops to 44 percent i f this will result in higher electricity bills. MOST SAY AIR POLLUTI ON IS A PROBLEM A majority of Californians say air pollution is a big problem (28%) or somewhat of a problem (34%) in the region where they live. Adults living in the Inland Empire (44%) , Los Angeles (40%), and Central Valley (31%) are much more likely to say it is a big problem than those living in the San Francisco Bay Area (16%) and Orange/San Diego (14%). Latinos (41%) and blacks (40%) are much more likely to express this view than Asians (23%) and whites (20%). About half of Californians say air pollution in their region is a very serious (22%) or somewhat serious (30%) threat to their health or the health of their immediate families. Residents are divided when asked if they think air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas of their region (48% yes, 46% no). A MAJORITY OF WORKERS ARE SOLO DRIVERS Two-third s of residents (67%) who work full or part time drive alone to work. Just 14 percent say they carpool, and fewer take public transportation (8%), walk (4%), or bike (3%) to work. Another 4 percent volunteer that they work at home. The percentage of Californians driving solo to work declined 11 points between 200 3 (73%) and 2008 (62%) but has remained above 65 percent since 2011 . About half of Californians (53%) say that they have seriously considered getting a more fuel -efficient vehicle the next time they buy or lease one; 24 percent say they already have a fuel -efficient car. H alf (51%) say that have seriously considered a hybrid or electric vehicle, while 6 percent say they already have one. July 2013 Californians and the Environment 6 CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY POLICY KEY FINDINGS Most Californians say the effects of global warming have already begun. The wide partisan divide over whether steps should be taken right away to counter these effects has narrowed slightly since last July. (page 7 ) A majority are very concerned about more severe wildfires as a result of global warming; 49 percent are very concerned about more severe droughts. (page 9) Two in three Californians continue to favor the goal of AB 32—to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. (page 10) Most Californians say it is at least somewhat important for the state to both reduce global warming and plan for its effects. Strong majorities favor several measures to reduce greenhouse gases, including setting stricter emissions limits on power plants and requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions. ( pages 11, 12) Forty-five percent are aware of the state’s cap-and-trade program, similar to last July. Strong majorities favor spending cap-and- trade revenues on transportation, transit, and—to a lesser degree—housing-related projects. (pages 13, 14 ) Opposition to off-shore oil drilling is up slightly since last year, and most Californians remain opposed to building more nuclear plants. (page 15) There continues to be strong support for renewable energy, although support for the state’s renewable goal declines if it means higher electricity bills. ( page 16) Californians are more likely to favor (50%) than oppose (36%) stricter state regulation of fracking. ( page 17) 4853 31 29 0 20 40 60 80 100 Reduce globalwarming Plan for effects of global warming Percent all adults Somewhat important Very important Importance of State Passing Regulations and Spending Money to... 50 36 13 Favor Oppose Don't know Stricter State Regulation of Fracking All adults 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent registered voters Take Steps "Right Away" to Counter the Effects of Global Warming Dem Ind Rep PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 7 ONSET OF GLOBAL WARMING Most Californians (63%) continue to say that the effects of global warming have already begun; 22 percent say they will happen at some point in the future and 11 percent say they will never happen. Majorities have said the effects were already happening since we first asked this question in July 2005 (with a high of 66% in 2007). More than seven in 10 Democrats (73%) and six in 10 independents (59%) say the effects have already begun; among Republicans, fewer than four in 10 (38%) say this and 27 percent say effects will never happen. Majorities across regions and demographic groups say that the effects have al ready begun, though there are some differences. Latinos (73%) are much more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to say effects have already begun. Across regions, Orange/San Diego (55%) residents are the least likely to hold this view. In a March Gallup poll, just over half of adults nationwide (54%) said effects had already begun (27% effects will happen in the future, 15% effects will never happen). “Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen— they have already begun to happen; they will start h appening within a few years; they will start happening within your lifetime; they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; or they will never happen?” Have already begun to happen Will happen in the future Will never happen Don’t know All adults 63% 22% 11% 4% Party Democrats 73 21 4 2 Republicans 38 30 27 6 Independents 59 24 13 3 Race/ Ethnicity Asians 59 29 4 8 Blacks 54 35 8 3 Latinos 73 19 3 4 Whites 57 22 19 3 Region Central Valley 63 21 15 1 San Francisco Bay Area 69 18 8 5 Los Angeles 63 22 8 6 Orange/San Diego 55 29 15 1 Inland Empire 66 22 9 4 Most Californians (75%) and likely voters (69%) say it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away; fewer than three in 10 say it is not necessary yet. Since July 2003, m ore than seven in 10 adults have said steps should be taken right away. Democrats (89%) and independen ts (71%) say action should be taken right away; Republicans are divided (47% right away, 50% not necessary yet). The belief that action should be taken right away declines as age increases and is higher among lower - income residents. W hites are much less li kely than other racial/ethnic groups to hold this view. “Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or do you think it is not necessary to take steps yet? ” All adults Age Likely voters 18–34 35 –54 55 and older Right away 75% 83% 75% 68% 69% Not necessary yet/ Never necessary (vol) 21 16 22 27 28 Don’t know 3 1 3 5 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 8 GLOBAL WARMING AND CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE Three in four Californians view global warming as a very (50%) or somewhat serious (27%) threat to the economy and quality of life in California’s future; one in five say it is not too serious (11%) or not at all serious (9%) of a threat. The percentage saying global warming poses a very serious threat was lowest in July 2005 (39%), the first time we asked th e question, and highest in July 2007 (54%). Most Latinos (67%) and blacks (63%) say the threat of global warming is very serious, while far fewer white s (40%) and Asians (38%) hold this view. Democrats (59%) are much more likely than independents (41%) and far more likely than Republicans (24%) to say the threat is very serious. Residents in the Inland Empire (59%) are the most likely to hold this view, followed by those in the San Francisco Bay Area (55%), the Central Valley (49%), Los Angeles (49%), and Orange/San Diego (38%). The perception that global warming is a very serious threat declines as education and income levels rise. Residents age 55 and o lder are less likely than younger Californians to hold this view. “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?” All adults Race/Ethnicity Likely voters Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very serious 50% 38% 63% 67% 40% 42% Somewhat serious 27 40 27 24 27 27 Not too serious 11 14 6 6 15 14 Not at all serious 9 3 3 2 17 14 Don’t know 3 6 1 1 2 2 Two in three Californians (65%) and six in 10 likely voters (59%) say the state government should take action right away to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while 30 percent of adults and 36 percent of likely voters say it should wait until the state economy and job situation improve to take action. The perception that action should be taken right away has increased 9 points since last year and is at a record high . Democrats (73%) are much more likely than independe nts (58%) and far more likely than Republicans (41%) to say that action should be taken right away to reduce emissions . Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (75%) and the Inland Empire (74%) are more likely than residents in Los Angeles (63%), the Central Valley (59%), and Orange/San Diego (59%) to say that action should be taken right away. Latinos (82%) are by far the m ost likely across racial/ethnic groups to hold this view (60% blacks, 56% whites, 53% Asians) . The belief that action should be taken right away decreases as education and income levels rise . Among those who see global warming as a very serious threat to C alifornia’s future, 85 percent say action should be taken right away. Among those who say the threat is not too or not at all serious, 23 percent say action should be taken right away (69% say wait for the economy and job situation to improve). “When it comes to the state government’s plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, should it take action right away, or should it wait until the state economy and job situation improve to take action? ” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Take action right away 65% 73% 41% 58% 59% Wait for state economy and job situation to improve 30 23 53 37 36 Don’t know 4 3 6 4 5 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 9 IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING IN CALIFORNIA Majorities of residents are at least somewhat concerned about four possible impacts of global warming in California. Nearly six in 10 Californians (57%) are very concerned about wildfires that are more severe, and half (49%) are very concerned about droughts that are more severe. Fewer express this level of concern when it comes to increased flooding (28%) or storms that are more severe (28%). Views on wildfires that are more severe, droughts that are more severe, and increased flooding were fairly similar in July 2011 and July 2009 (this is the first time we have asked about storms). We started asking about droughts and flooding in July 2005 and concern peaked in 2007 (60% very concerned about droughts; 37% very concerned about flooding). “I am going to name a few of the possible impacts of global warming in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. How about…?” Wildfires that are more severe Droughts that are more severe Increased flooding Storms that are more severe Very concerned 57% 49% 28% 28% Somewhat concerned 25 29 28 30 Not too concerned 9 11 24 24 Not at all concerned 8 10 18 17 Don’t know 1 1 1 2 On each of these four possible impacts, Democrats are more likely than independents and Republicans to be very concerned , and concern is highest among lower -income residents . B lacks , Latinos , and Inland Empire residents are more likely than whites , Asians, and residents in other regions to be very concerned about wildfires that are more severe. Latinos are more likely than others to be very concerned about droughts that are more severe. Latinos and blacks are about twice as likely as whites and Asians to say they are very concerned about increased flooding and storms that are more severe. Percent saying very concerned Wildfires that are more severe Droughts that are more severe Increased flooding Storms that are more severe All adults 57% 49% 28% 28% Party Democrats 65 60 32 36 Republicans 39 29 15 14 Independents 50 43 21 22 Race/ Ethnicity Asians 47 37 22 19 Blacks 74 50 40 40 Latinos 67 61 42 40 Whites 53 45 20 20 Region Central Valley 55 53 27 27 San Francisco Bay Area 53 46 31 28 Los Angeles 62 51 33 34 Orange/San Diego 54 43 23 19 Inland Empire 71 52 29 30 Household income Under $40,000 65 53 36 33 $40,000 to $80,000 56 47 22 26 $80,000 or more 45 46 21 19 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 10 CALIFORNIA POLICIES ON GLOBAL WARMING Californians view the mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of global warming as important. Eight in 10 say it is very (48%) or somewhat important (31%) that the state government pass regulations and spend money now on efforts to reduce global warmin g. Eight in 10 Californians also say it is very (53%) or somewhat important (29%) for the state government to pass regulations and spend money now on efforts to prepare for the effects of global warming , such as flooding, storms, and wildfires. Solid majorities of Californians and likely voters continue to support the principle behind the 2006 Global Warming Solution s Act (also known as Assembly Bill 32 or AB 32), which requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Sixty -seven percent of Californians and 63 percent of likely voters favor this law. Since this question was first asked in July 2006, at least two in three Californians have expressed support, with support peaking at 7 8 percent in 2007 . When this question was f irst asked , two in three Democrats and Republicans expressed support, but by July 2010 there was a 41 -point partisan divide (80% Democrats in favor , 39% Republicans in favor ). Today, the divide has narrowed to 28 points (77% Democrats, 49% Republicans). Sixty -three percent of independents favor this law. Latinos (78%) and Asians (74%) are much more likely than blacks (62%) and whites (58%) to express favor. At least six in 10 across regions and age, education, and income groups favor this law. “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% 77% 49% 63% 63% Oppose 22 11 39 29 25 Don’t know 11 12 12 9 12 Most Californians (60%) continue to favor the California state government making its own policies — separate from the federal government —to address the issue of global warming; 32 percent are opposed. The views of likely voters are similar. Majorities of Californians have favored California making its own policies since this question was first asked in July 2005. Today, solid majorities of Democrats (71%) and independents (60%) are in favor, while Republicans are divided (47% favor, 48% oppose). Los Angeles (65%), Orange/San Diego (64%), and San Francisco Bay Area residents (63%) favor California making its own policies, while fewer in the Inland Empire (54%) and the Central Valley (53%) hold this v iew. Solid majorities of Asians (65%), Latinos (61%), and whites (60%) are in favor, while blacks are divided (49% favor, 46% oppose). Among those who favor AB 32, 71 percent favor California making its own policies. Most of those who oppose AB 32 also oppose the state making its own policies (66%) . “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? ” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 60% 71% 47% 60% 62% Oppose 32 24 48 35 34 Don’t know 8 5 5 5 5 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 11 CALIFORNIA POLICIES ON GLOBAL WARMING (CONTINUED) A plurality of Californians (45%) believe that state actions to reduce global warming would cause there to be more jobs for people around the state and 21 percent say this wouldn’t affect the number of jobs; 24 percent believe fewer jobs would result. Findings have been similar since we first asked this question in July 2010. Among likely voters, a smaller plurality (39%) s ay more jobs would result, 24 percent see no effect on jobs, and 26 percent believe action would result in fewer jobs. Across parties, views about the effect on employment differ: while most Democrats (52%) and a plurality of independents (38%) foresee job growth, Republicans offer mixed views (34% fewer jobs, 31% more jobs, 28% no effect). And those who support AB 32 are far more likely than those who oppose it to anticipate an increase in job s (53% to 24%). “Do you think that California doing things to re duce 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% 52% 31% 38% 39% Fewer jobs 24 15 34 29 26 Wouldn’t affect number of jobs 21 22 28 25 24 Don’t know 10 11 7 8 11 REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISS IONS At both the state and federal level, numerous policies have been enacted or proposed in an effort to address global warming. Strong majorities of Californians express support for six policy ideas addressed in the survey— among them, requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances ( 76%) and encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less (76%). Support is also high among likely voters (74% energy efficiency, 72% local land use planning). Since we started asking these two questions in July 2008, more than seven in 10 adults and likely voters have expressed support. Although Democrats, followed by independents, are most likely to favor each policy, majorities of Republicans also support i ncreasing the energy efficiency of buil dings and appliances (63%) and changing land -use planning to reduce miles driven (58%). There have been state and regional efforts on both fronts, and President Obama made energy efficiency in homes and businesses a key plank in the Climate Action Plan he released in June. “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 76% 86% 63% 76% 74% Oppose 19 12 32 22 23 Don ’t know 5 3 5 2 4 Encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less Favor 76 83 58 74 72 Oppose 21 14 40 23 26 Don ’t know 3 3 1 2 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 12 REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISS IONS (CONTINUED) Eight in 10 Californians (80%) and likely voters (78%) favor requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions , and more than 70 percent have expressed support since July 2008. At the state level, enforcement of caps on such emissions began in January 2013 (as part of the cap -and- trade prog ram). Solid majorities across parties favor this idea, with Democrats (93%) the most likely to express support (77% independents, 64% Republicans). Three in four Californians (76%) and likely voters (73%) favor setting stricter emissions limits on power pl ants and majorities across parties agree, although Republicans (59%) are the least likely to express support (71% independents, 85 % Democrats). California already limits emissions from power plants, and President Obama proposed federal standards in his Cli mate Action Plan, stating that a third of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions come from power plants. In a February survey by the Pew Research Center /USA Today , 62 percent of adults nationwide favored setting stricter emissions limits on power plants in order to address climate change. “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 industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions Favor 80% 93% 64% 77% 78% Oppose 16 6 34 22 19 Don ’t know 4 1 2 1 2 Setting stricter emissions limits on power plants Favor 76 85 59 71 73 Oppose 19 11 38 25 23 Don ’t know 5 4 3 3 4 About eight in 10 adults (81%) and likely voters (77%) favor requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions ; there is majority support across parties (63% Republicans, 77% independents, 89% Democrats). In California, transportation fuels will face emissions limits under the cap -and- trade program begi nning in 2015. More than three in four adults (80%) and likely voters (76%) favor requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars. At least seven in 10 adults and likely voters have expressed support since we first ask ed this question in July 2002 . California has been a leader in this area, and its policy (AB 1493) has served as a model for other state s and for federal regulations . There is majority support across parties —but again, support is lowest among Republicans (59%), while strong majorities of independents (77%) and Democrats (91%) express support. “How about…?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions Favor 81% 89% 63% 77% 77% Oppose 16 9 34 19 21 Don ’t know 4 3 3 3 3 Requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars Favor 80 91 59 77 76 Oppose 17 7 39 21 22 Don ’t know 3 2 2 2 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 13 CAP-AND -TRADE REVENUES One of the state’s signature emissions reductions programs is cap- and-trade. Enforcement of emissions “caps” took effect in January 2013 and the program’s quarterly auctions of emissions allowances began last November. A majority of Californians (54%) have heard nothing about the cap -and -trade program, while 45 percent have heard either a lot (12%) or a little (33%). There was a similar lack of awareness last July (57% heard nothing) and in July 2010 (54% heard nothing). Awareness among likely voters today is mu ch higher than among all adults: Six in 10 likely voters (18% a lot, 43% a little) have heard of cap - and- trade, while 38 percent have heard nothing about it. Results were similar last July. Across parties, 55 percent of Republicans, 50 percent of independents, and 49 percent of Democrats have heard either a lot or a little about cap -and -trade. Awareness is highest in Orange/San Diego (56%), followed by the San Francisco Bay Area (47%), the Central Valley (45%), the Inland Empire (39%), and Los Angeles (37%). Whites (53%) are much more likely to have heard of cap -and -trade than Asians (40%), Latinos (35 %), or blacks (34%) and awareness rises as age, education, and income increase. “How much, if anything, have you heard about the state government policy called ‘cap -and -trade ’ that sets limits on carbon dioxide emissions? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind A lot 12% 10% 15% 19% 18% A little 33 39 40 31 43 Nothing at all 54 50 44 50 38 Don’t know 1 – – – – The revenues generated by the cap-and-trade program are being loaned to the state’s general fund in this fiscal year. In subsequent years, these revenues will be spent to further the goals of AB 32, and a proportion is supposed to be spent on projects to improve environmental conditions in lower -income and disadvantaged communities. More than eight in 10 Californians say it is very (52%) or somewha t (31%) important to spend these revenues on projects to improve environmental conditions in lower -income and disadvantaged communities. Just 15 percent say it is not too important to spend the money this way. Although majorities across parties consider th is policy at least somewhat important, Democrats (60%) are far more likely than independents (38%) or Republicans (28%) to say it is very important. The percentage saying it is very important declines sharply as income levels rise; it is far higher among b lacks (78%) and Latinos (71%) than among whites and Asians (39% each). Los Angeles (60%) and Inland Empire (58%) residents are the most likely across regions to say this is very important , followed by San Francisco Bay Area (54%), Central Valley (50%), and Orange/San Diego (41%) residents. “How important to you is it that some of the cap -and-trade revenues are spent on projects to improve environmental conditions in lower-income and disadvantaged communities? ” All adults Household income Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very important 52% 63% 47% 36% 39% 78% 71% 39% Somewhat important 31 28 33 38 48 8 24 34 Not too important 15 8 18 24 11 10 3 25 Don’t know 2 2 2 2 3 4 1 2 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 14 CAP-AND -TRADE REVENUES (CONTINUED) Revenues from the cap- and-trade program could be spent in three main areas, with a large share going to transportation and housing infrastructure projects (transportation is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state). Among Californians, 32 percent think transportation and housing infrastructure should have top priority when it comes to spending cap -and -trade revenues, 36 percent say energy efficiency and clean energy projects should have top priority , and 23 percent prefer natural resources and waste management projects. Findings are similar among likely voters. Republicans and independents are more likely than Democrats to say the money should be spent on natural resources and waste management projects while Democrats are the most likely to select energy projects. “The market for permits created by California’s cap-and-trade program will generate state revenue to spend on programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whic h of the following do you think should have top priority when it comes to spending revenues from the cap -and-trade program?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Transportation and housing infrastructure projects 32% 36% 31% 31% 36% Energy efficiency and clean energy projects 36 42 30 32 36 Natural resources and waste management projects 23 16 30 28 20 Don’t know 8 6 8 9 8 When it comes to some possible transportation and housing infrastructure projects, most adults (78%) and likely voters (72%) favor spending cap -and- trade revenues on public transit, such as more buses or reduced transit fares. Democrats (83%) are the most likely to express support, followed by independents (72%), and Republicans (59%). Seven in 10 adults (72%) and likely voters (70%) also favor repaving roads and highways . This idea garners support from mo re than six in 10 across parties. Strong majorities in all regions and demographic groups favor spending cap -and -trade revenues on public transit or repaving projects. Smaller majorities of adults (60%) and likely voters (55%) favor using the revenues on housing and commercial developments near mass transit hubs. Sixty-six percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents favor this idea. Republicans are divided (44% favor, 48% oppose). Majorities across regions and demographic groups favor this idea, but support is lower among whites (53%) than among other racial/ethnic groups and among those age 55 and older (52%) than among younger residents. “Please say if you favor or oppose spending cap- and-trade revenues on the following transportation and housing infrastructure projects. How about spe nding cap-and-trade revenues on…?