Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 704MBS

Authors

S 704MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

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

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_704MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1825568" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(94710) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY JULY 2004 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 on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose 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. 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 95,000 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 seventh in a series of eight surveys—two per year for four years—launched in May 2001. The intent of the survey series is to inform state, local, and federal 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, policy preferences, and political choices regarding air quality and energy-related issues. This special edition presents the responses of 2,505 adult residents throughout the state. With a large sample size and multilingual interviewing, we examine in detail the public’s perceptions of regional and statewide environmental conditions, preferences for state and national environmental policies, and the role of environmental policy preferences in ballot choices for the upcoming November 2004 election. Some of the questions are repeated from PPIC Statewide Surveys on the environment conducted in June 2000, June 2002, and July 2003. Other questions are repeated from recent national surveys to offer perspectives on the statewide surveys. More specifically, we examine the following issues: • The public’s perceptions of environmental conditions, including 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, perceived threat of air pollution to personal health, the effects of the recent increase in gasoline prices on driving behavior and vehicle choice, and the perceived effectiveness of the federal and state government in the environmental arena. • Public policy preferences, including rankings of environmental, fiscal, and economic priorities; attitudes toward automobile driving; perceptions of the threat of global warming; support for state programs to reduce greenhouse emissions, to remove polluting vehicles from the roads, and to develop alternative energy sources; and support for energy conservation programs. • Political choices, including ratings of the governor and president overall and on environmental issues; likely-voter choices for president and the U.S. Senate; the importance of environmental issues in the upcoming November 2004 election; support for a state bond to pay for high-speed passenger trains in California and state programs to improve air quality; and the political party (i.e., Democrat, Republican, Green), level of government, and presidential and U.S. Senate candidate viewed as representing the respondent’s own environmental positions. • Variations in environmental perceptions, public policy preferences, ballot choices, and political perspectives across the five major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Inland Empire, and Orange/San Diego); between Asians, blacks, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites; across socioeconomic and political groups; and between Californians and U.S. residents regarding environmental policy and political issues. 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- - ii - Contents Preface Press Release Perceptions Policies Politics Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 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 THE GREEN STATE: CALIFORNIANS WANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESPITE ECONOMIC, FINANCIAL COSTS Gas Prices, Air Pollution Could Change Vehicle Preferences; High Speed Rail, Hybrid Vehicles Get Boost From Pro-Environment Attitudes SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 22, 2004 — Californians’ priorities are clear… even if their air isn’t. Growing concerns over air pollution and related health dangers have led residents to place environmental protection and improvement above many other policy issues – including economic growth – according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) in collaboration with the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations. The survey’s large sample size (2,505) and multilingual interviews (conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese) make this the most comprehensive – and in some ways surprising – survey on state environmental conditions and policies to date. Despite California’s fiscal woes, majorities of Californians (55%) and likely voters (54%) say that the environment should be the top policy priority – even at the expense of economic growth. Moreover, by a two-to-one margin (55% to 28%), likely voters want the state to continue funding environmental programs at current levels. Still, the percentage of residents who think the state is not doing enough to protect the environment has dropped from 50 percent to 42 percent since 2000. The reason? Four years ago, 40 percent of Republicans said the state government was not doing enough for the environment; today just 24 percent say the same. “As it has with many issues, the partisan divide over environmental protection and regulation has widened dramatically in recent years,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. Spare the Air Air pollution tops the list of most important environmental issues facing the state, surpassing the next most important issue – pollution in general – by 25 points (33% to 8%). Since 2000, the percentage of Californians who say air pollution is a big problem in their own region has increased by 7 points (28% to 35%). The concern about air pollution is most strongly held by blacks (43%), Asians (41%), and Latinos (39%). A majority (59%) of residents also believe air pollution is at least a somewhat serious health threat to themselves or their families, and very few (23%) have high optimism that the state will have better air quality 20 years from now. Attention Detroit! Californians Give Thumbs Up to Fuel Efficiency, Lower Emissions The growing perception that California’s air is polluted – and that air pollution poses a serious health threat – may be part of the impetus behind a willingness to spend more money on technologies and programs to help alleviate the problem. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of state residents believe automakers should be required to significantly improve fuel efficiency in new vehicles sold in the U.S. – even if it increases consumers’ costs. An even higher percentage (81%) say they would back a state law requiring automakers to reduce the emission of -v- Press Release greenhouse gases from new cars by the year 2009. Support for such a law is high across the political spectrum (Democrats 88%, independents 86%, Republicans 71%) and among SUV owners (77%). Californians also appear willing to pay higher taxes and fees in the name of cleaner air: A majority of state residents (66%) and likely voters (62%) support increasing the vehicle license fee for new cars by six dollars to pay for a program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, trucks, and equipment. Ironically, rising costs are the stimulus behind changing consumer behavior and preferences: Nearly half (47%) of residents say they have already cut back on their driving due to high gas prices – even more (56%) believe higher fuel prices are here to stay – and two-thirds say that rising gasoline prices will make them think about purchasing a more fuel efficient car. Indeed, 63 percent say they would seriously consider buying or leasing a hybrid car (gas-electric). A large majority of the public (67%) also favors rewarding drivers of hybrid vehicles by allowing them to use carpool lanes when driving alone. “The degree of willingness people have to dig deeper into their wallets and to readily embrace new technologies show just how deeply environmental concerns resonate with Californians,” says Baldassare. These views also reflect anxiety about the dangers of greenhouse gases and a strong belief in the theory of global warming: 71 percent of Californians believe that unchecked amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will lead to global warming. Consistent with this concern, 76 percent believe immediate steps should be taken to counter the effects of this phenomenon. Governor Gets High Ratings Overall; Lower Ratings on Environment Although they have dropped modestly since May, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings remain high among residents (from 64% in May to 57% today), and likely voters (from 69% in May to 64% today). However, Californians are not as glowing when it comes to the governor’s handling of environmental issues: 39 percent approve and 27 percent disapprove. Despite their caution about Schwarzenegger’s environmental record, residents like his ideas for developing alternative energy sources. A solid majority of residents approve of the administration’s plan to encourage the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology – a proposal that calls for the construction of a “hydrogen highway” comprised of 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010. In a political twist, fewer Republicans (50%) than Democrats (59%) and independents (64%) support the idea. “On many environmental issues, the governor may end up drawing his most significant support from outside his own political party,” says Baldassare. An overwhelming majority (82%) of residents also endorse the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run partly on solar power starting in 2006. On this issue, there is majority support from across the political spectrum (Democrats 86%, independents 83%, Republicans 75%). Environment To Play a Role in November and Beyond Eighty-two percent of California’s likely voters say the environmental positions of presidential candidates are at least somewhat important to them – and 37 percent say they are very important – as they think about the upcoming election. When asked which candidate they trust more to handle environmental issues, voters choose Kerry over Bush by a wide margin (56% to 30%). Only about one-third of the public (32%) and likely voters (33%) approve of the way President Bush is currently handling environmental issues. Interestingly, when Ralph Nader’s name is included in the question about which candidate voters trust most on environmental issues, 31 percent choose Nader, considerably narrowing Kerry’s advantage over Bush (34% to 27%) on the issue. The president’s overall performance also receives less than majority support from residents (40%) and likely voters (42%). Not surprisingly, then, fewer likely voters support the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney ticket (38%) - vi - Press Release than support John Kerry/John Edwards (49%). Five percent say they would vote for the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo independent ticket. Beyond November, two pieces of proposed “pro-environment” legislation could find success if and when they appear on the ballot. A nearly ten billion dollar state bond proposal to construct a high-speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles currently enjoys majority support (57%) among likely voters. A majority of likely voters (59%) also support a proposed five billion dollar bond to fund air quality programs and reduce emissions. This measure has far more support among Latinos (70%), Asians (66%), and blacks (63%) than it does among whites (56%). More Key Findings • Dubious Distinction for Central Valley (page 3) The Central Valley ties Los Angeles (both 47%) as the region where the highest proportion of residents say air pollution is a big problem in their area. • Truckin’ (page 10) Most residents (90%) think trucks delivering goods – including those from Mexico – should meet federal air pollution standards. • Boxer Leads Jones in Senate Race (page 16) Senator Barbara Boxer has a 15-point lead among likely voters (52% to 37%) over Republican candidate Bill Jones. About the Survey The Californians and the environment survey – a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California, 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 seventh in a four-year series intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about growth, land use, and the environment. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,505 California adult residents interviewed between June 30 and July 14, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. For more information on methodology, see page 19. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. 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 on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on July 22. ### - vii - Percent who think air pollution is a "big problem" in their region 50 47 47 39 40 Percent all adults 30 26 24 20 10 0 CV LA IE OC/SD SF BA Percent who support a state law requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gases emissions 100 90 81 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All adults 88 Dem 71 Rep 86 Ind 2004 Presidential Race 26 5 Percent all adults Percent who think air pollution is a "very" or "somewhat" serious health threat 80 71 70 70 60 55 53 50 40 30 20 10 0 Latino Black Asian White Have you seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car due to rising gas prices? 2 32 66 yes, have considered it no, have not considered it don't know 2004 U.S. Senate Race 10 1 Percent 49 38 Likely Voters Kerry/ Edwards Bush/ Cheney Nader/ Camejo Other Don't know 52 37 Likely Voters Barbara Boxer Bill Jones Other Don't know Perceptions Most Important State Environmental Problem Air pollution continues to be seen as the most important environmental issue facing the state, with one in three residents (33%) mentioning this as the top problem. Similar percentages named air pollution as the state’s most pressing environmental issue in June 2000 (33%), June 2002 (34%), and July 2003 (30%). This year, other frequently mentioned state environmental issues are water supply; water pollution of the ocean, lakes, rivers, and streams; population growth and overpopulation; and pollution in general. While all racial/ethnic groups consider air pollution the top environmental problem, it is mentioned most frequently by Asians (40%) and blacks (39%) and least frequently by Latinos (30%) and whites (33%). Latinos and blacks are more likely than Asians and whites to say they are undecided on this issue. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” (top five mentions) Air pollution Pollution in general Water pollution of the ocean, rivers, lakes, and streams Water supply Growth and overpopulation All Adults 33% 8 7 6 6 Asians 40% 4 3 3 12 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 39% 30% 68 85 33 43 Whites 33% 8 8 9 7 Air pollution is considered the top environmental problem in all five major regions of the state; however, it is named more frequently in the Central Valley (40%) and Los Angeles County (41%) than in the San Francisco Bay Area (30%), the Inland Empire (33%), and the Orange/San Diego area (26%). Although voters from each of the major parties list air pollution as the top environmental issue, Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to mention this problem. And while air pollution is at the top of the list among all demographic groups, concern about poor air quality increases with education and income. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” (top five mentions) Air pollution Pollution in general Water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams Water supply Growth and overpopulation All Adults 33% 8 7 6 6 Central Valley 40% 6 4 6 5 SF Bay Area 30% 6 8 5 7 Region Los Angeles 41% 8 Orange/ San Diego 26% 7 Inland Empire 33% 11 6 12 3 579 577 -1- Perceptions State Trends In Air Quality How well has the state of California dealt with its most important environmental issue according to residents? About half (48%) say that we have made only some progress, while fewer than three in 10 (27%) say there has been a great deal of progress in the past 20 years. About one in five residents say there has been hardly any or no progress at all in controlling air pollution. While the perception of making a great deal of progress falls well short of a majority in every region of the state, Central Valley residents (20%) are the least likely to hold this view and Orange/San Diego residents (32%) are the most likely to believe there’s been a great deal of progress. There are significant differences across racial/ethnic groups, with whites (32%) more likely than Asians (17%), blacks (17%), and Latinos (20%) to believe a great deal of progress has been made. This belief is also more prevalent among Republicans than Democrats (38% to 24%). As for demographic differences, men are more likely than women (32% to 21%) to believe there has been a great deal of progress in dealing with air pollution, and this perception increases with age, education, and income. “How much progress do you think 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 Central SF Bay Adults Valley Area Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego Race/Ethnicity Inland Empire Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 27% 20% 26% 27% 32% 27% 17% 17% 20% 32% 48 53 48 46 45 50 49 52 48 47 19 21 18 20 17 18 25 24 23 16 22 1 2 0 143 2 1 44 7 5 6 454 7 4 Looking to the future, about half of Californians (47%) express only some confidence that we will have better air quality in California 20 years from now, while one in four (23%) have a great deal of optimism that air quality will improve. In all of the state’s major regions, and across all of its major racial/ethnic groups, fewer than three in 10 people have a great deal of optimism that air quality will be better 20 years from now. Republicans are more likely than Democrats (30% to 19%) to express a great deal of confidence that air quality will improve. As for age differences, 18 to 34 year olds are somewhat more negative (31%) than 35 to 54 year olds (26%) or those age 55 and older (23%), saying that they have hardly any or no hope we will have better air quality in California 20 years from today. “How much optimism do you have that we will have better air quality in California 20 years from now than we do today?” Region Race/Ethnicity All Central SF Bay Los Orange/ Inland Adults Valley Area Angeles San Diego Empire Asians Blacks Latinos Whites A great deal 23% 22% 22% 23% 26% 26% 20% 22% 23% 24% Only some 47 47 50 47 50 44 47 48 46 49 Hardly any 24 27 21 25 19 23 21 24 25 23 No optimism 3 3 3 3 3 473 2 3 Don't know 3 1 4 2 2 353 4 1 -2- Perceptions Regional Air Quality Asked to rate the severity of four problems in their region, more than six in 10 residents say traffic congestion (64%) and lack of affordable housing (63%) are big problems. Four in 10 (41%) say lack of job opportunities is a big problem, and more than one in three (35%) say the same of air pollution. Since our July 2003 survey, concerns about housing and air pollution have increased, while concern about jobs and traffic have held steady. The proportion seeing air pollution as a big problem in their region has grown four points since last year and seven points since our June 2000 survey. “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.” Percent who say the following are a “big problem” Traffic congestion on freeways and major roads The availability of housing that you can afford Lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs Air pollution June 00 * * * 28 May 01 60% 47 29 30 June 02 61% * * 34 July 03 62% 56 40 31 July 04 64% 63 41 35 In the Central Valley, the percentage of residents who say that air pollution is a big problem in their region has increased every year since our June 2000 survey, rising by 19 percentage points (from 28% to 47%)—a much larger increase over time than anywhere else in the state. Percent who say air pollution is a “big problem” Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/San Diego Inland Empire June 00 28% 26 40 20 28 May 01 33% 22 46 21 30 June 02 39% 27 47 26 35 July 03 42% 21 