Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 705MBS

Authors

S 705MBS

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_705MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1596205" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(92509) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY JULY 2005 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey on the Environment in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett 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. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Inaugurated in April 1998, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 118,000 Californians. This special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey—a survey on the environment—is the second in a three-year PPIC survey series made possible with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The intent of this special series is to inform state, local, and federal policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about a variety of environment, education, and population issues facing the state. The current survey focuses in particular on public perceptions, policy preferences, and personal choices regarding air quality and energy-related issues. Currently, there is a considerable amount of political debate at the state and federal government level about air pollution, energy policy, and global warming. California has several regions with high levels of air pollution and has taken the lead nationally in policy efforts to address environmental and energy issues related to air pollution and global warming. We seek to inform the current debates by offering the perspective of the California public’s attitudes about these issues. This special edition of our survey presents the responses of 2,502 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 with an emphasis on air quality and health, perceptions of global warming and attitudes toward energy policy, and attitudes toward state and national political leadership in the area of environmental policy. Some of the questions are repeated from PPIC Statewide Surveys on the environment conducted in June 2000, June 2002, July 2003, and July 2004. 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 air quality and health issues, including identification of the state’s most important environmental issue; ratings of air, land, and water pollution in the region where the respondent lives; perceived threat of air pollution to personal health; perceived causes of air pollution; and what actions people are willing to take to improve air quality in their region. • Public opinion about global warming and energy policy, including perceptions of the threat of global warming and its effects on California’s future; public support for state policies such as increased use of solar power, the development of a hydrogen highway, and efforts to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions; and public opinion about the U.S. energy supply, such as the development of liquefied natural gas and nuclear power facilities and U.S. energy exploration. • State and national political issues, including ratings of the governor and president overall and on environmental issues; preferences for the role of government and trust in state and federal government on environmental issues; confidence in the sources of environmental information; the effects of recent increases in gasoline prices on automobile use and future purchase plans; and levels of public participation in environmental groups and activities. • Variations in environmental perceptions, public policy preferences, political attitudes, and political participation across the five major regions of the state (the Central Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, the Orange/San Diego County areas, and the Inland Empire); between Asians, blacks, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites; and across socioeconomic and political groups. 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 Air Quality and Health Global Warming and Energy State and National 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 THE ENVIRONMENT WHOSE WORLD IS IT ANYWAY? CALIFORNIANS SAY STATE SHOULD TAKE LEAD ON GLOBAL WARMING Concern Over Air Pollution Trumps Economic, Financial Considerations Little Support for Schwarzenegger, Bush on Environmental Issues SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 21, 2005 — Driven by concerns about how global warming will degrade their quality of life and by a profound lack of confidence in the environmental and energy tilt of the federal government, Californians want the state to act on its own to address the problem, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. For most Californians, global warming is a real or looming phenomenon: 86 percent believe it will affect current or future generations, and 57 percent believe the effects are already being felt. Three in four (75%) say the effects of global warming on the state’s economy and quality of life will be very or somewhat serious. And large majorities of state residents say they are at least somewhat concerned about the possible impacts of global warming, including increased air pollution (86%), more severe droughts (78%), greater coastal erosion (67%), and increased flooding (60%). Of those who believe global warming will affect current or future generations, 62 percent identify human activities as the primary cause; only 22 percent say naturally occurring increases in temperature are responsible. So what do Californians want to do about it? A majority (54%) express a preference for their state government to develop its own policies, apart from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming. Some current state efforts get broad public support: • 77 percent favor the state law requiring automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California, beginning in 2009. Support for this measure has remained steady since June 2002. • 69 percent support the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets recently established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which aim to reduce GHG emissions from cars, power plants, and industry by more than 80 percent over the next 50 years. Why are Californians more inclined to see the state, rather than the federal government, as a potential problemsolver? “It’s a question of trust,” says PPIC statewide survey director Mark Baldassare. “Californians do not have much faith in government in general, but when it comes to environmental and energy issues, they clearly see the state as more adequately representing their interests.” Indeed, more residents trust the state government (52%) than the federal government (43%) to provide correct information about the condition of the environment – although both receive considerably less public trust than do scientists and researchers at universities (78%) and environmental organizations (64%). The state is also favored over the federal government when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment; however, only about one in three Californians trusts the state government (37%) or the federal government (32%) to do what is right just about always or most of the time. -v- Press Release Bush, Schwarzenegger Feel the Heat On a range of environmental and energy issues, state residents are at odds with the Bush administration and federal priorities. This disconnect has done little to help performance ratings for President George W. Bush: Overall, four in 10 California adults (38%) say they approve of President Bush’s performance in office. Fewer state residents approve of his handling of environmental (32%) and energy (29%) issues, and majorities disapprove of his performance in both areas (54% environment, 53% energy). The differences between the energy priorities of the federal government (oil drilling and nuclear power) and those of state residents (fuel efficiency) are illuminating: • A majority of state residents (56%) oppose new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness. On a related note, Californians (53%) also remain opposed to allowing more oil drilling off the California coast. • Most Californians (59%) oppose constructing new nuclear power plants in order to expand U.S. energy sources. While 33 percent of Californians support building more nuclear power plants, only 20 percent would still support the plan if a plant were built within 50 miles of their home. Similarly, although 48 percent of state residents favor the construction of liquefied natural gas terminals, only 29 percent would still support the plan if a facility were located within 50 miles of their home. • 83 percent of Californians favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars – and 73 percent support the policy even if it increases the cost of buying a new car. Unlike President Bush, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been quick to show that he is close to the hearts and minds of Californians when it comes to environmental and energy issues. A solid majority of residents (55%) approve of his plan to encourage the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology and most (76%) endorse his effort to provide incentives for the use of solar energy in homes and businesses. Have these efforts paid off for the governor? Overall, his approval rating is at a low point (34%), down from 40 percent in May. And Californians are divided when it comes to his handling of environmental issues, with 32 percent of residents saying they approve and 35 percent saying they disapprove. “Schwarzenegger’s problem is more global and has little to do with his environmental record,” says Baldassare. In the broader context, 51 percent of Californians say the state is headed in the wrong direction and 54 percent oppose holding a special election in November. Californians Want Progress on Air Pollution and Are Willing to Pay to Get It Air pollution (26%) tops the list of most important environmental issues facing the state, surpassing the next most important issues – pollution in general, water pollution, and energy (6% each) – by 20 points. The concern about air pollution is most strongly held by blacks (33%), although whites (28%), Asians (27%), and Latinos (23%) all consider air pollution the primary environmental issue. Los Angeles (31%) and Inland Empire (29%) residents are more likely than San Francisco Bay Area (23%) and Orange/San Diego area (22%) residents to view air pollution as the top issue. Thirty-eight percent of Californians view air pollution as a big problem in their region today, and that is 10 points higher than it was five years ago (28% in June 2000). Moreover, during the past five years, there has been a dramatic rise in the perception of air pollution as a big problem in both the Central Valley (28% to 45%) and the Inland Empire (28% to 48%). While residents of these two regions are most likely to say that the air quality in their area has gotten worse in the past 10 years, concerns about deteriorating air quality span all regions of the state. Six in 10 Californians (57%) believe air pollution in their region is at least a somewhat serious health threat to themselves and their families. The growing perception that California’s air is polluted – and that air pollution poses a serious health threat – may be driving a willingness to ante up to help alleviate the problem and to demand the same response from businesses. For example, state residents are more likely to cite vehicle emissions (42%) than other factors, including population growth and development (21%),as the greatest contributor to air pollution. Their response? Three in four residents (75%) support tougher air pollution - vi - Press Release standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs, and 66 percent support such standards even if it increases the cost of purchasing a vehicle. Similarly, seven in 10 Californians (69%) say they would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle, including 56 percent who would do so even if it cost more than a conventional vehicle. Six in 10 residents (59%) support stricter air pollution standards for agriculture and farm activities, with 54 percent supporting such standards even if it costs agricultural businesses more to operate. And support for tougher pollution controls is even higher (77%) when it comes to cargo ships, trucks, and trains, with 70 percent of residents favoring this policy even if it raises the cost of doing business in these industries. Gas Price Spike Affecting Actions, Attitudes Has the recent escalation in gasoline prices translated into increased efforts by Californians to reduce their driving? Many residents (43%) say they have already cut back significantly on their driving time because of recent price increases, while 51 percent say they have not. Not surprisingly, cutting back on driving is strongly related to income: While only 31 percent of Californians with a household income of $80,000 or more claim to be driving less, 51 percent of residents with household incomes under $40,000 say they have reduced their driving. However, higher gas prices have clearly had a widespread effect: 64 percent of state residents – including majorities across all income categories – say they would seriously consider buying or leasing a more fuel-efficient car. More Key Findings • Lots of Interest, Less Involvement Among Blacks, Latinos (page 18) Most Californians (86%) – including strong majorities of whites, Latinos, blacks, and Asians – say they are interested in news and information about environmental issues. However, whites are more likely to be personally involved in environmental organizations or related activities than are other racial/ethnic groups, particularly Latinos and blacks. For example, 14 percent of whites say they have volunteered their time in the past year to work on an environmental issue, compared to 8 percent of Latinos and blacks. • Media Gets Low Marks (page 16) When residents are asked to assess the trustworthiness of five entities in providing correct information about the environment, scientists and researchers at universities (78%) receive the most trust, while the news media get the least (39%). About the Survey This survey on the environment – made possible by funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation – is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the second in a three-year survey series intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about a variety of education, environment, and population issues facing California. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,502 California adult residents interviewed between June 28 and July 12, 2005. 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 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 21. ### - vii - Percent all adults Percent Who Think Air Pollution Is a "Big Problem" in Their Region 60 50 48 50 45 40 30 28 30 20 10 0 LA IE CV OC/SD SF BA Percent all adults Percent Who Think Air Pollution Is a "Very" or "Somewhat" Serious Health Threat 80 73 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Black 67 58 Latino Asian 50 White Percent Who Say the Effects of Global Warming Have Already Begun 80 70 60 57 68 58 50 42 40 30 20 10 0 All adults Dem Rep Ind Percent Who Support a State Law Requiring Automakers to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6 17 Percent all adults Favor 77 Oppose Don't know Percent all adults Preference for California State Government Making Its Own Policies, Separate from the Federal Government, to Address Global Warming 9 37 Percent all adults 54 Favor Oppose Don't know Perc ent all adults Elected Officials Approval Ratings 50 40 34 32 30 38 32 20 10 0 Overall Enviro nment Gov. Schw arzenegger Overall Enviro nment President Bush Air Quality and Health Most Important State Environmental Issue Californians have consistently rated air pollution as the most important environmental issue facing the state, and that trend continues in this survey. This year, 26 percent of residents name air pollution as the most pressing environmental issue today. Other frequently mentioned environmental concerns in our openended question are energy; pollution in general; water pollution of the ocean, lakes, rivers, and streams; and water supply and reservoirs—but none of these is mentioned by more than 10 percent of adults. Even fewer mention population growth and overpopulation, loss of open space, and global warming. While all racial/ethnic groups consider air pollution the top environmental issue, it is mentioned more frequently by blacks (33%) than by Latinos (23%), Asians (27%), and whites (28%). Air pollution is also considered the top environmental issue in all five major regions of the state, but is named more frequently in the Central Valley (31%), Los Angeles County (31%) and the Inland Empire (29%) than in the San Francisco Bay Area (23%) and the Orange/San Diego area (22%). Also, inland county residents mention this issue slightly more often than coastal county residents (30% to 25%). In a state where there is a strong partisan divide on many public policy issues, voters across all of the major political parties are united in naming air pollution as the top environmental issue in California, and there are no differences among liberals, moderates, and conservatives in their perception of this issue. Air pollution is also at the top of the list among all demographic groups, although concern about poor air quality tends to increase slightly with age, income, and home ownership. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top five mentions Air pollution Energy Pollution in general Water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams Water supply, reservoirs All Adults 26% 6 6 6 5 Asians 27% 14 6 2 3 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 33% 23% 42 97 54 13 Whites 28% 7 5 8 7 “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top five mentions Air pollution Energy Pollution in general Water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams Water supply, reservoirs All Adults 26% 6 6 6 5 Central Valley 31% 3 5 6 5 SF Bay Area 23% 11 5 5 6 Region Los Angeles 31% 5 6 6 3 Orange/San Diego 22% 3 6 Inland Empire 29% 4 8 83 65 -1- Air Quality and Health Regional Environmental Issues When asked to rate the severity of three environmental problems in their region, Californians name air pollution (73%) well ahead of pollution of the land and soil (61%) and pollution of drinking water (53%) as at least somewhat of a problem. While almost four in 10 residents rank air pollution as a big problem in their region, fewer then one in four say that pollution of drinking water and pollution of land and soil are big problems in their region. There are significant differences in the level of concern about these three environmental issues across the state’s regions. Los Angeles residents and Central Valley residents are more likely than others to rate all three environmental issues as big problems in their region. San Francisco Bay Area residents and Orange/San Diego residents are less likely than others to rate air pollution and pollution of drinking water as big problems. Inland Empire residents resemble Central Valley and Los Angeles residents in their concern about air pollution; however, they are less inclined than residents of these two other regions to say that the pollution of the land and drinking water are big problems. How big a problem is _______ in your region? (percent saying “a big problem”) Air pollution Pollution of the land and soil Pollution of drinking water All Adults 38% 24 21 Central Valley 45% 27 24 SF Bay Area 28% 19 17 Region Los Angeles 50% 29 27 Orange/ San Diego 30% 22 19 Inland Empire 48% 20 20 There are also major variations in concern about regional environmental issues across racial/ethnic groups. Blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites and Asians to rank air pollution, pollution of land and soil, and pollution of drinking water as big problems in their region. While half of blacks and nearly half of Latinos see air pollution as a big problem in the region where they live, only about one in three whites and Asians have this perception. Moreover, one in three blacks and Latinos rate pollution of land and drinking water as big problems, compared to fewer than one in five whites and Asians. How big a problem is _________ in your region? (percent saying “a big problem”) Air pollution Pollution of the land and soil Pollution of drinking water All Adults 38% 24 21 Asians 34% 18 19 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 51% 34 32 Latinos 44% 31 31 Whites 33% 19 14 Other important differences in ratings of environmental issues stem from socioeconomic status and party identification. Lower-income Californians show higher concern about air, land, and drinking water pollution than upper-income residents. Similarly, renters are more likely than homeowners to say that air pollution, pollution of land and soil, and pollution of drinking water are big problems in their region. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say these are big environmental problems. -2- Air Quality and Health Regional Air Quality Concern about regional air quality continues to grow in the state. The proportion of Californians who view air pollution as a big problem in their region today is 38 percent and has grown three points from last year (35% in July 2004), seven points from two years ago (31% in July 2003), and 10 points from five years ago (28% in June 2000). Moreover, there has been a dramatic increase in the perception of air pollution as a big problem in both the Central Valley (28% to 45%) and the Inland Empire (28% to 48%) over the past five years. Concern in two other regions of the state has risen less dramatically but still consistently, with the percentage who say that air pollution is a big problem increasing by 10 points in Los Angeles (40% to 50%) and in Orange/San Diego (20% to 30%) since June 2000. Public perception of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area shows no significant change compared to June 2000. Percent saying air pollution is “a big problem” All Adults Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/San Diego Inland Empire June 00 28% 28 26 40 20 28 May 01 30% 33 22 46 21 30 June 02 34% 39 27 47 26 35 July 03 31% 42 21 43 22 38 July 04 35% 47 24 47 26 38 July 05 38% 45 28 50 30 48 This year’s survey also finds that nearly half the state’s residents perceive the air quality in their region as worse than it was ten years ago; only 26 percent say that the air quality has improved. Residents of the Central Valley and Inland Empire are most likely to say that their air quality has deteriorated, but in all regions, residents are more likely to say that the air quality has gotten worse. By comparison, in July 2003, 30 percent said air quality was better and 38 percent said it was worse than it was 10 years ago. We also find significant differences across racial/ethnic groups this year: blacks (60%) and Latinos (55%) are more likely than whites (41%) and Asians (46%) to say the air quality has deteriorated over time. The perception that air quality is getting worse is associated with youth, lower income, lower education, renting, and the presence of children. Women are more likely than men (52% to 42%), and Democrats are more likely than Republicans (52% to 36%), to say their air quality has gotten worse. “Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago?” Better Worse Same (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 26% 47 14 13 Central Valley 14% 61 13 12 SF Bay Area 22% 42 Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 32% 32% 48 39 Inland Empire 25% 53 18 11 14 10 18 9 15 12 Asians 23% 46 18 13 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 25% 60 Latinos 19% 55 Whites 30% 41 7 14 15 8 12 14 - 3 - July 2005 Air Quality and Health Perceptions of Air Pollution Six in 10 Californians (57%) believe that air pollution in their region is at least somewhat of a health threat to themselves and their immediate families, a pattern also evident in July 2003 (58%) and July 2004 (59%). Today, 21 percent call this threat very serious and 36 percent somewhat serious. While a majority of residents in nearly all regions say that local air pollution threatens the health of themselves and their families at least somewhat, the proportion calling it very serious is greater in Los Angeles (29%), the Central Valley (27%), and the Inland Empire (25%). There are differences across racial/ethnic groups in perceptions of air pollution as a health threat. Latinos (30%) and blacks (34%) are much more likely than Asians (14%) or whites (16%) to see it as a very serious threat. The perception that air pollution is a serious health threat is greater among lower-income than upper-income Californians, and among those with a higher level of interest in following environmental issues. Most residents cite vehicle emissions (42%) and population growth and development (21%) as the major causes of air pollution in their region. These perceptions are changing: Since July 2003, there has been a decline in mentions of vehicle emissions (47% to 42%) and a rise in mentions of growth and development (16% to 21%) as the major cause. “How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” Very serious Somewhat serious Not too serious Not at all serious (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 21% 36 38 Central Valley 27% 36 32 SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 16% 29% 14% 34 39 34 46 28 47 Inland Empire 25% 41 30 Asians 14% 44 36 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 34% 39 25 Latinos Whites 30% 16% 37 34 30 45 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 24 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 11 “Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region?” Vehicle emissions Population growth and development Industry and agriculture Pollution from outside the area Weather and geography All of the above (volunteered) Something else (specify) Don't know All Adults 42% Central Valley 33% SF Bay Area 52% Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 45% 43% Inland Empire 36% Asians 46% Race/Ethnicity Blacks 38% Latinos 37% Whites 46% 21 21 19 19 26 30 22 21 18 23 13 17 12 14 9 7 9 19 19 10 11 14 7 9 12 16 11 12 15 9 5634 4 65444 3433 2 23233 2211 2 11022 3335 2 23423 -4- Air Quality and Health Automobile Preferences Californians want to drive cars that are friendlier to the environment—and they are even willing to pay more for them. Three in four support tougher pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs, including 66 percent who support such standards even if their next car costs more money. These numbers are nearly identical to those in our July 2003 survey. A majority of voters in all political parties support tougher vehicle pollution standards, although Democrats (82%) and independents (79%) are more enthusiastic than Republicans (61%). Support is also high in all regions, but is strongest in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and the Inland Empire. SUV owners are slightly less likely than those who own other types of vehicles to want tougher pollution standards (72% to 77%), and support is somewhat lower among longdistance commuters than among those who drive 20 miles or less (69% to 78%). Majorities in all racial/ethnic groups also support tougher standards, even if it raises the sticker price. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs?” (if yes: “Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle? ”) Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly Yes, but follow-up doesn’t apply (vol) No Don't know All Adults 66% 7 Central Valley 60% 7 Region SF Bay Los Orange/San Area Angeles Diego 68% 9 69% 7 63% 6 Inland Empire 67% 7 Party Dem 75% 7 Rep 56% 5 Ind 71% 8 2 2 3 2 2 2 223 19 25 15 15 24 19 13 31 15 6 6 5 7 5 5 363 Similarly, seven in 10 Californians say they would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle, including 56 percent who would do so even if it cost more than a standard vehicle. In July 2004, 63 percent said they would consider buying a hybrid, but only 47 percent would do so if it cost them more money. Again, all political parties are favorable toward more environmentally friendly vehicles, with Democrats (76%) and independents (79%) more likely than Republicans (61%) to consider buying a hybrid. Strong majorities in all regions and demographic groups are willing to buy a hybrid vehicle, although older residents, those with lower incomes, and those with less education are less likely to do so if it costs them more. Support for buying a hybrid vehicle is similar across racial/ethnic groups, but blacks are less willing than whites (59%), Asians (56%), or Latinos (53%) to consider a hybrid (49%) if it increases the price. SUV owners are as willing as others to consider a hybrid for their next vehicle. “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? ”) All Adults Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Doesn’t apply (vol) Don't know 56% 13 21 4 6 Central Valley 53% 14 25 2 6 SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 58% 56% 55% 14 12 14 17 18 23 54 6 10 3 5 Inland Empire 57% 10 25 2 6 Party Dem 65% 11 15 4 5 Rep 45% 16 28 3 8 Ind 68% 11 16 3 2 - 5 - July 2005 Air Quality and Health Industry Preferences Six in 10 adults support stricter air pollution standards for agriculture and farm activities, even in the state’s agricultural Central Valley. Among all residents, 54 percent support such standards even if it costs these businesses more to operate. Support for stricter pollution standards for agriculture has risen since July 2003, when only 47 percent remained in favor if it raised the cost of doing business. Solid majorities of Democrats (67%) and independents (63%) favor stricter agricultural pollution standards, while support drops below half among Republicans (46%). Support for stricter controls for agriculture is higher among Asians (70%) and blacks (69%) than among Latinos (61%) and whites (58%). Younger and moreeducated residents also express stronger support for tougher air pollution standards on farm industries. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities?” (if yes: “Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate? ”) Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Don't know All Adults 54% 5 29 12 Central Valley 53% 7 31 9 SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 62% 53% 50% 47 23 28 3 33 11 12 14 Inland Empire 52% 5 35 8 Party Dem 63% 4 22 11 Rep 42% 4 43 11 Ind 59% 4 28 9 Support for tougher pollution controls is even higher when it comes to cargo ships, trucks and trains. Three in four Californians want tighter standards on these businesses, with 70 percent favoring this policy even if it raises the costs for these businesses to operate. Public support is strongest among Democrats (85%) and independents (80%), while 68 percent of Republicans favor tighter pollution controls for freight and cargo shippers. Support is high in all regions, and there is no difference between coastal and inland residents. Solid majorities in all demographic groups favor tougher air pollution standards for the transport of freight and cargo, with most continuing their support even if it raises costs for these businesses. However, support is somewhat weaker among less-educated and lower-income residents. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo?” (if yes: “Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate? ”) All Adults Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Don't know 70% 7 16 7 Central Valley 67% 8 17 8 Region SF Bay Los Orange/San Area Angeles Diego 73% 5 73% 7 66% 8 15 13 20 77 6 Inland Empire 72% 8 15 5 Party Dem 80% 5 9 6 Rep 62% 6 22 10 Ind 73% 7 16 4 -6- Global Warming and Energy Perceptions of Global Warming For most Californians, global warming is a real or looming phenomenon: 86 percent believe it will affect current or future generations, and 57 percent believe the effects are already being felt. Only 9 percent believe global warming will never happen. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans generally are about as likely as Californians to believe effects of global warning are already being felt (54%) or never will be (9%). There are, however, strong partisan differences in the state. Democrats (68%) and independents (58%) are much more likely than Republicans (42%) to believe the effects have begun. Only 3 percent of Democrats believe it will never happen, compared to 20 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents. Among other groups, at least six in 10 college graduates, women, 35 to 54 year-olds, and San Francisco Bay Area residents believe that global warming is already under way. “Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen?” All Adults Already begun Within a few years Within your lifetime Not within lifetime, but will affect future generations Will never happen Don't know 57% 5 9 15 9 5 High School 49% 8 8 18 8 9 Education Some College College Graduate 59% 62% 33 10 10 15 12 99 44 Dem 68% 3 9 13 3 4 Party Rep 42% 3 9 19 20 7 Ind 58% 4 13 10 10 5 Of those who believe global warming will affect current or future generations, 62 percent identify human activities as the primary cause; only 22 percent believe naturally occurring increases in temperature are responsible. Although majorities in all political groups say human activity contributes most to warming, Democrats (72%) and independents (71%) are more likely than Republicans (51%) to hold this view. This view is also stronger among whites and blacks (67% each) than among Asians (58%) and Latinos (55%) and increases with education and income. “Which of the following do you think contributes the most to global warming?” * All Adults High School Education Some College College Graduate Human activities, such as farming, deforestation, and burning fossil fuels 62% 52% 62% 72% Naturally occurring increases in temperature 22 29 20 15 Both (volunteered) 8 8 10 7 Other (specify) 11 1 1 Don't know 7 10 7 5 * Question not asked of respondents who think global warming will never happen. Party Dem Rep 72% 51% 17 28 68 12 4 11 Ind 71% 17 7 0 5 -7- Global Warming and Energy Global Warming and California’s Future Many Californians are also concerned about the effects of global warming on the state’s economy and quality of life. Three in four say those effects will be very (39%) or somewhat (36%) serious. Only one in five believed the threat is not too serious (12%) or not at all serious (10%). A majority of residents in all regions and demographic groups believe global warming poses at least somewhat of a threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life; but women, younger residents, and people with lower incomes express the highest levels of concern. There are also considerable racial/ethnic and partisan differences. Latinos (51%) and blacks (46%) are more likely than whites (34%) and Asians (32%), and Democrats (49%) and independents (43%) are more likely than Republicans (21%), to think global warming is a very serious threat to California’s future. “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California's future?” Very serious Somewhat serious Not too serious Not at all serious Don't know All Adults 39% 36 12 10 3 Asians 32% 52 11 2 3 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 46% 38 8 4 4 51% 35 7 4 3 Whites 34% 34 15 14 3 Dem 49% 37 8 3 3 Party Rep 21% 31 20 25 3 Ind 43% 33 12 9 3 When asked about four possible effects of global warming in the future of California, residents are most concerned about increased air pollution (86% are very or somewhat concerned). However, 78 percent are at least somewhat concerned about more severe droughts, 67 percent about increased coastal erosion, and 60 percent about increased flooding. In each of the five regions, a majority of residents are at least somewhat concerned about these four possible effects. Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area residents are more likely than others to express concern about the possibility of increased coastal erosion. Although air pollution raises the most concern across party groups and demographic categories, the percentage with at least some concern is higher among Democrats (91%) and independents (90%) than among Republicans (72%). For the most part, concern is lower among whites than among other racial/ethnic groups and higher among women, younger residents, and people with lower incomes. “I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one.” Percent saying “very” or “somewhat” concerned How about increased air pollution? How about droughts that are more severe? How about increased coastal erosion? How about increased flooding? All Adults 86% 78 67 60 Central Valley 85% 75 60 62 SF Bay Area 88% 80 70 61 Region Los Angeles 89% 79 70 65 Orange/San Diego 81% Inland Empire 88% 74 79 63 64 53 60 -8- Global Warming and Energy California Emissions Policy It is consistent with the concerns about global warming that 77 percent of Californians favor the state law requiring automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California, beginning in 2009. The level of support is roughly the same as it was when we asked similar (though not identical) questions in the June 2002 (81%), July 2003 (80%), and July 2004 (81%) surveys. Support for the policy is high in all political and demographic groups. However, it is higher among Democrats (85%) and independents (81%) than among Republicans (64%). Across racial/ethnic groups, support is highest among Asians (90%) and about the same among whites (77%), Latinos (74%), and blacks (72%). Support for the policy also increases with education. It is interesting that we find as much support for the law among those who own SUVs as among those who don’t (77% each). However, support is somewhat lower among those who commute more than 20 miles each way than among those with shorter commutes (74% to 80%). “What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 77% 17 6 Dem 85% 11 4 Party Rep 64% 28 8 Ind 81% 16 3 Likely Voters 78% 17 5 On June 1st of this year, Governor Schwarzenegger established a goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The public (69%) and likely voters (71%) strongly favor the governor’s GHG emissions targets. There is strong majority support for this policy across all parties, with Democrats (72%) and independents (74%) only slightly more in favor than Republicans (69%). Support is also high across racial/ethnic groups but higher among Asians (81%) and whites (74%) than among blacks (68%) and Latinos (59%). Support for this state goal is higher among younger, more affluent, and more educated residents. It is also higher among people who give the governor high job ratings than among those who give him negative ratings (76% to 65%), although both groups strongly support this policy. “What about the greenhouse gas emissions targets recently established by Governor Schwarzenegger, which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, and industry by more than 80 percent over the next 50 years?