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Public transit, such as more buses or reduced transit fares Favor 78% 83% 59% 72% 72% Oppose 19 13 36 24 24 Don ’t know 4 4 5 4 5 Repaving roads and highways Favor 72 74 70 63 70 Oppose 24 22 24 34 25 Don ’t know 4 3 7 3 5 Housing and commercial developments near mass transit hubs Favor 60 66 44 53 55 Oppose 32 26 48 41 37 Don ’t know 8 8 8 6 8 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 15 ENERGY POLICY The survey included several questions about federal energy policy. About eight in 10 Californians (83%) and likely voters (82%) favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the United States. More than eight in 10 Californians have supported this proposal since we started asking this question in 2004. Overwhelming majorities across parties support this proposal. More than two in three across regions and racial/ethnic, age, gender, education, and income groups expre ss support. Californians are much more likely to oppose (54%) than favor (41%) allowing more oil drilling off the California coast. Views today are similar to wh at we found between July 2004 and July 2007 . Californians were more likely to favor than oppose more oil drilling in July 2008 (51% favor, 45% oppose) and July 2009 (51% favor, 43% oppose). Support dropped to 34 percent in 2010 after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Californians were divided on this issue in 2011 and 2012. Likely voters today hold similar views to all adults. But there is sharp division across party lines : two -thirds of Democrats (65%) are opposed , while a similar share of Republicans (65%) favor more drilling. Independents are more likely to be opposed than in favor (54% to 43%). Seven in 10 San Francisco Bay Area residents (70%) and a slim majority of Los Angeles residents (53%) oppose more oil drilling in California. Those in the Central Valley (51% favor, 47% oppose) , Orange/San Diego (45% favor, 50% oppose) , and the Inland Empire (44% favor, 49% oppose) are divided. Fifty -seven percent of Californians living in coastal areas oppose more drilling (68% North -Central coast, 51% South coast) . Those in inland areas are divided ( 49% favor, 47% oppose). “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 41% 30% 62% 43% 43% Oppose 54 65 36 54 53 Don’t know 5 5 1 3 4 In the wake of the closure of one of California’s two nuclear plants —San Onofre in San Diego County— m ore than six in 10 Californians remain opposed (63%) to building more nuclear power plants at this time ; three in 10 favor (31%) th is idea. Opposition has been similar since 20 11, following the nuclear disaster in Japan. Californians were closely divided in 2009 and 2010, while they were more likely to be opposed between July 2005 and July 2008. Majorities across parties oppose building more nuclear plants, with opposition highest among Democrats at 72 percent (59% independents, 55% Republicans) . Majorities across regions and demographic groups also oppose this idea. Inland Empire residents (73%) are the most opposed, followed by residents in Los Angeles (66% ), the Central Valley (64%), the San Francisco Bay Area (60%), and Orange/San Diego (58%). Women (72%) are much more likely than men (54%) to oppose building more nuclear plants . Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks (80%) are much more likely than Latinos ( 68%), whites (60%), and Asians (59%) to be opposed. Lower - (68%) and middle- income (65%) r esidents are more opposed than upper -income residents (55%). “How about building more nuc lear power plants at this time?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 31% 24% 39% 37% 37% Oppose 63 72 55 59 58 Don’t know 5 5 6 4 5 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 16 ENERGY POLICY (CONTINUED) When it comes to renewables , nearly eight in 10 Californians (79%) favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology. Overwhelming majorities have expressed support for this idea since we first asked this question in July 2008. Nearly all Democrats (90%) favor increased federal spending in this area and solid majorities of independents (79%) and Republicans (63%) also favor it. Three in four or more across regions and racial/ethnic groups are in favor. Support is lower among those age 55 and older (68%) than among younger residents (84% age 18 to 34, 83% age 35 to 54). “How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 79% 90% 63% 79% 76% Oppose 16 8 33 18 21 Don’t know 5 3 3 2 3 At the state level, a 2011 law requires that a third of California’s electricity come from renewable energy sources by 2020. Seventy -nine percent of Californians favor this law ; 44 percent favor it even if it means an increase in their electricity bill s and 35 percent favor it but not if it costs more. Seventeen percent oppose this law. Levels of support were similar in July 2011 (46% favor even with increased electricity bill s, 31% do not favor if it increases electricity bill s) and July 2012 (44% favor even with increased electricity bill s, 33% do not favor if it increases electricity bill s). Among l ikely voters , 75 percent favor this policy ( 48% favor even if it raises electricity bill s, 27 % favor only if electricity does not cost more) . Solid majorities of Democrats (88%), independents (75%), and Republicans (64%) favor this law, but support drops about 30 points in each group if it means higher electricity bills (57% Democrats, 47% independents, 32% Republicans). Across regions and demographic groups, strong majorit ies favor this policy, but levels of support differ if it means an increase in electricity bills. A majority of San Francisco Bay Area residents (56%) support the law even if it means an increase in their electricity bill s, compared to fewer in Los Angeles (44%) , Orange/San Diego (43%), the Inland Empire (41%) , and the Central Valley (32%) . Among racial/ethnic groups, whites (49%) are the most likely to support this state law regardless of electricity costs, followed by Asians (43%), Latinos (40%), and blacks (33%). Support increases as education levels rise. Across income groups, the percentage who are in favor even if it means higher electricity bills is somewhat lower among those with incomes under $40,000 (40% under $40,000, 48% $40,000 to $80,000, 51% $80,000 or more). “How about requiring one -third of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by the year 2020? Do you favor or oppose this state law?” (if favor: “Do you still favor this state law if it me ans an increase in your own electricity bill?”) All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 79% 88% 64% 75% 75% Favor, even if it means an increase in electricity bill 44 57 32 47 48 Favor, but not if it means an increase in electricity 35 31 32 28 27 Oppose 17 10 34 23 22 Don’t know 4 2 2 2 3 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 17 FRACKING AND KEYSTONE PIPELINE When asked about increasing the use of fracking for oil and natural gas extraction, 35 percent of Californians say they are in favor, 51 percent are opposed , and 14 percent are unsure. Californians held similar views in May (39% favor, 47% oppose, 14% unsure). In a March Pew Research Center survey among adults nationwide, 48 percent were in favor (38% oppose, 14% unsure). Six in 10 Democrats oppose the increased use of fracking, while half of Republicans (49%) favor it, and independents are divided (43% favor, 48% oppose). San Francisco Bay Area residents (57%) are the most likely to oppose this idea, followed by residents in the Central Valley and the Inland Empire (52% each), Los Angeles (47%), and Orange/San Diego (48%). Men are divided (44% favor, 47% oppose), while 55 percent of women oppose it . At least half of Latinos (56%) and whites (51%) oppose increased fracking ; blacks are more likely to oppose (46%) than favor (37%) it and Asians are divided (43% favor, 41% oppose). “Do you favor or oppose increased use of fracking, a drilling method that uses high- pressure water and chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations? ” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 35% 30% 49% 43% 39% Oppose 51 60 35 48 49 Don’t know 14 10 16 10 12 Fracking already takes place in California , and state legislators have been debating having stricter regulations on it. Half of Californians (50 %) and 56 percent of likely voters fav or stricter state regulation of fracking. Democrats (59%) and independents (57%) are more likely than Republicans (48%) to favor stricter regulations. Asians (60%), whites (54%), and blacks (50%) favor stricter regulation, while Latinos are divided (41% favor, 45% oppose). Those in the San Francisco Bay Area (61%) are most likely to favor stricter regulation, followed by residents in Orange/San Diego (56%), the Central Valley (47%), Los Angeles (45%), and the Inland Empire (39%). Support for stricter regulation increases with education. Among those who favor increased use of fracking, 62 percent also favor stricter regulation. Those who oppose fracking are divided about stricter regulation (49% favor, 46% oppose). There is much debate around building the Keystone XL pipeline to transport oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. Today, 51 percent of Californians favor, 34 percent oppose, and 15 percent ar e unsure about this proposal. Views were nearly identical in May (53% favor, 35% oppose, 12% unsure). The Pew survey found 66 percent of adults nationwide in favor (23% oppose). In California, 70 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents favor building the pipeline, while Democrats are more likely to oppose (48%) than favor (38%) this project. About half of whites (54%), Asians (50%), and Latinos (49%) are in favor, while blacks are divided (42% favor, 41% oppose). Among those who approve of the p resident’s handling of environmental issues, 52 percent favor this proposal, as do 56 percent of those who disapprove of the p resident on these issues . “Do you favor or oppose building the Keystone X L pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region through the Midwest to refineries in Texas?