43 22 38 July 04 47% 24 47 26 38 This year’s survey finds that San Francisco Bay Area and Orange/San Diego residents are the least likely to rate air pollution as a big problem in their region. We also find significant differences across racial/ethnic groups: Asians (42%), blacks (43%), and Latinos (39%) are more likely than whites (32%) to consider air quality a big problem in their region. Democrats are more likely than Republicans (39% to 27%) to rate air quality as a big problem. Residents age 55 and older (30%) are somewhat less likely than 18 to 34 year olds (39%) and 35 to 54 year olds (35%) to consider air pollution a serious problem. “How about air pollution? Is this a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region?” All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles Big problem 35% 47% 24% 47% Somewhat 42 34 52 41 Not a problem 23 19 24 12 OC/ SD 26% 47 27 Inland Empire 39% 34 27 Asians 42% 39 19 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 43% 38 19 Latinos 39% 40 21 Whites 32% 43 25 - 3 - July 2004 Perceptions Personal Threats of Air Quality Six in 10 Californians (59%) believe that air pollution in their region is at least somewhat of a health threat to themselves and their immediate families, with 20 percent calling this threat very serious and 39 percent somewhat serious. There are differences across racial/ethnic groups in perceptions of air pollution as a health threat, with Latinos (28%) and blacks (30%) more likely to see it as a very serious threat than Asians (13%) or whites (17%). Similarly, a majority of residents in all regions say local air pollution threatens the health of themselves and their families at least somewhat; however, the proportion saying this is a very serious concern is greater in Los Angeles (28%) and the Central Valley (28%) than elsewhere in the state. The perception that air pollution is a serious health threat is also greater among women, younger residents, those with lower household incomes, and families with children at home. It is also higher among Democrats than among Republicans. “How serious a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” All Adults Central Valley Region SF Bay Los Area Angeles Very serious 20% 28% 13% 28% Somewhat serious 39 37 42 44 Not too serious Don’t know 40 34 44 27 11 1 1 OC/ SD 17% 36 46 1 Inland Empire 21% 34 42 3 Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 13% 30% 28% 17% 42 40 43 36 43 26 28 46 24 1 1 Although many Californians are concerned about air pollution, would they be willing to purchase or lease a more fuel-efficient automobile to help reduce the pollution? Nearly two in three (63%) say they would seriously consider owning or leasing a hybrid gas and electric vehicle. Nearly half (47%) say they would do so even if it were more costly for them. Just over half of those who think air pollution is a serious personal health threat (53%) and who believe that air pollution in their region is a big problem (52%) say that their next vehicle might well be a hybrid vehicle, even if it was more costly. Nearly half of those who drive alone to work (48%) or currently own or lease an SUV (44%) say they would consider having a hybrid vehicle, even if it carried a higher sticker price. Close to a majority of residents in each of the five regions and at least three in 10 across racial/ethnic groups agree with this position. Willingness to seriously consider leasing or purchasing a hybrid vehicle, even if it were more costly, increases with education and income and declines with age. Democrats (53%) are more likely than Republicans (37%) to seriously consider having a hybrid vehicle, even if it were more expensive than a conventional vehicle. “For your next automobile, would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you?)” All Adults Central Valley Region SF Bay Los Area Angeles Yes, even if more costly 47% 48% 50% 47% Yes, but not if more costly 16 15 15 17 No 24 25 23 21 Don't know 13 12 12 15 Race/Ethnicity OC/ Inland SD Empire Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 44% 44% 38% 35% 47% 49% 18 12 26 16 18 14 27 29 24 32 19 26 11 15 12 17 16 11 -4- Perceptions Effects of Gasoline Prices A majority of Californians (56%) believe that the recent jump in gasoline prices represents a permanent change in prices, and more than half (55%) also say that the price increases have caused them financial hardship. Californians are not alone: Americans throughout the country voiced these same concerns in a Gallup survey conducted in June. As might be expected, the financial effects of higher gasoline prices are felt most among lower-income residents. Among racial/ethnic groups, the effects are noticed most by Latinos (74%) and least by whites (46%). Across the state’s major regions, the greatest concern is in the Inland Empire (64%) and the least is in the San Francisco Bay Area (44%). Of those who say that their finances have been strained by the increase in gasoline prices, nearly two in three (63%) say they have cut back on their driving. “Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household?” Yes, have No, have not All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles 55% 59% 44% 57% 45 41 56 43 OC/ SD 53% 47 Inland Empire Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 64% 49% 58% 74% 46% 36 51 42 26 54 Overall, nearly half of Californians (47%) claim that they have cut back significantly on the amount they drive because of the recent spike in gasoline prices, once again mirroring recent national trends. Residents in the Inland Empire (55%) and Central Valley (53%) are the most likely to say they are driving less as a result of higher costs, while San Francisco Bay Area residents (40%) are the least likely to say they have done so. Blacks (65%) and Latinos (57%) are more likely to have reduced their driving than Asians (44%) and whites (42%). Upper-income residents are much less likely than lower-income residents to say they are driving less. Two in three Californians say they have seriously considered buying a more fuelefficient car as a result of the recent increase in gasoline prices; in the recent Gallup survey, just over half of Americans (53%) were of this same persuasion. A solid majority in every region and racial/ethnic group have considered the possibility of a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Younger residents (i.e., under age 35) are the most likely to entertain thoughts of buying a vehicle that offers better mileage. “As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not cut back significantly on how much you drive?” Region All Central SF Bay Los Adults Valley Area Angeles Yes, have 47% 53% 40% 49% No, have not 52 47 59 51 Don’t know 1 0 1 0 OC/ SD 44% 56 0 Inland Empire Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 55% 44% 65% 57% 42% 44 55 35 41 57 1 10 2 1 “As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle?” Yes, have No, have not Don't know All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles 66% 66% 65% 71% 32 33 33 27 21 2 2 OC/ SD 66% 33 1 Race/Ethnicity Inland Empire Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 60% 78% 61% 74% 63% 38 20 38 24 36 2 21 2 1 - 5 - July 2004 Perceptions Role of Government Most residents think the state government is doing an adequate job of protecting the environment in California, although four in 10 rate it as doing just enough and only one in 10 says it is doing more than enough. Four in 10 Californians (42%) say the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The percentage saying the state government is not doing enough has dropped 8 points since June 2000, when 50 percent held this view. What accounts for the changing perceptions of the involvement and responsibilities of the state government? An increasing division between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. Four years ago, 55 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans thought that the state was not doing enough to protect the environment. Today, 55 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans believe that the state is not doing enough. The gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown from 15 points in June 2000 to 31 points today. Regional differences follow the contours of this partisan divide: Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area residents are more likely than residents in other parts of the state to say that the state is not doing enough to protect the environment. There are also significant differences across demographic groups. Blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites and Asians to perceive that the state is doing an inadequate job when it comes to protecting the environment. Women are more likely than men to give the state a failing mark. Dissatisfaction is highest among younger, lower income, and highly educated residents. “Do you think the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California?” More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know All Adults 11% 40 42 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind CV SF 6% 22% 10% 14% 9% 34 47 41 40 40 55 24 42 39 42 5 7 779 Region Race/Ethnicity LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 8% 38 12% 11% 5% 44 46 47 5% 44 6% 39 14% 39 47 37 38 38 48 47 39 7 7 5 10 3 8 8 Nearly six in 10 Californians say that the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment nationwide, a considerably higher percentage than expressed dissatisfaction with the state. Democrats (74% to 55%), Republicans (31% to 24%), and independents (63% to 42%) are all more dissatisfied with the federal government than with the state government. San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles residents are more likely than residents in other regions, and blacks are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups, to think that the federal government is not doing enough on environmental issues. “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?” More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know All Party Registration Adults Dem Rep Ind Region Race/Ethnicity CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 6% 2% 12% 7% 10% 4% 5% 8% 32 21 52 26 37 29 29 35 5% 1% 39 44 3% 30 6% 30 7% 33 56 74 31 63 49 61 60 52 52 47 65 57 56 6 3 5 4 4 66 5 48 2 7 4 -6- Policies Fiscal and Economic Priorities Where do environmental programs rank in the current context of the state government’s multibillion dollar budget gap? Fifty-four percent of Californians want the state to continue to fund environmental programs at current levels, even if it means less funding for other programs, while 29 percent think that funding for environmental programs should be reduced, so that more funds are available for other programs. Among likely voters, continued funding is preferred over reduced funding by a two-to-one margin (55% to 28%). Majorities across party lines, racial/ethnic groups, regions, and income levels say that the state should continue to fund environmental programs at current levels. “The state government faces a gap between spending and revenues over the next few years. Should the state …” 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 answer Don't know All Adults 54% 29 5 12 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 49% 56% 24 35 28 544 12 12 12 Asians 56% 29 5 10 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites 49% 53% 55% 32 32 28 5 35 14 12 12 A similar 55 percent of Californians think that protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth, while 29 percent say that economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. In a recent Gallup survey, 49 percent of Americans said that protecting the environment should be given priority, and 44 percent said that economic growth should be given priority. In California today, sizeable majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (59%) want environmental protection to have priority over economic growth, while Republicans are nearly evenly split between economic growth (44%) and the environment (40%). Across racial/ethnic groups, majorities of Latinos (62%), blacks (56%), and whites (55%) lean toward environmental protection, while Asians favor environmental protection by a narrower margin (40% to 34%). Younger residents between the ages of 18 and 34 are more likely than residents age 55 and older to agree with this view. Majorities of likely voters (54%) and majorities of residents in the state’s major regions and across education, gender, and income categories say that the environment should have priority. A year ago, 65 percent of California adults said environmental protection should have priority, while the national Gallup survey figures were virtually the same as this year. “Which one of these statements is closest to your view:” All Adults Environment should be given priority Economic growth should be given priority Both equally (volunteered) Other answer / Don't know 55% 29 10 6 Party Registration Race/Ethnicity Dem Rep Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 65% 40% 59% 40% 56% 62% 55% 23 44 27 34 32 21 31 7 10 7 23 6 10 8 5 673 6 7 6 -7- Policies Global Warming A large majority of Californians believe that an increasing level of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere can lead to global warming. Seven in ten residents say they believe in this theory of global warming, while 17 percent say they do not believe it and 12 percent say they don’t know. In our July 2003 survey, similar percentages of Californians (68%) said they believed in global warming. A September 2002 Harris poll showed similar nationwide results, with 74 percent of Americans saying they believed in the theory of global warming. Belief in the global warming theory is strongest among Democrats (82%) and independents (76%) and drops off significantly among Republicans (50%). While belief in global warming does not vary across levels of income or education, we found generational differences: Seventy-five percent of residents between the ages of 18 and 34 say they believe in the theory of global warming, compared to 65 percent of those age 55 and older. There are also racial/ethnic differences when it comes to the public’s belief in global warming: About three-quarters of Asians (77%), blacks (74%), and Latinos (80%) compared to two-thirds of whites (66%) believe that carbon dioxide and other gases released in the atmosphere can lead to global warming. “Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming?” Yes, believe No, do not believe Don't know All Adults 71% 17 12 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 82% 50% 76% 9 37 16 9 13 8 Asians 77% 13 10 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 74% 80% 12 9 14 11 Whites 66% 22 12 Three in four Californians (76%) think we should take immediate action to counter the effects of global warming; 19 percent think we don’t need to address this issue right now. Fewer residents are undecided when asked about actions (5%) rather than beliefs (12%) about global warming. A stark partisan divide marks the public’s response: Eighty-six percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents think steps should be taken right away, while fewer Republicans (57%) think immediate action to counter global warming is necessary. Residents between the ages of 18 and 34 are more likely than those age 55 and older to say necessary steps to counter global warming should be taken right away. Large percentages of Latinos (84%) and blacks (79%) say an immediate response is needed, while fewer Asians (72%) and whites (73%) express a similar sense of urgency in countering the effects of global warming. “Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn't it necessary to take steps yet?” Right away Not necessary yet Don't know All Adults 76% 19 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 86% 57% 79% 10 35 17 484 Asians 72% 23 5 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 79% 84% 16 11 55 Whites 73% 21 6 -8- Policies State Policies to Reduce Global Warming Eight in 10 Californians support a state law that requires automakers to further reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009. Similarly high levels of support for this state law were evident in our June 2002 (81%) and July 2003 (80%) surveys. Public support for this law is high across partisan groups, but higher among Democrats (88%) and independents (86%) than among Republicans (71%). We found strong support among Asians (86%), Latinos (83%), blacks (81%), and whites (79%). Likewise, more than three in four residents across income, education, age, and gender groups favor the state law to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California. It is also interesting to note that nearly eight in 10 current SUV owners (77%) favor requiring automakers to further reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from new cars. “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?” Support Oppose Don't know All Adults 81% 12 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 88% 71% 86% 8 20 10 49 4 Asians 86% 8 6 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 81% 83% 10 9 98 Whites 79% 14 7 Some policymakers in Sacramento favor another piece of state legislation that could potentially reduce pollution on freeways and help improve the state’s air quality. The public strongly favors the idea of allowing drivers of hybrid gas-electric vehicles to use the carpool lanes on the freeways when driving alone. Nearly seven in ten Californians (67%) say this is a good idea, while one in four thinks it is a bad idea. Democrats (71%) and independents (73%) are more likely than Republicans (62%) to say this is a good idea. Across racial/ethnic groups, Asians (72%) are the strongest supporters of this idea, followed by whites (70%), Latinos (63%), and blacks (58%). Residents with higher levels of education and income are more likely than those with lower incomes and less education to favor the concept. “What about allowing solo drivers of hybrid gas-electric vehicles to use the carpool lanes on freeways?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 67% 26 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 71% 24 62% 32 73% 23 564 Asians 72% 18 10 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 58% 36 63% 28 69 Whites 70% 24 6 - 9 - July 2004 Policies State Policies to Remove Polluting Vehicles Many Californians not only think certain state proposals to reduce air pollution are good ideas—they are also willing to pay for them. A majority of state residents (66%) and likely voters (62%) favor a recent proposal to add six dollars to the vehicle license fee (VLF) for new cars and exempt new cars from smog checks for the first six years in order to pay for a state program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, tucks, and other equipment. There are, however, clear partisan differences in the public’s assessment of this approach to improving air quality: About seven in ten Democrats (70%) and independents (68%) think that adding six dollars to the VLF to pay for this pollution-reduction program is a good idea, while a slimmer majority of Republicans (56%) would agree. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (74%) and Asians (71%) are more likely than whites (64%) and much more likely than blacks (57%) to support this concept. Statewide, Inland Empire residents (61%) are the least likely to favor the program, while nearly seven in 10 residents of all other regions think it is a good idea. There is little variation across income groups. “What about adding six dollars to the vehicle license fee for new cars and exempting new cars from smog checks for the first six years in order to pay for a state program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, trucks, and other equipment?