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 69% 17 14 Dem 72% 16 12 Party Rep 69% 18 13 Ind 74% 17 9 Likely Voters 71% 16 13 - 9 - July 2005 Global Warming and Energy State Policies for Alternative Energy Sources The Schwarzenegger administration has proposed 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. Californians continue to support this: 55 percent of adults favor the plan, as did 57 percent who were asked a similar question in July 2004. Currently, one in four opposes the plan, and 18 percent say they do not know enough about it to have an opinion. Despite overall majority support, there are political differences. The plan has majority support among Democrats (60%) and independents (62%) but not Republicans (47%). Nevertheless, attitudes toward the governor appear to make little difference in support for this plan—those who disapprove of his performance in office are about as likely to favor the hydrogen highway as those who approve (56% to 53%). There are differences across other groups. Asians (66%) are more enthusiastic about the proposal than whites (55%), Latinos (53%), and blacks (48%). Support for the plan increases with education and income but decreases with age. It is also higher among men than among women (64% to 46%). There is virtually no difference in support for the hydrogen highway plan between those who commute 20 miles or more and those with shorter commutes (61% to 59%). “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?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 55% 27 18 Dem 60% 23 17 Party Rep 47% 35 18 Ind 62% 26 12 Likely Voters 55% 28 17 Solar power is a popular source of alternative energy for the state. More than three in four Californians (76%) favor a plan that would provide incentives for placing one million solar energy systems on new and existing homes and businesses and that would require that 50 percent of new homes be built with solar energy systems by 2018. Fewer than one in five opposes the plan. The solar proposal receives high levels of support in all political and demographic groups. It is higher among younger residents and those who say they are interested in news and information about environmental issues. Those who disapprove of the governor’s performance are more favorable toward the solar proposal than are those who give him a positive rating (80% to 71%). “What about a plan that provides incentives for placing one million solar energy systems on new and existing homes and businesses and that requires that 50 percent of new homes are built with solar energy systems by 2018?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 76% 17 7 Dem 81% 14 5 Party Rep 67% 26 7 Ind 82% 17 1 Likely Voters 76% 19 5 - 10 - Global Warming and Energy U.S. Energy Supply and Demand The majority of residents (53%) continue to oppose drilling for more oil off the California coast, similar to our survey findings in July 2003 (54%) and July 2004 (50%). However, there are variations among political parities and other groups. Most Democrats (65%) and independents (58%) today oppose the drilling, but 62 percent of Republicans favor it. SUV owners are more likely than non-SUV owners to support more offshore drilling (46% to 39%). Opposition is stronger among coastal than inland residents (56% to 46%). Although opposition is similar across racial/ethnic groups, it is stronger among younger residents and those with a college education. “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 41% 53 6 Dem 30% 65 5 Party Rep 62% 31 7 Ind 39% 58 3 Likely Voters 42% 54 4 The majority of Californians (56%) also oppose new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness, as they did in July 2003 (55%) and July 2004 (51%). Again, Democrats (68%) and independents (64%) oppose this proposal, while 64 percent of Republicans favor it. The proposal is supported by 60 percent of residents who approve of President Bush’s overall performance and opposed by 72 percent of those who disapprove. Opposition is greater in the San Francisco Bay Area than elsewhere and among younger and more educated residents. “How about allowing new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 39% 56 5 Dem 27% 68 5 Party Rep 64% 29 7 Ind 32% 64 4 Likely Voters 40% 55 5 Consistent with their opposition to increasing oil supply through more drilling, most Californians support reducing the demand for fossil fuels. Eighty-three percent favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars—and 73 percent support the policy even if it increases the cost of buying a new car. A clear majority in all political parties and racial/ethnic groups support this policy, even if it increases the cost of buying a car. Support increases with education, income, and age. “How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country?” (if favor: “Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car? ”) Favor, even if more costly Favor, but not if more costly Oppose Don't know All Adults 73% 10 11 6 Dem 82% 8 6 4 Party Rep 74% 8 12 6 Ind 80% 8 8 4 Likely Voters 82% 7 8 3 - 11 - July 2005 Global Warming and Energy Other U.S. Energy Sources Six in 10 Californians (59%) also oppose constructing new nuclear power plants in order to expand U.S. energy sources, a plan proposed by the Bush Administration. Opposition to this idea is slightly higher among all Americans (64%), according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll. While 33 percent of Californians support building more nuclear power plants, 20 percent would still support it if a plant were built within 50 miles of their home, but 13 percent would not. In California today, there is less than majority support in any political group for building more nuclear plants, but opposition is greater among Democrats and independents than among Republicans. Of those who approve of Bush’s performance in office, only 45 percent support the plan, while 68 percent of those who disapprove of his performance oppose the plan. Although support is below 50 percent in all regions and demographic groups, opposition is higher among women than men (65% to 52%), and among blacks (68%) and Latinos (64%) than among whites (54%) and Asians (58%). “How about building more nuclear power plants at this time?” (if favor: “Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?”) Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 33% 59 8 Dem 24% 69 7 Party Rep 49% 44 7 Ind 32% 58 10 Likely Voters 37% 55 8 Another proposal to increase energy sources is the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in U.S. ports. This super-cooled liquid gas from foreign sources would be shipped to terminals in the state to be converted back to its gaseous form for use in businesses and homes. Although fewer than half of Californians favor building LNG facilities (48%), only 24 percent oppose this proposal, with 28 percent saying they do not yet have an opinion. However, only 29 percent would favor the building of LNG terminals if a facility were located within 50 miles of their home. A majority of Republicans favor building LNG terminals (57%), but support is lower than 50 percent among Democrats (44%) and independents (47%). Overall, support is only slightly lower among coastal residents (47%) than inland residents (52%). This proposal is favored more strongly by men than women (56% to 41%) and by Asians (56%) than Latinos (50%) or blacks or whites (48% each). As income increases, so does support for building LNG terminals. “How about building more liquefied natural gas terminals, which receive imported natural gas in liquid form and convert it back to gas form?” (if favor: “Would you favor or oppose building a liquid natural gas terminal within 50 miles of your home?”) Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 48% 24 28 Dem 44% 25 31 Party Rep 57% 17 26 Ind 47% 29 24 Coastal Resident Yes No 47% 52% 25 21 28 27 - 12 - State and National Politics Governor’s Ratings Governor Schwarzenegger’s overall approval rating is at a low point. In the current survey, 34 percent of residents approve of the way he is handling his job in office. His approval rating today is slightly higher among likely voters (41%). In our most recent surveys, four in 10 Californians said they approved of his performance as governor (40% in April and 40% in May). A year ago, in our July 2004 survey, 57 percent of adults approved and 29 percent disapproved of the governor’s job performance. Republicans (68%) are much more likely than Democrats (18%) and independents (34%), and whites (45%) are much more likely than blacks (18%), Latinos (17%), and Asians (32%) to approve of the governor’s performance. After the budget agreement was announced on July 5, 2005, 32% approved and 52% disapproved of the governor’s performance in office. In the broader state context, 51 percent of Californians say the state is headed in the wrong direction and 38 percent say it is headed in the right direction. Moreover, 54 percent think that it would have been better to wait for the next scheduled election in June 2006 to vote on reform measures, while just 34 percent think it is better to have a special election this November. In our May survey, 57 percent said the state was headed in the wrong direction, and 61 percent said it would be better to wait until the next election in June 2006 to vote on reform measures. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 34% 51 15 Dem 18% 70 12 Party Rep 68% 21 11 Race/Ethnicity Likely Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters 34% 32% 18% 17% 45% 41% 51 35 68 70 42 49 15 33 14 13 13 10 Californians are divided when it comes to the governor’s handling of environmental issues, with 32 percent of adults saying they approve and 35 percent saying they disapprove. Similarly, 35 percent of likely voters approve, while 33 percent disapprove. About one in three adults and likely voters have no opinion on the governor’s environmental record. Following the trend in overall job performance, his approval ratings on environmental issues have declined in the past year. In July 2004, 39 percent approved, 27 percent disapproved, and 34 percent were undecided. Republicans (54%) are much more likely than Democrats (19%) or independents (33%) to approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues, while whites (37%) and Asians (39%) give the governor higher environmental approval ratings than blacks (21%) and Latinos (23%). The governor’s approval rating on environmental issues increases with age, education, and income; however, it does not vary significantly between those who are more or less interested in environmental issues. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 32% 35 33 Dem 19% 47 34 Party Rep 54% 13 33 Race/Ethnicity Likely Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters 33% 39% 21% 23% 37% 35% 32 21 48 54 27 33 35 40 31 23 36 32 - 13 - State and National Politics President’s Ratings Four in 10 California adults and likely voters (38% each) say they approve of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president. The president’s approval rating today is similar to his rating in May (40% approve, 56% disapprove) and a year ago in July 2004 when 40 percent of Californians approved of Bush’s job performance and 54 percent disapproved. The president’s approval rating in California is lower than it is nationwide (47%), based on a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. There are sharp differences in the president’s approval rating between Republicans (76%), Democrats (15%), and independents (31%). Across racial/ethnic groups, whites (43%) are somewhat more likely than Latinos (36%), Asians (33%), and blacks (23%) to approve of Bush’s performance in office. Residents living in the state’s inland counties (47%) are more likely than those living in the coastal counties (35%) to approve of the way President Bush is handling his job. While 50 percent of those who attend religious services weekly or almost weekly approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, only 21 percent of Californians who are nonreligious – that is, never attending religious services and having no religious affiliation – approve of Bush’s overall job performance as president. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 38% 57 5 Dem 15% 82 3 Party Rep 76% 20 4 Race/Ethnicity Likely Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters 31% 33% 23% 36% 43% 38% 66 54 72 59 53 58 3 13 5 5 4 4 Californians give the president even lower approval ratings when it comes to his handling of environmental issues. Only 32 percent of Californians approve of Bush’s handling of environmental issues. Over time, the president’s disapproval ratings on environmental issues have increased (44% in June 2002, 48% in July 2003, 53% in July 2004, 54% in July 2005). The president’s disapproval ratings on the environment are much higher than the governor’s (54% to 35%), while their approval ratings are similar (32% each), and fewer have no opinion about the president than they do about the governor (14% to 33%). At this time, Bush’s approval rating on energy policy is slightly lower than his approval rating on the environment, with only 29 percent approving of his handling of this issue and 53 percent saying they disapprove. The president’s approval rating in California on energy policy is lower than his rating on energy nationwide (36%), based on a recent survey by Gallup. Of those who say they are very or somewhat interested in environmental issues, 56 percent disapprove of Bush on environmental issues and 54 percent disapprove of Bush on energy policy. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 32% 54 14 Dem 14% 74 12 Party Rep 62% 23 15 Race/Ethnicity Likely Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters 26% 27% 21% 32% 34% 32% 63 48 62 53 54 57 11 25 17 15 12 11 - 14 - State and National Politics Role of Government While there is no broad agreement among Californians when asked which governing body should have primary responsibility for setting regional air quality standards, the state government (35%) is clearly favored over a regional air resources board (21%) or local government (20%). Only 17 percent of Californians would prefer that the federal government have primary responsibility. Across all party lines, about one in three prefers the state government over other levels of government when it comes to assuming primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in their region. Support for the state government assuming the primary role increases with income and education. Across the state’s regions and racial/ethnic groups, state government is favored over regional, local, or federal government. These preferences were similar in July 2003 (35% state government, 26% regional, 19% local, 14% federal). “Which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region?” State government Regional air resources board Local government Federal government Other answer (specify) All of the above (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 35% 21 20 17 1 1 5 Dem 35% 21 18 18 1 2 5 Party Rep 37% 24 21 13 1 1 3 Ind 34% 24 20 17 1 0 4 Likely Voters 38% 23 19 15 1 1 3 A majority of Californians (54%) also express a preference for their state government to develop its own policies, apart from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming. This policy preference is more strongly held by Democrats (59%) and independents (62%) than Republicans (49%). However, the percent in favor of the state government making its own policies outnumbers the percent opposed across all partisan groups. Public support for the state government making its own global warming policies also increases with income and education. There is more support in the San Francisco Bay Area (61%) for the state government making its own policies than elsewhere (56% in the Inland Empire, 52% in the Central Valley, 49% in Orange/San Diego, 48% in Los Angeles). “Do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 54% 37 9 Dem 59% 34 7 Party Rep 49% 40 11 Ind 62% 32 6 Likely Voters 59% 33 8 - 15 - July 2005 State and National Politics Trust in Government While the state government is favored over the federal government when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment, only about one in three Californians trusts the state government (37%) or the federal government (32%) to do what is right just about always or most of the time. The majority of Californians say that they trust the state government (60%) or the federal government (66%) only sometimes or not at all. Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to trust both the federal government and the state government when it comes to protecting the environment. “How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government to do what is right when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment?” Just about always Most of the time Only some of the time None of the time/not at all (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 8% 29 55 5 3 Dem 5% 25 63 5 2 Party Rep 7% 35 50 6 2 Ind 6% 26 59 7 2 Likely Voters 5% 29 59 5 2 “How much of the time do you think you can trust the federal government to do what is right when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment?” Just about always Most of the time Only some of the time None of the time/not at all (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 8% 24 56 10 2 Dem 5% 15 66 12 2 Party Rep 7% 36 48 6 3 Ind 6% 15 64 14 1 Likely Voters 4% 22 60 13 1 When residents are asked to assess the trustworthiness of five organizations in providing correct information about the environment, scientists and researchers at universities receive the most trust, while the news media get the least trust. Republicans and Democrats differ substantially in their level of trust in scientists and researchers, environmental organizations, the federal government, and the news media. “Please tell me how much you trust each of the following groups and organizations to give you correct information about the condition of the environment.” Percent saying “a great deal” or “fair amount” How about scientists and researchers in universities? How about environmental organizations? How about the state government? How about the federal government? How about the news media? All Adults 78% 64 52 43 39 Dem 87% 79 56 37 47 Party Rep 75% 46 58 61 27 Ind 86% 69 52 38 40 - 16 - State and National Politics Effects of Gasoline Prices Has the recent escalation in gasoline prices translated into increased efforts by Californians to reduce their driving? Four in 10 residents (43%) claim to have significantly cut back on their driving time because of recent increases in gasoline prices, while 51 percent say they have not. Cutting back on driving is strongly related to income: While only 31 percent of Californians with a household income of $80,000 or more claim to have cut back on their driving, 51 percent of residents with household incomes under $40,000 say they have reduced their driving. Whites (39%) are less likely than blacks (51%), Asians (49%), and Latinos (47%) to say they have reduced their driving. Residents in the Inland Empire (48%) and the Central Valley (47%) are more likely than those in other regions to have cut back on their driving time. “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?” Yes, have cut back No, have not cut back Don't drive (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 43% 51 5 1 Race/Ethnicity Asians 49% 46 4 1 Blacks 51% 42 5 2 Latinos 47% 44 8 1 Whites 39% 56 4 1 Household Income Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more 51% 44% 31% 38 53 67 10 3 1 1 01 While fewer than half of residents have changed their driving habits, 64 percent of Californians are seriously considering buying a more fuel-efficient automobile as a result of the recent increase in gasoline prices. This consumer sentiment is evident across all regions of the state and in every income and education category. By comparison, a recent Gallup survey showed that 57 percent of Americans were seriously considering buying a more fuel-efficient car as a result of rising