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Favor 51% 38% 70% 57% 54% Oppose 34 48 20 31 34 Don’t know 15 14 10 12 11 July 2013 Californians and the Environment 18 GOVERNMENT RATINGS, AIR POLLUTION KEY FINDINGS Nearly half of Californians approve of Governor Brown’s job performance overall. Fewer approve of his handling of environmental issues but—as they were last July—Californians are more likely to be unsure of his performance in this area. Fewer than four in 10 approve of the state legislature overall and of its handling of environmental issues. (page 19) Six in 10 approve of President Obama’s overall job performance. As with Governor Brown, fewer approve of the president on environmental issues but more are unsure. Three in 10 approve of the overall job Congress is doing and of its handling of environmental issues. (page 20) Pluralities say all levels of government— federal, state, and local—are not doing enough to address global warming, but Californians are more likely to hold this view of the federal government. (page 21) About three in 10 Californians say air pollution in their region is a big problem, with Inland Empire and Los Angeles residents the most likely to express this view. While only one in five consider air pollution to be a very serious health threat, this view is more widely held among those with household incomes under $40,000 and by Latinos and blacks. (page 22) Following past trends, a strong majority of employed Californians drive to work alone; far fewer carpool (14%) or take public transit (8%). Most Californians say they have seriously considered getting, or already have, a more fuel-efficient vehicle or hybrid or electric vehicle. (page 23) 1416 3140 44 3638 3835 30 0 20406080 Orange/ San Diego SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Inland Empire Percent all adults Big problemSomewhat of a problem Perceptions of Regional Air Pollution 6130 53 29 0 20 40 60 80 President Obama U.S. Congress Percent all adults Job overall Environmental issues Approval Ratings of Federal Elected Officials 48 36 39 38 0 20 40 60 80 Governor Brown California Legislature Percent all adults Job overall Environmental issues Approval Ratings of Federal Elected Officials PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 19 APPROVAL RATINGS OF STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS Governor Brown continues to have the approval of about half of Californians (48%) when they are asked how he is handling his job overall. The governor’s overall approval ratings were also at 48 percent in May and have been at around 50 percent in our polling s ince the November 2012 election. Last July, 42 p ercent approved. Among likely voters today, a record -high 54 percent approve of the governor ; this share is 6 points higher than in May (48%) and 8 points higher than last July (46%). While 67 percent of Democrats approve of the g overnor today, 52 pe rcent of Republicans disapprove ; 44 percent of independents approve (31% disapprove) . When it comes to the governor’s handling of environmental issues, Californians are more likely to say that they approve (39%) than disapprove (29%), while 32 percent are unsure. Among likely voters, 44 percent approve, 31 percent disapprove, and 25 percent are unsure. Opinion on this topic is divided along party lines: Democrats are more likely to approve than disapprove and Republicans are more likely to disapprove than approve, while independents are divided. Results among all adults were similar last July (39% approve, 31% disapprove, 30% unsure). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Jerry Brown is handling …?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind His job as governor of California Approve 48% 67% 29% 44% 54% Disapprove 27 14 52 31 31 Don ’t know 26 18 19 26 15 Environmental issues in California Approve 39 55 30 33 44 Disapprove 29 17 43 34 31 Don ’t know 32 28 28 32 25 The state legislature’s current approval ratings (36%) are similar to those in May (35%) and slightly higher than they were last July (29%). Among likely voters, 33 percent approve of the state legislature’s performance, while 55 percent disapprove. Majori ties of Republicans (67%) and independents (52%) disapprove, while Democrats are divided (45% approve, 39% disapprove). Californians’ approval ratings of the legislature’s handling of environmental issues (38%) are similar to those of its job overall (36%) . M ore Republicans (56% disapprove, 27% approve) and independents (44% disapprove, 31% approve) disapprove than approve of the legislature on this issue, while Democrats are more divided (42% approve, 38% disapprove). Approval ratings of the legislature on environmental issues among all adults were similar last July (36%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling …?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Its job Approve 36% 45% 20% 29% 33% Disapprove 45 39 67 52 55 Don ’t know 19 16 13 19 12 Environmental issues in California Approve 38 42 27 31 34 Disapprove 41 38 56 44 47 Don ’t know 21 20 17 24 18 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 20 APPROVAL RATINGS OF FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS A solid majority of Californians (61%) approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, similar to May (62%) and last July (57%). Nationally, a recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll found the president’s approval rating at 49 percent. In California , 54 percent of likely voters approv e and 41 percent disapprov e. There are strong partisan differences, with 86 percent of Democrats approving and 74 percent of Republicans disapproving, while independents are divided (47% approve, 46% disapprove). Majorities across age, education, gender, and income groups approv e. When it comes to his handling environmental issues, 53 percent approve of the president , similar to last July (51%), but down slightly from a high of 58 percent in July 2009. Likely voters are divided (46% approve, 44% disapprove). S ixty-seven percent of Democrats approve, while 66 percent of Republicans disapprove, and independents are divided (42% approve, 42% disapprove). Blacks (74%) and Latinos (70%) are much more likely than Asians (53%) and whites (39%) to approve of his handling of environmental issues. “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 61% 86% 24% 47% 54% Disapprove 33 11 74 46 41 Don ’t know 6 3 2 7 4 Environmental issues in the United States Approve 53 67 25 42 46 Disapprove 34 21 66 42 44 Don ’t know 12 12 10 16 10 The U.S. Congress continues to have low overall approval ratings among Californians. Thirty percent approve of the way Congress is handling its job, similar to our findings for May (31%) and last July (27%). The recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll found that 21 percent of adults nationwide approve of Congress. In California, likely voters (18% approve, 77% disapprove) are much more negative than all adults in their overall evaluations of Congress. Majorities of Californians in all age groups and across par ties and regions disapprove of the way that Congress is handling its job overall. On environmental issues, 29 percent of all adults approve of the job Congress is doing, while 59 percent disapprove, similar to our findings last July (27% approve, 61% disa pprove). Likely voters (18% approve, 72% disapprove) give even more negative ratings on this topic, and more than six in 10 across parties disapprove. Californians are more likely to disapprove than approve across regions and age and income groups. “Overa ll, do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is handling…?” All adults Party Likely voters Dem Rep Ind Its job Approve 30% 25% 20% 21% 18% Disapprove 62 68 76 74 77 Don ’t know 7 6 4 5 4 Environmental issues in the United States Approve 29 26 19 21 18 Disapprove 59 62 71 67 72 Don ’t know 12 12 11 12 10 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 21 GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING When asked for their overall views of how governments are addressing global warming today, pluralities of Californians say that their federal, state, and local governments are not doing enough. Majorities of all adults (53%) and likely voters (54%) say the federal government is not doing enough to address global warming. Findings among all adults were nearly identical last Jul y. This perception was more prevalent the first time we asked this question in July 2008 (66%) and declined to 48 percent in July 2009 . There are partisan differences in perceptions of the federal government’s actions on global warming. Democrats (66%) are more likely than independents (56%) and far more likely than Republicans (40%) to say that the federal government is not doing enough. At least half of blacks (58%), Latinos (54%), whites (52%), and Asians (50%) hold this view. What about state government ? Forty-four percent of Californians and 41 percent of likely voters say that the state government is not doing enough