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 66% 28 6 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 70% 56% 68% 24 39 29 65 3 Asians 71% 19 10 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 57% 74% 38 22 54 Whites 64% 30 6 State residents overwhelmingly support the idea of requiring all trucks that deliver goods into California, including trucks from Mexico, to meet federal air pollution standards—a proposal in response to a recent court ruling on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Nine in 10 Californians say this is a good idea; only 8 percent say it is a bad idea. Support for this proposal is uniformly high across political party lines and racial/ethnic, income, and education categories. There are no significant political divisions on this issue, with overwhelming majorities of Democrats (92%), Republicans (87%), and independents (92%) saying that it is a good idea to require that all trucks meet federal air pollution standards. About nine in 10 Asians (90%), blacks (93%), Latinos (90%), and whites (90%) support this proposal. Large majorities of those who prioritize environmental protection (93%) and those who prioritize economic growth (85%) think it is a good idea to require that all trucks delivering goods into California meet federal air quality standards. Good idea Bad idea Don't know “What about requiring all trucks that deliver goods into California, including trucks from Mexico, to meet federal air pollution standards?” All Adults 90% 8 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 92% 87% 92% 6 11 7 22 1 Asians 90% 5 5 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 93% 90% 68 12 Whites 90% 8 2 - 10 - Policies State Policies for Alternative Energy Sources Nearly six in 10 Californians (57%) favor the plan by the Schwarzenegger administration to have California lead the nation in the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology by building a “hydrogen highway” with 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010. One in four believes this plan is a bad idea, and two in 10 say they don’t know enough about it to have an opinion. Across political ideology, Republicans are the most skeptical about this proposal. Only half think that building a hydrogen highway is a good idea, compared to 59 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents who think the plan has merit. Democrats and Republicans (both 19%) are more likely than independents (13%) to say they don’t have an opinion on this issue. A higher percentage of men than women say the hydrogen highway plan is a good idea (63% to 51%). Younger residents, ages 18 to 34, are much more likely than older residents, age 55 and older, to say the plan is a good idea (63% to 50%). Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks (53%) and whites (54%) are less enthusiastic than Asians (68%) and Latinos (63%) about the idea of developing hydrogen fuel cell technology and building a hydrogen highway in California. “What about a plan to have California lead the nation in the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology by building a “hydrogen highway” with 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 57% 23 20 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 50% 64% 22 31 23 19 19 13 Asians 68% 15 17 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 53% 63% 32 17 15 20 Whites 54% 26 20 Among Californians, solar power represents a popular source of alternative energy for new homes in the state. Eight in 10 residents say that the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run at least partially on solar power starting in 2006 is a good idea, while 13 percent think it is a bad idea; the survey question did not address the cost implications of this proposal. Although this proposal receives 70 percent or higher support across political and demographic groups, there are some interesting differences in the public’s support. Republicans are less likely than Democrats to say that the goal of having new homes run on solar power is a good idea (75% to 86%). Seventy-four percent of blacks favor this idea, compared to 86 percent of Asians, 85 percent of Latinos, and 81 percent of whites. In general, the public strongly supports the idea of increasing the use of renewable energy (for example, wind and solar power). Nearly nine in 10 residents (87%) think it would be a good idea to double the use of renewable energy over the next ten years from 10 percent of all California power today to 20 percent. At least eight in 10 residents of all racial/ethnic backgrounds and across partisan lines support this idea. “What about the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run at least partially on solar power starting in 2006?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 82% 13 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 86% 75% 83% 9 20 14 553 Asians 86% 8 6 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 74% 85% 20 9 66 Whites 81% 14 5 - 11 - July 2004 Policies Energy Conservation Programs Similar to our survey results a year ago, 50 percent of a strongly divided electorate oppose more oil drilling off the California coast and 51 percent oppose new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness. Solid majorities of Republicans favor new drilling, and strong majorities of Democrats are against new drilling, both offshore and in federally-protected areas. In contrast to these issues related to energy supply, there is bipartisan support for energy conservation programs. Nearly three in four Californians favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel economy of cars sold in this country—even if it increases the cost of buying a new car. Another 14 percent of residents would also favor such a mandate, but only if it did not increase the cost of vehicles. Only 8 percent of residents are opposed to such regulation. Support for new fuel efficiency requirements is high across partisan groups and geographic regions of the state. While majorities of Californians of all racial/ethnic backgrounds favor significantly stricter requirements for automakers, whites (79%) are more likely than blacks (71%), Asians (64%), and Latinos (61%) to favor new regulations regardless of whether they increase the cost of buying a new car. Eightytwo percent of residents with household incomes of $80,000 or more favor new requirements on automakers even if vehicle costs increase, compared to a lower percentage (65%) of those with incomes under $40,000. Support for new fuel efficiency requirements increases modestly with age. SUV owners are as equally likely as non-SUV owners to support fuel-efficiency requirements. “How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if yes: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?)” All Adults Favor, even if more costly Favor, but not if more costly Oppose Don't know 73% 14 8 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 81% 71% 75% 10 12 13 5 11 8 464 Asians 64% 19 9 8 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 71% 61% 15 23 79 77 Whites 79% 9 7 5 A large majority of Californians (79%) also support a proposal that all western states increase their energy efficiency by 20 percent by the year 2020. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson set this goal at the June 2004 meeting of the Western Governor’s Association. Support for the initiative is high across regions of the state, in all partisan groups, among those from all racial/ethnic backgrounds, and among both those who prioritize economic growth and those who prioritize environmental protection. “How about setting the objective that all western states increase their energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2020?” All Adults Favor Oppose Don't know 79% 13 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 82% 77% 81% 10 15 13 886 Asians 85% 7 8 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 75% 70% 14 20 11 10 Whites 82% 11 7 - 12 - Politics Governor’s Ratings About six in 10 California residents (57%) and likely voters (64%) approve of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor. While these approval ratings are still highly positive, they have slid somewhat from the high levels that were recorded in our May survey, when 64 percent of Californians and 69 percent of likely voters approved of the governor’s overall performance in office. The governor continues to draw stronger support from Republicans than Democrats, and his ratings have not changed much in the major party voter groups since our May survey; however, his approval ratings have fallen 7 points among independent voters since May (63% to 56%). Schwarzenegger is highly popular among Asians and whites, but his approval ratings drop below 50 percent among blacks and Latinos. Only one-third of Latinos today approve of the job the governor has been doing, while a majority now say they disapprove. The regional differences follow party lines, with stronger support for the governor evident outside of the Democratic-leaning San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” Party All Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Likely Adults Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters Approve 57% 49% 84% 56% 63% 51% 54% 62% 65% 61% 46% 33% 70% 64% Disapprove 29 36 9 29 26 32 34 23 25 18 41 54 Don't know 14 15 7 15 11 17 12 15 10 21 13 13 18 24 12 12 The governor’s approval ratings are considerably lower when it comes to his handling of environmental issues in California, with 39 percent of adults and likely voters saying they approve. This lower rating is largely because about one in three adults and likely voters have yet to develop an opinion about the governor’s environmental record. Similar to his overall ratings, about one in four adults and likely voters say they disapprove of the way he is handling environmental issues. While six in 10 Republicans approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues, Democrats (28%) and independents (39%) are far less likely to give him positive ratings. Schwarzenegger’s environmental ratings are higher outside the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County, following partisan trends. Across racial/ethnic groups, whites are the most positive (44%) and Latinos the least positive (29%) about the governor’s environmental record to date. In comparing the current approval ratings on environmental issues, Governor Gray Davis’s approval ratings on environmental issues were 36 percent in June 2000, 35 percent in June 2002, and 30 percent in July 2003. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California?” Party All Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Likely Adults Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters Approve 39% 28% 60% 39% 47% 33% 36% 41% 40% 39% 32% 29% 44% 39% Disapprove 27 36 9 26 26 26 32 24 26 21 40 44 Don't know 34 36 31 35 27 41 32 35 34 40 28 27 19 26 37 35 - 13 - Politics President’s Ratings President George W. Bush, in contrast to Governor Schwarzenegger, continues to draw more negative than positive ratings in California. A majority of residents (54%) disapprove of the way he is handling his job, and 40 percent approve—similar to his approval ratings in May 2004. California’s likely voters are similarly disapproving of Bush. A year ago, the president’s approval ratings were nearly the reverse of today’s— in July 2003, 53 percent of Californians approved of his job performance and 41 percent disapproved. Compared to a year ago, the president’s ratings are still high among Republicans (85% last year, 78% today) but they have fallen sharply among independent voters (53% to 33%) and declined among Democrats as well (32% to 17%). Across the state’s regions, the president receives support from about half of the Californians living in the Central Valley, Orange/San Diego, and the Inland Empire. In the Democratic-leaning San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, majorities of residents disapprove of the president’s job performance. Although majorities in all racial/ethnic groups now disapprove of the president’s performance, whites are most favorable and blacks are least favorable. Bush’s approval ratings are higher among older than younger adults. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States?” Party All Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Likely Adults Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters Approve 40% 17% 78% 33% 52% 27% 36% 48% 48% 35% 14% 36% 46% 42% Disapprove 54 80 18 61 42 67 59 46 46 53 80 56 50 55 Don't know 6 3 4 6 6 6 5 6 6 12 6 8 43 The president’s ratings are even lower when it comes to environmental issues, with only one in three Californians (32%) and likely voters (33%) approving of his performance. To a certain extent, this reflects a larger number of no opinions regarding his environmental record. Closely paralleling the overall approval ratings for the president, a majority of all adults (53%) and likely voters (58%) disapprove of his performance on environmental issues. Among all California residents, the president’s disapproval ratings on handling environmental issues have increased from 44 percent in June 2002 to 48 percent in July 2003 to 53 percent in the current survey. The president’s disapproval ratings on environment issues are much higher than those noted for the governor (53% to 27%). Six in 10 Republicans support the president on environmental issues, while eight in 10 Democrats and nearly six in 10 independents do not. Among Republicans, disapproval is 7 points higher when it comes to Bush’s environmental record compared to his overall job performance. Residents of the Central Valley, Orange/San Diego, and the Inland Empire are more positive, but his approval ratings on environmental issues falls below 50 percent in all regions. Eight in 10 blacks, compared to about half of Asians, Latinos, and whites, disapprove of the way Bush has handled environmental issues. Disapproval increases with education and is unrelated to age. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States?” All Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Likely Adults Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters Approve 32% 13% 60% 26% 43% 23% 28% 35% 34% 27% 11% 33% 34% 33% Disapprove 53 79 25 57 44 62 57 48 48 49 79 49 52 58 Don't know 15 8 15 17 13 15 15 17 18 24 10 18 14 9 - 14 - Politics Presidential Election The top-of-the-ticket race on the November 2004 ballot in California is the presidential election. Among likely voters, the John Kerry / John Edwards Democratic ticket leads the George W. Bush / Dick Cheney Republican ticket in the state by an 11-point margin (49% to 38%). Kerry/Edwards have solid Democratic support (82%) and Bush/Cheney have strong GOP support (77%), while independents lean toward the Democratic ticket (50% to 25%). Following the partisan divide, the Democrats lead in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, while the Republicans lead in the Central Valley, Inland Empire, and Orange/San Diego Counties. Although the race is relatively close among white voters, Kerry/Edwards have a strong lead among Asian, black, and Latino voters. As for the gender gap, men are equally divided between Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney, while women favor the Democrats by a wide margin. “If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for:” Results among likely voters All Likely Voters Party Registration Democrat Republican Independent Central Valley Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/San Diego Inland Empire Asians Blacks Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites Gender Male Female John Kerry and John Edwards 49% 82 15 50 36 64 52 41 38 53 75 55 46 45 53 George W. Ralph Nader Bush and and Peter Dick Cheney Camejo 38% 5% 10 4 77 2 25 8 52 2 23 5 33 7 46 5 47 4 26 5 12 4 33 4 41 5 42 5 33 5 Other answer 2% 1 1 3 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 Don't know 6% 3 5 14 8 5 8 6 10 16 9 8 6 6 8 How important are environmental issues in the presidential contest? Thirty-seven percent of likely voters say the candidates’ environmental positions are very important in determining their vote. The significance of environmental issues varies between Democrats and Republicans and across regions and racial/ethnic groups. “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?” Results among likely voters Likely Voters Party Registration Dem Rep Ind CV Region OC/ SF LA SD Race/Ethnicity IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very important 37% 51% 19% 36% 34% 40% 42% 32% 28% 29% 45% 54% 34% Somewhat important 45 39 52 47 45 46 42 51 47 61 36 38 46 Not important 17 8 27 16 20 13 14 16 23 9 15 8 18 Don't know 1 2 21 11212 1 4 0 2 - 15 - July 2004 Politics U.S. Senate Race The U.S. Senate election is the other statewide candidate race on the November 2004 ballot in California. Currently, incumbent U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer holds a 15-point lead over Republican Bill Jones (52% to 37%). Boxer has strong support among Democrats (85%), and Jones has strong support among Republicans (77%); independents are leaning toward Boxer (57% to 25%). Jones’s strongest support lies in the Inland Empire; he and Boxer are in a statistical dead heat in the Orange/San Diego region and in the Central Valley; and Boxer currently has a large lead over Jones in both the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. While the race between Boxer and Jones is relatively close among white voters (47% to 43%), Boxer currently has a high double-digit lead over Jones due to strong support among Asian, black, and Latino voters. As for the gender gap, Boxer leads Jones by a narrower margin among men (49% to 41%) than among women (55% to 32%). “If the 2004 U.S. Senate election were being held today, would you vote for:” Results among likely voters All Likely Voters Democrat Party Registration Republican Independent Central Valley Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/San Diego Inland Empire Asians Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites Gender Male Female Barbara Boxer, the Democrat 52% 85 13 57 42 68 55 45 32 65 83 65 47 49 55 Bill Jones, the Republican 37% 8 77 25 47 27 31 43 52 23 7 20 43 41 32 Other answer 1% 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 0 2 1 1 2 1 Don't know 10% 7 9 16 10 4 13 12 13 12 8 14 9 8 12 How important are environmental issues in California’s U.S. Senate race? Thirty nine percent of voters say the candidates’ environmental positions are very important in determining their vote; however, opinions on the importance of environmental issues vary across party lines, regions of the state, and racial/ethnic groups. “In thinking about the California U.S. Senate 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?” Results among likely voters Likely Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Voters Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very important Somewhat important Not important 39% 46 14 54% 38 7 20% 55 24 38% 49 13 35% 43% 43% 49 44 42 15 12 13 34% 52 13 32% 45 21 35% 54 9 49% 35 12 55% 37 7 36% 47 16 Don't know 1 1 1 0 112 12 2 4 1 1 - 16 - Politics State Bonds Two potential multibillion dollar state bond measures intending to expand the state’s non-automobile transportation choices and improve air quality are drawing a surprisingly high level of public support, given the state government’s ongoing fiscal constraints, including a multibillion dollar gap between spending and revenues. The Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act—a $9.95 billion state bond to plan and construct a highspeed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles through the Central Valley—was placed on the November 2004 ballot by the legislature and recently withdrawn by the legislature in favor of a vote in November 2006. At this time, 57 percent of likely voters favor this bond measure, 34 percent are opposed, and 9 percent are undecided. The high-speed train bond is favored by a majority of likely voters in all regions. Majorities of likely voters across party lines also support the train bond, although favor is stronger among Democrats (62%) and independents (59%) than among Republicans (52%). The proposed bond measure also draws majority support in all racial/ethnic groups. “Slated for the November 2006 state ballot is the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act— 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?” Results among likely voters Yes No Don't know Likely Voters 57% 34 9 Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity OC/ Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 62% 52% 59% 59% 61% 54% 57% 56% 65% 53% 64% 57% 29 40 34 34 31 36 36 30 24 39 32 34 9 8 7 7 8 10 7 14 11 8 4 9 The California Clean Air Bond Act proposed in the state legislature may also be headed for a future state ballot. This measure draws similar support, with 59 percent of likely voters saying they would vote yes on this $5.2 billion bond to fund air quality programs, while one in three is opposed and one in 10 undecided. Although the Clean Air Bond draws solid support from Democrats (70%) and independents (62%), Republicans are evenly divided between those inclined to vote yes and no (44% to 46%). The proposed bond measure is favored by majorities of likely voters in all racial/ethnic groups and regions, with support especially strong among Latinos (70%) and Asians (66%) and among voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (65%) and Los Angeles (61%). “The proposed California Clean Air Bond Act would provide 5.2 billion dollars in bond money to pay for air quality programs across the state, including financial incentives to reduce harmful emissions from farm equipment. If the election were held today would you vote yes or no?” Results among likely voters Yes No Don't know Party Registration Likely Region Race/Ethnicity Voters Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 59% 70% 44% 62% 55% 65% 61% 55% 56% 66% 63% 70% 56% 32 21 46 29 38 26 31 33 34 25 29 26 9 9 10 9 798 12 10 9 8 4 33 11 - 17 - July 2004 Politics Environmental Politics To further assess the importance of environmental issues in voters’ decisions, we asked Californians whether the federal or the state government, and whether the Republican or the Democratic Party, best reflects their own views on environmental policy. We also asked them which of the major party candidates for president and the U.S. Senate in the November election would do a better job in handling environmental issues. Among likely voters, there was general consensus on the first question. When asked whether the state or the federal government’s environmental policies are closer to their own views, likely voters pick Sacramento over Washington (57% to 26%). State government is the top choice by a majority of voters in all political groups and regions; however, Republicans and Central Valley voters are the least likely to choose the state government. Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks and Latinos are somewhat more likely than whites and Asians to say that the policies of the state government are closer to their own environmental views. “Which level of government tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy:” Results among likely voters State government Federal government Other answer Don't know Likely Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Voters Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 57% 65% 47% 58% 49% 68% 58% 54% 56% 56% 63% 61% 56% 26 19 35 25 34 16 28 26 27 30 27 25 25 3 3 15 123 14 13 17 12 16 14 11 21 18 16 2 12 14 9 10 2 17 When asked to assess the environmental policies of the major political parties, 56 percent of likely voters say the Democratic Party’s environmental platform is closest to their own preferences, and 32 percent choose the Republican Party. Most Democrats (86%) and Republicans (71%) name their own party, while independents say they lean more toward the Democrats than the Republicans on environmental issues (55% to 25%). When the Green Party is offered as a third alternative, 25 percent of likely voters favor the Green Party, and the Democratic Party is chosen over the Republican Party by a much narrower 8-point margin (38% to 30%). “Which political party tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy:” Results among likely voters Likely Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Voters Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Democratic Party 56% 86% 21% 55% 44% 67% 64% 48% 46% 60% 80% 63% 52% Republican Party 32 4 71 25 46 19 26 37 41 23 7 17 Other answer 6 3 2 14 6 8 4 56 0 3 10 Don't know 6 7 6 6 4 6 6 10 7 17 10 10 38 6 4 When asked which of the major parties’ presidential candidates they trust the most in handling environmental issues, likely voters choose Kerry over Bush by a 26-point margin (56% to 30%), with voters deeply divided along partisan lines (82% of Democrats for Kerry, 64% of Republicans for Bush, and 64% of independents for Kerry). When we add Ralph Nader to the list of candidates, Kerry’s advantage over Bush shrinks to 7 points (34% to 27%) percent, with 31 percent of likely voters choosing Nader. When asked which of the major parties’ U.S. Senate candidates they trust the most in handling environmental issues, voters choose Boxer over Jones by a 26-point margin (54% to 28%), with voters again deeply divided along partisan lines (79% of Democrats for Boxer, 57% of Republicans for Jones, and 60% percent of independents for Boxer). - 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, associate survey director, Eliana Kaimowitz and Renatta DeFever, survey research associates, and Kimberly Curry, survey summer intern. 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 2,505 California adult residents interviewed between June 30 and July 14, 2004. 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 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. We chose these languages because Spanish is the dominant non-English language in the state, and these three Asian languages account for most of the non-English speaking Asian adults in California. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. translated the survey into Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese and 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 2,505 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 1,927 registered voters is +/- 2.3 percent. The sampling error for the 1,378 likely voters is +/- 2.7 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. The reported numbers for Asian and black likely voters are from a small sample base. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to five geographic regions. “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, “Inland Empire” includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego Counties. These five regions represent the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for respondents in the four self-identified racial/ethnic groups of Asian, black, Latino, and white. We also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” We also analyze the responses of “likely” voters— those who are the most likely to participate in the state’s elections. In some cases, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in national surveys conducted by Gallup and the Harris Poll. We use earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE ENVIRONMENT JUNE 30—JULY 14, 2004 2,505 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS: ENGLISH, SPANISH, CHINESE, KOREAN, AND VIETNAMESE 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 suburb or a newer suburb?) 19% large city, central part 14 large city, not central part 15 suburb, older 6 suburb, newer 29 small city 8 town 8 rural area 1 don’t know 2. Do you own or rent your current residence? 56% own 42 rent 2 neither (volunteered) 3. 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 16 10 years to under 20 years 17 20 years or more 4. Changing topics, do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 43% right direction 43 wrong direction 14 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? 48% good times 40 bad times 12 don’t know 6. What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [open-ended list] 33% air pollution 8 pollution in general 7 water pollution 6 water supply 6 population growth and overpopulation 5 energy 3 traffic congestion 3 toxic waste and contamination 3 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 2 loss of open space 1 protecting wildlife, endangered species 1 loss of farmlands, agriculture 1 loss of parks, agriculture 1 global warming, global climate change 6 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? 27% a great deal 48 only some 19 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? 23% a great deal 47 only some 24 hardly any 3 no optimism (volunteered) 3 don’t know - 21 - Next, 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 to 12] 9. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 64% big problem 22 somewhat of a problem 13 not a problem 1 don’t know 10. How about the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs? 41% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 19 not a problem 3 don’t know 11. How about air pollution? 35% big problem 42 somewhat of a problem 23 not a problem 12. How about the availability of housing that you can afford? 63% big problem 22 somewhat of a problem 13 not a problem 2 don’t know 13. 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? 20% very serious 39 somewhat serious 40 not too serious 1 don’t know 14. For your next automobile, would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 47% yes, even if more costly 16 yes, but not if more costly 24 no 13 don’t know/ not applicable 15. 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? 71% yes, believe 17 no, do not believe 12 don’t know 16. 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? 76% right away 19 not necessary yet 5 don’t know 17. 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? 81% support 12 oppose 7 don’t know State policies are being considered to reduce air pollution and improve energy efficiency in California. Do you think the following policies are good ideas or bad ideas? [rotate questions 18 to 23] 18. What about allowing solo drivers of hybrid gaselectric vehicles to use the carpool lanes on freeways—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 67% good idea 26 bad idea 7 don’t know 19. What about the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run at least partially on solar power starting in 2006—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 82% good idea 13 bad idea 5 don’t know 20. What about 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 think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 87% good idea 8 bad idea 5 don’t know - 22 - 21. What about adding six dollars to the vehicle license fee for new cars and exempting new cars from smog checks for the first six years in order to pay for a state program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, trucks, and other equipment—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 66% good idea 28 bad idea 6 don’t know 22. What about requiring all trucks that deliver goods into California, including trucks from Mexico, to meet federal air pollution standards—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 90% good idea 8 bad idea 2 don’t know 23. What about a plan to have California lead the nation in the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology by building a “hydrogen highway” with 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 57% good idea 23 bad idea 20 don’t know 24. In general, which one of these statements is closest to your view: (rotate) Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth; or Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent? 55% environment should be given priority 29 economic growth should be given priority 10 both equally (volunteered) 1 other answer (specify) 5 don’t know 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 25 to 28] 25. How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 44% favor 50 oppose 6 don’t know 26. How about allowing new oil drilling in federallyprotected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness? 42% favor 51 oppose 7 don’t know 27. 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?) 73% favor, even if it increased the cost of buying a new car 14 favor, but not if it increased the cost of buying a new car 8 oppose 5 don’t know 28. How about setting the objective that all the western states increase their energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2020? 79% favor 13 oppose 8 don’t know 29. 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 (sport-utility vehicle)? 27% compact car 25 mid-size car 10 full-size car 29 another type of vehicle such as van, pickup, or SUV 7 don’t drive [skip to q34] 2 don’t know 30. Thinking about the cost of gasoline, do you think the current rise in gas prices represents [rotate] a temporary fluctuation in prices; or a permanent change in prices? 39% temporary fluctuation 56 permanent change 5 don’t know 31. Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? 55% yes, caused hardship 45 no, not caused hardship 32. As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices, would you say that you have or have not cut back significantly on how much you drive? 47% yes, have 52 no, have not 1 don’t know - 23 - July 2004 33. As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices, would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? 66% yes, have 32 no, have not 2 don’t know 34. 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? 40% approve 54 disapprove 6 don’t know 35. And do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 32% approve 53 disapprove 15 don’t know 36. 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? 6% more than enough 32 just enough 56 not enough 6 don’t know 37. Turning to the state: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 57% approve 29 disapprove 14 don’t know 38. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 39% approve 27 disapprove 34 don’t know 39. Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 11% more than enough 40 just enough 42 not enough 7 don’t know 40. The state government faces a gap between spending and revenues over the next few years. Should the state: [rotate] continue to fund environmental programs at the current level, even if it means less funds for other programs; or reduce funding for environmental programs, so that more funds are available for other programs? 54% continue to fund at current level 29 reduce funding 5 other answer (specify) 12 don’t know [Responses recorded for questions 41 through 50 are from likely voters only. All other responses are from all adults] [rotate questions 41 and 42] 41. Slated for the November 2006 state ballot is the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act— 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? 57% yes 34 no 9 don’t know 42. The proposed California Clean Air Bond Act would provide 5.2 billion dollars in bond money to pay for air quality programs across the state, including financial incentives to reduce harmful emissions from farm equipment. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no? 59% yes 32 no 9 don’t know - 24 - Q43a was asked from June 30 to July 5; Q43b was asked from July 6—when John Kerry announced John Edwards as his running mate—until the end of the survey. Q43a reports the results from interviews with 314 likely voters; Q43b reports the results from 1,064 likely voters. 43a.Changing topics, if the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] George W. Bush, the Republican; John Kerry, the Democrat; or Ralph Nader, an independent? 46% John Kerry, the Democrat 39 George W. Bush, the Republican 6 Ralph Nader, an independent 2 other answer (specify) 7 don’t know 43b.Changing topics, if the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] the Republican ticket of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney; the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards; or an independent ticket of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo? 49% John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats 38 George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans 5 Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, independents 2 other answer (specify) 6 don’t know 44a. [half sample] Whom do you trust to do a better job in handling environmental issues: [rotate] George W. Bush or John Kerry? 56% John Kerry 30 George W. Bush 3 other answer (specify) 11 don’t know 44b. [half sample] Whom do you trust to do a better job in handling environmental issues: [rotate] George W. Bush, John Kerry, or Ralph Nader? 34% John Kerry 31 Ralph Nader 27 George W. Bush 1 other answer (specify) 7 don’t know - 25 - 45. 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? 37% very important 45 somewhat important 17 not important 1 don’t know 46. If the 2004 U.S. Senate election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] Barbara Boxer, the Democrat; or Bill Jones, the Republican? 52% Barbara Boxer, the Democrat 37 Bill Jones, the Republican 1 other answer (specify) 10 don’t know 47. Whom do you trust to do a better job of handling environmental issues [rotate] Barbara Boxer; or Bill Jones? 54% Barbara Boxer 28 Bill Jones 1 other answer (specify) 17 don’t know 48. In thinking about the California U.S. Senate election in 2004, how important are the candidate’s positions on environmental issues—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy—in determining your vote: very important, somewhat important, or not important? 39% very important 46 somewhat important 14 not important 1 don’t know 49a. [half sample] Which political party tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy: [rotate] the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? 56% Democratic Party 32 Republican Party 6 other answer (specify) 6 don’t know 49b. [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? 38% Democratic Party 30 Republican Party 25 Green Party 1 other answer (specify) 6 don’t know July 2004 50. Which level of government tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy: [rotate] the state government or the federal government? 57% state government 26 federal government 3 other answer (specify) 14 don’t know 51. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 26% great deal 41 fair amount 26 only a little 6 none 1 don’t know 52. Some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 78% yes 22 no [skip to q54a] 53. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [ask q54b] 35 Republican [ask q54c] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q55] 17 independent [ask q54a] 54a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 23% Republican party 49 Democratic party 17 neither (volunteered) 11 don’t know [skip to q55] 54b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 53% strong 44 not very strong 3 don’t know [skip to q55] 54c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 58% strong 40 not very strong 2 don’t know 55.How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 49% always 19 nearly always 10 part of the time 4 seldom 17 never 1 don’t know 56. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically: [rotate] 11% very liberal 20 somewhat liberal 28 middle-of-the-road 26 somewhat conservative 11 very conservative 4 don’t know D4.[asked of those with full- or part-time jobs] How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, public bus or transit, walking, or bicycle? 71% drive alone 12 carpool 5 public bus or transit 4 walking 2 bicycle 4 work at home (volunteered) 2 other (specify) D5.Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sportutility vehicle)? 23% yes 77 no - 26 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mitchel Benson Director of Communications California Treasurer Phil Angelides Angela Blackwell President PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Max Neiman Professor Political Science Department University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 27- PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project 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 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 Norman R. King Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments 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 Corporation 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) "