prices at the gas pump. In California, Asians (77%) and Latinos (70%) are more likely than blacks and whites (59% each) to have considered buying a more fuel-efficient car. Californians under the age of 35 (71%) are more likely to say they have considered purchasing a more fuel-efficient car, while residents over 55 (50%) are less likely to have considered this option. A year ago, a similar 52 percent of Californians said they had not cut back significantly on how much they drove, while 66 percent were seriously considering getting a more fuel-efficient vehicle. “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 considered No, have not considered My current vehicle is fuel-efficient (volunteered) Don't drive (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 64% 22 Asians 77% 16 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 59% 29 Latinos 70% 20 Whites 59% 23 9 2 8 3 13 44 4 6 4 11 0 1 1 Household Income Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more 63% 63% 66% 20 24 22 8 10 11 9 21 0 10 - 17 - July 2005 State and National Politics Issue Involvement More than eight in 10 Californians say they are very interested (37%) or somewhat interested (49%) in news and information about environmental issues. Although the percentages of residents interested in environmental news and information do not vary across racial/ethnic groups, there are sizable differences across other demographic categories. While 31 percent of those with no more than a high school education are very interested in environmental issues, 45 percent of college graduates are very interested. Moreover, a high interest in environmental news and information tends to increase with age, income, and years at current residence. Democrats (48%) and liberals (48%) express a much higher level of interest in environmental news than do Republicans (28%) and conservatives (30%), while independents (42%) and moderates (35%) fall in between these partisan or ideological groups. “How interested are you in news and information about environmental issues?” Very interested Somewhat interested Not too interested Not at all interested Don't know All Adults 37% 49 10 3 1 Asians 30% 55 13 2 0 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 38% 50 9 3 0 Latinos 35% 50 11 3 1 Whites 37% 49 10 3 1 High School 31% 52 12 5 0 Education Some College 35% 52 11 2 0 College Graduate 45% 45 8 1 1 Although almost four in 10 Californians express a high level of interest in environmental news and information, a smaller proportion report being personally involved in environmental groups or related activities. About three in 10 adults say they have been involved in at least one of three activities involving environmental groups and environmental causes. In all, 11 percent are currently members of an environmental group, 12 percent contributed money to such a group in the past year, and 18 percent volunteered time for an environmental cause in the past year. Across all three types of engagement in environmental activities, blacks and Latinos are less likely to participate than whites. As is often the case with civic engagement activities, the more affluent and more educated are the most likely to participate in environmental groups or causes. Although those under age 35 join groups and give money less often than those over 35, the youngest group is more likely to volunteer time to environmental causes. Percent saying “yes” Do you yourself belong to any environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, or a state or local environmental organization? In the past 12 months, have you volunteered your time to work on an environmental issue, including air, water, or land issues? (Aside from any membership fees,) in the past 12 months, have you given money to any environmental organization? All Adults 11% 12 18 Asians 6% 12 19 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites 18-34 5% 5% 16% 8% 8 8 14 16 18 9 22 13 Age 35-54 13% 12 20 55+ 13% 9 22 - 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 Douglas Strand, associate survey director; Kristy Michaud, project manager for this survey; Jennifer Paluch, survey research associate; and Lunna Lopes, survey intern. The survey was conducted with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation as part of a three-year grant on environment, education, and population issues. We benefited from discussions with Hewlett staff 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 2,502 California adult residents interviewed between June 28 and July 12, 2005. Interviewing took place mostly on weekday and weekend evenings, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted 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. Interviews took an average of 18.9 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Korean, or Vietnamese. We chose these languages because Spanish is the dominant language among non-English speaking adults in California and is followed in prevalence by the three Asian languages noted above. Accent on Languages 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 2,502 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,893 registered voters is +/- 2.3 percent. The sampling error for the 1,390 likely voters is +/- 2.7 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to five geographic regions. “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 non-Hispanic 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. We use earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. We also compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses in national surveys by the Gallup Organization, ABC News/Washington Post, and the Pew Research Center. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE ENVIRONMENT JUNE 28 – JULY 12, 2005 2,502 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS: ENGLISH, SPANISH, CHINESE, KOREAN, AND VIETNAMESE MARGIN OF ERROR +/-2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, 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? 35% large city 22 suburb of a large city 26 small city 9 town 7 rural area 1 don't know 2. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 34% approve 51 disapprove 15 don't know 3. Governor Schwarzenegger has called a special election in November 2005 to vote on budget, educational, and governmental reform measures. Do you think it is better to have a special election later this year, or is it better to have waited until the next scheduled statewide election in June 2006? 34% better to have a special election 54 better to have waited until scheduled election in 2006 12 don't know 4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 32% approve 35 disapprove 33 don't know 5. Changing topics, do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 38% right direction 51 wrong direction 11 don't know 6. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 42% good times 43 bad times 15 don't know 7. On another topic, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [code, don’t read] 26% air pollution 6 energy 6 pollution in general 6 water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams 5 water supply, reservoirs 4 traffic congestion, transportation 3 immigration, immigrants 3 loss of forests, forest fires 3 population growth, overpopulation 2 global warming, global climate change 2 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 14 other (specify) 20 don’t know Next, we are interested in the region of California that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems 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 8 to 10] 8. How about pollution of the land and soil? 24% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 36 not a problem 3 don't know 9. How about pollution of drinking water? 21% big problem 32 somewhat of a problem 44 not a problem 3 don't know - 21 - 10. How about air pollution? 38% big problem 35 somewhat of a problem 27 not a problem 11. On another topic, is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago? 26% better 47 worse 14 same (volunteered) 13 don't know 12. How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, or not too serious health threat? 21% very serious 36 somewhat serious 38 not too serious 4 not at all serious (volunteered) 1 don’t know 13. Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region? [read rotated list, then ask “or something else”] 42% vehicle emissions 21 population growth and development 13 industry and agriculture 11 pollution from outside the area 5 weather and geography 3 all of the above (volunteered) 2 something else (specify) 3 don’t know We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 14 and 15] 14. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 66% yes, even if more costly 7 yes, but not if more costly 2 yes; [volunteered: follow-up question in parentheses does not apply] 19 no 6 don't know 15. 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?) 56% yes, even if more costly 13 yes, but not if more costly 21 no 4 doesn't apply (volunteered) 6 don't know [rotate questions 16 and 17} 16. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 54% yes, even if more costly 5 yes, but not if more costly 29 no 12 don't know 17. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 70% yes, even if more costly 7 yes, but not if more costly 16 no 7 don't know 18. More generally, which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region? [read rotated list] 35% state government 21 regional air resources board 20 local government 17 federal government 1 other answer (specify) 1 all of the above (volunteered) 5 don't know - 22 - 19. On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen: [rotate questions as a set, starting from either the top or the bottom] (1) they have already begun to happen; (2) they will start happening within a few years; (3) they will start happening within your lifetime; (4) they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] (5) they will never happen? 57% already begun 5 within a few years 9 within your lifetime 15 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 9 will never happen [skip to q. 21] 5 don't know 20. Which of the following do you think contributes the most to global warming: [rotate] (1) human activities, such as farming, deforestation, and burning fossil fuels; [or] (2) naturally occurring increases in temperature? 62% human activities, such as farming, deforestation, and burning fossil fuels 22 naturally occurring increases in temperature 8 both (volunteered) 1 other (specify) 7 don't know 21. How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California's future—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious of a threat? 39% very serious 36 somewhat serious 12 not too serious 10 not at all serious 3 don't know Now, I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. [rotate questions 22 to 25] 22. How about increased flooding? 27% very concerned 33 somewhat concerned 23 not too concerned 15 not at all concerned 2 don't know 23. How about droughts that are more severe? 41% very concerned 37 somewhat concerned 12 not too concerned 9 not at all concerned 1 don't know 24. How about increased coastal erosion? 28% very concerned 39 somewhat concerned 18 not too concerned 12 not at all concerned 3 don't know 25. How about increased air pollution? 52% very concerned 34 somewhat concerned 7 not too concerned 6 not at all concerned 1 don't know State policies could be used to address environmental and energy issues in California. Please tell me whether you favor or oppose the following proposals. [rotate questions 26 and 27] 26. What about a plan that provides incentives for placing one million solar energy systems on new and existing homes and businesses and that requires that 50 percent of new homes are built with solar energy systems by 2018? 76% favor 17 oppose 7 don't know 27. 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? 55% favor 27 oppose 18 don't know 28. What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009? 77% favor 17 oppose 6 don't know - 23 - July 2005 29. What about the greenhouse gas emissions targets recently established by Governor Schwarzenegger, which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, and industry by more than 80 percent over the next 50 years? 69% favor 17 oppose 14 don't know Changing topics to the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 30 and 31] 30. How about building more liquefied natural gas terminals, which receive imported natural gas in liquid form and convert it back to gas form? (if favor: Would you favor or oppose building a liquefied natural gas terminal within 50 miles of your home?) 29% favor, even if within 50 miles 19 favor, but not if within 50 miles 24 oppose 28 don't know 31. How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? (if favor: Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?) 20% favor, even if within 50 miles 13 favor, but not if within 50 miles 59 oppose 8 don't know 32. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if favor: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 73% favor, even if more costly 10 favor, but not if more costly 11 oppose 6 don't know [rotate questions 33 and 34] 33. How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 41% favor 53 oppose 6 don't know 34. How about allowing new oil drilling in federallyprotected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness? 39% favor 56 oppose 5 don't know 35. More generally, do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming? 54% favor 37 oppose 9 don't know 36. Changing topics, 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? 43% yes, have cut back 51 no, have not cut back 5 don't drive/don't have a car (volunteered) 1 don't know 37. 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? 64% yes, have considered 22 no, have not considered 9 my current vehicle is fuel-efficient (volunteered) 4 don't drive/won't buy another vehicle (volunteered) 1 don't know 38. 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? 38% approve 57 disapprove 5 don't know - 24 - [rotate questions 39 and 40] 39. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 32% approve 54 disapprove 14 don't know 40. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling energy policy? 29% approve 53 disapprove 18 don't know [rotate questions 41 and 42] 41. How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government to do what is right when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment—just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time? 8% just about always 29 most of the time 55 only some of the time 5 none of the time/not at all (volunteered) 3 don't know 42. How much of the time do you think you can trust the federal government to do what is right when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment—just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time? 8% just about always 24 most of the time 56 only some of the time 10 none of the time/not at all (volunteered) 2 don't know Please tell me how much you trust each of the following groups and organizations to give you correct information about the condition of the environment—do you trust each one a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or not at all? [rotate questions 43 to 47] 43. How about the news media? 8% great deal 31 fair amount 37 not too much 22 not at all 2 don't know 44. How about scientists and researchers in universities? 37% great deal 41 fair amount 14 not too much 5 not at all 3 don't know 45. How about environmental organizations? 21% great deal 43 fair amount 22 not too much 12 not at all 2 don't know 46. How about the federal government? 6% great deal 37 fair amount 38 not too much 17 not at all 2 don't know 47. How about the state government? 6% great deal 46 fair amount 37 not too much 9 not at all 2 don't know 48. How interested are you in news and information about environmental issues—very interested, somewhat interested, not too interested, or not at all interested? 37% very interested 49 somewhat interested 10 not too interested 3 not at all interested 1 don't know 49. Do you yourself belong to any environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, or a state or local environmental organization? 11% yes 88 no 1 don't know 50. In the past 12 months, have you volunteered your time to work on an environmental issue, including air, water or land issues? 12% yes 87 no 1 don't know 51. (Add this phrase if respondent answered “yes” to q.49: Aside from any membership fees,) In the past 12 months, have you given money to any environmental organization? 18% yes 81 no 1 don't know - 25 - July 2005 52. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 25% great deal 36 fair amount 28 only a little 11 none 53. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 76% yes [ask q.53a] 24 no [skip to q.54a] 53a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [skip to q.54b] 34 Republican [skip to q.54c] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q.55] 18 independent [ask q.54a] 54a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 20% Republican party 43 Democratic party 27 neither (volunteered) 10 don’t know [go to q.55] 54b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 52% strong 45 not very strong 3 don’t know [go to q.55] 54c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 60% strong 37 not very strong 3 don’t know 55. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 52% always 17 nearly always 7 part of the time 5 seldom 19 never 56. Would you consider yourself to be politically … [rotate list as a set, starting from either the top or the bottom; read list] 10% very liberal 21 somewhat liberal 31 middle-of-the-road 22 somewhat conservative 10 very conservative 6 don’t know [D1-D5: demographic questions] D6.[asked of those with full- or part-time jobs] How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle? 67% drive alone [ask D6a] 15 carpool [ask D6a] 7 public bus or transit [ask D6a] 4 walk [skip to D7] 2 bicycle [skip to D7] 5 work at home (volunteered) [skip to D7] D6a.About how many miles is it from your home to work? 21% fewer than five miles 21 five miles to under 10 miles 27 10 miles to under 20 miles 31 20 miles or more D7.Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sport-utility vehicle)? 22% yes 78 no [D8–D11: demographic questions] - 26 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Angela Blackwell Founder and CEO 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 Matthew K. Fong President Strategic Advisory Group 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 Mark Paul Deputy Treasurer California Treasurer Phil Angelides 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 The PPIC Statewide Survey Advisory Committee is a diverse group of experts who provide advice on survey issues. However, survey methods, questions, content, and timing are determined solely by PPIC. - 27 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento 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 Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Cheryl White Mason Vice-President Litigation Legal Department Hospital Corporation of America Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves General Manager Community Development Department City of Los Angeles Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau 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 Robin M. Kramer Senior Director The Broad Foundation 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 O San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 O Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org O info@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