to address global warming. Findings among all adults were similar last July. Since July 2008, the share holding this view has ranged between 44 per cent (today) and 51 percent (July 2008). While majorities of Democrats (52%) and pluralities of independents (44%) say that the state government is not doing enough , only 33 percent of Republicans say this . Blacks and Latinos (49% each ) are somewhat more likely than whites and Asians (40% each ) to hold this view. V iews of local government are quite similar to those of state government : 44 percent of Californians and 38 percent of likely voters say their local government is not doing enough on global warming. Findings among all adults are again similar to last July. Following the trend in views of state government, the perception that the local government response is inadequate has ranged between 44 percent (today) and 52 percent (July 2008). Once again, while a majority of Democrats (51%) and a pluralit y of independents (46%) hold this view, only 36 percent of Republicans do so. Blacks a nd Latinos (52% each ) are again more likely than Asians (41%) and whites (39%) to think that local government should do more to address global warming. “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 13% 6% 27% 17% 17% Just enough 27 24 28 25 25 Not enough 53 66 40 56 54 Don ’t know 6 4 5 2 4 State government More than enough 15 8 28 18 21 Just enough 35 35 35 34 33 Not enough 44 52 33 44 41 Don ’t know 6 5 4 4 5 Local government More than enough 13 6 22 15 16 Just enough 35 36 35 35 39 Not enough 44 51 36 46 38 Don ’t know 8 7 7 4 7 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 22 REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION Six in 10 Californians (62%) say that air pollution is a big (28%) or somewhat of a problem (34%) in their region. Findings have been similar in recent years. Inland Empire (44%), Los Angeles (40%), and Central Valley (31%) residents are much more likely than those in the San Francisco Bay Area (16%) and Orange/San Diego (14%) to say that air pollution is a big problem . Lower-income residents are more likely than higher -income residents to call it a big problem. Latinos (41%) and blacks (40%) are much more likely than Asians (23%) and whites (20%) to consider air pollution a big problem. “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 Household i ncome Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Big problem 28% 35% 24% 20% 23% 40% 41% 20% Somewhat of a problem 34 32 36 39 33 29 30 39 Not a problem 36 31 40 41 44 31 28 40 Don’t know 1 1 – – – – 2 1 About half of Californians (52%) view air pollution in their region as a very (22%) or somewhat serious (30%) health threat to them selves and to their immediate family. Since 2009, about half have said air pollution is a very or somewhat serious health threat. Closer to six in 10 held this view previously. Los Angel es residents (64%) are most likely to view regional air pollution as a very or somewhat serious threat, followed by residents in the Inland Empire (59 %), Central Valley (57%), San Francisco Bay Area (44%), and Orange/San Diego (42%). Latinos (66%) , Asians (52%), and blacks (51% ) are more likely than whites (41%), and lower-income residents are more likely than upper -income residents, to hold this view . “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 Household income Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very serious 22% 27% 19% 13% 13% 27% 36% 14% Somewhat serious 30 33 27 28 39 24 30 27 Not too serious/ Not at all serious (vol) 48 38 54 59 48 48 32 59 Don’t know 1 1 – – – – 2 1 Residents are divided (48% yes, 46% no) about whether air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas than in other areas in their region. This finding has been similar over the past two years. Strong majorities of Latinos (69%) and b lacks (64%) believe air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas. Belief that there is a disparity declines as income, age, and education increase. “Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower-income are as than other areas in your region, or not? All adults Household i ncome Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Yes 48% 59% 43% 36% 44% 64% 69% 34% No 46 36 53 58 52 34 28 59 Don’t know 5 5 4 6 4 2 4 7 PPIC Statewide S urvey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 23 COMMUTING AND VEHICLES Two in three Californians who work full - or part -time drive alone to work. Far fewer carpool (14%), use public transportation (8%), walk (4%), or bike (3%) to work ; 4 percent volunteer that they work from home. The share saying they drive alone declined 1 1 points between July 2003 (7 3%) and 2008 (6 2%) , but since 2011 it has been over 65 percent. Central Valley residents (81%) are the most likely to drive alone, followed by those in Orange/San Diego (69%), the Inland Empire (65%), Los Angeles (63%), and the San Francisco Bay Area (56%). Those earning less than $40,000 and those who have a high s chool education or less are less likely than others to say they drive to work alone. “How do you usually commute to wo rk— drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle?” Those employed full- or part-time All employed adults Region Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/ San Diego Inland Empire Drive alone 67% 81% 56% 63% 69% 65% Carpool 14 11 14 15 14 15 Take public bus or transit 8 1 16 10 6 10 Walk 4 1 5 5 2 4 Bicycle 3 2 5 3 1 4 Work at home (vol) 4 3 3 4 8 1 Other – 1 1 – – – Half of Californians have seriously considered (53%) getting a more fuel -efficient vehicle the next t ime they buy or lease a vehicle; 15 percent have not considered it . Twenty -four percent say they already have one. Half or more across racial/ethnic groups have considered this option (59% blacks, 57% Latinos, 54% Asians, 49% whites). Whites (30%) are more likely than others to report already having a fuel - efficient vehicle (22% Asians, 18% Latinos, 14% blacks). More than seven in 10 across regions have considered getting, or say they already have, a more fuel efficient vehicle. Half o f Californians (51%) have also seriously considered getting a hybrid or electric vehicle the n ext time they buy or lease a vehicle; 35 percent have not considered it . Six percent say they already have one. Latinos (58%) and Asians (56%) are more likely than whites (45%) and blacks (40%) to have consider ed getting this type of vehicle; fewer than one in 10 across racial and ethnic groups say they already have one (8% Asians, 8% whites, 5% blacks, 4% Latinos). Majorities across regions have either considered this option or say they already ha ve a hybrid or electric vehicle . San Francisco Bay Area residents (11%) are the most likely to report having one, followed by residents in Orange/San Diego (7%), Los Angeles (5%), the Inland Empire (5%), and the Central Valley (3%). “Would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a hybrid or electric vehicle the next time you buy or lease a vehicle, or do you already have one?” All adults Household income Race/Ethnicity Under $40,000 $40,000 to $80,000 $80,000 or more Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Yes, have considered 51% 51% 52% 56% 56% 40% 58% 45% No, have not considered 35 35 38 29 25 48 32 40 Already have one 6 3 7 12 8 5 4 8 Don’t drive, won’t be getting a vehicle (vol) 6 10 2 2 9 6 4 6 Don’t know 2 2 1 1 2 – 2 1 July 2013 Californians and the Environment 24 REGIONAL MAP July 2013 Californians and the Environment 25 METHODOLOGY The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance from Sonja Petek, project manager for this survey, and research associates Dean Bonner and Jui Shrestha. This survey, Californians and the Environment, is supported with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The PPIC Statewide Survey invites input, comments, and suggestions from policy and public opinion experts and from its own advisory comm ittee, but survey methods, questions, and content are determined solely by PPIC’s survey team. Findings in this report are based on a survey of 2, 103 California adult residents, including 1,472 intervie wed on landline telephones and 631 interviewed on cell phones. Interviews took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights from July 9– 23, 2013. Landline interviews were conducted using a computer -generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All landline telephone exchanges in California were eligible for selection, and the sample telephone numbers were called 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 phones were included in this survey to account for the growing number of Califor nians 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 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. Live landline and cell phone interviews were conducted by Abt SRBI, Inc., 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 new survey questions into Spanish, with assistance from Renatta DeFever and Belen Chavez , and Abt SRBI translated the survey into Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean. With assistance from Abt SRBI, we used data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2009– 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) through the University of Minnesota’s Integrated Public Use Microdata Series for California to co mpare certain demographic characteristics of the survey sample —region, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education— with the characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the ACS figures. To estimate landline and cell phone service in California, Abt SRBI used 2011 state- level estimates released by the National Center for Health Statistics —which used data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the ACS— and 2012 estimates for the West Census Region i n the latest NHIS report. The estimates for California were then compared against landline and cell phone service reported in this survey. We also used voter registration data from the California Secretary of State to compare the party registration of regi stered voters in our sample to party registration statewide. The landline and cell phone samples PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 26 were then integrated using a frame integration weight, while sample balancing adjusted for differences across regional, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, telephone service, and party registration groups. The sampling error, taking design effects from weighting into consideration, is ±3 percent at the 95 percent confidence level for the total unweighted sample of 2, 103 adults. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 3 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for unweighted subgroups is larger: For the 1, 691 registered voters, the sampling error is ±3.4 percent and for the 1,273 likely voters, it is ± 3.9 percent . Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. We present results for five geographic regions, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “San Francisco Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, “Inland Empire” refers to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego Counties. Residents of 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 several places, we refer to coastal and inland counties. Within coastal counties, the “north/central coast” region refers to the counties along the California coast northward from San Luis Obispo County to Del Norte County and includes all the San Francisco Bay Area c ounties. The “south coast” region includes Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. All other counties are included in the “inland” region. We present specific results for non- Hispanic whites and also for Latinos, who account for about a third of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest -growing voter groups. We also present results for non- Hispanic Asians, who make up about 14 percent of the state’s adult p opulation, and non- Hispanic blacks, who comprise about 6 percent. Results for other racial/ethnic groups —such as Native Americans —are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes are not large enou gh for separate analysis. We compare the opinions of those who report they are registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and decline- to-state or independent voters; the results for those who say they are registered to vote in other parties are not larg e enough for separate analysis. We also analyze the responses of likely voters —so designated by their responses to voter registration survey questions, previous election participation, and current interest in politics. The percentages presented in the report tables and in the questionnaire may not add to 100 due to rounding. We compare current PPIC Statewide Survey results to those in our earlier surveys and to those in national surveys by ABC News/Washington Post, Gallup, Pew Research Center, and Pew Research Center/USA Today . Ad ditional details about our methodology can be found at www.ppic.org/content/other/SurveyMethodology.pdf and are available upon request through surveys@ppic.org . July 2013 Californians and the Environment 27 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT July 9–23, 2013 2,103 California Adult Residents: English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese MARGIN OF ERROR ±3% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMP LE PERCENTAGES MAY NOT ADD TO 100 D UE TO ROUNDING 1. First, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Jerry Brown is handling his job as governor of California? 48% approve 27 disapprove 26 don’t know 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Brown is handling environmental issues in California? 39% approve 29 disapprove 32 don’t know 3. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling its job? 36% approve 45 disapprove 19 don’t know 4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling environmental issues in California? 38% approve 41 disapprove 21 don’t know 5. We are interested in the region of California that you live in. Would you say that air pollution is a big pr oblem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region? 28% big problem 34 somewhat of a problem 36 not a problem 1 don’t know 6. 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? 22% very serious 30 somewhat serious 45 not too serious 3 not at all serious (volunteered) 1 don’t know 7. Do you think that air pollution is a more serious health threat in lower -income areas than other areas in your region, or not? 48% yes 46 no 5 d on’t know 8. On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen — [rotate order] (1) they have already begun to happen; (2) they will start happening within a few years; (3) they will start happening within your lifetime; (4) they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] ( 5) they will never happen ? 63% already begun 5 within a few years 6 within your lifetime 11 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 11 will never happen 4 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 28 9. Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or do you think it is not necessary to take steps yet? 75% right away 20 not necessary yet 1 neither, never necessary (volunteer ed) 3 don’t know 10. 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? 50% very serious 27 somewhat serious 11 not to o serious 9 not at all serious 3 don’t know 11. [asked starting July 11] 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 an d job situation improve to take action? 65% take action right away 30 wait until state economy and job situation improve 4 don’t know Now I am going to name a few of the possible impacts of global warming in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. [rotate questions 12 to 15] 12. How about increased flooding ? 28% very concerned 28 somewhat concerned 24 not too concerned 18 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 13. How about droughts that are more severe? 49% very concerned 29 somewhat concerned 11 not too concerned 10 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 14. How about wildfires that are more severe? 57% very concerned 25 somewhat concerned 9 not too concerned 8 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 15. How about storms that are more severe? 28% very concerned 30 somewhat concerned 24 not too concerned 17 not at all concerned 2 d on’t know 16. 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 22 oppose 11 d on’t know 17. 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? 60% favor 32 oppo se 8 d on’t know 18. 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 24 fewer jobs 21 wouldn’t affect the number of jobs 10 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 29 Next, [rotate questions 19 and 20] 19. How important is it for the state government to pass regulations and spend money now on efforts to prepare for the future effects of global warming, such as flooding, storms, and wildfires —is it very important, somewhat important, or not too important? 53% very important 29 somewhat important 16 not too important 1 don’t know 20. How important is it for the state government to pass regulations and spend money now o n efforts to reduce global warming —is it very important, somewhat important, or not too important? 48% very important 31 somewhat important 20 not too important 1 don’t know Next, officials in the state and federal governments are discussing ways to ad dress global warming. Please tell me if you favor or oppose the following plans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [rotate questions 21 to 24] 21. How about requiring an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances? 76% favor 19 oppose 5 don’t know 21a.How about setting stricter emissions limits on power plants? 