S 703MBS
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_703MBS.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(7) "2412001"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(92220) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY JULY 2003 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey on Californians and the Environment in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The James Irvine Foundation The David and Lucile Packard Foundation ○○○○○ Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and policy preferences of California residents. Begun in April 1998, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 74,000 Californians. This survey on Californians and the environment—a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation—is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the fifth in a series of eight surveys—two per year for four years—launched in May 2001. The intent of the surveys is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about a variety of growth and environmental issues facing the state. The current survey focuses in particular on public perceptions, individual actions, and policy preferences regarding air quality issues. This special edition presents the responses of 2,002 adult residents throughout the state. It examines in detail the public’s views on regional and statewide environmental conditions, lifestyle and public policy choices, and the state and national political climate related to the environment. Some of the questions are repeated from PPIC Statewide Surveys on Californians and the environment conducted in June 2000 and June 2002. More specifically, we examine the following issues: • The public’s perceptions of environmental conditions, such as the identification of the state’s most important environmental issue, perceived trends in the state’s air quality, ratings of air pollution in the region where the respondent lives, identification of the primary cause of regional air pollution and the perceived threat to personal health, and preferred level of government intervention (i.e., local, regional, state, federal) on regional air quality issues. • Lifestyle and policy choices, including the type and amount of vehicle ownership, attitudes toward automobile driving, perceptions of fuel economy and pollution controls involving the vehicle in primary use, willingness to pay to improve air quality in the region, willingness to make sacrifices to increase fuel efficiency, perceptions of the threat of global warming, and support for personal and government action related to global warming. • The political climate, including ratings of the governor and president on environmental issues, ratings of the state and federal government on environmental policy, support for state funding for environmental programs, support for a state bond to pay for high-speed passenger trains in California, the perceived importance of the candidates’ positions on environmental issues in the 2004 presidential election, and the political party (i.e., Democrat, Republican, Green) that is viewed as closely representing the respondent's own environmental positions. • Variations in environmental perceptions, lifestyle and public policy choices, and political perspectives across the four major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, and Other Southern California), between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites, and across age, socioeconomic, and political spectrums. Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. -i- Contents Preface Press Release State and Regional Conditions Lifestyle and Policy Choices Political Climate Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 15 19 21 27 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SPECIAL SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT NOT IN MY DRIVEWAY: AIR POLLUTION TOP CONCERN, BUT STATE RESIDENTS DON’T SEE THEMSELVES AS PART OF PROBLEM Yet, Willing to Make Economic, Personal Sacrifices for Environment; Unsatisfied With Federal, State Environmental Leadership SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 10, 2003 — Are Californians asleep at the wheel? Although they express deep concern about the health effects of air pollution and view vehicle emissions as a major factor, few state residents see their own auto habits as part of the problem, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations. But overall, Californians remain “greener” than residents nationally and reveal a willingness to make lifestyle changes that could help protect and improve the environment. A solid majority of Californians (58%) believe that air pollution is a serious health threat to themselves and their immediate family, and 37 percent say they or a family member suffers from asthma or other respiratory problems. Accordingly, state residents rate air pollution (30%) as the most important environmental issue, followed distantly by water pollution (10%), growth and sprawl (7%), water supply (7%), and pollution in general (6%). Many Californians (68%) also say that there has been only some or no progress in dealing with air pollution over the past 20 years. And they are not hopeful about the future: 49 percent say they have only some optimism that California will have better air quality two decades from now, and 22 percent express little or no hope for improvement. While air pollution is the top issue across the state — and most Californians call it a big problem (31%) or somewhat of a problem (45%) in their region — concern about air pollution has grown most substantially in the Central Valley. Residents of the Valley (42%) are now as likely as Los Angeles residents (43%) to view air pollution as a big problem in their part of the state. In 2000, only 28 percent of Central Valley residents felt that air quality was a big problem, compared to 40 percent of Angelenos. The explanation? Valley residents are by far the most likely to report that air quality in their region has worsened in the past decade (60%), while Los Angeles residents are the most likely to report improvements (41%). In general, concern about air pollution and its consequences is higher among Latinos and younger and lower-income residents. California Drivin’: Despite Awareness About Emissions, Residents Devoted to Cars … By a wide margin, residents say vehicle emissions (47%) are the primary cause of air pollution in their region, while lower percentages blame population growth (16%), industrial and agricultural activities (13%), and pollution from outside their area (11%). However, Californians express only modest concern about how much their own driving contributes to poor air quality: Fewer than half of adults report being very concerned (13%) or somewhat concerned (31%) that their vehicle pollutes too much. Most are also very (28%) or somewhat satisfied (50%) with the fuel economy of their primary vehicle. Surprisingly, while owners of compact cars (87%) are more likely than van, pickup, or SUV owners (64%) to be satisfied with their vehicle’s fuel economy, they are also as likely to be concerned about their vehicle’s emissions (46% to 44%). Why the disconnect between root cause and personal responsibility? Californians are dependent on — and attached to — their automobiles. Two in three adults (67%) report having two or more licensed vehicles in their household; only 7 percent say they don’t drive. Most employed residents in the state report that they commute to work by driving alone (73%); many fewer commute by carpool (13%) or public transit (5%). Half of Californians — and 58 percent of Los Angeles area residents — say they spend a great deal (18%) or fair -v- Press Release amount (32%) of time on the road each day. And most enjoy driving: 58 percent say they like to drive a great deal (23%) or fair amount (35%). Finally, emissions and miles per gallon are not the primary factors that most residents consider when buying a car: Many say safety (41%) is what matters most, 23 percent say fuel efficiency, 19 percent performance, 6 percent appearance, and only 4 percent pollution. … But Willing to Consider Lifestyle Changes, Economic Costs “In many ways, California culture revolves around cars,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. “But the growing alarm about air pollution and health may lead some to break the cycle.” Indeed, some residents appear willing to change their driving habits for the sake of the environment: • Although 62 percent of state residents say their ideal car would be the same size as the one they are now driving, 52 percent report that when it comes time to replace their current vehicle, they would seriously consider buying or leasing a smaller vehicle to reduce fuel use and air pollution. • Forty-five percent of state residents say they would seriously consider regularly commuting via public transportation as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution. Most Latinos (58%) say they would consider using public transportation, while most whites (53%) say they would not. In addition, most residents — and majorities of Democrats and Republicans — appear willing to ante up and support incentives for reducing emissions and improving fuel efficiency: • Many residents (65%) say they would be willing to support tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs, even if it raises the cost of buying a vehicle. • Three-quarters (75%) of Californians favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the United States, even if it increases the cost of a new car. • A large majority (79%) — including 69 percent of SUV owners — also say they favor changing federal regulations on SUVs to match existing fuel economy standards for passenger cars. • Finally, 81 percent of Californians support giving tax breaks to encourage consumers to purchase hybrid gas and electric vehicles. Compared to Nation, Californians More Eco-Friendly Despite difficult economic times, Californians remain solid supporters of environmental protection. Asked whether the environment should be given priority, even if it meant curbing economic growth, or whether economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment might suffer, 65 percent of state residents — and majorities of Democrats and Republicans — chose environmental protection. Nationally, 47 percent of Americans favor environmental protection and 42 percent economic growth. Californians are also steadfast in their views on other national and international environmental concerns: • Oil Drilling in California, Alaska – More than half of Californians say they do not support proposals to lessen dependence on foreign oil by drilling off California’s coast (54%) or in federally-protected wilderness areas such as the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (55%). Opinions on these proposals are sharply divided along partisan lines, with a majority of Republicans in support and a majority of Democrats opposed. • Global Warming – Two in three Californians (68%) believe that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming. Forty-five percent of state residents — and 54 percent of those ages 18-34 — believe that global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetime. Nearly three in four (73%) believe that immediate steps should be taken to counter the effects of global climate change. What are they willing to do about it? Majorities say they are willing to make major lifestyle changes to address the problem (69%), believe that the federal government should set new legally-binding industrial standards to limit emissions thought to cause global warming (66%), and think the federal government should work with other nations to set standards for the reduction of greenhouse gases (52%). Again, there are strong partisan differences: Democrats (77%) are more likely than Republicans (49%) to believe that global warming exists. - vi - Press Release Other Key Findings • More Car Talk (page 7) Thirty percent of Californians — and 34 percent of San Francisco Bay Area residents — drive a compact car. Twenty-nine percent of state residents — and 34 percent of Central Valley residents — drive a van, pickup, or SUV. Twenty-one percent of Californians report owning or leasing an SUV. • Tougher Pollution Regulations for Business and Agriculture (page 10) A majority of state residents say they would be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on manufacturing and commercial activities in their region, even if it jeopardized job creation. Nearly half (47%) support tougher regulations for agriculture and farm activities, even if they created greater operational costs. • State Environmental Ratings (pages 15, 29, 30) Approval ratings for Governor Gray Davis on environmental issues (30%) mirror his overall approval rating (28%). More Californians would support a recall (48%) than oppose it (42%); 51 percent say that removing the governor from office would not affect environmental policy. • State Budget Cuts (pages 15, 16) In spite of the state’s red ink, only 38 percent of residents think funding for environmental programs should be cut in order to reduce the deficit and free up funds for other programs. Nearly half (46%) of residents think the state is not doing enough to protect the environment. • Federal Environmental Ratings (page 17) While 53 percent of Californians approve of President George W. Bush’s overall performance, far fewer (37%) give him positive ratings for his handling of environmental concerns. A majority of residents (52%) think that the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment. • Election 2004 (pages 16, 18) Most Californians (86%) say that where presidential candidates stand on environmental issues will be a very important (41%) or somewhat important (45%) factor in determining their vote. While most residents say that their political party represents their own views on environmental policy most closely, 20 percent name the Green Party. Currently, 65 percent of state residents say they would support the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act scheduled to appear on the November 2004 ballot. About the Survey The Californians and the Environment survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. It is the fifth in a four-year, multisurvey series on growth, land use, and the environment, produced in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Findings of the current survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 California adult residents interviewed from June 4 to June 15, 2003. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 1,088 likely voters +/- 3%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 19. Dr. Mark Baldassare is Research Director at PPIC, where he also holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has conducted since 1998. His most recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www. ppic.org) on July 10. ### - vii - Percent Percent Percent all adults Percent all adults Top four environmental issues in California today 30 30 20 10 10 7 7 0 Air pollution Water pollution Grow th & spraw l Water supply Willingness to see tougher air pollution standards on new vehicles 6% 19% 10% 65% Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Don't know Percent All Adults Percent very satisfied with fuel efficiency of their vehicle 40 40 31 30 25 20 17 10 0 Compact Mid-size Full-size Other car car car vehicle (e.g., SUV) Percent who think air pollution is a big problem 50 42 40 43 30 21 20 28 10 0 Central Valley SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern CA Willingness to pay for improved fuel efficiency of cars 3% 10% 12% 75% aprove Favor, even if increases cost of car Favor, butdnisoat pifpinrocvreases cosdt on't know Oppose Don't know PercPeenrtcAenlltAAdlul Altsdults Will global warming pose a serious threat in your lifetime? (Percent "yes") 60 54 50 46 40 30 28 20 10 0 18-34 years old 35-54 years old 55 years or older State and Regional Conditions Most Important Issue When asked to name the most important environmental issue facing the state today, Californians most often mention air pollution (30%). This response is consistent with the views expressed in our past surveys on environmental issues (June 2000, June 2002). Other frequently noted environmental issues are water pollution (10%), growth and sprawl (7%), and water supply (7%). Lower percentages of Californians say that pollution in general (6%), traffic congestion (4%), energy (3%), toxic waste (2%), and landfills and garbage (2%) are the most critical environmental issues facing California today. Central Valley residents (39%) are the most likely to mention air pollution as the top environmental problem in the state today, mentioning it even more frequently than Los Angeles County residents (33%). Lower percentages of respondents in Other Southern California (28%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (26%) mention air pollution. Still, air quality is the top environmental concern across all regions. Residents in different racial/ethnic categories and across all demographic groups name air pollution as the most critical environmental problem facing the state. Concern about air pollution increases somewhat with education (no college: 26%; college graduates: 33%). Latinos (28%) are about as likely as whites (31%) to consider air pollution as the most problematic environmental issue in California today. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” All Adults Air pollution Water pollution Growth and sprawl Water supply Pollution in general Traffic congestion Energy Toxic waste and contamination Landfills and garbage Protecting wildlife and endangered species Loss of farmlands Loss of open space Global warming Other Don't know 30% 10 7 7 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 14 Central Valley 39% 7 5 10 5 4 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 8 13 Region SF Bay Area 26% 10 7 6 6 3 2 1 1 Los Angeles 33% 8 5 4 7 6 3 2 3 Other Southern California 28% 13 7 10 8 3 1 2 1 Latinos 28% 6 4 2 11 5 2 3 2 2010 2011 1010 1101 17 8 9 8 15 20 15 27 -1- State and Regional Conditions Air Quality in the State A majority of Californians believe that only some progress has been made in dealing with the state’s air pollution problems over the past two decades, and most do not express a great deal of optimism that the state will have better air quality 20 years from now. Twenty-eight percent of residents say the state has made a great deal of progress in dealing with air pollution, while 50 percent say that only some progress has been made; 16 percent report hardly any or no progress on this issue. Across the major regions of the state, Central Valley residents are the least likely to say that the state has made a great deal of progress in dealing with air pollution. Latinos (19%) are less likely than whites (33%) to say that a great deal of progress has been made. “How much progress has been made in dealing with air pollution in California over the past 20 years?” A great deal Only some Hardly any No progress Don't know All Adults 28% 50 16 2 4 Central Valley 22% 48 22 3 5 Region SF Bay Area 32% 49 12 3 4 Los Angeles 27% 51 16 1 5 Other Southern California 28% 49 17 1 5 Latinos 19% 53 22 1 5 Respondents’ expectation that air quality will improve over the next 20 years closely mirrors their perceptions of progress in this area over the past two decades. While one-quarter of Californians report that they have a great deal of optimism that the state will have better air quality 20 years from now, about half (49%) report only some optimism, and 22 percent have little or no optimism that air quality will get better. Among the major regions of the state, Central Valley residents are the most pessimistic, with more than one-quarter of those interviewed saying that they had either hardly any or no optimism at all about the prospect for better air quality in California. At the same time, Californians appear to be more optimistic about past and future improvements in air quality than they are about general trends in solving overall environmental problems related to air, water, and land issues. Last year, only 18 percent of Californians thought that a great deal of progress had been made in dealing with environmental problems in the preceding 20 years, and only 18 percent had a great deal of optimism that environmental problems would be well under control in the future. Today, 28 percent of Californians say that a great deal of progress has been made in dealing with air pollution over the past 20 years, and 25 percent have a great deal of confidence that air quality in California will be better 20 years from now. “How much optimism do you have that we will have better air quality in California 20 years from now?” A great deal Only some Hardly any No optimism Don't know All Adults 25% 49 20 2 4 Central Valley 20% 48 25 3 4 Region SF Bay Area 24% 51 20 2 4 Los Angeles 26% 51 16 2 5 Other Southern California 29% 46 21 2 2 Latinos 27% 47 20 2 4 -2- State and Regional Conditions Regional Problems State residents were asked to evaluate five potential problems in their region of the state: traffic congestion, air pollution, population growth and development, the lack of well-paying jobs, and the lack of affordable housing. Sixty-two percent of the state’s residents rate traffic congestion as a big problem, and 56 percent consider housing affordability a big problem. Roughly four in 10 think growth and development (42%) and the lack of well-paying jobs (40%) are a big problem in their region. By contrast, three in ten residents (31%) rate air pollution as a big problem. Trends over time, as tracked by our surveys, indicate increased concern about jobs, housing, and growth, while concern about air pollution has declined somewhat since last year (34% to 31%), and dissatisfaction with traffic congestion has remained relatively steady. “I am going to read you a list of problems other people have told us about. For each, please tell me if you think this is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region.” Percentage seeing the issue as a big problem Traffic congestion on freeways and major roads Lack of housing that you can afford Population growth and development Lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs Air pollution Jun 00 — — 27 — 28 All Adults May 01 Jun 02 60% 61% 47 — 29 30 29 — 30 34 Jul 03 62% 56 42 40 31 Regional Air Quality Across the state’s major regions, notable differences have occurred over time in residents' concerns about air pollution. Comparing responses in the June 2000 survey with those in our current survey, we find that the percentage of respondents who consider air pollution a big problem has increased by 14 percentage points in the Central Valley (28% to 42%)—a larger increase than anywhere else in the state. Perceptions of air pollution as a big problem have increased more modestly in the Los Angeles and Other Southern California areas; and in the San Francisco Bay Area, perceptions about air quality have exhibited an up-and-down pattern over the past four years. Percentage seeing air pollution as a big problem Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Jun 00 28% 26 40 23 All Adults May 01 Jun 02 33% 22 46 25 39% 27 47 30 Jul 03 42% 21 43 28 There are also significant differences across demographic groups in concern about air pollution. Younger, less educated, and lower-income residents are more likely than older residents, college graduates, and upper-income residents to say that air pollution is a big problem. Latinos (39%) are much more likely than whites (28%), and renters (36%) are more likely than homeowners (29%) to say that air pollution is a big problem in their region. Women are slightly more likely than men, and those with children at home a little more so than those without children, to consider air pollution a big problem. Differences in concern about air pollution also appear across partisan and ideological groups. Democrats are more likely than Republicans, and liberals more likely than conservatives, to rate air - 3 - July 2003 State and Regional Conditions pollution as a big problem in their region. Likely voters (28%) are less likely than all registered voters (30%) and those not registered to vote (37%) to view air pollution as a big problem. “How about air pollution? Is this is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region.” 18-34 years old Age 35-54 years old 55 years or older Male Sex Female High school only Education Some college College graduate Household income Race/Ethnicity Party registration Political ideology Homeownership Children at home Region Community Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more White Latino Democrat Republican Independent Liberal Moderate Conservative Own Rent Children under 18 No children under 18 Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Large city Suburb Small City or town Rural area Big problem 35% 32 27 30 33 Somewhat of a problem 44% 45 45 44 45 34 42 30 48 30 45 35 44 31 44 27 47 28 46 39 43 31 48 26 44 32 44 35 47 34 40 25 47 29 47 36 41 33 43 30 46 42 41 21 50 43 42 28 47 40 41 30 51 28 44 21 44 Not a problem 20% 23 28 26 21 22 22 25 20 24 25 25 17 20 28 24 18 26 27 24 22 23 23 17 28 13 24 17 19 28 35 Don't know 1% 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 -4- State and Regional Conditions Air Pollution and Health A solid majority of Californians (58%) say that air pollution in their region is a serious health threat to themselves and their immediate family: Forty percent rate the perceived threat as somewhat serious, while 18 percent rate it as very serious. Across the state, Los Angeles and Central Valley residents are the most likely to say that air pollution represents a serious health threat in their region. Women (64%) are more likely than men (54%), and Latinos (70%) are much more likely than whites (54%), to rate the personal health threat of air pollution in their region as being at least somewhat serious. The perception of air pollution as a serious health threat is higher among younger than older adults, lower-income than upper-income individuals, renters than homeowners, and those with children at home than those without children at home. As for partisan and ideological differences, Democrats are more likely than Republicans, and liberals more likely than conservatives, to consider regional air pollution a serious threat to their health. In our June 2002 survey, six in 10 adults rated environmental problems overall as either a very serious (19%) or somewhat serious (42%) threat to their health and well-being. “How serious a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your family?” Very serious Somewhat serious Not too serious Don't know All Adults 18% 40 40 2 Central Valley 23% 39 37 1 Region SF Bay Area 13% 38 47 2 Los Angeles 25% 45 28 2 Other Southern California 16% 40 43 1 Latinos 26% 44 28 2 Changes in Regional Air Quality Californians are more likely to say that air quality in their region has grown worse (38%) rather than better (30%) over the past 10 years, while three in 10 residents volunteer the response of no change (16%) or say that they don’t know (16%). Of all the major regions in the state, Central Valley residents are by far the most likely to report that air quality in their region has gotten worse (60%), while Los Angeles residents are the most likely to report improvements over the past 10 years (41%). Latinos (44%) and women (43%) have a greater tendency than whites (37%) and men (34%) to report that their region’s air quality has grown worse. There are no differences between Democrats and Republicans or between liberals and conservatives in perceptions of changing air quality over the past 10 years. “Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago?” Better Worse Same Don't know All Adults 30% 38 16 16 Central Valley 16% 60 11 13 Region SF Bay Area 28% 37 17 18 Los Angeles 41% 35 12 12 Other Southern California 32% 34 17 17 Latinos 27% 44 13 16 - 5 - July 2003 State and Regional Conditions Blame and Responsibility Nearly half of the state’s residents think that vehicle emissions (47%) are the primary cause of air pollution in their region, while much lower percentages blame population growth and development (16%), industrial and agricultural activities (13%), and pollution from outside their area (11%). There are significant differences across regions on this issue. Central Valley residents (33%) are the least likely to mention vehicle emissions as the primary cause of their region’s air pollution and the most likely to blame pollution from outside the area (21%) and industry and agriculture (18%). Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (19%) and Los Angeles (18%) are the most likely to think that population growth and development are the major reason for air pollution in their region. “Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region?” Vehicle emissions Population growth Industry and agriculture Pollution from outside the area Weather and geography Something else All of the above Don't know All Adults 47% 16 13 11 5 1 3 4 Central Valley 33% 12 18 21 7 2 5 2 Region SF Bay Area 51% 19 12 8 2 2 3 3 Los Angeles 52% 18 13 6 5 1 3 2 Other Southern California 51% 16 9 14 5 1 2 2 Latinos 41% 14 18 16 4 1 4 2 There is no consensus among Californians as to which governing body should have primary responsibility for setting regional air quality standards. One in three residents (35%) point to the state government, while fewer would place responsibility with a regional air resources board (26%) or their local (19%) or federal (14%) government. While the state government is favored in every major region, Central Valley residents are more likely than residents in other regions to choose local government (25%), while San Francisco Bay Area residents are more likely to select a regional air resources board (32%). “Which level of government do you think should have primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region?” All Adults State government Regional air resources board Local government Federal government Other Don't know 35% 26 19 14 3 3 Central Valley 30% 22 25 16 3 4 Region SF Bay Area 35% 32 14 14 3 2 Los Angeles 37% 24 17 13 3 6 Other Southern California 36% 24 18 15 2 5 Latinos 32% 20 23 17 2 6 -6- Lifestyle and Policy Choices Californians and Their Vehicles Californians’ lifestyles show a strong attachment to their automobiles. Two in three adults report two or more licensed vehicles (i.e., cars, trucks, vans, jeeps, or campers) in their household. Only 7 percent say they don’t drive. Most employed residents in the state report that they usually commute to work by driving alone (73%); many fewer travel to work by carpool (13%) or public transit (5%). Regardless of whether they live in urban, suburban, or rural areas, or how much time they spend commuting, most Californians say they enjoy driving: Six in 10 say they like driving a great deal (23%) or a fair amount (35%). Although traffic congestion varies across the major regions of the state, we find only modest regional differences in how much people like to drive. “How much do you like driving—a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or not at all?” Great deal Fair amount Not too much Not at all All Adults 23% 35 32 10 Central Valley 25% 37 25 13 Region SF Bay Area 23% 36 29 12 Los Angeles 23% 34 34 9 Other Southern California 19% 35 38 8 Californians spend a considerable amount of time on the road each day. Half of the state’s drivers spend either a great deal (18%) or a fair amount (32%) of time in their cars on an average weekday. Across the state, Los Angeles residents spend more time behind the wheel than others, but large proportions of residents in every region spend a significant amount of time in their vehicles. Overall, the amount of time residents spend driving tends to increase with income and education. “How much time do you spend driving for all reasons—a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or not at all?” Great deal Fair amount Not too much Not at all All Adults 18% 32 47 3 Central Valley 16% 28 52 4 Region SF Bay Area 17% 30 50 3 Los Angeles 22% 36 39 3 Other Southern California 17% 34 47 2 Californians drive cars of all types and sizes: Thirty percent drive a compact car, 25 percent a midsize car, 8 percent a full-size car, and 29 percent drive a van, pickup truck, or SUV (sports utility vehicle). Twenty-one percent of residents report that they own or lease an SUV. San Francisco Bay Area drivers (34%) are more likely than residents elsewhere to drive a compact car, while residents in the Central Valley (34%) and Other Southern California (31%) are more likely to drive a van, pick-up truck, or SUV. Most Californians are happy with the size of the car they are now driving: Sixty-two percent say their ideal car would be the same size as the one they are driving; few would prefer a larger (18%) or smaller (20%) vehicle. -7- Lifestyle and Policy Choices When it comes to rating their primary vehicle's fuel efficiency, 78 percent of Californians say they are either very satisfied (28%) or somewhat satisfied (50%) with their vehicle's fuel economy or mileage per gallon. Large majorities across demographic, geographic, and political groups say they are satisfied. However, 40 percent of compact car drivers are very satisfied with their vehicle's fuel economy, compared to 31 percent of those who drive full-size cars, 25 percent of those who drive mid-size cars, and only 17 percent of those who drive other types of vehicles such as vans, pickups, or SUVs. “When it comes to your primary vehicles' fuel economy or miles per gallon, would you say that you are …” Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know All Adults 28% 50 15 6 1 Compact car 40% 47 10 2 1 Primary Vehicle Type Mid-size car Full-size car 25% 58 13 3 1 31% 44 17 7 1 Other vehicle (e.g., van, pickup truck, SUV) 17% 47 23 11 2 Californians express only modest concern about how much their driving contributes to poor air quality: Fewer than half report being somewhat concerned (31%) or very concerned (13%) that their vehicle pollutes too much. In every region of the state, and for drivers of all types of vehicles, majorities of residents say they are not too concerned or not at all concerned that their vehicle pollutes too much. Moreover, when Californians think of buying a car, most (41%) say that safety is what matters most; 23 percent say fuel efficiency, 19 percent performance, 6 percent appearance, and only 4 percent pollution. With few exceptions, pollution matters least across all demographic groups. “How concerned are you that the vehicle you drive pollutes too much?” Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerned Not at all concerned Don't know All Adults 13% 31 29 26 1 Compact car 13% 33 27 25 2 Primary Vehicle Type Mid-size car Full-size car 14% 31 29 25 1 11% 29 27 33 0 Other vehicle (e.g., van, pickup truck, SUV) 13% 31 31 24 1 Are Californians willing to change their driving habits for the sake of a better environment? A majority (52%) say that when it comes time to replace their current vehicle, they would seriously consider buying or leasing a smaller vehicle as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution. Among van, pickup, and SUV drivers, 53 percent would consider a smaller vehicle. Moreover, 45 percent of all Californians in the workforce say they would seriously consider regularly using public transportation for their commute as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution. Currently, only 5 percent take a bus or public transit to work. A majority of Latinos (58%) say they would seriously consider using public transportation, while most whites (53%) say they would not. Younger and lower-income residents are more willing than older and wealthier residents to consider commuting by public transportation. -8- Lifestyle and Policy Choices Environmental and Economic Tradeoffs Despite difficult economic times, Californians are solidly supportive of environmental protection. Asked whether protection of the environment should be given priority, even if it meant curbing economic growth, or whether economic growth should be given priority, even if it meant that the environment might suffer, 65 percent of the state’s residents said that environmental protection should be given priority. Twenty-four percent of Californians think that the economy should be given priority, even if the environment suffers. Californians’ strong emphasis on environmental protection was shared by majorities of Americans throughout the 1990s and until as late as April 2000, according to a Gallup poll. However, nationally, by Spring 2003, only 47 percent of all Americans thought that the environment should be given priority (a Gallup low), and 42 percent thought that the economy should be given priority (a Gallup high). “In general, which one of these statements is closest to your view ...” California Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent Both equally Other answer / Don’t know 65% 24 6 5 * (Gallup poll, March 2003) United States* 47% 42 7 4 At least six in 10 residents in each of the state’s major regions think that the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. Women (68%) are somewhat more inclined than men (62%) to give a high priority to environmental protection. Nearly three in four Democrats (73%) think that the environment should be given priority, while 17 percent think that the economy should take precedence. By contrast, only a slim majority of Republicans (52%) indicate that environmental protection should have priority, and 37 percent say that the economy should be considered first. Seventy-seven percent of liberals support environmental protection, while only 53 percent of conservatives support this position. Whether Californians are more in favor of the environment or the economy is not significantly related to their outlook on the state economy, their perceptions of recession, or their ratings of job opportunities in their region. “In general, which one of these statements is closest to your view ...” Environment should have priority Economic growth should have priority Both equally Other answer / Don't know All Adults 65% 24 6 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 73% 17 5 5 52% 37 8 3 63% 25 5 7 Latino 70% 19 7 4 - 9 - July 2003 Lifestyle and Policy Choices Air Quality: Willingness to Pay Although Californians are highly attached to driving their cars, they still consider environmental quality important, even when it comes to making policy decisions that may affect their pocketbooks. Most residents say that in the interest of reducing air pollution, they are willing to pay higher prices for cars, to allow it to become somewhat more costly for businesses to operate, and to suppress the creation of new jobs—if that’s what it takes. Three-quarters of all Californians say they would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs. A large majority of residents (65%) say they would support these regulations, even if it made it more costly for them to purchase a new vehicle. One in 10 Californians would support new environmental regulations only if the price of vehicles was not increased, while one in five would not be willing to see tougher air quality regulations on new cars, trucks, and SUVs under any circumstance. There are large partisan and ideological differences on this issue: Liberals and Democrats are much more willing than conservatives or Republicans to pay the price for cleaner air. There are also significant differences among Californians across various age, education, and income categories: Generally, willingness to support regulations at the risk of higher vehicle prices declines with age and increases with education and income. For example, 70 percent of Californians with annual household incomes of $40,000 or higher would support new regulations on vehicles, even if it made their new cars more expensive, compared to 62 percent of respondents with incomes under $40,000. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs?" If yes: "Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase a new car?” Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Don't know All Adults 65% 10 19 6 Party Registration Dem Rep 74% 9 60% 7 12 30 53 Ind 71% 8 18 3 SUV Owners 61% 9 27 3 Nearly three-quarters of California adults (73%) also say that they would be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on manufacturing and commercial activities in their region. Fifty-four percent would be receptive to these new regulations, even if it made it more difficult to create jobs in the state, while 19 percent would support new regulations on manufacturing and commercial activities only if they did not hinder the creation of new jobs. Seventeen percent would not favor new regulations in any case. Once again, large partisan and ideological differences exist with regard to the acceptability of new regulations. Solid majorities of Democrats (64%) and independent voters (58%), compared to less than half of Republicans (48%), would favor new air pollution regulations on manufacturing, even if they put a damper on job creation. The differences are even more dramatic between liberal (68%), moderate (57%), and conservative (42%) support for new regulations, even if they hurt job creation. Overall, Latinos are more supportive of new regulations than whites (79% to 72%), but when the possibility of job loss is introduced, unconditional white support (57%) is higher than Latino support (49%). Support for new regulations is higher among younger, higher income, and more-educated Californians; and residents in these categories are also more likely to remain supportive when faced with the tradeoff of fewer jobs. Finally, 56 percent of Californians would be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on agriculture and farm activities if it would improve air quality in their region. Most of the supporters (47%) would still favor these regulations, even if it involved more operational costs for these types of businesses. Once again, public support varies by political party and ideology, as well as across age, education, and income groups. - 10 - Lifestyle and Policy Choices Energy Supply: Willingness to Conserve Concern for the environment is also reflected in the degree of support for specific policy proposals, including proposals to increase energy supplies by drilling for oil in environmentally-sensitive areas. For example, most Californians do not support proposals to lessen dependence on foreign oil by drilling off the California coast or in federally-protected wilderness areas such as the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, Californians report nearly equal levels of opposition to both projects. More than half of Californians (54%) say they are opposed to additional drilling off the California coast. As is the case with a number of other environmental policy proposals, there is a strong partisan split on this question. A clear majority of Democrats (65%) and a smaller majority of independents (55%) oppose more drilling, while a majority of Republicans (54%) favor more drilling. San Francisco Bay Area residents (64%) are more opposed to the idea than residents in any other region of the state. Opposition to drilling off the coast increases with education (61% of college graduates oppose the idea, compared to 45% of those who did not attend college). “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 39% 54 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 29% 65 6 54% 41 5 39% 55 6 Fifty-five percent of Californians are opposed to the idea of drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness. Opinion on this proposal is also sharply divided along partisan lines. While 66 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independent voters oppose the idea, 61 percent of Republicans support the idea of drilling on federally-protected lands. San Francisco Bay Area residents (63%) are the most steadfastly opposed to the idea of drilling in Alaska. As with the California coast proposal, the most-educated Californians are also the most opposed to new drilling (64% of college graduates oppose the idea, compared to only 46% of those without a college education). “How about allowing new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 39% 55 6 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 29% 66 5 61% 36 3 38% 58 4 Rather than new supply-side measures that would encroach upon the environment, Californians favor approaches that would reduce the demand for fossil fuels. Residents were asked whether they favor or oppose requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars, even if it increases the price of the cars. Seventy-five percent of Californians say they would support such a policy, even if it increases the cost of buying a new car; 12 percent would support this requirement only if it did not involve higher prices. - 11 - July 2003 Lifestyle and Policy Choices Notably, the proposal to require better fuel efficiency, unlike the proposal to allow drilling off the California coast or in federally-protected wildlife areas, is supported by Californians along all political perspectives. Roughly eight in 10 independents (83%) and Democrats (81%) support this policy, while nearly three-quarters of Republicans (73%) also say they would support improvements in fuel efficiency, even if it meant more expensive vehicles. Public support is even overwhelming among residents who currently own or lease an SUV (71%) and among lower-income residents: Nearly seven in 10 households (69%) with annual incomes under $40,000 say they favor increasing fuel efficiency. “How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country?" If yes: "Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?” Favor, even if increased cost Favor, but not if increased cost Oppose Don't know All Adults 75% 12 10 3 Dem 81% 9 6 4 Party Rep 73% 11 15 1 Ind 83% 8 7 2 SUV Owners 71% 11 15 3 Californians also support other forms of regulation on vehicles that would decrease gasoline usage. Eight in ten Californians (79%), including 69 percent of SUV owners, say they would favor changing federal regulations on sport utility vehicles so that they meet the same fuel economy standards as regular passenger cars. Eighty-one percent of respondents, and 81 percent of SUV owners, support giving tax breaks to consumers to encourage them to purchase cars powered by hybrid gas and electric engines. As is the case with the proposal to improve fuel efficiency, these policies are strongly supported across voter groups, as well as by lower-income, middle-income, and higher-income residents. “How about giving tax breaks to encourage people to buy cars powered by hybrid gas and electric engines?” Support Oppose Don't know All Adults 81% 15 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 86% 12 2 82% 16 2 81% 17 2 SUV Owners 81% 17 2 Most Californians (81%) also support the current state law that requires doubling the use of renewable energy—such as wind and solar power—over the next ten years, from 10 percent of California's power today to 20 percent in the next decade. As in the case of other policies proposed to reduce petroleum use, support for this issue does not vary dramatically across party lines. More than eight in ten Democrats (84%) say they support this law, while 78 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of independents support it as well. Response to this issue was similar in our June 2002 survey. - 12 - Lifestyle and Policy Choices Global Warming: A Perceived Threat Most Californians believe in global warming, and many residents think that actions should be taken to address the issue. Seven in ten residents (68%) believe that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming. Nineteen percent say they do not believe in this theory, and 13 percent do not know enough to say whether they believe it or not. A recent nationwide Harris poll reports that 74 percent of Americans believe in the theory of global warming. The public’s belief in global warming is related to partisanship and ideology: Democrats (77%) and liberals (81%) are more likely than Republicans (49%) and conservatives (54%) to believe in global warming. It is interesting to note that Californians belief in global warming does not vary by education or income. Nearly three in four Californians (73%) believe that steps should be taken to counter the effects of global warming right now; only one in five (20%) thinks that this is not necessary. Public support for taking immediate action is higher among younger than older residents, higher among Latinos than whites (81% to 70%), and higher among Democrats (80%) and liberals (84%) than Republicans (57%) and conservatives (60%). “Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet?” Right away Not necessary yet Don't know All Adults 73% 20 7 18-34 years old 79% 16 5 Age 35-54 years old 73% 20 7 55 years or older 65% 24 11 Latinos 81% 12 7 Forty-five percent of Californians believe that global warming will eventually pose a serious threat to them or their way of life; 50 percent do not think such a threat will happen in their lifetime. Nationally, the Gallup poll reported in 2002 that one-third of all Americans thought that global warming would pose a serious threat to them or their way of life, and 65 percent thought not. In California, among those who believe that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, 57 percent think that this occurrence will seriously affect them or their way of life, while 40 percent think it will not. Californians 18-34 years old are much more likely than those age 55 and older to think that global warming will be a serious threat during their lifetime (54% to 28%). Latinos are much more likely than whites to think that this will be the case (67% to 32%). Republicans (23%) are much less likely than Democrats (48%) or independents (40%) to see global warming as a personal threat, and conservatives (38%) are less likely than moderates (44%) or liberals (53%) to perceive a threat. “Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 45% 50 5 18-34 years old 54% 42 4 Age 35-54 years old 46% 46 8 55 years or older 28% 65 7 Latinos 67% 27 6 - 13 - July 2003 Lifestyle and Policy Choices Global Warming: Personal and National Responses Most Californians (69%) say they would be willing to make major lifestyle changes to address the issue of global warming. The public’s willingness to make lifestyle changes in response to global warming is evident across political and demographic groups. However, younger adults are more likely than those age 55 and older (73% to 60%), and Latinos are more likely than whites (81% to 65%), to say they are willing to change the way they live in order to combat global warming. Conservatives (57%) are less likely than moderates (72%) or liberals (81%) to be willing to make major lifestyle changes. Willingness to make lifestyle changes also varies among Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters. “Would you be willing to make major lifestyle changes to address the issue of global warming?” All Adults Yes No Don't know 69% 22 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind Latinos 77% 52% 69% 81% 14 39 25 11 9 10 6 8 Eighty percent of Californians support the state law passed last year that requires all automakers to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009. Public support for this policy was similar in our June 2002 survey, before the proposal became a law. Three in four Californians also think that the federal government should set new industrial standards to limit emissions thought to cause global warming. Two in three residents (66%) think that industries should be legally required to abide by these new standards, while 9 percent think that industries should be allowed to voluntarily comply. Only 16 percent believe that the government should not institute new standards. Support for new legally-binding standards is higher among Democrats (78%) and liberals (80%) than among Republicans (52%) and conservatives (53%). Californians are divided along political lines when asked whether or not the federal government should work with other countries to set standards for reducing greenhouse gases. Fifty-two percent think that the United States should join other countries in setting international standards for controlling global warming, while 43 percent think that the United States should set its own standards. While most Democrats want to work with other countries in reducing greenhouse gases, most Republicans would prefer that the United States go it alone. Public support for the multilateral approach to global warming varies most significantly with political ideology: Sixty-nine percent of liberals and 53 percent of moderates believe that this country should join with others to set new standards, while only 39 percent of conservatives agree with this point of view. Among those who want the federal government to set new industrial standards for limiting greenhouse gases, 88 percent would like to see the United States join other countries in setting the standards. “Do you think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to reduce greenhouse gases, or should the United States set its own standards independently?” All Adults Join other countries Set standards independently Don't know 52% 43 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind Latinos 57% 38 5 42% 53 5 49% 47 4 56% 38 6 - 14 - Political Climate State Politics About three in 10 Californians approve of Governor Gray Davis' overall performance in office (28%) and his handling of environmental issues (30%). Two in three are dissatisfied with his overall performance (64%), and about half (51%) disapprove of the way he is handling environmental issues. The governor’s approval ratings have declined since our June 2002 environment survey: His overall performance rating has fallen 11 points (39% to 28%) and his environmental rating has declined to about the same level (35% to 30%). Even among Davis’ fellow Democrats, a higher percentage disapprove (45%) than approve (34%) of his handling of environmental issues. Only 20 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of independents approve of his conduct toward environmental issues. Latinos are more positive toward Davis overall, and they rate his performance on the environment more highly than whites (40% to 27%). Liberals, a group that tends to place environmental issues high on their list of concerns, rate the governor's performance in this area higher (38%) than moderates (28%) or conservatives (25%). Older, higher-income, and moreeducated residents are more likely to disapprove of the governor's performance on environmental issues than are younger, lower-income, and less-educated residents. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling environmental issues in California? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 28% 64 8 30% 51 19 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 34% 12% 26% 58 84 67 847 34% 20% 26% 45 62 59 21 18 15 Nearly half of Californians (46%) think that the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment, while another 37 percent think it is doing just enough. One in ten residents thinks that the state is already doing more than enough to protect the environment. A plurality of residents in every region say that the state is not doing its job when it comes to the environment. Democrats are more critical of the state’s record on environmental issues than other voters: Over half of Democrats say the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment, compared to 41 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of independents. Conservatives (17%) are more likely than moderates (7%) or liberals (5%) to say that the state is doing more than enough. Women are more likely than men to believe that the state is not doing enough (53% to 39%). “Do you think the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California?” All Adults More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know 10% 37 46 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 4% 19% 12% 40 32 36 51 41 47 585 - 15 - Political Climate State Funding Since most Californians think that the environment is not getting enough attention from the state government, it is not surprising that a plurality (45%) would continue funding environmental programs at the current level, even if it means less money for other programs. In spite of the state’s record-breaking fiscal deficit, only 38 percent of Californians think that funding for environmental programs should be cut to help close the state’s budget gap and free up money for other programs. Sixty-one percent of those residents who think the state is not doing enough to protect the environment would like to maintain current environmental funding. Higher percentages of Democrats (50%) than Republicans (38%) think the state should continue to fund environmental programs at current levels. Whites express a stronger desire than Latinos (48% to 40%) to support continued environmental funding, even at the expense of other state programs. Central Valley residents are more divided than others when it comes to cutting back on environmental funding. Residents 35-54 years old (49%) are more likely than younger (45%) or older (40%) residents to favor maintaining current levels of funding for the environment. “The state government faces a large budget deficit, and program cuts are needed to balance the budget. Should the state government …” All Adults Continue to fund environmental programs at the current level, even if it means less funds for other programs Reduce funding for environmental programs, so that more funds are available for other programs Other Don't know 45% 38 6 11 Central Valley 40% 43 5 12 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 46% 44% 49% 35 38 35 565 14 12 11 How do Californians feel about a potentially large investment in a passenger-train system linking three major regions of the state? Almost two-thirds of Californians support a $10 billion state bond measure to construct such a system. Sixty-five percent of residents, and 60 percent of likely voters, say they would vote yes on the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act slated for the ballot in November 2004. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents, and 56 percent of Republicans support this measure. Support is slightly higher in Los Angeles (67%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (66%) than in Other Southern California (62%) and the Central Valley (61%). “The Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act is on the November 2004 state ballot. This is a $9.95 billion dollar bond measure that would fund the planning and construction of a high-speed train system in California, linking San Francisco to Los Angeles via the Central Valley. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this bond measure?” All Adults Yes No Don't know 65% 26 9 Party Registration Dem 69% 21 10 Rep 56% 34 10 Ind 67% 23 10 Latino 76% 20 4 - 16 - Political Climate National Politics Currently, 53 percent of state residents say they approve of the president’s overall performance in office. Bush’s approval rating in California continues to be lower than his national rating of 62 percent (based on a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll). The California numbers reflect declining approval of the president since the June 2002 environment survey (65% approval, 30% disapproval). There is a predictable partisan split in the current ratings: An overwhelming majority of Republicans (85%) approve of the president’s performance, while a solid majority of Democrats (63%) do not. Presidential ratings among Californians are lower when it comes to the environment. Nearly half of all Californians (48%) say they disapprove of the way Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States, while only 37 percent say they approve. These responses are similar to those in our June 2002 survey (44% disapproval, 39% approval). Women are more likely than men (51% to 44%) to disapprove of the president’s handling of the environment. And when it comes to the environment, even Republicans give the chief executive lower ratings than when they are asked to judge his performance overall (60% to 85%). Nonetheless, a partisan gap is still evident: Most Republicans (60%) approve of Bush’s stance on the environment, while most Democrats disapprove (66%). Reflecting the political divisions within the state, residents in the Central Valley (50%) and Other Southern California (42%) are much more likely than residents in Los Angeles (33%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (28%) to say that they approve of the way Bush has dealt with the environment. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 53% 41 6 37% 48 15 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 32% 63 5 85% 13 2 53% 43 4 20% 66 14 60% 28 12 32% 52 16 A majority of Californians (52%) think that the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment. However, perceptions about federal protection of the environment vary dramatically by political party. Seven in 10 Democrats feel that the federal government is not doing enough, while roughly seven in 10 Republicans feel it is doing just enough (51%) or more than enough (15%) to protect the environment. A majority of independents (52%) say the federal government is not doing enough, while four in 10 (42%) say it is. “Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States?” All Adults More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know 7% 36 52 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 3% 23 70 4 15% 51 29 5 10% 32 52 6 - 17 - July 2003 Political Climate Election 2004 Despite concern in California about the state budget deficit and the national economy, most Californians continue to express interest in environmental issues, and residents say they will consider the candidates' positions on environmental issues when it comes time to vote in the 2004 presidential election. Nearly nine in 10 Californians (86%) say that the candidates' positions on environmental issues will play an important role in determining how they vote. Overall, four in ten Californians (41%) say that the candidates' positions will be very important in determining how they cast their votes. Similar statements about the role of environmental policy in presidential politics were recorded in our June 2000 survey. Typically, feelings about the environment divide fairly strongly along partisan lines, with Democrats placing more emphasis on the importance of this issue, and Republicans viewing it as a relatively less important factor in their voting decisions. Nonetheless, a candidate’s stance on environmental issues is relevant for an overwhelming majority of potential voters: Nine in 10 Democrats (92%) and nearly as high a percentage of independents (88%), as well as eight in 10 Republicans (79%), indicate that the candidates' positions on the environment are important. “In thinking about the presidential election in 2004, how important are the candidates' positions on environmental issues—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy—in determining your vote?” All Adults Very important Somewhat important Not important Don't know 41% 45 11 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 49% 43 6 2 21% 58 20 1 46% 42 12 0 Most Californians believe that the political party they are affiliated with comes closest to representing their views on environmental policy: Seventy-two percent of Republicans think that the GOP tends to be closer to their own views when it comes to environmental policy, and 67 percent of Democrats feel the same way about the Democratic Party. It is interesting to note that 20 percent of all Californians believe that the Green Party is closest to their own views on the environment. Among independent voters, about one in three names the Green Party, one in three the Democratic Party, and 18 percent the GOP. Among self-identified liberals, 32 percent say that the Green Party is closest to their own views on environmental policy, while 45 percent name the Democratic Party and only 12 percent choose the Republican Party. “Which political party tends to be closer to you own views on environmental policy?” All Adults Republican Party Democratic Party Green Party Other answer Don't know 27% 39 20 3 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 5% 72% 18% 67 10 32 21 11 31 019 7 6 10 - 18 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Dorie Apollonio and Eliana Kaimowitz, survey research associates. The survey was conducted in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and benefited from discussions with staff at the foundations and their grantees and colleagues at other institutions; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 California adult residents interviewed between June 4 and June 15, 2003. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 18 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish; and Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,002 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,535 registered voters is +/- 2.5 percent. The sampling error for the 1,088 likely voters is +/- 3 percent, and the sampling error for each of the half samples is also +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions. “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. “SF 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, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. These four regions are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 28 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” In some cases, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in national surveys conducted by Newsweek, the Harris poll, the Gallup poll, and the CBS News/ New York Times poll. We used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE ENVIRONMENT JUNE 4—JUNE 15, 2003 2,002 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Which of the following best describes the city or community where you live—is it a large city, a suburb of a large city, a small city or town, or a rural area? (if large city: Would that be in the central part of the city?) (if suburb: Would that be an older or newer suburb?) 17% large city, central part 14 large city, other part 16 suburb, older 6 suburb, newer 27 small city 11 town 7 rural area 2 don’t know 2. Do you own or rent your current residence? 57% own 41 rent 2 neither 3. And how long have you lived at your current address—fewer than five years, five years to under 10 years, 10 years to under 20 years, or 20 years or more? 48% fewer than five years 19 five years to under 10 years 18 10 years to under 20 years 15 20 years or more 4. Changing topics, do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 31% right direction 57 wrong direction 12 don’t know 5. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 34% good times 55 bad times 11 don’t know 6. What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? 30% air pollution 10 water pollution 7 growth and sprawl 7 water supply 6 pollution in general 4 traffic congestion 3 energy 2 toxic wastes and contamination 2 landfills and garbage 1 protecting wildlife, endangered species 1 loss of farmlands, agriculture 1 loss of open space 1 global warming, global climate change 11 other (specify) 14 don’t know 7. Overall, how much progress do you think has been made in dealing with air pollution in California over the past 20 years? Would you say there has been a great deal of progress, only some progress, or hardly any progress at all? 28% a great deal 50 only some 16 hardly any 2 no progress (volunteered) 4 don’t know 8. How much optimism do you have that we will have better air quality in California 20 years from now than we do today—a great deal, only some, or hardly any optimism at all? 25% a great deal 49 only some 20 hardly any 2 no optimism (volunteered) 4 don’t know - 21 - We are interested in the region or broader geographic area of California that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems that other people have told us about. For each one, please tell me if it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region. [rotate questions 9 through 12] 9. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 62% big problem 26 somewhat of a problem 12 not a problem 10. How about the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs? 40% big problem 39 somewhat of a problem 17 not a problem 4 don’t know 11. How about air pollution? 31% big problem 45 somewhat of a problem 23 not a problem 1 don’t know 12a. [half sample] How about the availability of housing that you can afford? 56% big problem 26 somewhat of a problem 16 not a problem 2 don’t know 12b. [half sample] How about population growth and development? 42% big problem 33 somewhat of a problem 24 not a problem 1 don’t know 13. On another topic, would you say that your region is in an economic recession or not? (if yes: Do you think it is in a serious, moderate, or mild recession?) 18% yes, serious recession 28 yes, moderate recession 9 yes, mild recession 40 no 5 don’t know 14. On another topic, how serious 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 health threat? 18% very serious 40 somewhat serious 40 not too serious 2 don’t know 15. Do you or does anyone in your immediate family suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems? (if yes: Would that be you or someone in your immediate family?) 10% yes, respondent 21 yes, someone in immediate family 6 yes, both 63 no 16. Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago? 30% better 38 worse 16 same (volunteered) 16 don’t know 17. Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region? [read rotated list; then ask, “or something else”] 47% vehicle emissions 16 population growth and development 13 industry and agriculture 11 pollution from outside the area 5 weather and geography 1 something else (specify) 3 all of the above (volunteered) 4 don’t know We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 18 through 20] 18. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs (sports utility vehicles)? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase a new car?) 65% yes, even if more costly 10 yes, but not if more costly 19 no 6 don’t know - 22 - 19. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 47% yes, even if more costly 9 yes, but not if more costly 33 no 11 don’t know 20. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on manufacturing and commercial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more difficult to create new jobs?) 54% yes, even if more difficult for jobs 19 yes, but not if more difficult for jobs 17 no 10 don’t know 21. More generally, which level of government do you think should have primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region? Should it be ... [read rotated list] 35% the state government 26 a regional air resources board 19 the local government 14 the federal government 3 other (specify) 3 don’t know 22. Changing topics, do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming? 68% yes, believe 19 no, do not believe 13 don’t know 23. Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet? 73% right away 20 not necessary yet 7 don’t know 24. Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime? 45% yes 50 no 5 don’t know 25. Should the federal government set new industrial standards to limit greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming? (if yes: Should the government rely on industries to voluntarily comply with these new standards, or should industries be legally required to meet these standards?) 66% yes, legally required 9 yes, voluntary compliance 16 no 9 don’t know 26. Do you think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to reduce greenhouse gases, or should the United States set its own standards independently? 52% join other countries 43 set standards independently 5 don’t know 27. Would you be willing to make major lifestyle changes to address the issue of global warming? 69% yes 22 no 9 don’t know 28. What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009? Do you support or oppose this law? 80% support 14 oppose 6 don’t know 29. In general, which one of these statements is closest to your view [rotate]: (a) Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth; or (b) Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent? 65% environment should be priority 24 economic growth should be priority 6 both equally (volunteered) 1 other (specify) 4 don’t know - 23 - July 2003 Changing topics, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 30 to 34] 30. How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 39% favor 54 oppose 7 don’t know 31. How about allowing new oil drilling in federallyprotected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness? 39% favor 55 oppose 6 don’t know 32. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if favor: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 75% favor, even if increased cost 12 favor, but not if increased cost 10 oppose 3 don’t know 33. How about changing federal regulations to require SUVs (sports utility vehicles) to meet the same fuel economy standards as regular passenger cars? 79% favor 16 oppose 5 don’t know 34. How about giving tax breaks to encourage people to buy cars powered by hybrid gas and electric engines? 81% favor 15 oppose 4 don’t know 35. What about the state law that requires doubling the use of renewable energy—such as wind and solar power— over the next ten years from 10 percent of all California power today to 20 percent? Do you support or oppose this law? 81% support 12 oppose 7 don’t know 36. Thinking about the vehicle that you primarily drive, is it a compact, mid-size, or full-size car, or is it another type of vehicle such as a van, pickup truck, or SUV (sports utility vehicle)? 30% compact car 25 mid-size car 8 full-size car 29 another type of vehicle 1 other (specify) 7 don’t drive [skip to question 43] 37. Thinking about the vehicle that you would ideally like to drive, is it smaller, larger, or the same size as the vehicle you currently drive? 20% smaller 18 larger 62 same size 38. On an average weekday, how much time do you spend driving for all reasons—including work, school, errands, and leisure—a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or none at all? 18% great deal 32 fair amount 47 not too much 3 none at all 39. How much do you like driving—a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or not at all? 23% a great deal 35 fair amount 32 not too much 10 not at all 40. When it comes to rating your primary vehicle's fuel economy or miles per gallon, would you say that you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 28% very satisfied 50 somewhat satisfied 15 somewhat dissatisfied 6 very dissatisfied 1 don’t know 41. How concerned are you that the vehicle you drive pollutes too much—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? 13% very concerned 31 somewhat concerned 29 not too concerned 26 not at all concerned 1 don’t know - 24 - 42a. [half sample] Within your price range, what matters most to you when you think about buying a car? [rotate list] 41% safety 23 fuel efficiency / miles per gallon 19 performance 6 appearance 4 pollution / emissions 4 other (specify) 3 don’t know 42b. [half sample] Would you seriously consider buying or leasing a smaller automobile as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution when replacing the vehicle that you now drive? 52% yes 37 no 9 already own or lease a small car (volunteered) 2 don’t know 43. Changing topics, overall do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 53% approve 41 disapprove 6 don’t know 44a. [half sample] And do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 37% approve 48 disapprove 15 don’t know 44b. [half sample] Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States? 7% more than enough 36 just enough 52 not enough 5 don’t know 45. Turning to the state, overall do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? 28% approve 64 disapprove 8 don’t know 46a. [half sample] Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling environmental issues in California? 30% approve 51 disapprove 19 don’t know 46b. [half sample] Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 10% more than enough 37 just enough 46 not enough 7 don’t know 47a. [half sample] The state government faces a large budget deficit, and program cuts are needed to balance the budget. Should the state ... [rotate] (a) continue to fund environmental programs at the current level, even if it means less funds for other programs, or (b) reduce funding for environmental programs, so that more funds are available for other programs? 45% continue to fund at current level 38 reduce funding 6 other (specify) 11 don’t know 47b. [half sample] The Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act is on the November 2004 state ballot. This is a 9.95 billion dollar bond measure that would fund the planning and construction of a high-speed train system in California, linking San Francisco to Los Angeles via the Central Valley. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this bond measure? 65% yes 26 no 9 don’t know 48. On another topic, there is an effort under way to remove Governor Gray Davis from office in a recall election. If a special election to recall Governor Davis were held today, would you vote yes to remove Davis as governor or no to keep Davis as governor? 48% yes, remove Davis as governor 42 no, keep Davis as governor 10 don’t know 49. When it comes to environmental policy in the state, do you think that removing Governor Davis from office would be a good thing or a bad thing, or would it make no difference? 24% good thing 15 bad thing 51 no difference 10 don’t know - 25 - July 2003 50a. [half sample] In thinking about the presidential election in 2004, how important are the candidates' positions on environmental issues—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy—in determining your vote: very important, somewhat important, or not important? 41% very important 45 somewhat important 11 not important 3 don’t know 50b. [half sample] Which political party tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy: [rotate] the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or the Green Party? 39% Democratic Party 27 Republican Party 20 Green Party 3 other (specify) 11 don’t know [51 – 59: demographic questions] 60. [if employed] How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, public bus or transit, walk, or some other means? 73% drive alone 13 carpool 5 public bus or transit 3 walk 1 bicycle 1 some other means (specify) 4 work at home (volunteered) 61. Would you seriously consider regularly commuting by public bus or transit as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution? 45% yes 47 no 6 public bus or transit unavailable (volunteered) 2 don’t know 62. On a typical day, how long does it take you to commute one way from home to work—under 20 minutes, 20 minutes to under 40 minutes, 40 minutes to under one hour, or one hour or more? 48% under 20 minutes 30 20 minutes to under 40 minutes 13 40 minutes to under one hour 8 one hour or more 1 don’t know 63. How many licensed vehicles (cars, trucks, vans, jeeps, or campers) are owned or leased for personal use by all the members of your household? 4% 0 vehicles 29 1 vehicle 38 2 vehicles 17 3 vehicles 7 4 vehicles 2 5 vehicles 3 6 or more vehicles 64. Do you personally own or lease an SUV? 21% yes 79 no [65 – 69: demographic questions] - 26 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Angela Blackwell President Policy Link Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Monica Lozano President and Chief Operating Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas Executive Vice President Porter Novelli Max Neiman Director Center for Social and Behavioral Research University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Richard Schlosberg President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 27 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org"
}
["___content":protected]=>
string(102) "
"
["_permalink":protected]=>
string(125) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-special-survey-on-californians-and-the-environment-july-2003/s_703mbs/"
["_next":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_prev":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_css_class":protected]=>
NULL
["id"]=>
int(8344)
["ID"]=>
int(8344)
["post_author"]=>
string(1) "1"
["post_content"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_date"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:47"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(3531)
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "inherit"