S 705MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(108) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-special-survey-on-the-environment-july-2005/s_705mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8494) ["ID"]=> int(8494) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:38:07" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3705) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 705MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_705mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_705MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1596205" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(92509) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY JULY 2005 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey on the Environment in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett 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. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Inaugurated in April 1998, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 118,000 Californians. This special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey—a survey on the environment—is the second in a three-year PPIC survey series made possible with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The intent of this special series is to inform state, local, and federal policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about a variety of environment, education, and population issues facing the state. The current survey focuses in particular on public perceptions, policy preferences, and personal choices regarding air quality and energy-related issues. Currently, there is a considerable amount of political debate at the state and federal government level about air pollution, energy policy, and global warming. California has several regions with high levels of air pollution and has taken the lead nationally in policy efforts to address environmental and energy issues related to air pollution and global warming. We seek to inform the current debates by offering the perspective of the California public’s attitudes about these issues. This special edition of our survey presents the responses of 2,502 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 with an emphasis on air quality and health, perceptions of global warming and attitudes toward energy policy, and attitudes toward state and national political leadership in the area of environmental policy. Some of the questions are repeated from PPIC Statewide Surveys on the environment conducted in June 2000, June 2002, July 2003, and July 2004. 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 air quality and health issues, including identification of the state’s most important environmental issue; ratings of air, land, and water pollution in the region where the respondent lives; perceived threat of air pollution to personal health; perceived causes of air pollution; and what actions people are willing to take to improve air quality in their region. • Public opinion about global warming and energy policy, including perceptions of the threat of global warming and its effects on California’s future; public support for state policies such as increased use of solar power, the development of a hydrogen highway, and efforts to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions; and public opinion about the U.S. energy supply, such as the development of liquefied natural gas and nuclear power facilities and U.S. energy exploration. • State and national political issues, including ratings of the governor and president overall and on environmental issues; preferences for the role of government and trust in state and federal government on environmental issues; confidence in the sources of environmental information; the effects of recent increases in gasoline prices on automobile use and future purchase plans; and levels of public participation in environmental groups and activities. • Variations in environmental perceptions, public policy preferences, political attitudes, and political participation across the five major regions of the state (the Central Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, the Orange/San Diego County areas, and the Inland Empire); between Asians, blacks, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites; and across socioeconomic and political groups. 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 Air Quality and Health Global Warming and Energy State and National 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 THE ENVIRONMENT WHOSE WORLD IS IT ANYWAY? CALIFORNIANS SAY STATE SHOULD TAKE LEAD ON GLOBAL WARMING Concern Over Air Pollution Trumps Economic, Financial Considerations Little Support for Schwarzenegger, Bush on Environmental Issues SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 21, 2005 — Driven by concerns about how global warming will degrade their quality of life and by a profound lack of confidence in the environmental and energy tilt of the federal government, Californians want the state to act on its own to address the problem, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. For most Californians, global warming is a real or looming phenomenon: 86 percent believe it will affect current or future generations, and 57 percent believe the effects are already being felt. Three in four (75%) say the effects of global warming on the state’s economy and quality of life will be very or somewhat serious. And large majorities of state residents say they are at least somewhat concerned about the possible impacts of global warming, including increased air pollution (86%), more severe droughts (78%), greater coastal erosion (67%), and increased flooding (60%). Of those who believe global warming will affect current or future generations, 62 percent identify human activities as the primary cause; only 22 percent say naturally occurring increases in temperature are responsible. So what do Californians want to do about it? A majority (54%) express a preference for their state government to develop its own policies, apart from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming. Some current state efforts get broad public support: • 77 percent favor the state law requiring automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California, beginning in 2009. Support for this measure has remained steady since June 2002. • 69 percent support the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets recently established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which aim to reduce GHG emissions from cars, power plants, and industry by more than 80 percent over the next 50 years. Why are Californians more inclined to see the state, rather than the federal government, as a potential problemsolver? “It’s a question of trust,” says PPIC statewide survey director Mark Baldassare. “Californians do not have much faith in government in general, but when it comes to environmental and energy issues, they clearly see the state as more adequately representing their interests.” Indeed, more residents trust the state government (52%) than the federal government (43%) to provide correct information about the condition of the environment – although both receive considerably less public trust than do scientists and researchers at universities (78%) and environmental organizations (64%). The state is also favored over the federal government when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment; however, only about one in three Californians trusts the state government (37%) or the federal government (32%) to do what is right just about always or most of the time. -v- Press Release Bush, Schwarzenegger Feel the Heat On a range of environmental and energy issues, state residents are at odds with the Bush administration and federal priorities. This disconnect has done little to help performance ratings for President George W. Bush: Overall, four in 10 California adults (38%) say they approve of President Bush’s performance in office. Fewer state residents approve of his handling of environmental (32%) and energy (29%) issues, and majorities disapprove of his performance in both areas (54% environment, 53% energy). The differences between the energy priorities of the federal government (oil drilling and nuclear power) and those of state residents (fuel efficiency) are illuminating: • A majority of state residents (56%) oppose new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness. On a related note, Californians (53%) also remain opposed to allowing more oil drilling off the California coast. • Most Californians (59%) oppose constructing new nuclear power plants in order to expand U.S. energy sources. While 33 percent of Californians support building more nuclear power plants, only 20 percent would still support the plan if a plant were built within 50 miles of their home. Similarly, although 48 percent of state residents favor the construction of liquefied natural gas terminals, only 29 percent would still support the plan if a facility were located within 50 miles of their home. • 83 percent of Californians favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars – and 73 percent support the policy even if it increases the cost of buying a new car. Unlike President Bush, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been quick to show that he is close to the hearts and minds of Californians when it comes to environmental and energy issues. A solid majority of residents (55%) approve of his plan to encourage the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology and most (76%) endorse his effort to provide incentives for the use of solar energy in homes and businesses. Have these efforts paid off for the governor? Overall, his approval rating is at a low point (34%), down from 40 percent in May. And Californians are divided when it comes to his handling of environmental issues, with 32 percent of residents saying they approve and 35 percent saying they disapprove. “Schwarzenegger’s problem is more global and has little to do with his environmental record,” says Baldassare. In the broader context, 51 percent of Californians say the state is headed in the wrong direction and 54 percent oppose holding a special election in November. Californians Want Progress on Air Pollution and Are Willing to Pay to Get It Air pollution (26%) tops the list of most important environmental issues facing the state, surpassing the next most important issues – pollution in general, water pollution, and energy (6% each) – by 20 points. The concern about air pollution is most strongly held by blacks (33%), although whites (28%), Asians (27%), and Latinos (23%) all consider air pollution the primary environmental issue. Los Angeles (31%) and Inland Empire (29%) residents are more likely than San Francisco Bay Area (23%) and Orange/San Diego area (22%) residents to view air pollution as the top issue. Thirty-eight percent of Californians view air pollution as a big problem in their region today, and that is 10 points higher than it was five years ago (28% in June 2000). Moreover, during the past five years, there has been a dramatic rise in the perception of air pollution as a big problem in both the Central Valley (28% to 45%) and the Inland Empire (28% to 48%). While residents of these two regions are most likely to say that the air quality in their area has gotten worse in the past 10 years, concerns about deteriorating air quality span all regions of the state. Six in 10 Californians (57%) believe air pollution in their region is at least a somewhat serious health threat to themselves and their families. The growing perception that California’s air is polluted – and that air pollution poses a serious health threat – may be driving a willingness to ante up to help alleviate the problem and to demand the same response from businesses. For example, state residents are more likely to cite vehicle emissions (42%) than other factors, including population growth and development (21%),as the greatest contributor to air pollution. Their response? Three in four residents (75%) support tougher air pollution - vi - Press Release standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs, and 66 percent support such standards even if it increases the cost of purchasing a vehicle. Similarly, seven in 10 Californians (69%) say they would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle, including 56 percent who would do so even if it cost more than a conventional vehicle. Six in 10 residents (59%) support stricter air pollution standards for agriculture and farm activities, with 54 percent supporting such standards even if it costs agricultural businesses more to operate. And support for tougher pollution controls is even higher (77%) when it comes to cargo ships, trucks, and trains, with 70 percent of residents favoring this policy even if it raises the cost of doing business in these industries. Gas Price Spike Affecting Actions, Attitudes Has the recent escalation in gasoline prices translated into increased efforts by Californians to reduce their driving? Many residents (43%) say they have already cut back significantly on their driving time because of recent price increases, while 51 percent say they have not. Not surprisingly, cutting back on driving is strongly related to income: While only 31 percent of Californians with a household income of $80,000 or more claim to be driving less, 51 percent of residents with household incomes under $40,000 say they have reduced their driving. However, higher gas prices have clearly had a widespread effect: 64 percent of state residents – including majorities across all income categories – say they would seriously consider buying or leasing a more fuel-efficient car. More Key Findings • Lots of Interest, Less Involvement Among Blacks, Latinos (page 18) Most Californians (86%) – including strong majorities of whites, Latinos, blacks, and Asians – say they are interested in news and information about environmental issues. However, whites are more likely to be personally involved in environmental organizations or related activities than are other racial/ethnic groups, particularly Latinos and blacks. For example, 14 percent of whites say they have volunteered their time in the past year to work on an environmental issue, compared to 8 percent of Latinos and blacks. • Media Gets Low Marks (page 16) When residents are asked to assess the trustworthiness of five entities in providing correct information about the environment, scientists and researchers at universities (78%) receive the most trust, while the news media get the least (39%). About the Survey This survey on the environment – made possible by funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation – is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the second in a three-year survey series intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about a variety of education, environment, and population issues facing California. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,502 California adult residents interviewed between June 28 and July 12, 2005. 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 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 21. ### - vii - Percent all adults Percent Who Think Air Pollution Is a "Big Problem" in Their Region 60 50 48 50 45 40 30 28 30 20 10 0 LA IE CV OC/SD SF BA Percent all adults Percent Who Think Air Pollution Is a "Very" or "Somewhat" Serious Health Threat 80 73 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Black 67 58 Latino Asian 50 White Percent Who Say the Effects of Global Warming Have Already Begun 80 70 60 57 68 58 50 42 40 30 20 10 0 All adults Dem Rep Ind Percent Who Support a State Law Requiring Automakers to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6 17 Percent all adults Favor 77 Oppose Don't know Percent all adults Preference for California State Government Making Its Own Policies, Separate from the Federal Government, to Address Global Warming 9 37 Percent all adults 54 Favor Oppose Don't know Perc ent all adults Elected Officials Approval Ratings 50 40 34 32 30 38 32 20 10 0 Overall Enviro nment Gov. Schw arzenegger Overall Enviro nment President Bush Air Quality and Health Most Important State Environmental Issue Californians have consistently rated air pollution as the most important environmental issue facing the state, and that trend continues in this survey. This year, 26 percent of residents name air pollution as the most pressing environmental issue today. Other frequently mentioned environmental concerns in our openended question are energy; pollution in general; water pollution of the ocean, lakes, rivers, and streams; and water supply and reservoirs—but none of these is mentioned by more than 10 percent of adults. Even fewer mention population growth and overpopulation, loss of open space, and global warming. While all racial/ethnic groups consider air pollution the top environmental issue, it is mentioned more frequently by blacks (33%) than by Latinos (23%), Asians (27%), and whites (28%). Air pollution is also considered the top environmental issue in all five major regions of the state, but is named more frequently in the Central Valley (31%), Los Angeles County (31%) and the Inland Empire (29%) than in the San Francisco Bay Area (23%) and the Orange/San Diego area (22%). Also, inland county residents mention this issue slightly more often than coastal county residents (30% to 25%). In a state where there is a strong partisan divide on many public policy issues, voters across all of the major political parties are united in naming air pollution as the top environmental issue in California, and there are no differences among liberals, moderates, and conservatives in their perception of this issue. Air pollution is also at the top of the list among all demographic groups, although concern about poor air quality tends to increase slightly with age, income, and home ownership. “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top five mentions Air pollution Energy Pollution in general Water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams Water supply, reservoirs All Adults 26% 6 6 6 5 Asians 27% 14 6 2 3 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 33% 23% 42 97 54 13 Whites 28% 7 5 8 7 “What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?” Top five mentions Air pollution Energy Pollution in general Water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams Water supply, reservoirs All Adults 26% 6 6 6 5 Central Valley 31% 3 5 6 5 SF Bay Area 23% 11 5 5 6 Region Los Angeles 31% 5 6 6 3 Orange/San Diego 22% 3 6 Inland Empire 29% 4 8 83 65 -1- Air Quality and Health Regional Environmental Issues When asked to rate the severity of three environmental problems in their region, Californians name air pollution (73%) well ahead of pollution of the land and soil (61%) and pollution of drinking water (53%) as at least somewhat of a problem. While almost four in 10 residents rank air pollution as a big problem in their region, fewer then one in four say that pollution of drinking water and pollution of land and soil are big problems in their region. There are significant differences in the level of concern about these three environmental issues across the state’s regions. Los Angeles residents and Central Valley residents are more likely than others to rate all three environmental issues as big problems in their region. San Francisco Bay Area residents and Orange/San Diego residents are less likely than others to rate air pollution and pollution of drinking water as big problems. Inland Empire residents resemble Central Valley and Los Angeles residents in their concern about air pollution; however, they are less inclined than residents of these two other regions to say that the pollution of the land and drinking water are big problems. How big a problem is _______ in your region? (percent saying “a big problem”) Air pollution Pollution of the land and soil Pollution of drinking water All Adults 38% 24 21 Central Valley 45% 27 24 SF Bay Area 28% 19 17 Region Los Angeles 50% 29 27 Orange/ San Diego 30% 22 19 Inland Empire 48% 20 20 There are also major variations in concern about regional environmental issues across racial/ethnic groups. Blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites and Asians to rank air pollution, pollution of land and soil, and pollution of drinking water as big problems in their region. While half of blacks and nearly half of Latinos see air pollution as a big problem in the region where they live, only about one in three whites and Asians have this perception. Moreover, one in three blacks and Latinos rate pollution of land and drinking water as big problems, compared to fewer than one in five whites and Asians. How big a problem is _________ in your region? (percent saying “a big problem”) Air pollution Pollution of the land and soil Pollution of drinking water All Adults 38% 24 21 Asians 34% 18 19 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 51% 34 32 Latinos 44% 31 31 Whites 33% 19 14 Other important differences in ratings of environmental issues stem from socioeconomic status and party identification. Lower-income Californians show higher concern about air, land, and drinking water pollution than upper-income residents. Similarly, renters are more likely than homeowners to say that air pollution, pollution of land and soil, and pollution of drinking water are big problems in their region. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say these are big environmental problems. -2- Air Quality and Health Regional Air Quality Concern about regional air quality continues to grow in the state. The proportion of Californians who view air pollution as a big problem in their region today is 38 percent and has grown three points from last year (35% in July 2004), seven points from two years ago (31% in July 2003), and 10 points from five years ago (28% in June 2000). Moreover, there has been a dramatic increase in the perception of air pollution as a big problem in both the Central Valley (28% to 45%) and the Inland Empire (28% to 48%) over the past five years. Concern in two other regions of the state has risen less dramatically but still consistently, with the percentage who say that air pollution is a big problem increasing by 10 points in Los Angeles (40% to 50%) and in Orange/San Diego (20% to 30%) since June 2000. Public perception of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area shows no significant change compared to June 2000. Percent saying air pollution is “a big problem” All Adults Central Valley San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Orange/San Diego Inland Empire June 00 28% 28 26 40 20 28 May 01 30% 33 22 46 21 30 June 02 34% 39 27 47 26 35 July 03 31% 42 21 43 22 38 July 04 35% 47 24 47 26 38 July 05 38% 45 28 50 30 48 This year’s survey also finds that nearly half the state’s residents perceive the air quality in their region as worse than it was ten years ago; only 26 percent say that the air quality has improved. Residents of the Central Valley and Inland Empire are most likely to say that their air quality has deteriorated, but in all regions, residents are more likely to say that the air quality has gotten worse. By comparison, in July 2003, 30 percent said air quality was better and 38 percent said it was worse than it was 10 years ago. We also find significant differences across racial/ethnic groups this year: blacks (60%) and Latinos (55%) are more likely than whites (41%) and Asians (46%) to say the air quality has deteriorated over time. The perception that air quality is getting worse is associated with youth, lower income, lower education, renting, and the presence of children. Women are more likely than men (52% to 42%), and Democrats are more likely than Republicans (52% to 36%), to say their air quality has gotten worse. “Is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago?” Better Worse Same (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 26% 47 14 13 Central Valley 14% 61 13 12 SF Bay Area 22% 42 Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 32% 32% 48 39 Inland Empire 25% 53 18 11 14 10 18 9 15 12 Asians 23% 46 18 13 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 25% 60 Latinos 19% 55 Whites 30% 41 7 14 15 8 12 14 - 3 - July 2005 Air Quality and Health Perceptions of Air Pollution Six in 10 Californians (57%) believe that air pollution in their region is at least somewhat of a health threat to themselves and their immediate families, a pattern also evident in July 2003 (58%) and July 2004 (59%). Today, 21 percent call this threat very serious and 36 percent somewhat serious. While a majority of residents in nearly all regions say that local air pollution threatens the health of themselves and their families at least somewhat, the proportion calling it very serious is greater in Los Angeles (29%), the Central Valley (27%), and the Inland Empire (25%). There are differences across racial/ethnic groups in perceptions of air pollution as a health threat. Latinos (30%) and blacks (34%) are much more likely than Asians (14%) or whites (16%) to see it as a very serious threat. The perception that air pollution is a serious health threat is greater among lower-income than upper-income Californians, and among those with a higher level of interest in following environmental issues. Most residents cite vehicle emissions (42%) and population growth and development (21%) as the major causes of air pollution in their region. These perceptions are changing: Since July 2003, there has been a decline in mentions of vehicle emissions (47% to 42%) and a rise in mentions of growth and development (16% to 21%) as the major cause. “How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family?” Very serious Somewhat serious Not too serious Not at all serious (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 21% 36 38 Central Valley 27% 36 32 SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 16% 29% 14% 34 39 34 46 28 47 Inland Empire 25% 41 30 Asians 14% 44 36 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 34% 39 25 Latinos Whites 30% 16% 37 34 30 45 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 24 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 11 “Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region?” Vehicle emissions Population growth and development Industry and agriculture Pollution from outside the area Weather and geography All of the above (volunteered) Something else (specify) Don't know All Adults 42% Central Valley 33% SF Bay Area 52% Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 45% 43% Inland Empire 36% Asians 46% Race/Ethnicity Blacks 38% Latinos 37% Whites 46% 21 21 19 19 26 30 22 21 18 23 13 17 12 14 9 7 9 19 19 10 11 14 7 9 12 16 11 12 15 9 5634 4 65444 3433 2 23233 2211 2 11022 3335 2 23423 -4- Air Quality and Health Automobile Preferences Californians want to drive cars that are friendlier to the environment—and they are even willing to pay more for them. Three in four support tougher pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs, including 66 percent who support such standards even if their next car costs more money. These numbers are nearly identical to those in our July 2003 survey. A majority of voters in all political parties support tougher vehicle pollution standards, although Democrats (82%) and independents (79%) are more enthusiastic than Republicans (61%). Support is also high in all regions, but is strongest in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and the Inland Empire. SUV owners are slightly less likely than those who own other types of vehicles to want tougher pollution standards (72% to 77%), and support is somewhat lower among longdistance commuters than among those who drive 20 miles or less (69% to 78%). Majorities in all racial/ethnic groups also support tougher standards, even if it raises the sticker price. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs?” (if yes: “Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle? ”) Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly Yes, but follow-up doesn’t apply (vol) No Don't know All Adults 66% 7 Central Valley 60% 7 Region SF Bay Los Orange/San Area Angeles Diego 68% 9 69% 7 63% 6 Inland Empire 67% 7 Party Dem 75% 7 Rep 56% 5 Ind 71% 8 2 2 3 2 2 2 223 19 25 15 15 24 19 13 31 15 6 6 5 7 5 5 363 Similarly, seven in 10 Californians say they would seriously consider purchasing or leasing a hybrid vehicle, including 56 percent who would do so even if it cost more than a standard vehicle. In July 2004, 63 percent said they would consider buying a hybrid, but only 47 percent would do so if it cost them more money. Again, all political parties are favorable toward more environmentally friendly vehicles, with Democrats (76%) and independents (79%) more likely than Republicans (61%) to consider buying a hybrid. Strong majorities in all regions and demographic groups are willing to buy a hybrid vehicle, although older residents, those with lower incomes, and those with less education are less likely to do so if it costs them more. Support for buying a hybrid vehicle is similar across racial/ethnic groups, but blacks are less willing than whites (59%), Asians (56%), or Latinos (53%) to consider a hybrid (49%) if it increases the price. SUV owners are as willing as others to consider a hybrid for their next vehicle. “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? ”) All Adults Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Doesn’t apply (vol) Don't know 56% 13 21 4 6 Central Valley 53% 14 25 2 6 SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 58% 56% 55% 14 12 14 17 18 23 54 6 10 3 5 Inland Empire 57% 10 25 2 6 Party Dem 65% 11 15 4 5 Rep 45% 16 28 3 8 Ind 68% 11 16 3 2 - 5 - July 2005 Air Quality and Health Industry Preferences Six in 10 adults support stricter air pollution standards for agriculture and farm activities, even in the state’s agricultural Central Valley. Among all residents, 54 percent support such standards even if it costs these businesses more to operate. Support for stricter pollution standards for agriculture has risen since July 2003, when only 47 percent remained in favor if it raised the cost of doing business. Solid majorities of Democrats (67%) and independents (63%) favor stricter agricultural pollution standards, while support drops below half among Republicans (46%). Support for stricter controls for agriculture is higher among Asians (70%) and blacks (69%) than among Latinos (61%) and whites (58%). Younger and moreeducated residents also express stronger support for tougher air pollution standards on farm industries. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities?” (if yes: “Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate? ”) Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Don't know All Adults 54% 5 29 12 Central Valley 53% 7 31 9 SF Bay Area Region Los Orange/San Angeles Diego 62% 53% 50% 47 23 28 3 33 11 12 14 Inland Empire 52% 5 35 8 Party Dem 63% 4 22 11 Rep 42% 4 43 11 Ind 59% 4 28 9 Support for tougher pollution controls is even higher when it comes to cargo ships, trucks and trains. Three in four Californians want tighter standards on these businesses, with 70 percent favoring this policy even if it raises the costs for these businesses to operate. Public support is strongest among Democrats (85%) and independents (80%), while 68 percent of Republicans favor tighter pollution controls for freight and cargo shippers. Support is high in all regions, and there is no difference between coastal and inland residents. Solid majorities in all demographic groups favor tougher air pollution standards for the transport of freight and cargo, with most continuing their support even if it raises costs for these businesses. However, support is somewhat weaker among less-educated and lower-income residents. “Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo?” (if yes: “Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate? ”) All Adults Yes, even if more costly Yes, but not if more costly No Don't know 70% 7 16 7 Central Valley 67% 8 17 8 Region SF Bay Los Orange/San Area Angeles Diego 73% 5 73% 7 66% 8 15 13 20 77 6 Inland Empire 72% 8 15 5 Party Dem 80% 5 9 6 Rep 62% 6 22 10 Ind 73% 7 16 4 -6- Global Warming and Energy Perceptions of Global Warming For most Californians, global warming is a real or looming phenomenon: 86 percent believe it will affect current or future generations, and 57 percent believe the effects are already being felt. Only 9 percent believe global warming will never happen. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans generally are about as likely as Californians to believe effects of global warning are already being felt (54%) or never will be (9%). There are, however, strong partisan differences in the state. Democrats (68%) and independents (58%) are much more likely than Republicans (42%) to believe the effects have begun. Only 3 percent of Democrats believe it will never happen, compared to 20 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents. Among other groups, at least six in 10 college graduates, women, 35 to 54 year-olds, and San Francisco Bay Area residents believe that global warming is already under way. “Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen?” All Adults Already begun Within a few years Within your lifetime Not within lifetime, but will affect future generations Will never happen Don't know 57% 5 9 15 9 5 High School 49% 8 8 18 8 9 Education Some College College Graduate 59% 62% 33 10 10 15 12 99 44 Dem 68% 3 9 13 3 4 Party Rep 42% 3 9 19 20 7 Ind 58% 4 13 10 10 5 Of those who believe global warming will affect current or future generations, 62 percent identify human activities as the primary cause; only 22 percent believe naturally occurring increases in temperature are responsible. Although majorities in all political groups say human activity contributes most to warming, Democrats (72%) and independents (71%) are more likely than Republicans (51%) to hold this view. This view is also stronger among whites and blacks (67% each) than among Asians (58%) and Latinos (55%) and increases with education and income. “Which of the following do you think contributes the most to global warming?” * All Adults High School Education Some College College Graduate Human activities, such as farming, deforestation, and burning fossil fuels 62% 52% 62% 72% Naturally occurring increases in temperature 22 29 20 15 Both (volunteered) 8 8 10 7 Other (specify) 11 1 1 Don't know 7 10 7 5 * Question not asked of respondents who think global warming will never happen. Party Dem Rep 72% 51% 17 28 68 12 4 11 Ind 71% 17 7 0 5 -7- Global Warming and Energy Global Warming and California’s Future Many Californians are also concerned about the effects of global warming on the state’s economy and quality of life. Three in four say those effects will be very (39%) or somewhat (36%) serious. Only one in five believed the threat is not too serious (12%) or not at all serious (10%). A majority of residents in all regions and demographic groups believe global warming poses at least somewhat of a threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life; but women, younger residents, and people with lower incomes express the highest levels of concern. There are also considerable racial/ethnic and partisan differences. Latinos (51%) and blacks (46%) are more likely than whites (34%) and Asians (32%), and Democrats (49%) and independents (43%) are more likely than Republicans (21%), to think global warming is a very serious threat to California’s future. “How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California's future?” Very serious Somewhat serious Not too serious Not at all serious Don't know All Adults 39% 36 12 10 3 Asians 32% 52 11 2 3 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos 46% 38 8 4 4 51% 35 7 4 3 Whites 34% 34 15 14 3 Dem 49% 37 8 3 3 Party Rep 21% 31 20 25 3 Ind 43% 33 12 9 3 When asked about four possible effects of global warming in the future of California, residents are most concerned about increased air pollution (86% are very or somewhat concerned). However, 78 percent are at least somewhat concerned about more severe droughts, 67 percent about increased coastal erosion, and 60 percent about increased flooding. In each of the five regions, a majority of residents are at least somewhat concerned about these four possible effects. Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area residents are more likely than others to express concern about the possibility of increased coastal erosion. Although air pollution raises the most concern across party groups and demographic categories, the percentage with at least some concern is higher among Democrats (91%) and independents (90%) than among Republicans (72%). For the most part, concern is lower among whites than among other racial/ethnic groups and higher among women, younger residents, and people with lower incomes. “I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one.” Percent saying “very” or “somewhat” concerned How about increased air pollution? How about droughts that are more severe? How about increased coastal erosion? How about increased flooding? All Adults 86% 78 67 60 Central Valley 85% 75 60 62 SF Bay Area 88% 80 70 61 Region Los Angeles 89% 79 70 65 Orange/San Diego 81% Inland Empire 88% 74 79 63 64 53 60 -8- Global Warming and Energy California Emissions Policy It is consistent with the concerns about global warming that 77 percent of Californians favor the state law requiring automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California, beginning in 2009. The level of support is roughly the same as it was when we asked similar (though not identical) questions in the June 2002 (81%), July 2003 (80%), and July 2004 (81%) surveys. Support for the policy is high in all political and demographic groups. However, it is higher among Democrats (85%) and independents (81%) than among Republicans (64%). Across racial/ethnic groups, support is highest among Asians (90%) and about the same among whites (77%), Latinos (74%), and blacks (72%). Support for the policy also increases with education. It is interesting that we find as much support for the law among those who own SUVs as among those who don’t (77% each). However, support is somewhat lower among those who commute more than 20 miles each way than among those with shorter commutes (74% to 80%). “What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 77% 17 6 Dem 85% 11 4 Party Rep 64% 28 8 Ind 81% 16 3 Likely Voters 78% 17 5 On June 1st of this year, Governor Schwarzenegger established a goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The public (69%) and likely voters (71%) strongly favor the governor’s GHG emissions targets. There is strong majority support for this policy across all parties, with Democrats (72%) and independents (74%) only slightly more in favor than Republicans (69%). Support is also high across racial/ethnic groups but higher among Asians (81%) and whites (74%) than among blacks (68%) and Latinos (59%). Support for this state goal is higher among younger, more affluent, and more educated residents. It is also higher among people who give the governor high job ratings than among those who give him negative ratings (76% to 65%), although both groups strongly support this policy. “What about the greenhouse gas emissions targets recently established by Governor Schwarzenegger, which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, and industry by more than 80 percent over the next 50 years?