S 704MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(125) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-special-survey-on-californians-and-the-environment-july-2004/s_704mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8419) ["ID"]=> int(8419) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:28" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3619) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 704MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_704mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_704MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1825568" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(94710) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY JULY 2004 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 on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose 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. 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 95,000 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 seventh in a series of eight surveys—two per year for four years—launched in May 2001. The intent of the survey series is to inform state, local, and federal 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, policy preferences, and political choices regarding air quality and energy-related issues. This special edition presents the responses of 2,505 adult residents throughout the state. With a large sample size and multilingual interviewing, we examine in detail the public’s perceptions of regional and statewide environmental conditions, preferences for state and national environmental policies, and the role of environmental policy preferences in ballot choices for the upcoming November 2004 election. Some of the questions are repeated from PPIC Statewide Surveys on the environment conducted in June 2000, June 2002, and July 2003. Other questions are repeated from recent national surveys to offer perspectives on the statewide surveys. More specifically, we examine the following issues: • The public’s perceptions of environmental conditions, including 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, perceived threat of air pollution to personal health, the effects of the recent increase in gasoline prices on driving behavior and vehicle choice, and the perceived effectiveness of the federal and state government in the environmental arena. • Public policy preferences, including rankings of environmental, fiscal, and economic priorities; attitudes toward automobile driving; perceptions of the threat of global warming; support for state programs to reduce greenhouse emissions, to remove polluting vehicles from the roads, and to develop alternative energy sources; and support for energy conservation programs. • Political choices, including ratings of the governor and president overall and on environmental issues; likely-voter choices for president and the U.S. Senate; the importance of environmental issues in the upcoming November 2004 election; support for a state bond to pay for high-speed passenger trains in California and state programs to improve air quality; and the political party (i.e., Democrat, Republican, Green), level of government, and presidential and U.S. Senate candidate viewed as representing the respondent’s own environmental positions. • Variations in environmental perceptions, public policy preferences, ballot choices, and political perspectives across the five major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Inland Empire, and Orange/San Diego); between Asians, blacks, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites; across socioeconomic and political groups; and between Californians and U.S. residents regarding environmental policy and political issues. 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- - ii - Contents Preface Press Release Perceptions Policies Politics Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 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 THE GREEN STATE: CALIFORNIANS WANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESPITE ECONOMIC, FINANCIAL COSTS Gas Prices, Air Pollution Could Change Vehicle Preferences; High Speed Rail, Hybrid Vehicles Get Boost From Pro-Environment Attitudes SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 22, 2004 — Californians’ priorities are clear… even if their air isn’t. Growing concerns over air pollution and related health dangers have led residents to place environmental protection and improvement above many other policy issues – including economic growth – according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) in collaboration with the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations. The survey’s large sample size (2,505) and multilingual interviews (conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese) make this the most comprehensive – and in some ways surprising – survey on state environmental conditions and policies to date. Despite California’s fiscal woes, majorities of Californians (55%) and likely voters (54%) say that the environment should be the top policy priority – even at the expense of economic growth. Moreover, by a two-to-one margin (55% to 28%), likely voters want the state to continue funding environmental programs at current levels. Still, the percentage of residents who think the state is not doing enough to protect the environment has dropped from 50 percent to 42 percent since 2000. The reason? Four years ago, 40 percent of Republicans said the state government was not doing enough for the environment; today just 24 percent say the same. “As it has with many issues, the partisan divide over environmental protection and regulation has widened dramatically in recent years,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. Spare the Air Air pollution tops the list of most important environmental issues facing the state, surpassing the next most important issue – pollution in general – by 25 points (33% to 8%). Since 2000, the percentage of Californians who say air pollution is a big problem in their own region has increased by 7 points (28% to 35%). The concern about air pollution is most strongly held by blacks (43%), Asians (41%), and Latinos (39%). A majority (59%) of residents also believe air pollution is at least a somewhat serious health threat to themselves or their families, and very few (23%) have high optimism that the state will have better air quality 20 years from now. Attention Detroit! Californians Give Thumbs Up to Fuel Efficiency, Lower Emissions The growing perception that California’s air is polluted – and that air pollution poses a serious health threat – may be part of the impetus behind a willingness to spend more money on technologies and programs to help alleviate the problem. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of state residents believe automakers should be required to significantly improve fuel efficiency in new vehicles sold in the U.S. – even if it increases consumers’ costs. An even higher percentage (81%) say they would back a state law requiring automakers to reduce the emission of -v- Press Release greenhouse gases from new cars by the year 2009. Support for such a law is high across the political spectrum (Democrats 88%, independents 86%, Republicans 71%) and among SUV owners (77%). Californians also appear willing to pay higher taxes and fees in the name of cleaner air: A majority of state residents (66%) and likely voters (62%) support increasing the vehicle license fee for new cars by six dollars to pay for a program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, trucks, and equipment. Ironically, rising costs are the stimulus behind changing consumer behavior and preferences: Nearly half (47%) of residents say they have already cut back on their driving due to high gas prices – even more (56%) believe higher fuel prices are here to stay – and two-thirds say that rising gasoline prices will make them think about purchasing a more fuel efficient car. Indeed, 63 percent say they would seriously consider buying or leasing a hybrid car (gas-electric). A large majority of the public (67%) also favors rewarding drivers of hybrid vehicles by allowing them to use carpool lanes when driving alone. “The degree of willingness people have to dig deeper into their wallets and to readily embrace new technologies show just how deeply environmental concerns resonate with Californians,” says Baldassare. These views also reflect anxiety about the dangers of greenhouse gases and a strong belief in the theory of global warming: 71 percent of Californians believe that unchecked amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will lead to global warming. Consistent with this concern, 76 percent believe immediate steps should be taken to counter the effects of this phenomenon. Governor Gets High Ratings Overall; Lower Ratings on Environment Although they have dropped modestly since May, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings remain high among residents (from 64% in May to 57% today), and likely voters (from 69% in May to 64% today). However, Californians are not as glowing when it comes to the governor’s handling of environmental issues: 39 percent approve and 27 percent disapprove. Despite their caution about Schwarzenegger’s environmental record, residents like his ideas for developing alternative energy sources. A solid majority of residents approve of the administration’s plan to encourage the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology – a proposal that calls for the construction of a “hydrogen highway” comprised of 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010. In a political twist, fewer Republicans (50%) than Democrats (59%) and independents (64%) support the idea. “On many environmental issues, the governor may end up drawing his most significant support from outside his own political party,” says Baldassare. An overwhelming majority (82%) of residents also endorse the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run partly on solar power starting in 2006. On this issue, there is majority support from across the political spectrum (Democrats 86%, independents 83%, Republicans 75%). Environment To Play a Role in November and Beyond Eighty-two percent of California’s likely voters say the environmental positions of presidential candidates are at least somewhat important to them – and 37 percent say they are very important – as they think about the upcoming election. When asked which candidate they trust more to handle environmental issues, voters choose Kerry over Bush by a wide margin (56% to 30%). Only about one-third of the public (32%) and likely voters (33%) approve of the way President Bush is currently handling environmental issues. Interestingly, when Ralph Nader’s name is included in the question about which candidate voters trust most on environmental issues, 31 percent choose Nader, considerably narrowing Kerry’s advantage over Bush (34% to 27%) on the issue. The president’s overall performance also receives less than majority support from residents (40%) and likely voters (42%). Not surprisingly, then, fewer likely voters support the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney ticket (38%) - vi - Press Release than support John Kerry/John Edwards (49%). Five percent say they would vote for the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo independent ticket. Beyond November, two pieces of proposed “pro-environment” legislation could find success if and when they appear on the ballot. A nearly ten billion dollar state bond proposal to construct a high-speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles currently enjoys majority support (57%) among likely voters. A majority of likely voters (59%) also support a proposed five billion dollar bond to fund air quality programs and reduce emissions. This measure has far more support among Latinos (70%), Asians (66%), and blacks (63%) than it does among whites (56%). More Key Findings • Dubious Distinction for Central Valley (page 3) The Central Valley ties Los Angeles (both 47%) as the region where the highest proportion of residents say air pollution is a big problem in their area. • Truckin’ (page 10) Most residents (90%) think trucks delivering goods – including those from Mexico – should meet federal air pollution standards. • Boxer Leads Jones in Senate Race (page 16) Senator Barbara Boxer has a 15-point lead among likely voters (52% to 37%) over Republican candidate Bill Jones. About the Survey The Californians and the environment survey – a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California, 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 seventh in a four-year series intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about growth, land use, and the environment. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,505 California adult residents interviewed between June 30 and July 14, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. For more information on methodology, see page 19. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. 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 on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on July 22. ### - vii - Percent who think air pollution is a "big problem" in their region 50 47 47 39 40 Percent all adults 30 26 24 20 10 0 CV LA IE OC/SD SF BA Percent who support a state law requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gases emissions 100 90 81 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All adults 88 Dem 71 Rep 86 Ind 2004 Presidential Race 26 5 Percent all adults Percent who think air pollution is a "very" or "somewhat" serious health threat 80 71 70 70 60 55 53 50 40 30 20 10 0 Latino Black Asian White Have you seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car due to rising gas prices? 2 32 66 yes, have considered it no, have not considered it don't know 2004 U.S. Senate Race 10 1 Percent 49 38 Likely Voters Kerry/ Edwards Bush/ Cheney Nader/ Camejo Other Don't know 52 37 Likely Voters Barbara Boxer Bill Jones Other Don't know Perceptions Most Important State Environmental Problem Air pollution continues to be seen as the most important environmental issue facing the state, with one in three residents (33%) mentioning this as the top problem. Similar percentages named air pollution as the state’s most pressing environmental issue in June 2000 (33%), June 2002 (34%), and July 2003 (30%). This year, other frequently mentioned state environmental issues are water supply; water pollution of the ocean, lakes, rivers, and streams; population growth and overpopulation; and pollution in general. While all racial/ethnic groups consider air pollution the top environmental problem, it is mentioned most frequently by Asians (40%) and blacks (39%) and least frequently by Latinos (30%) and whites (33%). Latinos and blacks are more likely than Asians and whites to say they are undecided on this issue. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” (top five mentions) Air pollution Pollution in general Water pollution of the ocean, rivers, lakes, and streams Water supply Growth and overpopulation All Adults 33% 8 7 6 6 Asians 40% 4 3 3 12 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 39% 30% 68 85 33 43 Whites 33% 8 8 9 7 Air pollution is considered the top environmental problem in all five major regions of the state; however, it is named more frequently in the Central Valley (40%) and Los Angeles County (41%) than in the San Francisco Bay Area (30%), the Inland Empire (33%), and the Orange/San Diego area (26%). Although voters from each of the major parties list air pollution as the top environmental issue, Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to mention this problem. And while air pollution is at the top of the list among all demographic groups, concern about poor air quality increases with education and income. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” (top five mentions) Air pollution Pollution in general Water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams Water supply Growth and overpopulation All Adults 33% 8 7 6 6 Central Valley 40% 6 4 6 5 SF Bay Area 30% 6 8 5 7 Region Los Angeles 41% 8 Orange/ San Diego 26% 7 Inland Empire 33% 11 6 12 3 579 577 -1- Perceptions State Trends In Air Quality How well has the state of California dealt with its most important environmental issue according to residents? About half (48%) say that we have made only some progress, while fewer than three in 10 (27%) say there has been a great deal of progress in the past 20 years. About one in five residents say there has been hardly any or no progress at all in controlling air pollution. While the perception of making a great deal of progress falls well short of a majority in every region of the state, Central Valley residents (20%) are the least likely to hold this view and Orange/San Diego residents (32%) are the most likely to believe there’s been a great deal of progress. There are significant differences across racial/ethnic groups, with whites (32%) more likely than Asians (17%), blacks (17%), and Latinos (20%) to believe a great deal of progress has been made. This belief is also more prevalent among Republicans than Democrats (38% to 24%). As for demographic differences, men are more likely than women (32% to 21%) to believe there has been a great deal of progress in dealing with air pollution, and this perception increases with age, education, and income. “How much progress do you think 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 Central SF Bay Adults Valley Area Region Los Orange/ Angeles San Diego Race/Ethnicity Inland Empire Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 27% 20% 26% 27% 32% 27% 17% 17% 20% 32% 48 53 48 46 45 50 49 52 48 47 19 21 18 20 17 18 25 24 23 16 22 1 2 0 143 2 1 44 7 5 6 454 7 4 Looking to the future, about half of Californians (47%) express only some confidence that we will have better air quality in California 20 years from now, while one in four (23%) have a great deal of optimism that air quality will improve. In all of the state’s major regions, and across all of its major racial/ethnic groups, fewer than three in 10 people have a great deal of optimism that air quality will be better 20 years from now. Republicans are more likely than Democrats (30% to 19%) to express a great deal of confidence that air quality will improve. As for age differences, 18 to 34 year olds are somewhat more negative (31%) than 35 to 54 year olds (26%) or those age 55 and older (23%), saying that they have hardly any or no hope we will have better air quality in California 20 years from today. “How much optimism do you have that we will have better air quality in California 20 years from now than we do today?” Region Race/Ethnicity All Central SF Bay Los Orange/ Inland Adults Valley Area Angeles San Diego Empire Asians Blacks Latinos Whites A great deal 23% 22% 22% 23% 26% 26% 20% 22% 23% 24% Only some 47 47 50 47 50 44 47 48 46 49 Hardly any 24 27 21 25 19 23 21 24 25 23 No optimism 3 3 3 3 3 473 2 3 Don't know 3 1 4 2 2 353 4 1 -2- Perceptions Regional Air Quality Asked to rate the severity of four problems in their region, more than six in 10 residents say traffic congestion (64%) and lack of affordable housing (63%) are big problems. Four in 10 (41%) say lack of job opportunities is a big problem, and more than one in three (35%) say the same of air pollution. Since our July 2003 survey, concerns about housing and air pollution have increased, while concern about jobs and traffic have held steady. The proportion seeing air pollution as a big problem in their region has grown four points since last year and seven points since our June 2000 survey. “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.” Percent who say the following are a “big problem” Traffic congestion on freeways and major roads The availability of housing that you can afford Lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs Air pollution June 00 * * * 28 May 01 60% 47 29 30 June 02 61% * * 34 July 03 62% 56 40 31 July 04 64% 63 41 35 In the Central Valley, the percentage of residents who say that air pollution is a big problem in their region has increased every year since our June 2000 survey, rising by 19 percentage points (from 28% to 47%)—a much larger increase over time than anywhere else in the state. Percent who say air pollution is a “big problem” Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/San Diego Inland Empire June 00 28% 26 40 20 28 May 01 33% 22 46 21 30 June 02 39% 27 47 26 35 July 03 42% 21 43 22 38 July 04 47% 24 47 26 38 This year’s survey finds that San Francisco Bay Area and Orange/San Diego residents are the least likely to rate air