["post_title"]=>
string(8) "S 703MBS"
["post_type"]=>
string(10) "attachment"
["slug"]=>
string(8) "s_703mbs"
["__type":protected]=>
NULL
["_wp_attached_file"]=>
string(12) "S_703MBS.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(7) "2412001"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(92220) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY JULY 2003 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey on Californians and the Environment in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The James Irvine Foundation The David and Lucile Packard Foundation ○○○○○ Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and policy preferences of California residents. Begun in April 1998, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 74,000 Californians. This survey on Californians and the environment—a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation—is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the fifth in a series of eight surveys—two per year for four years—launched in May 2001. The intent of the surveys is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about a variety of growth and environmental issues facing the state. The current survey focuses in particular on public perceptions, individual actions, and policy preferences regarding air quality issues. This special edition presents the responses of 2,002 adult residents throughout the state. It examines in detail the public’s views on regional and statewide environmental conditions, lifestyle and public policy choices, and the state and national political climate related to the environment. Some of the questions are repeated from PPIC Statewide Surveys on Californians and the environment conducted in June 2000 and June 2002. More specifically, we examine the following issues: • The public’s perceptions of environmental conditions, such as the identification of the state’s most important environmental issue, perceived trends in the state’s air quality, ratings of air pollution in the region where the respondent lives, identification of the primary cause of regional air pollution and the perceived threat to personal health, and preferred level of government intervention (i.e., local, regional, state, federal) on regional air quality issues. • Lifestyle and policy choices, including the type and amount of vehicle ownership, attitudes toward automobile driving, perceptions of fuel economy and pollution controls involving the vehicle in primary use, willingness to pay to improve air quality in the region, willingness to make sacrifices to increase fuel efficiency, perceptions of the threat of global warming, and support for personal and government action related to global warming. • The political climate, including ratings of the governor and president on environmental issues, ratings of the state and federal government on environmental policy, support for state funding for environmental programs, support for a state bond to pay for high-speed passenger trains in California, the perceived importance of the candidates’ positions on environmental issues in the 2004 presidential election, and the political party (i.e., Democrat, Republican, Green) that is viewed as closely representing the respondent's own environmental positions. • Variations in environmental perceptions, lifestyle and public policy choices, and political perspectives across the four major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, and Other Southern California), between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites, and across age, socioeconomic, and political spectrums. Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. -i- Contents Preface Press Release State and Regional Conditions Lifestyle and Policy Choices Political Climate Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 15 19 21 27 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SPECIAL SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT NOT IN MY DRIVEWAY: AIR POLLUTION TOP CONCERN, BUT STATE RESIDENTS DON’T SEE THEMSELVES AS PART OF PROBLEM Yet, Willing to Make Economic, Personal Sacrifices for Environment; Unsatisfied With Federal, State Environmental Leadership SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 10, 2003 — Are Californians asleep at the wheel? Although they express deep concern about the health effects of air pollution and view vehicle emissions as a major factor, few state residents see their own auto habits as part of the problem, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations. But overall, Californians remain “greener” than residents nationally and reveal a willingness to make lifestyle changes that could help protect and improve the environment. A solid majority of Californians (58%) believe that air pollution is a serious health threat to themselves and their immediate family, and 37 percent say they or a family member suffers from asthma or other respiratory problems. Accordingly, state residents rate air pollution (30%) as the most important environmental issue, followed distantly by water pollution (10%), growth and sprawl (7%), water supply (7%), and pollution in general (6%). Many Californians (68%) also say that there has been only some or no progress in dealing with air pollution over the past 20 years. And they are not hopeful about the future: 49 percent say they have only some optimism that California will have better air quality two decades from now, and 22 percent express little or no hope for improvement. While air pollution is the top issue across the state — and most Californians call it a big problem (31%) or somewhat of a problem (45%) in their region — concern about air pollution has grown most substantially in the Central Valley. Residents of the Valley (42%) are now as likely as Los Angeles residents (43%) to view air pollution as a big problem in their part of the state. In 2000, only 28 percent of Central Valley residents felt that air quality was a big problem, compared to 40 percent of Angelenos. The explanation? Valley residents are by far the most likely to report that air quality in their region has worsened in the past decade (60%), while Los Angeles residents are the most likely to report improvements (41%). In general, concern about air pollution and its consequences is higher among Latinos and younger and lower-income residents. California Drivin’: Despite Awareness About Emissions, Residents Devoted to Cars … By a wide margin, residents say vehicle emissions (47%) are the primary cause of air pollution in their region, while lower percentages blame population growth (16%), industrial and agricultural activities (13%), and pollution from outside their area (11%). However, Californians express only modest concern about how much their own driving contributes to poor air quality: Fewer than half of adults report being very concerned (13%) or somewhat concerned (31%) that their vehicle pollutes too much. Most are also very (28%) or somewhat satisfied (50%) with the fuel economy of their primary vehicle. Surprisingly, while owners of compact cars (87%) are more likely than van, pickup, or SUV owners (64%) to be satisfied with their vehicle’s fuel economy, they are also as likely to be concerned about their vehicle’s emissions (46% to 44%). Why the disconnect between root cause and personal responsibility? Californians are dependent on — and attached to — their automobiles. Two in three adults (67%) report having two or more licensed vehicles in their household; only 7 percent say they don’t drive. Most employed residents in the state report that they commute to work by driving alone (73%); many fewer commute by carpool (13%) or public transit (5%). Half of Californians — and 58 percent of Los Angeles area residents — say they spend a great deal (18%) or fair -v- Press Release amount (32%) of time on the road each day. And most enjoy driving: 58 percent say they like to drive a great deal (23%) or fair amount (35%). Finally, emissions and miles per gallon are not the primary factors that most residents consider when buying a car: Many say safety (41%) is what matters most, 23 percent say fuel efficiency, 19 percent performance, 6 percent appearance, and only 4 percent pollution. … But Willing to Consider Lifestyle Changes, Economic Costs “In many ways, California culture revolves around cars,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. “But the growing alarm about air pollution and health may lead some to break the cycle.” Indeed, some residents appear willing to change their driving habits for the sake of the environment: • Although 62 percent of state residents say their ideal car would be the same size as the one they are now driving, 52 percent report that when it comes time to replace their current vehicle, they would seriously consider buying or leasing a smaller vehicle to reduce fuel use and air pollution. • Forty-five percent of state residents say they would seriously consider regularly commuting via public transportation as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution. Most Latinos (58%) say they would consider using public transportation, while most whites (53%) say they would not. In addition, most residents — and majorities of Democrats and Republicans — appear willing to ante up and support incentives for reducing emissions and improving fuel efficiency: • Many residents (65%) say they would be willing to support tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs, even if it raises the cost of buying a vehicle. • Three-quarters (75%) of Californians favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the United States, even if it increases the cost of a new car. • A large majority (79%) — including 69 percent of SUV owners — also say they favor changing federal regulations on SUVs to match existing fuel economy standards for passenger cars. • Finally, 81 percent of Californians support giving tax breaks to encourage consumers to purchase hybrid gas and electric vehicles. Compared to Nation, Californians More Eco-Friendly Despite difficult economic times, Californians remain solid supporters of environmental protection. Asked whether the environment should be given priority, even if it meant curbing economic growth, or whether economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment might suffer, 65 percent of state residents — and majorities of Democrats and Republicans — chose environmental protection. Nationally, 47 percent of Americans favor environmental protection and 42 percent economic growth. Californians are also steadfast in their views on other national and international environmental concerns: • Oil Drilling in California, Alaska – More than half of Californians say they do not support proposals to lessen dependence on foreign oil by drilling off California’s coast (54%) or in federally-protected wilderness areas such as the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (55%). Opinions on these proposals are sharply divided along partisan lines, with a majority of Republicans in support and a majority of Democrats opposed. • Global Warming – Two in three Californians (68%) believe that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming. Forty-five percent of state residents — and 54 percent of those ages 18-34 — believe that global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetime. Nearly three in four (73%) believe that immediate steps should be taken to counter the effects of global climate change. What are they willing to do about it? Majorities say they are willing to make major lifestyle changes to address the problem (69%), believe that the federal government should set new legally-binding industrial standards to limit emissions thought to cause global warming (66%), and think the federal government should work with other nations to set standards for the reduction of greenhouse gases (52%). Again, there are strong partisan differences: Democrats (77%) are more likely than Republicans (49%) to believe that global warming exists. - vi - Press Release Other Key Findings • More Car Talk (page 7) Thirty percent of Californians — and 34 percent of San Francisco Bay Area residents — drive a compact car. Twenty-nine percent of state residents — and 34 percent of Central Valley residents — drive a van, pickup, or SUV. Twenty-one percent of Californians report owning or leasing an SUV. • Tougher Pollution Regulations for Business and Agriculture (page 10) A majority of state residents say they would be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on manufacturing and commercial activities in their region, even if it jeopardized job creation. Nearly half (47%) support tougher regulations for agriculture and farm activities, even if they created greater operational costs. • State Environmental Ratings (pages 15, 29, 30) Approval ratings for Governor Gray Davis on environmental issues (30%) mirror his overall approval rating (28%). More Californians would support a recall (48%) than oppose it (42%); 51 percent say that removing the governor from office would not affect environmental policy. • State Budget Cuts (pages 15, 16) In spite of the state’s red ink, only 38 percent of residents think funding for environmental programs should be cut in order to reduce the deficit and free up funds for other programs. Nearly half (46%) of residents think the state is not doing enough to protect the environment. • Federal Environmental Ratings (page 17) While 53 percent of Californians approve of President George W. Bush’s overall performance, far fewer (37%) give him positive ratings for his handling of environmental concerns. A majority of residents (52%) think that the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment. • Election 2004 (pages 16, 18) Most Californians (86%) say that where presidential candidates stand on environmental issues will be a very important (41%) or somewhat important (45%) factor in determining their vote. While most residents say that their political party represents their own views on environmental policy most closely, 20 percent name the Green Party. Currently, 65 percent of state residents say they would support the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act scheduled to appear on the November 2004 ballot. About the Survey The Californians and the Environment survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. It is the fifth in a four-year, multisurvey series on growth, land use, and the environment, produced in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Findings of the current survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 California adult residents interviewed from June 4 to June 15, 2003. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 1,088 likely voters +/- 3%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 19. Dr. Mark Baldassare is Research Director at PPIC, where he also holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has conducted since 1998. His most recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www. ppic.org) on July 10. ### - vii - Percent Percent Percent all adults Percent all adults Top four environmental issues in California today 30 30 20 10 10 7 7 0 Air pollution Water pollution Grow th & spraw l Water supply Willingness to see tougher air pollution standards on new vehicles 6% 19% 10% 65% Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Don't know Percent All Adults Percent very satisfied with fuel efficiency of their vehicle 40 40 31 30 25 20 17 10 0 Compact Mid-size Full-size Other car car car vehicle (e.g., SUV) Percent who think air pollution is a big problem 50 42 40 43 30 21 20 28 10 0 Central Valley SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern CA Willingness to pay for improved fuel efficiency of cars 3% 10% 12% 75% aprove Favor, even if increases cost of car Favor, butdnisoat pifpinrocvreases cosdt on't know Oppose Don't know PercPeenrtcAenlltAAdlul Altsdults Will global warming pose a serious threat in your lifetime? (Percent "yes") 60 54 50 46 40 30 28 20 10 0 18-34 years old 35-54 years old 55 years or older State and Regional Conditions Most Important Issue When asked to name the most important environmental issue facing the state today, Californians most often mention air pollution (30%). This response is consistent with the views expressed in our past surveys on environmental issues (June 2000, June 2002). Other frequently noted environmental issues are water pollution (10%), growth and sprawl (7%), and water supply (7%). Lower percentages of Californians say that pollution in general (6%), traffic congestion (4%), energy (3%), toxic waste (2%), and landfills and garbage (2%) are the most critical environmental issues facing California today. Central Valley residents (39%) are the most likely to mention air pollution as the top environmental problem in the state today, mentioning it even more frequently than Los Angeles County residents (33%). Lower percentages of respondents in Other Southern California (28%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (26%) mention air pollution. Still, air quality is the top environmental concern across all regions. Residents in different racial/ethnic categories and across all demographic groups name air pollution as the most critical environmental problem facing the state. Concern about air pollution increases somewhat with education (no college: 26%; college graduates: 33%). Latinos (28%) are about as likely as whites (31%) to consider air pollution as the most problematic environmental issue in California today. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” All Adults Air pollution Water pollution Growth and sprawl Water supply Pollution in general Traffic congestion Energy Toxic waste and contamination Landfills and garbage Protecting wildlife and endangered species Loss of farmlands Loss of open space Global warming Other Don't know 30% 10 7 7 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 14 Central Valley 39% 7 5 10 5 4 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 8 13 Region SF Bay Area 26% 10 7 6 6 3 2 1 1 Los Angeles 33% 8 5 4 7 6 3 2 3 Other Southern California 28% 13 7 10 8 3 1 2 1 Latinos 28% 6 4 2 11 5 2 3 2 2010 2011 1010 1101 17 8 9 8 15 20 15 27 -1- State and Regional Conditions Air Quality in the State A majority of Californians believe that only some progress has been made in dealing with the state’s air pollution problems over the past two decades, and most do not express a great deal of optimism that the state will have better air quality 20 years from now. Twenty-eight percent of residents say the state has made a great deal of progress in dealing with air pollution, while 50 percent say that only some progress has been made; 16 percent report hardly any or no progress on this issue. Across the major regions of the state, Central Valley residents are the least likely to say that the state has made a great deal of progress in dealing with air pollution. Latinos (19%) are less likely than whites (33%) to say that a great deal of progress has been made. “How much progress has been made in dealing with air pollution in California over the past 20 years?” A great deal Only some Hardly any No progress Don't know All Adults 28% 50 16 2 4 Central Valley 22% 48 22 3 5 Region SF Bay Area 32% 49 12 3 4 Los Angeles 27% 51 16 1 5 Other Southern California 28% 49 17 1 5 Latinos 19% 53 22 1 5 Respondents’ expectation that air quality will improve over the next 20 years closely mirrors their perceptions of progress in this area over the past two decades. While one-quarter of Californians report that they have a great deal of optimism that the state will have better air quality 20 years from now, about half (49%) report only some optimism, and 22 percent have little or no optimism that air quality will get better. Among the major regions of the state, Central Valley residents are the most pessimistic, with more than one-quarter of those interviewed saying that they had either hardly any or no optimism at all about the prospect for better air quality in California. At the same time, Californians appear to be more optimistic about past and future improvements in air quality than they are about general trends in solving overall environmental problems related to air, water, and land issues. Last year, only 18 percent of Californians thought that a great deal of progress had been made in dealing with environmental problems in the preceding 20 years, and only 18 percent had a great deal of optimism that environmental problems would be well under control in the future. Today, 28 percent of Californians say that a great deal of progress has been made in dealing with air pollution over the past 20 years, and 25 percent have a great deal of confidence that air quality in California will be better 20 years from now. “How much optimism do you have that we will have better air quality in California 20 years from now?” A great deal Only some Hardly any No optimism Don't know All Adults 25% 49 20 2 4 Central Valley 20% 48 25 3 4 Region SF Bay Area 24% 51 20 2 4 Los Angeles 26% 51 16 2 5 Other Southern California 29% 46 21 2 2 Latinos 27% 47 20 2 4 -2- State and Regional Conditions Regional Problems State residents were asked to evaluate five potential problems in their region of the state: traffic congestion, air pollution, population growth and development, the lack of well-paying jobs, and the lack of affordable housing. Sixty-two percent of the state’s residents rate traffic congestion as a big problem, and 56 percent consider housing affordability a big problem. Roughly four in 10 think growth and development (42%) and the lack of well-paying jobs (40%) are a big problem in their region. By contrast, three in ten residents (31%) rate air pollution as a big problem. Trends over time, as tracked by our surveys, indicate increased concern about jobs, housing, and growth, while concern about air pollution has declined somewhat since last year (34% to 31%), and dissatisfaction with traffic congestion has remained relatively steady. “I am going to read you a list of problems other people have told us about. For each, please tell me if you think this is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region.” Percentage seeing the issue as a big problem Traffic congestion on freeways and major roads Lack of housing that you can afford Population growth and development Lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs Air pollution Jun 00 — — 27 — 28 All Adults May 01 Jun 02 60% 61% 47 — 29 30 29 — 30 34 Jul 03 62% 56 42 40 31 Regional Air Quality Across the state’s major regions, notable differences have occurred over time in residents' concerns about air pollution. Comparing responses in the June 2000 survey with those in our current survey, we find that the percentage of respondents who consider air pollution a big problem has increased by 14 percentage points in the Central Valley (28% to 42%)—a larger increase than anywhere else in the state. Perceptions of air pollution as a big problem have increased more modestly in the Los Angeles and Other Southern California areas; and in the San Francisco Bay Area, perceptions about air quality have exhibited an up-and-down pattern over the past four years. Percentage seeing air pollution as a big problem Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Jun 00 28% 26 40 23 All Adults May 01 Jun 02 33% 22 46 25 39% 27 47 30 Jul 03 42% 21 43 28 There are also significant differences across demographic groups in concern about air pollution. Younger, less educated, and lower-income residents are more likely than older residents, college graduates, and upper-income residents to say that air pollution is a big problem. Latinos (39%) are much more likely than whites (28%), and renters (36%) are more likely than homeowners (29%) to say that air pollution is a big problem in their region. Women are slightly more likely than men, and those with children at home a little more so than those without children, to consider air pollution a big problem. Differences in concern about air pollution also appear across partisan and ideological groups. Democrats are more likely than Republicans, and liberals more likely than conservatives, to rate air - 3 - July 2003 State and Regional Conditions pollution as a big problem in their region. Likely voters (28%) are less likely than all registered voters (30%) and those not registered to vote (37%) to view air pollution as a big problem. “How about air pollution? Is this is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region.” 18-34 years old Age 35-54 years old 55 years or older Male Sex Female High school only Education Some college College graduate Household income Race/Ethnicity Party registration Political ideology Homeownership Children at home Region Community Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more White Latino Democrat Republican Independent Liberal Moderate Conservative Own Rent Children under 18 No children under 18 Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Large city Suburb Small City or town Rural area Big problem 35% 32 27 30 33 Somewhat of a problem 44% 45 45 44 45 34 42 30 48 30 45 35 44 31 44 27 47 28 46 39 43 31 48 26 44 32 44 35 47 34 40 25 47 29 47 36 41 33 43 30 46 42 41 21 50 43 42 28 47 40 41 30 51 28 44 21 44 Not a problem 20% 23 28 26 21 22 22 25 20 24 25 25 17 20 28 24 18 26 27 24 22 23 23 17 28 13 24 17 19 28 35 Don't know 1% 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 -4- State and Regional Conditions Air Pollution and Health A solid majority of Californians (58%) say that air pollution in their region is a serious health threat to themselves and their immediate family: Forty percent rate the perceived threat as somewhat serious, while 18 percent rate it as very serious. Across the state, Los Angeles and Central Valley residents are the most likely to say that air pollution represents a serious health threat in their region. Women (64%) are more likely than men (54%), and Latinos (70%) are much more likely than whites (54%), to rate the personal health threat of air pollution in their region as being at least somewhat serious. The perception of air pollution as a serious health threat is higher among younger than older adults, lower-income than upper-income individuals, renters than homeowners, and those with children at home than those without children at home. As for partisan and ideological differences, Democrats are more likely than Republicans, and liberals more likely than conservatives, to consider regional air pollution a serious threat to their health. In our June 2002 survey, six in 10 adults rated environmental problems overall as either a very serious (19%) or somewhat serious (42%) threat to their health and well-being. “How serious a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your family?” Very serious Somewhat serious Not too serious Don't know All Adults 18% 40 40 2 Central Valley 23% 39 37 1 Region SF Bay Area 13% 38 47 2 Los Angeles 25% 45 28 2 Other Southern California 16% 40 43 1 Latinos 26% 44 28 2 Changes in Regional Air Quality Californians are more likely to say that air quality in their region has grown worse (38%) rather than better (30%) over the past 10 years, while three in 10 residents volunteer the response of no change (16%) or say that they don’t know (16%). Of all the major regions in the state, Central Valley residents are by far the most likely to report that air quality in their region has gotten worse (60%), while Los Angeles residents are the most likely to report improvements over the past 10 years (41%). Latinos (44%) and women (43%) have a greater tendency than whites (37%) and men (34%) to report that their region’s air quality has grown worse. There are no differences between Democrats and Republicans or between liberals and conservatives in perceptions of changing air quality over the past 10 years. “Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago?” Better Worse Same Don't know All Adults 30% 38 16 16 Central Valley 16% 60 11 13 Region SF Bay Area 28% 37 17 18 Los Angeles 41% 35 12 12 Other Southern California 32% 34 17 17 Latinos 27% 44 13 16 - 5 - July 2003 State and Regional Conditions Blame and Responsibility Nearly half of the state’s residents think that vehicle emissions (47%) are the primary cause of air pollution in their region, while much lower percentages blame population growth and development (16%), industrial and agricultural activities (13%), and pollution from outside their area (11%). There are significant differences across regions on this issue. Central Valley residents (33%) are the least likely to mention vehicle emissions as the primary cause of their region’s air pollution and the most likely to blame pollution from outside the area (21%) and industry and agriculture (18%). Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (19%) and Los Angeles (18%) are the most likely to think that population growth and development are the major reason for air pollution in their region. “Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region?” Vehicle emissions Population growth Industry and agriculture Pollution from outside the area Weather and geography Something else All of the above Don't know All Adults 47% 16 13 11 5 1 3 4 Central Valley 33% 12 18 21 7 2 5 2 Region SF Bay Area 51% 19 12 8 2 2 3 3 Los Angeles 52% 18 13 6 5 1 3 2 Other Southern California 51% 16 9 14 5 1 2 2 Latinos 41% 14 18 16 4 1 4 2 There is no consensus among Californians as to which governing body should have primary responsibility for setting regional air quality standards. One in three residents (35%) point to the state government, while fewer would place responsibility with a regional air resources board (26%) or their local (19%) or federal (14%) government. While the state government is favored in every major region, Central Valley residents are more likely than residents in other regions to choose local government (25%), while San Francisco Bay Area residents are more likely to select a regional air resources board (32%). “Which level of government do you think should have primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region?” All Adults State government Regional air resources board Local government Federal government Other Don't know 35% 26 19 14 3 3 Central Valley 30% 22 25 16 3 4 Region SF Bay Area 35% 32 14 14 3 2 Los Angeles 37% 24 17 13 3 6 Other Southern California 36% 24 18 15 2 5 Latinos 32% 20 23 17 2 6 -6- Lifestyle and Policy Choices Californians and Their Vehicles Californians’ lifestyles show a strong attachment to their automobiles. Two in three adults report two or more licensed vehicles (i.e., cars, trucks, vans, jeeps, or campers) in their household. Only 7 percent say they don’t drive. Most employed residents in the state report that they usually commute to work by driving alone (73%); many fewer travel to work by carpool (13%) or public transit (5%). Regardless of whether they live in urban, suburban, or rural areas, or how much time they spend commuting, most Californians say they enjoy driving: Six in 10 say they like driving a great deal (23%) or a fair amount (35%). Although traffic congestion varies across the major regions of the state, we find only modest regional differences in how much people like to drive. “How much do you like driving—a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or not at all?” Great deal Fair amount Not too much Not at all All Adults 23% 35 32 10 Central Valley 25% 37 25 13 Region SF Bay Area 23% 36 29 12 Los Angeles 23% 34 34 9 Other Southern California 19% 35 38 8 Californians spend a considerable amount of time on the road each day. Half of the state’s drivers spend either a great deal (18%) or a fair amount (32%) of time in their cars on an average weekday. Across the state, Los Angeles residents spend more time behind the wheel than others, but large proportions of residents in every region spend a significant amount of time in their vehicles. Overall, the amount of time residents spend driving tends to increase with income and education. “How much time do you spend driving for all reasons—a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or not at all?” Great deal Fair amount Not too much Not at all All Adults 18% 32 47 3 Central Valley 16% 28 52 4 Region SF Bay Area 17% 30 50 3 Los Angeles 22% 36 39 3 Other Southern California 17% 34 47 2 Californians drive cars of all types and sizes: Thirty percent drive a compact car, 25 percent a midsize car, 8 percent a full-size car, and 29 percent drive a van, pickup truck, or SUV (sports utility vehicle). Twenty-one percent of residents report that they own or lease an SUV. San Francisco Bay Area drivers (34%) are more likely than residents elsewhere to drive a compact car, while residents in the Central Valley (34%) and Other Southern California (31%) are more likely to drive a van, pick-up truck, or SUV. Most Californians are happy with the size of the car they are now driving: Sixty-two percent say their ideal car would be the same size as the one they are driving; few would prefer a larger (18%) or smaller (20%) vehicle. -7- Lifestyle and Policy Choices When it comes to rating their primary vehicle's fuel efficiency, 78 percent of Californians say they are either very satisfied (28%) or somewhat satisfied (50%) with their vehicle's fuel economy or mileage per gallon. Large majorities across demographic, geographic, and political groups say they are satisfied. However, 40 percent of compact car drivers are very satisfied with their vehicle's fuel economy, compared to 31 percent of those who drive full-size cars, 25 percent of those who drive mid-size cars, and only 17 percent of those who drive other types of vehicles such as vans, pickups, or SUVs. “When it comes to your primary vehicles' fuel economy or miles per gallon, would you say that you are …” Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know All Adults 28% 50 15 6 1 Compact car 40% 47 10 2 1 Primary Vehicle Type Mid-size car Full-size car 25% 58 13 3 1 31% 44 17 7 1 Other vehicle (e.g., van, pickup truck, SUV) 17% 47 23 11 2 Californians express only modest concern about how much their driving contributes to poor air quality: Fewer than half report being somewhat concerned (31%) or very concerned (13%) that their vehicle pollutes too much. In every region of the state, and for drivers of all types of vehicles, majorities of residents say they are not too concerned or not at all concerned that their vehicle pollutes too much. Moreover, when Californians think of buying a car, most (41%) say that safety is what matters most; 23 percent say fuel efficiency, 19 percent performance, 6 percent appearance, and only 4 percent pollution. With few exceptions, pollution matters least across all demographic groups. “How concerned are you that the vehicle you drive pollutes too much?” Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerned Not at all concerned Don't know All Adults 13% 31 29 26 1 Compact car 13% 33 27 25 2 Primary Vehicle Type Mid-size car Full-size car 14% 31 29 25 1 11% 29 27 33 0 Other vehicle (e.g., van, pickup truck, SUV) 13% 31 31 24 1 Are Californians willing to change their driving habits for the sake of a better environment? A majority (52%) say that when it comes time to replace their current vehicle, they would seriously consider buying or leasing a smaller vehicle as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution. Among van, pickup, and SUV drivers, 53 percent would consider a smaller vehicle. Moreover, 45 percent of all Californians in the workforce say they would seriously consider regularly using public transportation for their commute as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution. Currently, only 5 percent take a bus or public transit to work. A majority of Latinos (58%) say they would seriously consider using public transportation, while most whites (53%) say they would not. Younger and lower-income residents are more willing than older and wealthier residents to consider commuting by public transportation. -8- Lifestyle and Policy Choices Environmental and Economic Tradeoffs Despite difficult economic times, Californians are solidly supportive of environmental protection. Asked whether protection of the environment should be given priority, even if it meant curbing economic growth, or whether economic growth should be given priority, even if it meant that the environment might suffer, 65 percent of the state’s residents said that environmental protection should be given priority. Twenty-four percent of Californians think that the economy should be given priority, even if the environment suffers. Californians’ strong emphasis on environmental protection was shared by majorities of Americans throughout the 1990s and until as late as April 2000, according to a Gallup poll. However, nationally, by Spring 2003, only 47 percent of all Americans thought that the environment should be given priority (a Gallup low), and 42 percent thought that the economy should be given priority (a Gallup high). “In general, which one of these statements is closest to your view ...” California Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent Both equally Other answer / Don’t know 65% 24 6 5 * (Gallup poll, March 2003) United States* 47% 42 7 4 At least six in 10 residents in each of the state’s major regions think that the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. Women (68%) are somewhat more inclined than men (62%) to give a high priority to environmental protection. Nearly three in four Democrats (73%) think that the environment should be given priority, while 17 percent think that the economy should take precedence. By contrast, only a slim majority of Republicans (52%) indicate that environmental protection should have priority, and 37 percent say that the economy should be considered first. Seventy-seven percent of liberals support environmental protection, while only 53 percent of conservatives support this position. Whether Californians are more in favor of the environment or the economy is not significantly related to their outlook on the state economy, their perceptions of recession, or their ratings of job opportunities in their region. “In general, which one of these statements is closest to your view ...” Environment should have priority Economic growth should have priority Both equally Other answer / Don't know All Adults 65% 24 6 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 73% 17 5 5 52% 37 8 3 63% 25 5 7 Latino 70% 19 7 4 - 9 - July 2003 Lifestyle and Policy Choices Air Quality: Willingness to Pay Although Californians are highly attached to driving their cars, they still consider environmental quality important, even when it comes to making policy decisions that may affect their pocketbooks. Most residents say that in the interest of reducing air pollution, they are willing to pay higher prices for cars, to allow it to become somewhat more costly for businesses to operate, and to suppress the creation of new jobs—if that’s what it takes. Three-quarters of all Californians say they would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs. A large majority of residents (65%) say they would support these regulations, even if it made it more costly for them to purchase a new vehicle. One in 10 Californians would support new environmental regulations only if the price of vehicles was not increased, while one in five would not be willing to see tougher air quality regulations on new cars, trucks, and SUVs under any circumstance. There are large partisan and ideological differences on this issue: Liberals and Democrats are much more willing than conservatives or Republicans to pay the price for cleaner air. There are also significant differences among Californians across various age, education, and income categories: Generally, willingness to support regulations at the risk of higher vehicle prices declines with age and increases with education and income. For example, 70 percent of Californians with annual household incomes of $40,000 or higher would support new regulations on vehicles, even if it made their new cars more expensive, compared to 62 percent of respondents with incomes under $40,000. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs?" If yes: "Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase a new car?” Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Don't know All Adults 65% 10 19 6 Party Registration Dem Rep 74% 9 60% 7 12 30 53 Ind 71% 8 18 3 SUV Owners 61% 9 27 3 Nearly three-quarters of California adults (73%) also say that they would be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on manufacturing and commercial activities in their region. Fifty-four percent would be receptive to these new regulations, even if it made it more difficult to create jobs in the state, while 19 percent would support new regulations on manufacturing and commercial activities only if they did not hinder the creation of new jobs. Seventeen percent would not favor new regulations in any case. Once again, large partisan and ideological differences exist with regard to the acceptability of new regulations. Solid majorities of Democrats (64%) and independent voters (58%), compared to less than half of Republicans (48%), would favor new air pollution regulations on manufacturing, even if they put a damper on job creation. The differences are even more dramatic between liberal (68%), moderate (57%), and conservative (42%) support for new regulations, even if they hurt job creation. Overall, Latinos are more supportive of new regulations than whites (79% to 72%), but when the possibility of job loss is introduced, unconditional white support (57%) is higher than Latino support (49%). Support for new regulations is higher among younger, higher income, and more-educated Californians; and residents in these categories are also more likely to remain supportive when faced with the tradeoff of fewer jobs. Finally, 56 percent of Californians would be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on agriculture and farm activities if it would improve air quality in their region. Most of the supporters (47%) would still favor these regulations, even if it involved more operational costs for these types of businesses. Once again, public support varies by political party and ideology, as well as across age, education, and income groups. - 10 - Lifestyle and Policy Choices Energy Supply: Willingness to Conserve Concern for the environment is also reflected in the degree of support for specific policy proposals, including proposals to increase energy supplies by drilling for oil in environmentally-sensitive areas. For example, most Californians do not support proposals to lessen dependence on foreign oil by drilling off the California coast or in federally-protected wilderness areas such as the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, Californians report nearly equal levels of opposition to both projects. More than half of Californians (54%) say they are opposed to additional drilling off the California coast. As is the case with a number of other environmental policy proposals, there is a strong partisan split on this question. A clear majority of Democrats (65%) and a smaller majority of independents (55%) oppose more drilling, while a majority of Republicans (54%) favor more drilling. San Francisco Bay Area residents (64%) are more opposed to the idea than residents in any other region of the state. Opposition to drilling off the coast increases with education (61% of college graduates oppose the idea, compared to 45% of those who did not attend college). “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 39% 54 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 29% 65 6 54% 41 5 39% 55 6 Fifty-five percent of Californians are opposed to the idea of drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness. Opinion on this proposal is also sharply divided along partisan lines. While 66 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independent voters oppose the idea, 61 percent of Republicans support the idea of drilling on federally-protected lands. San Francisco Bay Area residents (63%) are the most steadfastly opposed to the idea of drilling in Alaska. As with the California coast proposal, the most-educated Californians are also the most opposed to new drilling (64% of college graduates oppose the idea, compared to only 46% of those without a college education). “How about allowing new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 39% 55 6 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 29% 66 5 61% 36 3 38% 58 4 Rather than new supply-side measures that would encroach upon the environment, Californians favor approaches that would reduce the demand for fossil fuels. Residents were asked whether they favor or oppose requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars, even if it increases the price of the cars. Seventy-five percent of Californians say they would support such a policy, even if it increases the cost of buying a new car; 12 percent would support this requirement only if it did not involve higher prices. - 11 - July 2003 Lifestyle and Policy Choices Notably, the proposal to require better fuel efficiency, unlike the proposal to allow drilling off the California coast or in federally-protected wildlife areas, is supported by Californians along all political perspectives. Roughly eight in 10 independents (83%) and Democrats (81%) support this policy, while nearly three-quarters of Republicans (73%) also say they would support improvements in fuel efficiency, even if it meant more expensive vehicles. Public support is even overwhelming among residents who currently own or lease an SUV (71%) and among lower-income residents: Nearly seven in 10 households (69%) with annual incomes under $40,000 say they favor increasing fuel efficiency. “How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country?" If yes: "Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?” Favor, even if increased cost Favor, but not if increased cost Oppose Don't know All Adults 75% 12 10 3 Dem 81% 9 6 4 Party Rep 73% 11 15 1 Ind 83% 8 7 2 SUV Owners 71% 11 15 3 Californians also support other forms of regulation on vehicles that would decrease gasoline usage. Eight in ten Californians (79%), including 69 percent of SUV owners, say they would favor changing federal regulations on sport utility vehicles so that they meet the same fuel economy standards as regular passenger cars. Eighty-one percent of respondents, and 81 percent of SUV owners, support giving tax breaks to consumers to encourage them to purchase cars powered by hybrid gas and electric engines. As is the case with the proposal to improve fuel efficiency, these policies are strongly supported across voter groups, as well as by lower-income, middle-income, and higher-income residents. “How about giving tax breaks to encourage people to buy cars powered by hybrid gas and electric engines?” Support Oppose Don't know All Adults 81% 15 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 86% 12 2 82% 16 2 81% 17 2 SUV Owners 81% 17 2 Most Californians (81%) also support the current state law that requires doubling the use of renewable energy—such as wind and solar power—over the next ten years, from 10 percent of California's power today to 20 percent in the next decade. As in the case of other policies proposed to reduce petroleum use, support for this issue does not vary dramatically across party lines. More than eight in ten Democrats (84%) say they support this law, while 78 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of independents support it as well. Response to this issue was similar in our June 2002 survey. - 12 - Lifestyle and Policy Choices Global Warming: A Perceived Threat Most Californians believe in global warming, and many residents think that actions should be taken to address the issue. Seven in ten residents (68%) believe that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming. Nineteen percent say they do not believe in this theory, and 13 percent do not know enough to say whether they believe it or not. A recent nationwide Harris poll reports that 74 percent of Americans believe in the theory of global warming. The public’s belief in global warming is related to partisanship and ideology: Democrats (77%) and liberals (81%) are more likely than Republicans (49%) and conservatives (54%) to believe in global warming. It is interesting to note that Californians belief in global warming does not vary by education or income. Nearly three in four Californians (73%) believe that steps should be taken to counter the effects of global warming right now; only one in five (20%) thinks that this is not necessary. Public support for taking immediate action is higher among younger than older residents, higher among Latinos than whites (81% to 70%), and higher among Democrats (80%) and liberals (84%) than Republicans (57%) and conservatives (60%). “Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet?” Right away Not necessary yet Don't know All Adults 73% 20 7 18-34 years old 79% 16 5 Age 35-54 years old 73% 20 7 55 years or older 65% 24 11 Latinos 81% 12 7 Forty-five percent of Californians believe that global warming will eventually pose a serious threat to them or their way of life; 50 percent do not think such a threat will happen in their lifetime. Nationally, the Gallup poll reported in 2002 that one-third of all Americans thought that global warming would pose a serious threat to them or their way of life, and 65 percent thought not. In California, among those who believe that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, 57 percent think that this occurrence will seriously affect them or their way of life, while 40 percent think it will not. Californians 18-34 years old are much more likely than those age 55 and older to think that global warming will be a serious threat during their lifetime (54% to 28%). Latinos are much more likely than whites to think that this will be the case (67% to 32%). Republicans (23%) are much less likely than Democrats (48%) or independents (40%) to see global warming as a personal threat, and conservatives (38%) are less likely than moderates (44%) or liberals (53%) to perceive a threat. “Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 45% 50 5 18-34 years old 54% 42 4 Age 35-54 years old 46% 46 8 55 years or older 28% 65 7 Latinos 67% 27 6 - 13 - July 2003 Lifestyle and Policy Choices Global Warming: Personal and National Responses Most Californians (69%) say they would be willing to make major lifestyle changes to address the issue of global warming. The public’s willingness to make lifestyle changes in response to global warming is evident across political and demographic groups. However, younger adults are more likely than those age 55 and older (73% to 60%), and Latinos are more likely than whites (81% to 65%), to say they are willing to change the way they live in order to combat global warming. Conservatives (57%) are less likely than moderates (72%) or liberals (81%) to be willing to make major lifestyle changes. Willingness to make lifestyle changes also varies among Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters. “Would you be willing to make major lifestyle changes to address the issue of global warming?” All Adults Yes No Don't know 69% 22 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind Latinos 77% 52% 69% 81% 14 39 25 11 9 10 6 8 Eighty percent of Californians support the state law passed last year that requires all automakers to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009. Public support for this policy was similar in our June 2002 survey, before the proposal became a law. Three in four Californians also think that the federal government should set new industrial standards to limit emissions thought to cause global warming. Two in three residents (66%) think that industries should be legally required to abide by these new standards, while 9 percent think that industries should be allowed to voluntarily comply. Only 16 percent believe that the government should not institute new standards. Support for new legally-binding standards is higher among Democrats (78%) and liberals (80%) than among Republicans (52%) and conservatives (53%). Californians are divided along political lines when asked whether or not the federal government should work with other countries to set standards for reducing greenhouse gases. Fifty-two percent think that the United States should join other countries in setting international standards for controlling global warming, while 43 percent think that the United States should set its own standards. While most Democrats want to work with other countries in reducing greenhouse gases, most Republicans would prefer that the United States go it alone. Public support for the multilateral approach to global warming varies most significantly with political ideology: Sixty-nine percent of liberals and 53 percent of moderates believe that this country should join with others to set new standards, while only 39 percent of conservatives agree with this point of view. Among those who want the federal government to set new industrial standards for limiting greenhouse gases, 88 percent would like to see the United States join other countries in setting the standards. “Do you think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to reduce greenhouse gases, or should the United States set its own standards independently?” All Adults Join other countries Set standards independently Don't know 52% 43 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind Latinos 57% 38 5 42% 53 5 49% 47 4 56% 38 6 - 14 - Political Climate State Politics About three in 10 Californians approve of Governor Gray Davis' overall performance in office (28%) and his handling of environmental issues (30%). Two in three are dissatisfied with his overall performance (64%), and about half (51%) disapprove of the way he is handling environmental issues. The governor’s approval ratings have declined since our June 2002 environment survey: His overall performance rating has fallen 11 points (39% to 28%) and his environmental rating has declined to about the same level (35% to 30%). Even among Davis’ fellow Democrats, a higher percentage disapprove (45%) than approve (34%) of his handling of environmental issues. Only 20 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of independents approve of his conduct toward environmental issues. Latinos are more positive toward Davis overall, and they rate his performance on the environment more highly than whites (40% to 27%). Liberals, a group that tends to place environmental issues high on their list of concerns, rate the governor's performance in this area higher (38%) than moderates (28%) or conservatives (25%). Older, higher-income, and moreeducated residents are more likely to disapprove of the governor's performance on environmental issues than are younger, lower-income, and less-educated residents. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling environmental issues in California? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 28% 64 8 30% 51 19 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 34% 12% 26% 58 84 67 847 34% 20% 26% 45 62 59 21 18 15 Nearly half of Californians (46%) think that the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment, while another 37 percent think it is doing just enough. One in ten residents thinks that the state is already doing more than enough to protect the environment. A plurality of residents in every region say that the state is not doing its job when it comes to the environment. Democrats are more critical of the state’s record on environmental issues than other voters: Over half of Democrats say the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment, compared to 41 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of independents. Conservatives (17%) are more likely than moderates (7%) or liberals (5%) to say that the state is doing more than enough. Women are more likely than men to believe that the state is not doing enough (53% to 39%). “Do you think the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California?” All Adults More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know 10% 37 46 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 4% 19% 12% 40 32 36 51 41 47 585 - 15 - Political Climate State Funding Since most Californians think that the environment is not getting enough attention from the state government, it is not surprising that a plurality (45%) would continue funding environmental programs at the current level, even if it means less money for other programs. In spite of the state’s record-breaking fiscal deficit, only 38 percent of Californians think that funding for environmental programs should be cut to help close the state’s budget gap and free up money for other programs. Sixty-one percent of those residents who think the state is not doing enough to protect the environment would like to maintain current environmental funding. Higher percentages of Democrats (50%) than Republicans (38%) think the state should continue to fund environmental programs at current levels. Whites express a stronger desire than Latinos (48% to 40%) to support continued environmental funding, even at the expense of other state programs. Central Valley residents are more divided than others when it comes to cutting back on environmental funding. Residents 35-54 years old (49%) are more likely than younger (45%) or older (40%) residents to favor maintaining current levels of funding for the environment. “The state government faces a large budget deficit, and program cuts are needed to balance the budget. Should the state government …” All Adults Continue to fund environmental programs at the current level, even if it means less funds for other programs Reduce funding for environmental programs, so that more funds are available for other programs Other Don't know 45% 38 6 11 Central Valley 40% 43 5 12 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 46% 44% 49% 35 38 35 565 14 12 11 How do Californians feel about a potentially large investment in a passenger-train system linking three major regions of the state? Almost two-thirds of Californians support a $10 billion state bond measure to construct such a system. Sixty-five percent of residents, and 60 percent of likely voters, say they would vote yes on the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act slated for the ballot in November 2004. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents, and 56 percent of Republicans support this measure. Support is slightly higher in Los Angeles (67%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (66%) than in Other Southern California (62%) and the Central Valley (61%). “The Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act is on the November 2004 state ballot. This is a $9.95 billion dollar bond measure that would fund the planning and construction of a high-speed train system in California, linking San Francisco to Los Angeles via the Central Valley. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this bond measure?” All Adults Yes No Don't know 65% 26 9 Party Registration Dem 69% 21 10 Rep 56% 34 10 Ind 67% 23 10 Latino 76% 20 4 - 16 - Political Climate National Politics Currently, 53 percent of state residents say they approve of the president’s overall performance in office. Bush’s approval rating in California continues to be lower than his national rating of 62 percent (based on a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll). The California numbers reflect declining approval of the president since the June 2002 environment survey (65% approval, 30% disapproval). There is a predictable partisan split in the current ratings: An overwhelming majority of Republicans (85%) approve of the president’s performance, while a solid majority of Democrats (63%) do not. Presidential ratings among Californians are lower when it comes to the environment. Nearly half of all Californians (48%) say they disapprove of the way Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States, while only 37 percent say they approve. These responses are similar to those in our June 2002 survey (44% disapproval, 39% approval). Women are more likely than men (51% to 44%) to disapprove of the president’s handling of the environment. And when it comes to the environment, even Republicans give the chief executive lower ratings than when they are asked to judge his performance overall (60% to 85%). Nonetheless, a partisan gap is still evident: Most Republicans (60%) approve of Bush’s stance on the environment, while most Democrats disapprove (66%). Reflecting the political divisions within the state, residents in the Central Valley (50%) and Other Southern California (42%) are much more likely than residents in Los Angeles (33%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (28%) to say that they approve of the way Bush has dealt with the environment. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 53% 41 6 37% 48 15 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 32% 63 5 85% 13 2 53% 43 4 20% 66 14 60% 28 12 32% 52 16 A majority of Californians (52%) think that the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment. However, perceptions about federal protection of the environment vary dramatically by political party. Seven in 10 Democrats feel that the federal government is not doing enough, while roughly seven in 10 Republicans feel it is doing just enough (51%) or more than enough (15%) to protect the environment. A majority of independents (52%) say the federal government is not doing enough, while four in 10 (42%) say it is. “Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States?” All Adults More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know 7% 36 52 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 3% 23 70 4 15% 51 29 5 10% 32 52 6 - 17 - July 2003 Political Climate Election 2004 Despite concern in California about the state budget deficit and the national economy, most Californians continue to express interest in environmental issues, and residents say they will consider the candidates' positions on environmental issues when it comes time to vote in the 2004 presidential election. Nearly nine in 10 Californians (86%) say that the candidates' positions on environmental issues will play an important role in determining how they vote. Overall, four in ten Californians (41%) say that the candidates' positions will be very important in determining how they cast their votes. Similar statements about the role of environmental policy in presidential politics were recorded in our June 2000 survey. Typically, feelings about the environment divide fairly strongly along partisan lines, with Democrats placing more emphasis on the importance of this issue, and Republicans viewing it as a relatively less important factor in their voting decisions. Nonetheless, a candidate’s stance on environmental issues is relevant for an overwhelming majority of potential voters: Nine in 10 Democrats (92%) and nearly as high a percentage of independents (88%), as well as eight in 10 Republicans (79%), indicate that the candidates' positions on the environment are important. “In thinking about the presidential election in 2004, how important are the candidates' positions on environmental issues—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy—in determining your vote?” All Adults Very important Somewhat important Not important Don't know 41% 45 11 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 49% 43 6 2 21% 58 20 1 46% 42 12 0 Most Californians believe that the political party they are affiliated with comes closest to representing their views on environmental policy: Seventy-two percent of Republicans think that the GOP tends to be closer to their own views when it comes to environmental policy, and 67 percent of Democrats feel the same way about the Democratic Party. It is interesting to note that 20 percent of all Californians believe that the Green Party is closest to their own views on the environment. Among independent voters, about one in three names the Green Party, one in three the Democratic Party, and 18 percent the GOP. Among self-identified liberals, 32 percent say that the Green Party is closest to their own views on environmental policy, while 45 percent name the Democratic Party and only 12 percent choose the Republican Party. “Which political party tends to be closer to you own views on environmental policy?” All Adults Republican Party Democratic Party Green Party Other answer Don't know 27% 39 20 3 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 5% 72% 18% 67 10 32 21 11 31 019 7 6 10 - 18 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Dorie Apollonio and Eliana Kaimowitz, survey research associates. The survey was conducted in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and benefited from discussions with staff at the foundations and their grantees and colleagues at other institutions; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 California adult residents interviewed between June 4 and June 15, 2003. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 18 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish; and Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,002 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,535 registered voters is +/- 2.5 percent. The sampling error for the 1,088 likely voters is +/- 3 percent, and the sampling error for each of the half samples is also +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions. “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. “SF 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, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. These four regions are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 28 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” In some cases, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in national surveys conducted by Newsweek, the Harris poll, the Gallup poll, and the CBS News/ New York Times poll. We used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE ENVIRONMENT JUNE 4—JUNE 15, 2003 2,002 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Which of the following best describes the city or community where you live—is it a large city, a suburb of a large city, a small city or town, or a rural area? (if large city: Would that be in the central part of the city?) (if suburb: Would that be an older or newer suburb?) 17% large city, central part 14 large city, other part 16 suburb, older 6 suburb, newer 27 small city 11 town 7 rural area 2 don’t know 2. Do you own or rent your current residence? 57% own 41 rent 2 neither 3. And how long have you lived at your current address—fewer than five years, five years to under 10 years, 10 years to under 20 years, or 20 years or more? 48% fewer than five years 19 five years to under 10 years 18 10 years to under 20 years 15 20 years or more 4. Changing topics, do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 31% right direction 57 wrong direction 12 don’t know 5. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 34% good times 55 bad times 11 don’t know 6. What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? 30% air pollution 10 water pollution 7 growth and sprawl 7 water supply 6 pollution in general 4 traffic congestion 3 energy 2 toxic wastes and contamination 2 landfills and garbage 1 protecting wildlife, endangered species 1 loss of farmlands, agriculture 1 loss of open space 1 global warming, global climate change 11 other (specify) 14 don’t know 7. Overall, how much progress do you think has been made in dealing with air pollution in California over the past 20 years? Would you say there has been a great deal of progress, only some progress, or hardly any progress at all? 28% a great deal 50 only some 16 hardly any 2 no progress (volunteered) 4 don’t know 8. How much optimism do you have that we will have better air quality in California 20 years from now than we do today—a great deal, only some, or hardly any optimism at all? 25% a great deal 49 only some 20 hardly any 2 no optimism (volunteered) 4 don’t know - 21 - We are interested in the region or broader geographic area of California that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems that other people have told us about. For each one, please tell me if it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region. [rotate questions 9 through 12] 9. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 62% big problem 26 somewhat of a problem 12 not a problem 10. How about the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs? 40% big problem 39 somewhat of a problem 17 not a problem 4 don’t know 11. How about air pollution? 31% big problem 45 somewhat of a problem 23 not a problem 1 don’t know 12a. [half sample] How about the availability of housing that you can afford? 56% big problem 26 somewhat of a problem 16 not a problem 2 don’t know 12b. [half sample] How about population growth and development? 42% big problem 33 somewhat of a problem 24 not a problem 1 don’t know 13. On another topic, would you say that your region is in an economic recession or not? (if yes: Do you think it is in a serious, moderate, or mild recession?) 18% yes, serious recession 28 yes, moderate recession 9 yes, mild recession 40 no 5 don’t know 14. On another topic, how serious 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 health threat? 18% very serious 40 somewhat serious 40 not too serious 2 don’t know 15. Do you or does anyone in your immediate family suffer from asthma or other respiratory problems? (if yes: Would that be you or someone in your immediate family?) 10% yes, respondent 21 yes, someone in immediate family 6 yes, both 63 no 16. Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago? 30% better 38 worse 16 same (volunteered) 16 don’t know 17. Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region? [read rotated list; then ask, “or something else”] 47% vehicle emissions 16 population growth and development 13 industry and agriculture 11 pollution from outside the area 5 weather and geography 1 something else (specify) 3 all of the above (volunteered) 4 don’t know We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 18 through 20] 18. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs (sports utility vehicles)? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase a new car?) 65% yes, even if more costly 10 yes, but not if more costly 19 no 6 don’t know - 22 - 19. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 47% yes, even if more costly 9 yes, but not if more costly 33 no 11 don’t know 20. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution regulations on manufacturing and commercial activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more difficult to create new jobs?) 54% yes, even if more difficult for jobs 19 yes, but not if more difficult for jobs 17 no 10 don’t know 21. More generally, which level of government do you think should have primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region? Should it be ... [read rotated list] 35% the state government 26 a regional air resources board 19 the local government 14 the federal government 3 other (specify) 3 don’t know 22. Changing topics, do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming? 68% yes, believe 19 no, do not believe 13 don’t know 23. Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet? 73% right away 20 not necessary yet 7 don’t know 24. Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime? 45% yes 50 no 5 don’t know 25. Should the federal government set new industrial standards to limit greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming? (if yes: Should the government rely on industries to voluntarily comply with these new standards, or should industries be legally required to meet these standards?) 66% yes, legally required 9 yes, voluntary compliance 16 no 9 don’t know 26. Do you think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to reduce greenhouse gases, or should the United States set its own standards independently? 52% join other countries 43 set standards independently 5 don’t know 27. Would you be willing to make major lifestyle changes to address the issue of global warming? 69% yes 22 no 9 don’t know 28. What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009? Do you support or oppose this law? 80% support 14 oppose 6 don’t know 29. In general, which one of these statements is closest to your view [rotate]: (a) Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth; or (b) Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent? 65% environment should be priority 24 economic growth should be priority 6 both equally (volunteered) 1 other (specify) 4 don’t know - 23 - July 2003 Changing topics, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 30 to 34] 30. How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 39% favor 54 oppose 7 don’t know 31. How about allowing new oil drilling in federallyprotected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness? 39% favor 55 oppose 6 don’t know 32. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if favor: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 75% favor, even if increased cost 12 favor, but not if increased cost 10 oppose 3 don’t know 33. How about changing federal regulations to require SUVs (sports utility vehicles) to meet the same fuel economy standards as regular passenger cars? 79% favor 16 oppose 5 don’t know 34. How about giving tax breaks to encourage people to buy cars powered by hybrid gas and electric engines? 81% favor 15 oppose 4 don’t know 35. What about the state law that requires doubling the use of renewable energy—such as wind and solar power— over the next ten years from 10 percent of all California power today to 20 percent? Do you support or oppose this law? 81% support 12 oppose 7 don’t know 36. Thinking about the vehicle that you primarily drive, is it a compact, mid-size, or full-size car, or is it another type of vehicle such as a van, pickup truck, or SUV (sports utility vehicle)? 30% compact car 25 mid-size car 8 full-size car 29 another type of vehicle 1 other (specify) 7 don’t drive [skip to question 43] 37. Thinking about the vehicle that you would ideally like to drive, is it smaller, larger, or the same size as the vehicle you currently drive? 20% smaller 18 larger 62 same size 38. On an average weekday, how much time do you spend driving for all reasons—including work, school, errands, and leisure—a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or none at all? 18% great deal 32 fair amount 47 not too much 3 none at all 39. How much do you like driving—a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or not at all? 23% a great deal 35 fair amount 32 not too much 10 not at all 40. When it comes to rating your primary vehicle's fuel economy or miles per gallon, would you say that you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 28% very satisfied 50 somewhat satisfied 15 somewhat dissatisfied 6 very dissatisfied 1 don’t know 41. How concerned are you that the vehicle you drive pollutes too much—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? 13% very concerned 31 somewhat concerned 29 not too concerned 26 not at all concerned 1 don’t know - 24 - 42a. [half sample] Within your price range, what matters most to you when you think about buying a car? [rotate list] 41% safety 23 fuel efficiency / miles per gallon 19 performance 6 appearance 4 pollution / emissions 4 other (specify) 3 don’t know 42b. [half sample] Would you seriously consider buying or leasing a smaller automobile as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution when replacing the vehicle that you now drive? 52% yes 37 no 9 already own or lease a small car (volunteered) 2 don’t know 43. Changing topics, overall do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 53% approve 41 disapprove 6 don’t know 44a. [half sample] And do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 37% approve 48 disapprove 15 don’t know 44b. [half sample] Overall, do you think that the federal government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in the United States? 7% more than enough 36 just enough 52 not enough 5 don’t know 45. Turning to the state, overall do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? 28% approve 64 disapprove 8 don’t know 46a. [half sample] Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling environmental issues in California? 30% approve 51 disapprove 19 don’t know 46b. [half sample] Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 10% more than enough 37 just enough 46 not enough 7 don’t know 47a. [half sample] The state government faces a large budget deficit, and program cuts are needed to balance the budget. Should the state ... [rotate] (a) continue to fund environmental programs at the current level, even if it means less funds for other programs, or (b) reduce funding for environmental programs, so that more funds are available for other programs? 45% continue to fund at current level 38 reduce funding 6 other (specify) 11 don’t know 47b. [half sample] The Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act is on the November 2004 state ballot. This is a 9.95 billion dollar bond measure that would fund the planning and construction of a high-speed train system in California, linking San Francisco to Los Angeles via the Central Valley. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this bond measure? 65% yes 26 no 9 don’t know 48. On another topic, there is an effort under way to remove Governor Gray Davis from office in a recall election. If a special election to recall Governor Davis were held today, would you vote yes to remove Davis as governor or no to keep Davis as governor? 48% yes, remove Davis as governor 42 no, keep Davis as governor 10 don’t know 49. When it comes to environmental policy in the state, do you think that removing Governor Davis from office would be a good thing or a bad thing, or would it make no difference? 24% good thing 15 bad thing 51 no difference 10 don’t know - 25 - July 2003 50a. [half sample] In thinking about the presidential election in 2004, how important are the candidates' positions on environmental issues—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy—in determining your vote: very important, somewhat important, or not important? 41% very important 45 somewhat important 11 not important 3 don’t know 50b. [half sample] Which political party tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy: [rotate] the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or the Green Party? 39% Democratic Party 27 Republican Party 20 Green Party 3 other (specify) 11 don’t know [51 – 59: demographic questions] 60. [if employed] How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, public bus or transit, walk, or some other means? 73% drive alone 13 carpool 5 public bus or transit 3 walk 1 bicycle 1 some other means (specify) 4 work at home (volunteered) 61. Would you seriously consider regularly commuting by public bus or transit as a way to reduce fuel use and air pollution? 45% yes 47 no 6 public bus or transit unavailable (volunteered) 2 don’t know 62. On a typical day, how long does it take you to commute one way from home to work—under 20 minutes, 20 minutes to under 40 minutes, 40 minutes to under one hour, or one hour or more? 48% under 20 minutes 30 20 minutes to under 40 minutes 13 40 minutes to under one hour 8 one hour or more 1 don’t know 63. How many licensed vehicles (cars, trucks, vans, jeeps, or campers) are owned or leased for personal use by all the members of your household? 4% 0 vehicles 29 1 vehicle 38 2 vehicles 17 3 vehicles 7 4 vehicles 2 5 vehicles 3 6 or more vehicles 64. Do you personally own or lease an SUV? 21% yes 79 no [65 – 69: demographic questions] - 26 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Angela Blackwell President Policy Link Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Monica Lozano President and Chief Operating Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas Executive Vice President Porter Novelli Max Neiman Director Center for Social and Behavioral Research University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Richard Schlosberg President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 27 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org"
["post_date_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:47"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(6) "closed"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(8) "s_703mbs"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:47"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:47"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["guid"]=>
string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_703MBS.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)
}