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 69% 17 14 Dem 72% 16 12 Party Rep 69% 18 13 Ind 74% 17 9 Likely Voters 71% 16 13 - 9 - July 2005 Global Warming and Energy State Policies for Alternative Energy Sources The Schwarzenegger administration has proposed 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. Californians continue to support this: 55 percent of adults favor the plan, as did 57 percent who were asked a similar question in July 2004. Currently, one in four opposes the plan, and 18 percent say they do not know enough about it to have an opinion. Despite overall majority support, there are political differences. The plan has majority support among Democrats (60%) and independents (62%) but not Republicans (47%). Nevertheless, attitudes toward the governor appear to make little difference in support for this plan—those who disapprove of his performance in office are about as likely to favor the hydrogen highway as those who approve (56% to 53%). There are differences across other groups. Asians (66%) are more enthusiastic about the proposal than whites (55%), Latinos (53%), and blacks (48%). Support for the plan increases with education and income but decreases with age. It is also higher among men than among women (64% to 46%). There is virtually no difference in support for the hydrogen highway plan between those who commute 20 miles or more and those with shorter commutes (61% to 59%). “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?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 55% 27 18 Dem 60% 23 17 Party Rep 47% 35 18 Ind 62% 26 12 Likely Voters 55% 28 17 Solar power is a popular source of alternative energy for the state. More than three in four Californians (76%) favor a plan that would provide incentives for placing one million solar energy systems on new and existing homes and businesses and that would require that 50 percent of new homes be built with solar energy systems by 2018. Fewer than one in five opposes the plan. The solar proposal receives high levels of support in all political and demographic groups. It is higher among younger residents and those who say they are interested in news and information about environmental issues. Those who disapprove of the governor’s performance are more favorable toward the solar proposal than are those who give him a positive rating (80% to 71%). “What about a plan that provides incentives for placing one million solar energy systems on new and existing homes and businesses and that requires that 50 percent of new homes are built with solar energy systems by 2018?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 76% 17 7 Dem 81% 14 5 Party Rep 67% 26 7 Ind 82% 17 1 Likely Voters 76% 19 5 - 10 - Global Warming and Energy U.S. Energy Supply and Demand The majority of residents (53%) continue to oppose drilling for more oil off the California coast, similar to our survey findings in July 2003 (54%) and July 2004 (50%). However, there are variations among political parities and other groups. Most Democrats (65%) and independents (58%) today oppose the drilling, but 62 percent of Republicans favor it. SUV owners are more likely than non-SUV owners to support more offshore drilling (46% to 39%). Opposition is stronger among coastal than inland residents (56% to 46%). Although opposition is similar across racial/ethnic groups, it is stronger among younger residents and those with a college education. “How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 41% 53 6 Dem 30% 65 5 Party Rep 62% 31 7 Ind 39% 58 3 Likely Voters 42% 54 4 The majority of Californians (56%) also oppose new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness, as they did in July 2003 (55%) and July 2004 (51%). Again, Democrats (68%) and independents (64%) oppose this proposal, while 64 percent of Republicans favor it. The proposal is supported by 60 percent of residents who approve of President Bush’s overall performance and opposed by 72 percent of those who disapprove. Opposition is greater in the San Francisco Bay Area than elsewhere and among younger and more educated residents. “How about allowing new oil drilling in federally-protected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 39% 56 5 Dem 27% 68 5 Party Rep 64% 29 7 Ind 32% 64 4 Likely Voters 40% 55 5 Consistent with their opposition to increasing oil supply through more drilling, most Californians support reducing the demand for fossil fuels. Eighty-three percent favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars—and 73 percent support the policy even if it increases the cost of buying a new car. A clear majority in all political parties and racial/ethnic groups support this policy, even if it increases the cost of buying a car. Support increases with education, income, and age. “How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country?” (if favor: “Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car? ”) Favor, even if more costly Favor, but not if more costly Oppose Don't know All Adults 73% 10 11 6 Dem 82% 8 6 4 Party Rep 74% 8 12 6 Ind 80% 8 8 4 Likely Voters 82% 7 8 3 - 11 - July 2005 Global Warming and Energy Other U.S. Energy Sources Six in 10 Californians (59%) also oppose constructing new nuclear power plants in order to expand U.S. energy sources, a plan proposed by the Bush Administration. Opposition to this idea is slightly higher among all Americans (64%), according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll. While 33 percent of Californians support building more nuclear power plants, 20 percent would still support it if a plant were built within 50 miles of their home, but 13 percent would not. In California today, there is less than majority support in any political group for building more nuclear plants, but opposition is greater among Democrats and independents than among Republicans. Of those who approve of Bush’s performance in office, only 45 percent support the plan, while 68 percent of those who disapprove of his performance oppose the plan. Although support is below 50 percent in all regions and demographic groups, opposition is higher among women than men (65% to 52%), and among blacks (68%) and Latinos (64%) than among whites (54%) and Asians (58%). “How about building more nuclear power plants at this time?” (if favor: “Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?”) Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 33% 59 8 Dem 24% 69 7 Party Rep 49% 44 7 Ind 32% 58 10 Likely Voters 37% 55 8 Another proposal to increase energy sources is the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in U.S. ports. This super-cooled liquid gas from foreign sources would be shipped to terminals in the state to be converted back to its gaseous form for use in businesses and homes. Although fewer than half of Californians favor building LNG facilities (48%), only 24 percent oppose this proposal, with 28 percent saying they do not yet have an opinion. However, only 29 percent would favor the building of LNG terminals if a facility were located within 50 miles of their home. A majority of Republicans favor building LNG terminals (57%), but support is lower than 50 percent among Democrats (44%) and independents (47%). Overall, support is only slightly lower among coastal residents (47%) than inland residents (52%). This proposal is favored more strongly by men than women (56% to 41%) and by Asians (56%) than Latinos (50%) or blacks or whites (48% each). As income increases, so does support for building LNG terminals. “How about building more liquefied natural gas terminals, which receive imported natural gas in liquid form and convert it back to gas form?” (if favor: “Would you favor or oppose building a liquid natural gas terminal within 50 miles of your home?”) Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 48% 24 28 Dem 44% 25 31 Party Rep 57% 17 26 Ind 47% 29 24 Coastal Resident Yes No 47% 52% 25 21 28 27 - 12 - State and National Politics Governor’s Ratings Governor Schwarzenegger’s overall approval rating is at a low point. In the current survey, 34 percent of residents approve of the way he is handling his job in office. His approval rating today is slightly higher among likely voters (41%). In our most recent surveys, four in 10 Californians said they approved of his performance as governor (40% in April and 40% in May). A year ago, in our July 2004 survey, 57 percent of adults approved and 29 percent disapproved of the governor’s job performance. Republicans (68%) are much more likely than Democrats (18%) and independents (34%), and whites (45%) are much more likely than blacks (18%), Latinos (17%), and Asians (32%) to approve of the governor’s performance. After the budget agreement was announced on July 5, 2005, 32% approved and 52% disapproved of the governor’s performance in office. In the broader state context, 51 percent of Californians say the state is headed in the wrong direction and 38 percent say it is headed in the right direction. Moreover, 54 percent think that it would have been better to wait for the next scheduled election in June 2006 to vote on reform measures, while just 34 percent think it is better to have a special election this November. In our May survey, 57 percent said the state was headed in the wrong direction, and 61 percent said it would be better to wait until the next election in June 2006 to vote on reform measures. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 34% 51 15 Dem 18% 70 12 Party Rep 68% 21 11 Race/Ethnicity Likely Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters 34% 32% 18% 17% 45% 41% 51 35 68 70 42 49 15 33 14 13 13 10 Californians are divided when it comes to the governor’s handling of environmental issues, with 32 percent of adults saying they approve and 35 percent saying they disapprove. Similarly, 35 percent of likely voters approve, while 33 percent disapprove. About one in three adults and likely voters have no opinion on the governor’s environmental record. Following the trend in overall job performance, his approval ratings on environmental issues have declined in the past year. In July 2004, 39 percent approved, 27 percent disapproved, and 34 percent were undecided. Republicans (54%) are much more likely than Democrats (19%) or independents (33%) to approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues, while whites (37%) and Asians (39%) give the governor higher environmental approval ratings than blacks (21%) and Latinos (23%). The governor’s approval rating on environmental issues increases with age, education, and income; however, it does not vary significantly between those who are more or less interested in environmental issues. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 32% 35 33 Dem 19% 47 34 Party Rep 54% 13 33 Race/Ethnicity Likely Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters 33% 39% 21% 23% 37% 35% 32 21 48 54 27 33 35 40 31 23 36 32 - 13 - State and National Politics President’s Ratings Four in 10 California adults and likely voters (38% each) say they approve of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president. The president’s approval rating today is similar to his rating in May (40% approve, 56% disapprove) and a year ago in July 2004 when 40 percent of Californians approved of Bush’s job performance and 54 percent disapproved. The president’s approval rating in California is lower than it is nationwide (47%), based on a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. There are sharp differences in the president’s approval rating between Republicans (76%), Democrats (15%), and independents (31%). Across racial/ethnic groups, whites (43%) are somewhat more likely than Latinos (36%), Asians (33%), and blacks (23%) to approve of Bush’s performance in office. Residents living in the state’s inland counties (47%) are more likely than those living in the coastal counties (35%) to approve of the way President Bush is handling his job. While 50 percent of those who attend religious services weekly or almost weekly approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, only 21 percent of Californians who are nonreligious – that is, never attending religious services and having no religious affiliation – approve of Bush’s overall job performance as president. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 38% 57 5 Dem 15% 82 3 Party Rep 76% 20 4 Race/Ethnicity Likely Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters 31% 33% 23% 36% 43% 38% 66 54 72 59 53 58 3 13 5 5 4 4 Californians give the president even lower approval ratings when it comes to his handling of environmental issues. Only 32 percent of Californians approve of Bush’s handling of environmental issues. Over time, the president’s disapproval ratings on environmental issues have increased (44% in June 2002, 48% in July 2003, 53% in July 2004, 54% in July 2005). The president’s disapproval ratings on the environment are much higher than the governor’s (54% to 35%), while their approval ratings are similar (32% each), and fewer have no opinion about the president than they do about the governor (14% to 33%). At this time, Bush’s approval rating on energy policy is slightly lower than his approval rating on the environment, with only 29 percent approving of his handling of this issue and 53 percent saying they disapprove. The president’s approval rating in California on energy policy is lower than his rating on energy nationwide (36%), based on a recent survey by Gallup. Of those who say they are very or somewhat interested in environmental issues, 56 percent disapprove of Bush on environmental issues and 54 percent disapprove of Bush on energy policy. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 32% 54 14 Dem 14% 74 12 Party Rep 62% 23 15 Race/Ethnicity Likely Ind Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Voters 26% 27% 21% 32% 34% 32% 63 48 62 53 54 57 11 25 17 15 12 11 - 14 - State and National Politics Role of Government While there is no broad agreement among Californians when asked which governing body should have primary responsibility for setting regional air quality standards, the state government (35%) is clearly favored over a regional air resources board (21%) or local government (20%). Only 17 percent of Californians would prefer that the federal government have primary responsibility. Across all party lines, about one in three prefers the state government over other levels of government when it comes to assuming primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in their region. Support for the state government assuming the primary role increases with income and education. Across the state’s regions and racial/ethnic groups, state government is favored over regional, local, or federal government. These preferences were similar in July 2003 (35% state government, 26% regional, 19% local, 14% federal). “Which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region?” State government Regional air resources board Local government Federal government Other answer (specify) All of the above (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 35% 21 20 17 1 1 5 Dem 35% 21 18 18 1 2 5 Party Rep 37% 24 21 13 1 1 3 Ind 34% 24 20 17 1 0 4 Likely Voters 38% 23 19 15 1 1 3 A majority of Californians (54%) also express a preference for their state government to develop its own policies, apart from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming. This policy preference is more strongly held by Democrats (59%) and independents (62%) than Republicans (49%). However, the percent in favor of the state government making its own policies outnumbers the percent opposed across all partisan groups. Public support for the state government making its own global warming policies also increases with income and education. There is more support in the San Francisco Bay Area (61%) for the state government making its own policies than elsewhere (56% in the Inland Empire, 52% in the Central Valley, 49% in Orange/San Diego, 48% in Los Angeles). “Do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 54% 37 9 Dem 59% 34 7 Party Rep 49% 40 11 Ind 62% 32 6 Likely Voters 59% 33 8 - 15 - July 2005 State and National Politics Trust in Government While the state government is favored over the federal government when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment, only about one in three Californians trusts the state government (37%) or the federal government (32%) to do what is right just about always or most of the time. The majority of Californians say that they trust the state government (60%) or the federal government (66%) only sometimes or not at all. Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to trust both the federal government and the state government when it comes to protecting the environment. “How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government to do what is right when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment?” Just about always Most of the time Only some of the time None of the time/not at all (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 8% 29 55 5 3 Dem 5% 25 63 5 2 Party Rep 7% 35 50 6 2 Ind 6% 26 59 7 2 Likely Voters 5% 29 59 5 2 “How much of the time do you think you can trust the federal government to do what is right when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment?” Just about always Most of the time Only some of the time None of the time/not at all (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 8% 24 56 10 2 Dem 5% 15 66 12 2 Party Rep 7% 36 48 6 3 Ind 6% 15 64 14 1 Likely Voters 4% 22 60 13 1 When residents are asked to assess the trustworthiness of five organizations in providing correct information about the environment, scientists and researchers at universities receive the most trust, while the news media get the least trust. Republicans and Democrats differ substantially in their level of trust in scientists and researchers, environmental organizations, the federal government, and the news media. “Please tell me how much you trust each of the following groups and organizations to give you correct information about the condition of the environment.” Percent saying “a great deal” or “fair amount” How about scientists and researchers in universities? How about environmental organizations? How about the state government? How about the federal government? How about the news media? All Adults 78% 64 52 43 39 Dem 87% 79 56 37 47 Party Rep 75% 46 58 61 27 Ind 86% 69 52 38 40 - 16 - State and National Politics Effects of Gasoline Prices Has the recent escalation in gasoline prices translated into increased efforts by Californians to reduce their driving? Four in 10 residents (43%) claim to have significantly cut back on their driving time because of recent increases in gasoline prices, while 51 percent say they have not. Cutting back on driving is strongly related to income: While only 31 percent of Californians with a household income of $80,000 or more claim to have cut back on their driving, 51 percent of residents with household incomes under $40,000 say they have reduced their driving. Whites (39%) are less likely than blacks (51%), Asians (49%), and Latinos (47%) to say they have reduced their driving. Residents in the Inland Empire (48%) and the Central Valley (47%) are more likely than those in other regions to have cut back on their driving time. “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?” Yes, have cut back No, have not cut back Don't drive (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 43% 51 5 1 Race/Ethnicity Asians 49% 46 4 1 Blacks 51% 42 5 2 Latinos 47% 44 8 1 Whites 39% 56 4 1 Household Income Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more 51% 44% 31% 38 53 67 10 3 1 1 01 While fewer than half of residents have changed their driving habits, 64 