pollution as a big problem in their region. We also find significant differences across racial/ethnic groups: Asians (42%), blacks (43%), and Latinos (39%) are more likely than whites (32%) to consider air quality a big problem in their region. Democrats are more likely than Republicans (39% to 27%) to rate air quality as a big problem. Residents age 55 and older (30%) are somewhat less likely than 18 to 34 year olds (39%) and 35 to 54 year olds (35%) to consider air pollution a serious problem. “How about air pollution? Is this a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region?” All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles Big problem 35% 47% 24% 47% Somewhat 42 34 52 41 Not a problem 23 19 24 12 OC/ SD 26% 47 27 Inland Empire 39% 34 27 Asians 42% 39 19 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 43% 38 19 Latinos 39% 40 21 Whites 32% 43 25 - 3 - July 2004 Perceptions Personal Threats of Air Quality Six in 10 Californians (59%) believe that air pollution in their region is at least somewhat of a health threat to themselves and their immediate families, with 20 percent calling this threat very serious and 39 percent somewhat serious. There are differences across racial/ethnic groups in perceptions of air pollution as a health threat, with Latinos (28%) and blacks (30%) more likely to see it as a very serious threat than Asians (13%) or whites (17%). Similarly, a majority of residents in all regions say local air pollution threatens the health of themselves and their families at least somewhat; however, the proportion saying this is a very serious concern is greater in Los Angeles (28%) and the Central Valley (28%) than elsewhere in the state. The perception that air pollution is a serious health threat is also greater among women, younger residents, those with lower household incomes, and families with children at home. It is also higher among Democrats than among Republicans. “How serious a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” All Adults Central Valley Region SF Bay Los Area Angeles Very serious 20% 28% 13% 28% Somewhat serious 39 37 42 44 Not too serious Don’t know 40 34 44 27 11 1 1 OC/ SD 17% 36 46 1 Inland Empire 21% 34 42 3 Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 13% 30% 28% 17% 42 40 43 36 43 26 28 46 24 1 1 Although many Californians are concerned about air pollution, would they be willing to purchase or lease a more fuel-efficient automobile to help reduce the pollution? Nearly two in three (63%) say they would seriously consider owning or leasing a hybrid gas and electric vehicle. Nearly half (47%) say they would do so even if it were more costly for them. Just over half of those who think air pollution is a serious personal health threat (53%) and who believe that air pollution in their region is a big problem (52%) say that their next vehicle might well be a hybrid vehicle, even if it was more costly. Nearly half of those who drive alone to work (48%) or currently own or lease an SUV (44%) say they would consider having a hybrid vehicle, even if it carried a higher sticker price. Close to a majority of residents in each of the five regions and at least three in 10 across racial/ethnic groups agree with this position. Willingness to seriously consider leasing or purchasing a hybrid vehicle, even if it were more costly, increases with education and income and declines with age. Democrats (53%) are more likely than Republicans (37%) to seriously consider having a hybrid vehicle, even if it were more expensive than a conventional vehicle. “For your next automobile, would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you?)” All Adults Central Valley Region SF Bay Los Area Angeles Yes, even if more costly 47% 48% 50% 47% Yes, but not if more costly 16 15 15 17 No 24 25 23 21 Don't know 13 12 12 15 Race/Ethnicity OC/ Inland SD Empire Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 44% 44% 38% 35% 47% 49% 18 12 26 16 18 14 27 29 24 32 19 26 11 15 12 17 16 11 -4- Perceptions Effects of Gasoline Prices A majority of Californians (56%) believe that the recent jump in gasoline prices represents a permanent change in prices, and more than half (55%) also say that the price increases have caused them financial hardship. Californians are not alone: Americans throughout the country voiced these same concerns in a Gallup survey conducted in June. As might be expected, the financial effects of higher gasoline prices are felt most among lower-income residents. Among racial/ethnic groups, the effects are noticed most by Latinos (74%) and least by whites (46%). Across the state’s major regions, the greatest concern is in the Inland Empire (64%) and the least is in the San Francisco Bay Area (44%). Of those who say that their finances have been strained by the increase in gasoline prices, nearly two in three (63%) say they have cut back on their driving. “Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household?” Yes, have No, have not All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles 55% 59% 44% 57% 45 41 56 43 OC/ SD 53% 47 Inland Empire Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 64% 49% 58% 74% 46% 36 51 42 26 54 Overall, nearly half of Californians (47%) claim that they have cut back significantly on the amount they drive because of the recent spike in gasoline prices, once again mirroring recent national trends. Residents in the Inland Empire (55%) and Central Valley (53%) are the most likely to say they are driving less as a result of higher costs, while San Francisco Bay Area residents (40%) are the least likely to say they have done so. Blacks (65%) and Latinos (57%) are more likely to have reduced their driving than Asians (44%) and whites (42%). Upper-income residents are much less likely than lower-income residents to say they are driving less. Two in three Californians say they have seriously considered buying a more fuelefficient car as a result of the recent increase in gasoline prices; in the recent Gallup survey, just over half of Americans (53%) were of this same persuasion. A solid majority in every region and racial/ethnic group have considered the possibility of a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Younger residents (i.e., under age 35) are the most likely to entertain thoughts of buying a vehicle that offers better mileage. “As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not cut back significantly on how much you drive?” Region All Central SF Bay Los Adults Valley Area Angeles Yes, have 47% 53% 40% 49% No, have not 52 47 59 51 Don’t know 1 0 1 0 OC/ SD 44% 56 0 Inland Empire Race/Ethnicity Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 55% 44% 65% 57% 42% 44 55 35 41 57 1 10 2 1 “As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle?” Yes, have No, have not Don't know All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Region Los Angeles 66% 66% 65% 71% 32 33 33 27 21 2 2 OC/ SD 66% 33 1 Race/Ethnicity Inland Empire Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 60% 78% 61% 74% 63% 38 20 38 24 36 2 21 2 1 - 5 - July 2004 Perceptions Role of Government Most residents think the state government is doing an adequate job of protecting the environment in California, although four in 10 rate it as doing just enough and only one in 10 says it is doing more than enough. Four in 10 Californians (42%) say the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The percentage saying the state government is not doing enough has dropped 8 points since June 2000, when 50 percent held this view. What accounts for the changing perceptions of the involvement and responsibilities of the state government? An increasing division between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. Four years ago, 55 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans thought that the state was not doing enough to protect the environment. Today, 55 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans believe that the state is not doing enough. The gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown from 15 points in June 2000 to 31 points today. Regional differences follow the contours of this partisan divide: Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area residents are more likely than residents in other parts of the state to say that the state is not doing enough to protect the environment. There are also significant differences across demographic groups. Blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites and Asians to perceive that the state is doing an inadequate job when it comes to protecting the environment. Women are more likely than men to give the state a failing mark. Dissatisfaction is highest among younger, lower income, and highly educated residents. “Do you think the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California?” More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know All Adults 11% 40 42 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind CV SF 6% 22% 10% 14% 9% 34 47 41 40 40 55 24 42 39 42 5 7 779 Region Race/Ethnicity LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 8% 38 12% 11% 5% 44 46 47 5% 44 6% 39 14% 39 47 37 38 38 48 47 39 7 7 5 10 3 8 8 Nearly six in 10 Californians say that the federal government is not doing enough to protect the environment nationwide, a considerably higher percentage than expressed dissatisfaction with the state. Democrats (74% to 55%), Republicans (31% to 24%), and independents (63% to 42%) are all more dissatisfied with the federal government than with the state government. San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles residents are more likely than residents in other regions, and blacks are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups, to think that the federal government is not doing enough on environmental issues. “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?” More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know All Party Registration Adults Dem Rep Ind Region Race/Ethnicity CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 6% 2% 12% 7% 10% 4% 5% 8% 32 21 52 26 37 29 29 35 5% 1% 39 44 3% 30 6% 30 7% 33 56 74 31 63 49 61 60 52 52 47 65 57 56 6 3 5 4 4 66 5 48 2 7 4 -6- Policies Fiscal and Economic Priorities Where do environmental programs rank in the current context of the state government’s multibillion dollar budget gap? Fifty-four percent of Californians want the state to continue to fund environmental programs at current levels, even if it means less funding for other programs, while 29 percent think that funding for environmental programs should be reduced, so that more funds are available for other programs. Among likely voters, continued funding is preferred over reduced funding by a two-to-one margin (55% to 28%). Majorities across party lines, racial/ethnic groups, regions, and income levels say that the state should continue to fund environmental programs at current levels. “The state government faces a gap between spending and revenues over the next few years. Should the state …” 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 answer Don't know All Adults 54% 29 5 12 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 49% 56% 24 35 28 544 12 12 12 Asians 56% 29 5 10 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites 49% 53% 55% 32 32 28 5 35 14 12 12 A similar 55 percent of Californians think that protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth, while 29 percent say that economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. In a recent Gallup survey, 49 percent of Americans said that protecting the environment should be given priority, and 44 percent said that economic growth should be given priority. In California today, sizeable majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (59%) want environmental protection to have priority over economic growth, while Republicans are nearly evenly split between economic growth (44%) and the environment (40%). Across racial/ethnic groups, majorities of Latinos (62%), blacks (56%), and whites (55%) lean toward environmental protection, while Asians favor environmental protection by a narrower margin (40% to 34%). Younger residents between the ages of 18 and 34 are more likely than residents age 55 and older to agree with this view. Majorities of likely voters (54%) and majorities of residents in the state’s major regions and across education, gender, and income categories say that the environment should have priority. A year ago, 65 percent of California adults said environmental protection should have priority, while the national Gallup survey figures were virtually the same as this year. “Which one of these statements is closest to your view:” All Adults Environment should be given priority Economic growth should be given priority Both equally (volunteered) Other answer / Don't know 55% 29 10 6 Party Registration Race/Ethnicity Dem Rep Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 65% 40% 59% 40% 56% 62% 55% 23 44 27 34 32 21 31 7 10 7 23 6 10 8 5 673 6 7 6 -7- Policies Global Warming A large majority of Californians believe that an increasing level of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere can lead to global warming. Seven in ten residents say they believe in this theory of global warming, while 17 percent say they do not believe it and 12 percent say they don’t know. In our July 2003 survey, similar percentages of Californians (68%) said they believed in global warming. A September 2002 Harris poll showed similar nationwide results, with 74 percent of Americans saying they believed in the theory of global warming. Belief in the global warming theory is strongest among Democrats (82%) and independents (76%) and drops off significantly among Republicans (50%). While belief in global warming does not vary across levels of income or education, we found generational differences: Seventy-five percent of residents between the ages of 18 and 34 say they believe in the theory of global warming, compared to 65 percent of those age 55 and older. There are also racial/ethnic differences when it comes to the public’s belief in global warming: About three-quarters of Asians (77%), blacks (74%), and Latinos (80%) compared to two-thirds of whites (66%) believe that carbon dioxide and other gases released in the atmosphere can lead to global warming. “Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming?” Yes, believe No, do not believe Don't know All Adults 71% 17 12 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 82% 50% 76% 9 37 16 9 13 8 Asians 77% 13 10 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 74% 80% 12 9 14 11 Whites 66% 22 12 Three in four Californians (76%) think we should take immediate action to counter the effects of global warming; 19 percent think we don’t need to address this issue right now. Fewer residents are undecided when asked about actions (5%) rather than beliefs (12%) about global warming. A stark partisan divide marks the public’s response: Eighty-six percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents think steps should be taken right away, while fewer Republicans (57%) think immediate action to counter global warming is necessary. Residents between the ages of 18 and 34 are more likely than those age 55 and older to say necessary steps to counter global warming should be taken right away. Large percentages of Latinos (84%) and blacks (79%) say an immediate response is needed, while fewer Asians (72%) and whites (73%) express a similar sense of urgency in countering the effects of global warming. “Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn't it necessary to take steps yet?” Right away Not necessary yet Don't know All Adults 76% 19 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 86% 57% 79% 10 35 17 484 Asians 72% 23 5 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 79% 84% 16 11 55 Whites 73% 21 6 -8- Policies State Policies to Reduce Global Warming Eight in 10 Californians support a state law that requires automakers to further reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009. Similarly high levels of support for this state law were evident in our June 2002 (81%) and July 2003 (80%) surveys. Public support for this law is high across partisan groups, but higher among Democrats (88%) and independents (86%) than among Republicans (71%). We found strong support among Asians (86%), Latinos (83%), blacks (81%), and whites (79%). Likewise, more than three in four residents across income, education, age, and gender groups favor the state law to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California. It is also interesting to note that nearly eight in 10 current SUV owners (77%) favor requiring automakers to further reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from new cars. “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?” Support Oppose Don't know All Adults 81% 12 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 88% 71% 86% 8 20 10 49 4 Asians 86% 8 6 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 81% 83% 10 9 98 Whites 79% 14 7 Some policymakers in Sacramento favor another piece of state legislation that could potentially reduce pollution on freeways and help improve the state’s air quality. The public strongly favors the idea of allowing drivers of hybrid gas-electric vehicles to use the carpool lanes on the freeways when driving alone. Nearly seven in ten Californians (67%) say this is a good idea, while one in four thinks it is a bad idea. Democrats (71%) and independents (73%) are more likely than Republicans (62%) to say this is a good idea. Across racial/ethnic groups, Asians (72%) are the strongest supporters of this idea, followed by whites (70%), Latinos (63%), and blacks (58%). Residents with higher levels of education and income are more likely than those with lower incomes and less education to favor the concept. “What about allowing solo drivers of hybrid gas-electric vehicles to use the carpool lanes on freeways?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 67% 26 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 71% 24 62% 32 73% 23 564 Asians 72% 18 10 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 58% 36 63% 28 69 Whites 70% 24 6 - 9 - July 2004 Policies State Policies to Remove Polluting Vehicles Many Californians not only think certain state proposals to reduce air pollution are good ideas—they are also willing to pay for them. A majority of state residents (66%) and likely voters (62%) favor a recent proposal to add six dollars to the vehicle license fee (VLF) for new cars and exempt new cars from smog checks for the first six years in order to pay for a state program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, tucks, and other equipment. There are, however, clear partisan differences in the public’s assessment of this approach to improving air quality: About seven in ten Democrats (70%) and independents (68%) think that adding six dollars to the VLF to pay for this pollution-reduction program is a good idea, while a slimmer majority of Republicans (56%) would agree. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (74%) and Asians (71%) are more likely than whites (64%) and much more likely than blacks (57%) to support this concept. Statewide, Inland Empire residents (61%) are the least likely to favor the program, while nearly seven in 10 residents of all other regions think it is a good idea. There is little variation across income groups. “What about adding six dollars to the vehicle license fee for new cars and exempting new cars from smog checks for the first six years in order to pay for a state program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, trucks, and other equipment?