76% favor 19 oppose 5 don’t know 22. How about requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions? 80% favor 16 oppose 4 don’t know 22a.How about requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions? 81% favor 16 oppose 4 don’t know 23. How about encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people could drive less? 76% favor 21 oppose 3 don’t know 24. How about requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars? 80% favor 17 oppose 3 don’t know 25. Next, how much, if anything, have you heard about the state government policy called “cap -and -trade” that sets limits on carbon dioxide emissions? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all? 12% a lot 33 a little 54 nothing at all 1 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 30 26. The market for permits created by California’s cap -and -trade program will generate state revenue to spend on programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Which of the following do you think should have top priority when it comes to spending revenues from t he cap-and-trade program? [rotate ] (1) transportation and housing infrastructure projects; (2) energy efficiency and clean energy projects; [ or] ( 3) natural resources and waste management projects? 32% transportation and housing infrastructure projects 36 energy efficiency and clean energy projects 23 natural resources and waste management projects 8 don’t know Next, please say if you favor or oppose spending cap -and -trade revenues on the following transportation and housing infrastructure projects. [rotate questions 27 to 29 ] 27. How about spending cap -and- trade revenues on repaving roads and highways? 72% favor 24 oppose 4 don’t know 28. How about spending cap -and -trade revenues on housing and commercial devel opments near mass transit hubs? 60% favor 32 oppose 8 don’t know 29. How about spending cap -and -trade revenues on public transit, such as more buses or reduced transit fares? 78% favor 19 oppose 4 don’t know 30. Next, how important to you is it that some of the cap -and -trade revenues are spent on projects to improve environmental conditions in lower -income and disadvantaged communities —very important, somewhat important, or not too important? 52% very important 31 somewhat important 15 not too important 2 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? 61% approve 33 disapprove 6 d on’t know 32. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Obama is handling environmental issues in the United States? 53% approve 34 disapprove 12 don’t know 33. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is handling its job? 30% approve 62 disapprove 7 don’t know 34. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is handling environmental issues in the United States? 29% approve 59 disapprove 12 don’t know [rotate order of questions 35 to 37] 35. Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 13% mor e than enough 27 just enough 53 not enough 6 don’t know PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 31 36. Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or n ot enough to address global warming? 15% more than enough 35 just enough 44 not enough 6 don’t know 37. Overall, do you think that your local government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to address global warming? 13% more than enough 35 just enough 44 not enough 8 don’t know Next, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 38 to 41] 38. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? 83% favor 15 oppose 2 don’t know 39. How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 41% favor 54 oppose 5 don’t know 40. How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? 31% favor 63 oppose 5 don’t know 41. How about increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology? 79% favor 16 oppose 5 don’t know 42. How about requiring one -third of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, by the year 2020? Do you f avor or oppose this state law? ( if favor : Do you still favor this state law if it means an increase in your own electricity bill?) 44% favor, even if it increases electricity bill 35 favor, but not if it increases electricity bill 17 oppose 4 don’t know [rotate questions 43 and 44, keeping 43a after 43] 43. Do you favor or oppose increased use of fracking, a drilling method that uses high- pressure water and chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations? 35% favor 51 oppose 14 don’t know 43a. As you may know, fracking is currently taking place in California. Do you favor or oppose stricter state regulation of fracking in California? 50% favor 36 oppose 13 don’t know 44. Do you favor or oppose building the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region through the Midwest to refineries in Texas? 51% favor 34 oppose 15 don’t know 4 5. Next, some people are registered to vote and others are n ot. Are you absolutely certain that you are reg istered to vote in California? 68% yes [ask q45a] 32 no [skip to q46b ] PPIC Statewide Survey July 2013 Californians and the Environment 32 45a. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or are you registered as a decline -to -state or independent voter? 44% Democrat [ask q4 6] 30 Republican [skip to q46 a] 4 another party (specify) [skip to q47] 22 i ndependent [skip to q46b] 46. Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 54% strong 44 not very strong 2 don’t know [skip to q4 7] 46a. Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 48% strong 51 not very strong 2 don’t know [skip to q4 7] 46b. Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 17% Republican Par ty 49 Democratic Party 27 neither (volunteer ed) 7 don’t know 47. Next, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 10% very liberal 18 somewhat liberal 30 middle -of -the -road 24 somewhat conservative 13 very conservative 5 don’t know 48. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics —a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 23% great deal 33 fair amount 32 only a little 11 none 1 don’t know [d1–d5a: demographic questions] D5b.[asked of those employed full - or part -time] How do you usually commute to work — drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle? 67% drive alone 14 carpool 8 take public bus or transit 4 walk 3 bicycle 4 work at home (volunteer ed) ‒ other (specify) [rotate questions d5c and d5d] D5c. Would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a hybrid or electric vehicle the next time you buy or lease a vehicle, or do you already have one? 51% have c onsidered 35 have not considered 6 already have one 6 don’t drive/don’t have a car/won’t be buying another vehicle (volunteer ed) 2 don’t know D5d. Would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuel - efficient vehicle the next time you buy or lease a vehicle, or do you already have one? 53% have considered 15 have not considered 24 already have one 6 don’t drive/don’t have a car/won’t be buying another vehicle (volunteer ed) 2 don’t know [d6–d16: demographic questions] PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ruben Barrales President and CEO GROW Elect Angela Blackwell Founder and CEO PolicyLink Mollyann Brodie Senior Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Bill Lane Center for the American West Stanford University James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Jon Cohen General Manager and Polling Director Capital Insight Washington Post Media Russell Hancock President and CEO Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Robert Lapsley President California Business Roundtable Carol S. Larson President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Lisa Pitney Vice President, Government Relations The Walt Disney Company Robert K. Ross, M.D. President and CEO The California Endowment Most Reverend Jaime Soto Bishop of Sacramento Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento 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 Gary K. Hart, Chair Former State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California Mark Baldassare President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Ruben Barrales President and CEO GROW Elect María Blanco Vice President, Civic Engagement California Community Foundation Brigitte Bren Attorney Walter B. Hewlett Chair, Board of Directors William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Mas Masumoto Author and Farmer Steven A. Merksamer Senior Partner Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni , LLP Kim Polese Chairman ClearStreet, Inc. Thomas C. Sutton Retired Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company 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 CEO of PPIC. Gary K. Hart 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 © 201 3 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 09:41:43"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(6) "closed"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(8) "s_713mbs"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 02:41:43"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 09:41:43"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["guid"]=>
string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_713MBS.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)
}