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 66% 28 6 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 70% 56% 68% 24 39 29 65 3 Asians 71% 19 10 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 57% 74% 38 22 54 Whites 64% 30 6 State residents overwhelmingly support the idea of requiring all trucks that deliver goods into California, including trucks from Mexico, to meet federal air pollution standards—a proposal in response to a recent court ruling on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Nine in 10 Californians say this is a good idea; only 8 percent say it is a bad idea. Support for this proposal is uniformly high across political party lines and racial/ethnic, income, and education categories. There are no significant political divisions on this issue, with overwhelming majorities of Democrats (92%), Republicans (87%), and independents (92%) saying that it is a good idea to require that all trucks meet federal air pollution standards. About nine in 10 Asians (90%), blacks (93%), Latinos (90%), and whites (90%) support this proposal. Large majorities of those who prioritize environmental protection (93%) and those who prioritize economic growth (85%) think it is a good idea to require that all trucks delivering goods into California meet federal air quality standards. Good idea Bad idea Don't know “What about requiring all trucks that deliver goods into California, including trucks from Mexico, to meet federal air pollution standards?” All Adults 90% 8 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 92% 87% 92% 6 11 7 22 1 Asians 90% 5 5 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 93% 90% 68 12 Whites 90% 8 2 - 10 - Policies State Policies for Alternative Energy Sources Nearly six in 10 Californians (57%) favor the plan by the Schwarzenegger administration to have California lead the nation in the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology by building a “hydrogen highway” with 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010. One in four believes this plan is a bad idea, and two in 10 say they don’t know enough about it to have an opinion. Across political ideology, Republicans are the most skeptical about this proposal. Only half think that building a hydrogen highway is a good idea, compared to 59 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents who think the plan has merit. Democrats and Republicans (both 19%) are more likely than independents (13%) to say they don’t have an opinion on this issue. A higher percentage of men than women say the hydrogen highway plan is a good idea (63% to 51%). Younger residents, ages 18 to 34, are much more likely than older residents, age 55 and older, to say the plan is a good idea (63% to 50%). Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks (53%) and whites (54%) are less enthusiastic than Asians (68%) and Latinos (63%) about the idea of developing hydrogen fuel cell technology and building a hydrogen highway in California. “What about a plan to have California lead the nation in the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology by building a “hydrogen highway” with 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 57% 23 20 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 50% 64% 22 31 23 19 19 13 Asians 68% 15 17 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 53% 63% 32 17 15 20 Whites 54% 26 20 Among Californians, solar power represents a popular source of alternative energy for new homes in the state. Eight in 10 residents say that the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run at least partially on solar power starting in 2006 is a good idea, while 13 percent think it is a bad idea; the survey question did not address the cost implications of this proposal. Although this proposal receives 70 percent or higher support across political and demographic groups, there are some interesting differences in the public’s support. Republicans are less likely than Democrats to say that the goal of having new homes run on solar power is a good idea (75% to 86%). Seventy-four percent of blacks favor this idea, compared to 86 percent of Asians, 85 percent of Latinos, and 81 percent of whites. In general, the public strongly supports the idea of increasing the use of renewable energy (for example, wind and solar power). Nearly nine in 10 residents (87%) think it would be a good idea to double the use of renewable energy over the next ten years from 10 percent of all California power today to 20 percent. At least eight in 10 residents of all racial/ethnic backgrounds and across partisan lines support this idea. “What about the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run at least partially on solar power starting in 2006?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 82% 13 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 86% 75% 83% 9 20 14 553 Asians 86% 8 6 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 74% 85% 20 9 66 Whites 81% 14 5 - 11 - July 2004 Policies Energy Conservation Programs Similar to our survey results a year ago, 50 percent of a strongly divided electorate oppose more oil drilling off the California coast and 51 percent oppose new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness. Solid majorities of Republicans favor new drilling, and strong majorities of Democrats are against new drilling, both offshore and in federally-protected areas. In contrast to these issues related to energy supply, there is bipartisan support for energy conservation programs. Nearly three in four Californians favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel economy of cars sold in this country—even if it increases the cost of buying a new car. Another 14 percent of residents would also favor such a mandate, but only if it did not increase the cost of vehicles. Only 8 percent of residents are opposed to such regulation. Support for new fuel efficiency requirements is high across partisan groups and geographic regions of the state. While majorities of Californians of all racial/ethnic backgrounds favor significantly stricter requirements for automakers, whites (79%) are more likely than blacks (71%), Asians (64%), and Latinos (61%) to favor new regulations regardless of whether they increase the cost of buying a new car. Eightytwo percent of residents with household incomes of $80,000 or more favor new requirements on automakers even if vehicle costs increase, compared to a lower percentage (65%) of those with incomes under $40,000. Support for new fuel efficiency requirements increases modestly with age. SUV owners are as equally likely as non-SUV owners to support fuel-efficiency requirements. “How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if yes: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?)” All Adults Favor, even if more costly Favor, but not if more costly Oppose Don't know 73% 14 8 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 81% 71% 75% 10 12 13 5 11 8 464 Asians 64% 19 9 8 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 71% 61% 15 23 79 77 Whites 79% 9 7 5 A large majority of Californians (79%) also support a proposal that all western states increase their energy efficiency by 20 percent by the year 2020. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson set this goal at the June 2004 meeting of the Western Governor’s Association. Support for the initiative is high across regions of the state, in all partisan groups, among those from all racial/ethnic backgrounds, and among both those who prioritize economic growth and those who prioritize environmental protection. “How about setting the objective that all western states increase their energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2020?” All Adults Favor Oppose Don't know 79% 13 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 82% 77% 81% 10 15 13 886 Asians 85% 7 8 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 75% 70% 14 20 11 10 Whites 82% 11 7 - 12 - Politics Governor’s Ratings About six in 10 California residents (57%) and likely voters (64%) approve of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor. While these approval ratings are still highly positive, they have slid somewhat from the high levels that were recorded in our May survey, when 64 percent of Californians and 69 percent of likely voters approved of the governor’s overall performance in office. The governor continues to draw stronger support from Republicans than Democrats, and his ratings have not changed much in the major party voter groups since our May survey; however, his approval ratings have fallen 7 points among independent voters since May (63% to 56%). Schwarzenegger is highly popular among Asians and whites, but his approval ratings drop below 50 percent among blacks and Latinos. Only one-third of Latinos today approve of the job the governor has been doing, while a majority now say they disapprove. The regional differences follow party lines, with stronger support for the governor evident outside of the Democratic-leaning San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” Party All Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Likely Adults Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters Approve 57% 49% 84% 56% 63% 51% 54% 62% 65% 61% 46% 33% 70% 64% Disapprove 29 36 9 29 26 32 34 23 25 18 41 54 Don't know 14 15 7 15 11 17 12 15 10 21 13 13 18 24 12 12 The governor’s approval ratings are considerably lower when it comes to his handling of environmental issues in California, with 39 percent of adults and likely voters saying they approve. This lower rating is largely because about one in three adults and likely voters have yet to develop an opinion about the governor’s environmental record. Similar to his overall ratings, about one in four adults and likely voters say they disapprove of the way he is handling environmental issues. While six in 10 Republicans approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues, Democrats (28%) and independents (39%) are far less likely to give him positive ratings. Schwarzenegger’s environmental ratings are higher outside the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County, following partisan trends. Across racial/ethnic groups, whites are the most positive (44%) and Latinos the least positive (29%) about the governor’s environmental record to date. In comparing the current approval ratings on environmental issues, Governor Gray Davis’s approval ratings on environmental issues were 36 percent in June 2000, 35 percent in June 2002, and 30 percent in July 2003. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California?” Party All Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Likely Adults Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters Approve 39% 28% 60% 39% 47% 33% 36% 41% 40% 39% 32% 29% 44% 39% Disapprove 27 36 9 26 26 26 32 24 26 21 40 44 Don't know 34 36 31 35 27 41 32 35 34 40 28 27 19 26 37 35 - 13 - Politics President’s Ratings President George W. Bush, in contrast to Governor Schwarzenegger, continues to draw more negative than positive ratings in California. A majority of residents (54%) disapprove of the way he is handling his job, and 40 percent approve—similar to his approval ratings in May 2004. California’s likely voters are similarly disapproving of Bush. A year ago, the president’s approval ratings were nearly the reverse of today’s— in July 2003, 53 percent of Californians approved of his job performance and 41 percent disapproved. Compared to a year ago, the president’s ratings are still high among Republicans (85% last year, 78% today) but they have fallen sharply among independent voters (53% to 33%) and declined among Democrats as well (32% to 17%). Across the state’s regions, the president receives support from about half of the Californians living in the Central Valley, Orange/San Diego, and the Inland Empire. In the Democratic-leaning San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, majorities of residents disapprove of the president’s job performance. Although majorities in all racial/ethnic groups now disapprove of the president’s performance, whites are most favorable and blacks are least favorable. Bush’s approval ratings are higher among older than younger adults. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States?” Party All Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Likely Adults Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters Approve 40% 17% 78% 33% 52% 27% 36% 48% 48% 35% 14% 36% 46% 42% Disapprove 54 80 18 61 42 67 59 46 46 53 80 56 50 55 Don't know 6 3 4 6 6 6 5 6 6 12 6 8 43 The president’s ratings are even lower when it comes to environmental issues, with only one in three Californians (32%) and likely voters (33%) approving of his performance. To a certain extent, this reflects a larger number of no opinions regarding his environmental record. Closely paralleling the overall approval ratings for the president, a majority of all adults (53%) and likely voters (58%) disapprove of his performance on environmental issues. Among all California residents, the president’s disapproval ratings on handling environmental issues have increased from 44 percent in June 2002 to 48 percent in July 2003 to 53 percent in the current survey. The president’s disapproval ratings on environment issues are much higher than those noted for the governor (53% to 27%). Six in 10 Republicans support the president on environmental issues, while eight in 10 Democrats and nearly six in 10 independents do not. Among Republicans, disapproval is 7 points higher when it comes to Bush’s environmental record compared to his overall job performance. Residents of the Central Valley, Orange/San Diego, and the Inland Empire are more positive, but his approval ratings on environmental issues falls below 50 percent in all regions. Eight in 10 blacks, compared to about half of Asians, Latinos, and whites, disapprove of the way Bush has handled environmental issues. Disapproval increases with education and is unrelated to age. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States?” All Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Likely Adults Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters Approve 32% 13% 60% 26% 43% 23% 28% 35% 34% 27% 11% 33% 34% 33% Disapprove 53 79 25 57 44 62 57 48 48 49 79 49 52 58 Don't know 15 8 15 17 13 15 15 17 18 24 10 18 14 9 - 14 - Politics Presidential Election The top-of-the-ticket race on the November 2004 ballot in California is the presidential election. Among likely voters, the John Kerry / John Edwards Democratic ticket leads the George W. Bush / Dick Cheney Republican ticket in the state by an 11-point margin (49% to 38%). Kerry/Edwards have solid Democratic support (82%) and Bush/Cheney have strong GOP support (77%), while independents lean toward the Democratic ticket (50% to 25%). Following the partisan divide, the Democrats lead in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, while the Republicans lead in the Central Valley, Inland Empire, and Orange/San Diego Counties. Although the race is relatively close among white voters, Kerry/Edwards have a strong lead among Asian, black, and Latino voters. As for the gender gap, men are equally divided between Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney, while women favor the Democrats by a wide margin. “If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for:” Results among likely voters All Likely Voters Party Registration Democrat Republican Independent Central Valley Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/San Diego Inland Empire Asians Blacks Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites Gender Male Female John Kerry and John Edwards 49% 82 15 50 36 64 52 41 38 53 75 55 46 45 53 George W. Ralph Nader Bush and and Peter Dick Cheney Camejo 38% 5% 10 4 77 2 25 8 52 2 23 5 33 7 46 5 47 4 26 5 12 4 33 4 41 5 42 5 33 5 Other answer 2% 1 1 3 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 Don't know 6% 3 5 14 8 5 8 6 10 16 9 8 6 6 8 How important are environmental issues in the presidential contest? Thirty-seven percent of likely voters say the candidates’ environmental positions are very important in determining their vote. The significance of environmental issues varies between Democrats and Republicans and across regions and racial/ethnic groups. “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?” Results among likely voters Likely Voters Party Registration Dem Rep Ind CV Region OC/ SF LA SD Race/Ethnicity IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very important 37% 51% 19% 36% 34% 40% 42% 32% 28% 29% 45% 54% 34% Somewhat important 45 39 52 47 45 46 42 51 47 61 36 38 46 Not important 17 8 27 16 20 13 14 16 23 9 15 8 18 Don't know 1 2 21 11212 1 4 0 2 - 15 - July 2004 Politics U.S. Senate Race The U.S. Senate election is the other statewide candidate race on the November 2004 ballot in California. Currently, incumbent U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer holds a 15-point lead over Republican Bill Jones (52% to 37%). Boxer has strong support among Democrats (85%), and Jones has strong support among Republicans (77%); independents are leaning toward Boxer (57% to 25%). Jones’s strongest support lies in the Inland Empire; he and Boxer are in a statistical dead heat in the Orange/San Diego region and in the Central Valley; and Boxer currently has a large lead over Jones in both the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. While the race between Boxer and Jones is relatively close among white voters (47% to 43%), Boxer currently has a high double-digit lead over Jones due to strong support among Asian, black, and Latino voters. As for the gender gap, Boxer leads Jones by a narrower margin among men (49% to 41%) than among women (55% to 32%). “If the 2004 U.S. Senate election were being held today, would you vote for:” Results among likely voters All Likely Voters Democrat Party Registration Republican Independent Central Valley Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/San Diego Inland Empire Asians Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites Gender Male Female Barbara Boxer, the Democrat 52% 85 13 57 42 68 55 45 32 65 83 65 47 49 55 Bill Jones, the Republican 37% 8 77 25 47 27 31 43 52 23 7 20 43 41 32 Other answer 1% 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 0 2 1 1 2 1 Don't know 10% 7 9 16 10 4 13 12 13 12 8 14 9 8 12 How important are environmental issues in California’s U.S. Senate race? Thirty nine percent of voters say the candidates’ environmental positions are very important in determining their vote; however, opinions on the importance of environmental issues vary across party lines, regions of the state, and racial/ethnic groups. “In thinking about the California U.S. Senate 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?” Results among likely voters Likely Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Voters Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Very important Somewhat important Not important 39% 46 14 54% 38 7 20% 55 24 38% 49 13 35% 43% 43% 49 44 42 15 12 13 34% 52 13 32% 45 21 35% 54 9 49% 35 12 55% 37 7 36% 47 16 Don't know 1 1 1 0 112 12 2 4 1 1 - 16 - Politics State Bonds Two potential multibillion dollar state bond measures intending to expand the state’s non-automobile transportation choices and improve air quality are drawing a surprisingly high level of public support, given the state government’s ongoing fiscal constraints, including a multibillion dollar gap between spending and revenues. The Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act—a $9.95 billion state bond to plan and construct a highspeed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles through the Central Valley—was placed on the November 2004 ballot by the legislature and recently withdrawn by the legislature in favor of a vote in November 2006. At this time, 57 percent of likely voters favor this bond measure, 34 percent are opposed, and 9 percent are undecided. The high-speed train bond is favored by a majority of likely voters in all regions. Majorities of likely voters across party lines also support the train bond, although favor is stronger among Democrats (62%) and independents (59%) than among Republicans (52%). The proposed bond measure also draws majority support in all racial/ethnic groups. “Slated for the November 2006 state ballot is the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act— 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?” Results among likely voters Yes No Don't know Likely Voters 57% 34 9 Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity OC/ Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 62% 52% 59% 59% 61% 54% 57% 56% 65% 53% 64% 57% 29 40 34 34 31 36 36 30 24 39 32 34 9 8 7 7 8 10 7 14 11 8 4 9 The California Clean Air Bond Act proposed in the state legislature may also be headed for a future state ballot. This measure draws similar support, with 59 percent of likely voters saying they would vote yes on this $5.2 billion bond to fund air quality programs, while one in three is opposed and one in 10 undecided. Although the Clean Air Bond draws solid support from Democrats (70%) and independents (62%), Republicans are evenly divided between those inclined to vote yes and no (44% to 46%). The proposed bond measure is favored by majorities of likely voters in all racial/ethnic groups and regions, with support especially strong among Latinos (70%) and Asians (66%) and among voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (65%) and Los Angeles (61%). “The proposed California Clean Air Bond Act would provide 5.2 billion dollars in bond money to pay for air quality programs across the state, including financial incentives to reduce harmful emissions from farm equipment. If the election were held today would you vote yes or no?” Results among likely voters Yes No Don't know Party Registration Likely Region Race/Ethnicity Voters Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 59% 70% 44% 62% 55% 65% 61% 55% 56% 66% 63% 70% 56% 32 21 46 29 38 26 31 33 34 25 29 26 9 9 10 9 798 12 10 9 8 4 33 11 - 17 - July 2004 Politics Environmental Politics To further assess the importance of environmental issues in voters’ decisions, we asked Californians whether the federal or the state government, and whether the Republican or the Democratic Party, best reflects their own views on environmental policy. We also asked them which of the major party candidates for president and the U.S. Senate in the November election would do a better job in handling environmental issues. Among likely voters, there was general consensus on the first question. When asked whether the state or the federal government’s environmental policies are closer to their own views, likely voters pick Sacramento over Washington (57% to 26%). State government is the top choice by a majority of voters in all political groups and regions; however, Republicans and Central Valley voters are the least likely to choose the state government. Across racial/ethnic groups, blacks and Latinos are somewhat more likely than whites and Asians to say that the policies of the state government are closer to their own environmental views. “Which level of government tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy:” Results among likely voters State government Federal government Other answer Don't know Likely Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Voters Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites 57% 65% 47% 58% 49% 68% 58% 54% 56% 56% 63% 61% 56% 26 19 35 25 34 16 28 26 27 30 27 25 25 3 3 15 123 14 13 17 12 16 14 11 21 18 16 2 12 14 9 10 2 17 When asked to assess the environmental policies of the major political parties, 56 percent of likely voters say the Democratic Party’s environmental platform is closest to their own preferences, and 32 percent choose the Republican Party. Most Democrats (86%) and Republicans (71%) name their own party, while independents say they lean more toward the Democrats than the Republicans on environmental issues (55% to 25%). When the Green Party is offered as a third alternative, 25 percent of likely voters favor the Green Party, and the Democratic Party is chosen over the Republican Party by a much narrower 8-point margin (38% to 30%). “Which political party tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy:” Results among likely voters Likely Party Registration Region Race/Ethnicity Voters Dem Rep Ind CV SF LA OC/SD IE Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Democratic Party 56% 86% 21% 55% 44% 67% 64% 48% 46% 60% 80% 63% 52% Republican Party 32 4 71 25 46 19 26 37 41 23 7 17 Other answer 6 3 2 14 6 8 4 56 0 3 10 Don't know 6 7 6 6 4 6 6 10 7 17 10 10 38 6 4 When asked which of the major parties’ presidential candidates they trust the most in handling environmental issues, likely voters choose Kerry over Bush by a 26-point margin (56% to 30%), with voters deeply divided along partisan lines (82% of Democrats for Kerry, 64% of Republicans for Bush, and 64% of independents for Kerry). When we add Ralph Nader to the list of candidates, Kerry’s advantage over Bush shrinks to 7 points (34% to 27%) percent, with 31 percent of likely voters choosing Nader. When asked which of the major parties’ U.S. Senate candidates they trust the most in handling environmental issues, voters choose Boxer over Jones by a 26-point margin (54% to 28%), with voters again deeply divided along partisan lines (79% of Democrats for Boxer, 57% of Republicans for Jones, and 60% percent of independents for Boxer). - 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, associate survey director, Eliana Kaimowitz and Renatta DeFever, survey research associates, and Kimberly Curry, survey summer intern. 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 2,505 California adult residents interviewed between June 30 and July 14, 2004. 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 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. We chose these languages because Spanish is the dominant non-English language in the state, and these three Asian languages account for most of the non-English speaking Asian adults in California. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. translated the survey into Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese and 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 2,505 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 1,927 registered voters is +/- 2.3 percent. The sampling error for the 1,378 likely voters is +/- 2.7 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. The reported numbers for Asian and black likely voters are from a small sample base. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to five geographic regions. “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, “Inland Empire” includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego Counties. These five regions represent the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for respondents in the four self-identified racial/ethnic groups of Asian, black, Latino, and white. We also compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” We also analyze the responses of “likely” voters— those who are the most likely to participate in the state’s elections. In some cases, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in national surveys conducted by Gallup and the Harris Poll. We use earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE ENVIRONMENT JUNE 30—JULY 14, 2004 2,505 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS: ENGLISH, SPANISH, CHINESE, KOREAN, AND VIETNAMESE 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 suburb or a newer suburb?) 19% large city, central part 14 large city, not central part 15 suburb, older 6 suburb, newer 29 small city 8 town 8 rural area 1 don’t know 2. Do you own or rent your current residence? 56% own 42 rent 2 neither (volunteered) 3. 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 16 10 years to under 20 years 17 20 years or more 4. Changing topics, do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 43% right direction 43 wrong direction 14 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? 48% good times 40 bad times 12 don’t know 6. What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [open-ended list] 33% air pollution 8 pollution in general 7 water pollution 6 water supply 6 population growth and overpopulation 5 energy 3 traffic congestion 3 toxic waste and contamination 3 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 2 loss of open space 1 protecting wildlife, endangered species 1 loss of farmlands, agriculture 1 loss of parks, agriculture 1 global warming, global climate change 6 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? 27% a great deal 48 only some 19 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? 23% a great deal 47 only some 24 hardly any 3 no optimism (volunteered) 3 don’t know - 21 - Next, 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 to 12] 9. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 64% big problem 22 somewhat of a problem 13 not a problem 1 don’t know 10. How about the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs? 41% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 19 not a problem 3 don’t know 11. How about air pollution? 35% big problem 42 somewhat of a problem 23 not a problem 12. How about the availability of housing that you can afford? 63% big problem 22 somewhat of a problem 13 not a problem 2 don’t know 13. 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? 20% very serious 39 somewhat serious 40 not too serious 1 don’t know 14. For your next automobile, would you seriously consider purchasing or leasing a vehicle powered by a hybrid gas and electric engine? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 47% yes, even if more costly 16 yes, but not if more costly 24 no 13 don’t know/ not applicable 15. 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? 71% yes, believe 17 no, do not believe 12 don’t know 16. 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? 76% right away 19 not necessary yet 5 don’t know 17. 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? 81% support 12 oppose 7 don’t know State policies are being considered to reduce air pollution and improve energy efficiency in California. Do you think the following policies are good ideas or bad ideas? [rotate questions 18 to 23] 18. What about allowing solo drivers of hybrid gaselectric vehicles to use the carpool lanes on freeways—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 67% good idea 26 bad idea 7 don’t know 19. What about the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run at least partially on solar power starting in 2006—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 82% good idea 13 bad idea 5 don’t know 20. What about 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 think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 87% good idea 8 bad idea 5 don’t know - 22 - 21. What about adding six dollars to the vehicle license fee for new cars and exempting new cars from smog checks for the first six years in order to pay for a state program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, trucks, and other equipment—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 66% good idea 28 bad idea 6 don’t know 22. What about requiring all trucks that deliver goods into California, including trucks from Mexico, to meet federal air pollution standards—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 90% good idea 8 bad idea 2 don’t know 23. What about a plan to have California lead the nation in the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology by building a “hydrogen highway” with 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010—do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? 57% good idea 23 bad idea 20 don’t know 24. In general, which one of these statements is closest to your view: (rotate) Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth; or Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent? 55% environment should be given priority 29 economic growth should be given priority 10 both equally (volunteered) 1 other answer (specify) 5 don’t know 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 25 to 28] 25. How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 44% favor 50 oppose 6 don’t know 26. How about allowing new oil drilling in federallyprotected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness? 42% favor 51 oppose 7 don’t know 27. 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?) 73% favor, even if it increased the cost of buying a new car 14 favor, but not if it increased the cost of buying a new car 8 oppose 5 don’t know 28. How about setting the objective that all the western states increase their energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2020? 79% favor 13 oppose 8 don’t know 29. 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 (sport-utility vehicle)? 27% compact car 25 mid-size car 10 full-size car 29 another type of vehicle such as van, pickup, or SUV 7 don’t drive [skip to q34] 2 don’t know 30. Thinking about the cost of gasoline, do you think the current rise in gas prices represents [rotate] a temporary fluctuation in prices; or a permanent change in prices? 39% temporary fluctuation 56 permanent change 5 don’t know 31. Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? 55% yes, caused hardship 45 no, not caused hardship 32. As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices, would you say that you have or have not cut back significantly on how much you drive? 47% yes, have 52 no, have not 1 don’t know - 23 - July 2004 33. As a result of the recent rise in gasoline prices, would you say that you have or have not seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time you buy a vehicle? 66% yes, have 32 no, have not 2 don’t know 34. 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? 40% approve 54 disapprove 6 don’t know 35. And do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 32% approve 53 disapprove 15 don’t know 36. 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? 6% more than enough 32 just enough 56 not enough 6 don’t know 37. Turning to the state: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 57% approve 29 disapprove 14 don’t know 38. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 39% approve 27 disapprove 34 don’t know 39. Overall, do you think that the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 11% more than enough 40 just enough 42 not enough 7 don’t know 40. The state government faces a gap between spending and revenues over the next few years. Should the state: [rotate] continue to fund environmental programs at the current level, even if it means less funds for other programs; or reduce funding for environmental programs, so that more funds are available for other programs? 54% continue to fund at current level 29 reduce funding 5 other answer (specify) 12 don’t know [Responses recorded for questions 41 through 50 are from likely voters only. All other responses are from all adults] [rotate questions 41 and 42] 41. Slated for the November 2006 state ballot is the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act— 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? 57% yes 34 no 9 don’t know 42. The proposed California Clean Air Bond Act would provide 5.2 billion dollars in bond money to pay for air quality programs across the state, including financial incentives to reduce harmful emissions from farm equipment. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no? 59% yes 32 no 9 don’t know - 24 - Q43a was asked from June 30 to July 5; Q43b was asked from July 6—when John Kerry announced John Edwards as his running mate—until the end of the survey. Q43a reports the results from interviews with 314 likely voters; Q43b reports the results from 1,064 likely voters. 43a.Changing topics, if the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] George W. Bush, the Republican; John Kerry, the Democrat; or Ralph Nader, an independent? 46% John Kerry, the Democrat 39 George W. Bush, the Republican 6 Ralph Nader, an independent 2 other answer (specify) 7 don’t know 43b.Changing topics, if the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] the Republican ticket of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney; the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards; or an independent ticket of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo? 49% John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats 38 George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans 5 Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, independents 2 other answer (specify) 6 don’t know 44a. [half sample] Whom do you trust to do a better job in handling environmental issues: [rotate] George W. Bush or John Kerry? 56% John Kerry 30 George W. Bush 3 other answer (specify) 11 don’t know 44b. [half sample] Whom do you trust to do a better job in handling environmental issues: [rotate] George W. Bush, John Kerry, or Ralph Nader? 34% John Kerry 31 Ralph Nader 27 George W. Bush 1 other answer (specify) 7 don’t know - 25 - 45. 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? 37% very important 45 somewhat important 17 not important 1 don’t know 46. If the 2004 U.S. Senate election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] Barbara Boxer, the Democrat; or Bill Jones, the Republican? 52% Barbara Boxer, the Democrat 37 Bill Jones, the Republican 1 other answer (specify) 10 don’t know 47. Whom do you trust to do a better job of handling environmental issues [rotate] Barbara Boxer; or Bill Jones? 54% Barbara Boxer 28 Bill Jones 1 other answer (specify) 17 don’t know 48. In thinking about the California U.S. Senate election in 2004, how important are the candidate’s positions on environmental issues—such as air pollution, global warming, and energy policy—in determining your vote: very important, somewhat important, or not important? 39% very important 46 somewhat important 14 not important 1 don’t know 49a. [half sample] Which political party tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy: [rotate] the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? 56% Democratic Party 32 Republican Party 6 other answer (specify) 6 don’t know 49b. [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? 38% Democratic Party 30 Republican Party 25 Green Party 1 other answer (specify) 6 don’t know July 2004 50. Which level of government tends to be closer to your own views on environmental policy: [rotate] the state government or the federal government? 57% state government 26 federal government 3 other answer (specify) 14 don’t know 51. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 26% great deal 41 fair amount 26 only a little 6 none 1 don’t know 52. Some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 78% yes 22 no [skip to q54a] 53. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [ask q54b] 35 Republican [ask q54c] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q55] 17 independent [ask q54a] 54a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 23% Republican party 49 Democratic party 17 neither (volunteered) 11 don’t know [skip to q55] 54b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 53% strong 44 not very strong 3 don’t know [skip to q55] 54c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 58% strong 40 not very strong 2 don’t know 55.How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 49% always 19 nearly always 10 part of the time 4 seldom 17 never 1 don’t know 56. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically: [rotate] 11% very liberal 20 somewhat liberal 28 middle-of-the-road 26 somewhat conservative 11 very conservative 4 don’t know D4.[asked of those with full- or part-time jobs] How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, public bus or transit, walking, or bicycle? 71% drive alone 12 carpool 5 public bus or transit 4 walking 2 bicycle 4 work at home (volunteered) 2 other (specify) D5.Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sportutility vehicle)? 23% yes 77 no - 26 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mitchel Benson Director of Communications California Treasurer Phil Angelides Angela Blackwell President PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Max Neiman Professor Political Science Department University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 27- PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project 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 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 Norman R. King Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments 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 Corporation 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 09:37:28" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_704mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:28" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:28" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_704MBS.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) }