percent of Californians are seriously considering buying a more fuel-efficient automobile as a result of the recent increase in gasoline prices. This consumer sentiment is evident across all regions of the state and in every income and education category. By comparison, a recent Gallup survey showed that 57 percent of Americans were seriously considering buying a more fuel-efficient car as a result of rising prices at the gas pump. In California, Asians (77%) and Latinos (70%) are more likely than blacks and whites (59% each) to have considered buying a more fuel-efficient car. Californians under the age of 35 (71%) are more likely to say they have considered purchasing a more fuel-efficient car, while residents over 55 (50%) are less likely to have considered this option. A year ago, a similar 52 percent of Californians said they had not cut back significantly on how much they drove, while 66 percent were seriously considering getting a more fuel-efficient vehicle. “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 considered No, have not considered My current vehicle is fuel-efficient (volunteered) Don't drive (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 64% 22 Asians 77% 16 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 59% 29 Latinos 70% 20 Whites 59% 23 9 2 8 3 13 44 4 6 4 11 0 1 1 Household Income Under $40,000 $40,000 to $79,999 $80,000 or more 63% 63% 66% 20 24 22 8 10 11 9 21 0 10 - 17 - July 2005 State and National Politics Issue Involvement More than eight in 10 Californians say they are very interested (37%) or somewhat interested (49%) in news and information about environmental issues. Although the percentages of residents interested in environmental news and information do not vary across racial/ethnic groups, there are sizable differences across other demographic categories. While 31 percent of those with no more than a high school education are very interested in environmental issues, 45 percent of college graduates are very interested. Moreover, a high interest in environmental news and information tends to increase with age, income, and years at current residence. Democrats (48%) and liberals (48%) express a much higher level of interest in environmental news than do Republicans (28%) and conservatives (30%), while independents (42%) and moderates (35%) fall in between these partisan or ideological groups. “How interested are you in news and information about environmental issues?” Very interested Somewhat interested Not too interested Not at all interested Don't know All Adults 37% 49 10 3 1 Asians 30% 55 13 2 0 Race/Ethnicity Blacks 38% 50 9 3 0 Latinos 35% 50 11 3 1 Whites 37% 49 10 3 1 High School 31% 52 12 5 0 Education Some College 35% 52 11 2 0 College Graduate 45% 45 8 1 1 Although almost four in 10 Californians express a high level of interest in environmental news and information, a smaller proportion report being personally involved in environmental groups or related activities. About three in 10 adults say they have been involved in at least one of three activities involving environmental groups and environmental causes. In all, 11 percent are currently members of an environmental group, 12 percent contributed money to such a group in the past year, and 18 percent volunteered time for an environmental cause in the past year. Across all three types of engagement in environmental activities, blacks and Latinos are less likely to participate than whites. As is often the case with civic engagement activities, the more affluent and more educated are the most likely to participate in environmental groups or causes. Although those under age 35 join groups and give money less often than those over 35, the youngest group is more likely to volunteer time to environmental causes. Percent saying “yes” Do you yourself belong to any environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, or a state or local environmental organization? In the past 12 months, have you volunteered your time to work on an environmental issue, including air, water, or land issues? (Aside from any membership fees,) in the past 12 months, have you given money to any environmental organization? All Adults 11% 12 18 Asians 6% 12 19 Race/Ethnicity Blacks Latinos Whites 18-34 5% 5% 16% 8% 8 8 14 16 18 9 22 13 Age 35-54 13% 12 20 55+ 13% 9 22 - 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 Douglas Strand, associate survey director; Kristy Michaud, project manager for this survey; Jennifer Paluch, survey research associate; and Lunna Lopes, survey intern. The survey was conducted with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation as part of a three-year grant on environment, education, and population issues. We benefited from discussions with Hewlett staff 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 2,502 California adult residents interviewed between June 28 and July 12, 2005. Interviewing took place mostly on weekday and weekend evenings, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted 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. Interviews took an average of 18.9 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Korean, or Vietnamese. We chose these languages because Spanish is the dominant language among non-English speaking adults in California and is followed in prevalence by the three Asian languages noted above. Accent on Languages 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 2,502 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,893 registered voters is +/- 2.3 percent. The sampling error for the 1,390 likely voters is +/- 2.7 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to five geographic regions. “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 non-Hispanic 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. We use earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. We also compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses in national surveys by the Gallup Organization, ABC News/Washington Post, and the Pew Research Center. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE ENVIRONMENT JUNE 28 – JULY 12, 2005 2,502 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS: ENGLISH, SPANISH, CHINESE, KOREAN, AND VIETNAMESE MARGIN OF ERROR +/-2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, 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? 35% large city 22 suburb of a large city 26 small city 9 town 7 rural area 1 don't know 2. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 34% approve 51 disapprove 15 don't know 3. Governor Schwarzenegger has called a special election in November 2005 to vote on budget, educational, and governmental reform measures. Do you think it is better to have a special election later this year, or is it better to have waited until the next scheduled statewide election in June 2006? 34% better to have a special election 54 better to have waited until scheduled election in 2006 12 don't know 4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling environmental issues in California? 32% approve 35 disapprove 33 don't know 5. Changing topics, do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 38% right direction 51 wrong direction 11 don't know 6. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 42% good times 43 bad times 15 don't know 7. On another topic, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? [code, don’t read] 26% air pollution 6 energy 6 pollution in general 6 water pollution of ocean, rivers, lakes, streams 5 water supply, reservoirs 4 traffic congestion, transportation 3 immigration, immigrants 3 loss of forests, forest fires 3 population growth, overpopulation 2 global warming, global climate change 2 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 14 other (specify) 20 don’t know Next, we are interested in the region of California that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems 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 8 to 10] 8. How about pollution of the land and soil? 24% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 36 not a problem 3 don't know 9. How about pollution of drinking water? 21% big problem 32 somewhat of a problem 44 not a problem 3 don't know - 21 - 10. How about air pollution? 38% big problem 35 somewhat of a problem 27 not a problem 11. On another topic, is the air quality in your region better or worse than it was 10 years ago? 26% better 47 worse 14 same (volunteered) 13 don't know 12. How serious of a health threat is air pollution in your region to you and your immediate family—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, or not too serious health threat? 21% very serious 36 somewhat serious 38 not too serious 4 not at all serious (volunteered) 1 don’t know 13. Which of the following do you think contributes the most to air pollution in your region? [read rotated list, then ask “or something else”] 42% vehicle emissions 21 population growth and development 13 industry and agriculture 11 pollution from outside the area 5 weather and geography 3 all of the above (volunteered) 2 something else (specify) 3 don’t know We are interested in knowing what people are willing to do in order to reduce air pollution in their region. [rotate questions 14 and 15] 14. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new cars, trucks, and SUVs? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for you to purchase or lease your next vehicle?) 66% yes, even if more costly 7 yes, but not if more costly 2 yes; [volunteered: follow-up question in parentheses does not apply] 19 no 6 don't know 15. 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?) 56% yes, even if more costly 13 yes, but not if more costly 21 no 4 doesn't apply (volunteered) 6 don't know [rotate questions 16 and 17} 16. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on agriculture and farm activities? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 54% yes, even if more costly 5 yes, but not if more costly 29 no 12 don't know 17. Would you be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on ships, trucks, and trains that transport freight and cargo? (if yes: Would this be true even if this made it more costly for these businesses to operate?) 70% yes, even if more costly 7 yes, but not if more costly 16 no 7 don't know 18. More generally, which level of government do you think should have the primary responsibility for setting air quality standards in your region? [read rotated list] 35% state government 21 regional air resources board 20 local government 17 federal government 1 other answer (specify) 1 all of the above (volunteered) 5 don't know - 22 - 19. On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen: [rotate questions as a set, starting from either the top or the bottom] (1) they have already begun to happen; (2) they will start happening within a few years; (3) they will start happening within your lifetime; (4) they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] (5) they will never happen? 57% already begun 5 within a few years 9 within your lifetime 15 not within lifetime, but will affect future generations 9 will never happen [skip to q. 21] 5 don't know 20. Which of the following do you think contributes the most to global warming: [rotate] (1) human activities, such as farming, deforestation, and burning fossil fuels; [or] (2) naturally occurring increases in temperature? 62% human activities, such as farming, deforestation, and burning fossil fuels 22 naturally occurring increases in temperature 8 both (volunteered) 1 other (specify) 7 don't know 21. How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California's future—do you think that it is a very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious of a threat? 39% very serious 36 somewhat serious 12 not too serious 10 not at all serious 3 don't know Now, I am going to read you a few possible impacts of global warming in the future in California, and I would like you to tell me whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about each one. [rotate questions 22 to 25] 22. How about increased flooding? 27% very concerned 33 somewhat concerned 23 not too concerned 15 not at all concerned 2 don't know 23. How about droughts that are more severe? 41% very concerned 37 somewhat concerned 12 not too concerned 9 not at all concerned 1 don't know 24. How about increased coastal erosion? 28% very concerned 39 somewhat concerned 18 not too concerned 12 not at all concerned 3 don't know 25. How about increased air pollution? 52% very concerned 34 somewhat concerned 7 not too concerned 6 not at all concerned 1 don't know State policies could be used to address environmental and energy issues in California. Please tell me whether you favor or oppose the following proposals. [rotate questions 26 and 27] 26. What about a plan that provides incentives for placing one million solar energy systems on new and existing homes and businesses and that requires that 50 percent of new homes are built with solar energy systems by 2018? 76% favor 17 oppose 7 don't know 27. 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? 55% favor 27 oppose 18 don't know 28. What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California beginning in 2009? 77% favor 17 oppose 6 don't know - 23 - July 2005 29. What about the greenhouse gas emissions targets recently established by Governor Schwarzenegger, which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, and industry by more than 80 percent over the next 50 years? 69% favor 17 oppose 14 don't know Changing topics to the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals? [rotate questions 30 and 31] 30. How about building more liquefied natural gas terminals, which receive imported natural gas in liquid form and convert it back to gas form? (if favor: Would you favor or oppose building a liquefied natural gas terminal within 50 miles of your home?) 29% favor, even if within 50 miles 19 favor, but not if within 50 miles 24 oppose 28 don't know 31. How about building more nuclear power plants at this time? (if favor: Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?) 20% favor, even if within 50 miles 13 favor, but not if within 50 miles 59 oppose 8 don't know 32. How about requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country? (if favor: Would this be true even if it increased the cost of buying a new car?) 73% favor, even if more costly 10 favor, but not if more costly 11 oppose 6 don't know [rotate questions 33 and 34] 33. How about allowing more oil drilling off the California coast? 41% favor 53 oppose 6 don't know 34. How about allowing new oil drilling in federallyprotected areas such as the Alaskan wilderness? 39% favor 56 oppose 5 don't know 35. More generally, do you favor or oppose the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address the issue of global warming? 54% favor 37 oppose 9 don't know 36. Changing topics, 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? 43% yes, have cut back 51 no, have not cut back 5 don't drive/don't have a car (volunteered) 1 don't know 37. 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? 64% yes, have considered 22 no, have not considered 9 my current vehicle is fuel-efficient (volunteered) 4 don't drive/won't buy another vehicle (volunteered) 1 don't know 38. 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? 38% approve 57 disapprove 5 don't know - 24 - [rotate questions 39 and 40] 39. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 32% approve 54 disapprove 14 don't know 40. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling energy policy? 29% approve 53 disapprove 18 don't know [rotate questions 41 and 42] 41. How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government to do what is right when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment—just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time? 8% just about always 29 most of the time 55 only some of the time 5 none of the time/not at all (volunteered) 3 don't know 42. How much of the time do you think you can trust the federal government to do what is right when it comes to protecting the quality of the environment—just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time? 8% just about always 24 most of the time 56 only some of the time 10 none of the time/not at all (volunteered) 2 don't know Please tell me how much you trust each of the following groups and organizations to give you correct information about the condition of the environment—do you trust each one a great deal, a fair amount, not too much, or not at all? [rotate questions 43 to 47] 43. How about the news media? 8% great deal 31 fair amount 37 not too much 22 not at all 2 don't know 44. How about scientists and researchers in universities? 37% great deal 41 fair amount 14 not too much 5 not at all 3 don't know 45. How about environmental organizations? 21% great deal 43 fair amount 22 not too much 12 not at all 2 don't know 46. How about the federal government? 6% great deal 37 fair amount 38 not too much 17 not at all 2 don't know 47. How about the state government? 6% great deal 46 fair amount 37 not too much 9 not at all 2 don't know 48. How interested are you in news and information about environmental issues—very interested, somewhat interested, not too interested, or not at all interested? 37% very interested 49 somewhat interested 10 not too interested 3 not at all interested 1 don't know 49. Do you yourself belong to any environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, or a state or local environmental organization? 11% yes 88 no 1 don't know 50. In the past 12 months, have you volunteered your time to work on an environmental issue, including air, water or land issues? 12% yes 87 no 1 don't know 51. (Add this phrase if respondent answered “yes” to q.49: Aside from any membership fees,) In the past 12 months, have you given money to any environmental organization? 18% yes 81 no 1 don't know - 25 - July 2005 52. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 25% great deal 36 fair amount 28 only a little 11 none 53. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 76% yes [ask q.53a] 24 no [skip to q.54a] 53a.Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [skip to q.54b] 34 Republican [skip to q.54c] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q.55] 18 independent [ask q.54a] 54a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 20% Republican party 43 Democratic party 27 neither (volunteered) 10 don’t know [go to q.55] 54b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 52% strong 45 not very strong 3 don’t know [go to q.55] 54c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 60% strong 37 not very strong 3 don’t know 55. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 52% always 17 nearly always 7 part of the time 5 seldom 19 never 56. Would you consider yourself to be politically … [rotate list as a set, starting from either the top or the bottom; read list] 10% very liberal 21 somewhat liberal 31 middle-of-the-road 22 somewhat conservative 10 very conservative 6 don’t know [D1-D5: demographic questions] D6.[asked of those with full- or part-time jobs] How do you usually commute to work—drive alone, carpool, take public bus or transit, walk, or bicycle? 67% drive alone [ask D6a] 15 carpool [ask D6a] 7 public bus or transit [ask D6a] 4 walk [skip to D7] 2 bicycle [skip to D7] 5 work at home (volunteered) [skip to D7] D6a.About how many miles is it from your home to work? 21% fewer than five miles 21 five miles to under 10 miles 27 10 miles to under 20 miles 31 20 miles or more D7.Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sport-utility vehicle)? 22% yes 78 no [D8–D11: demographic questions] - 26 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Angela Blackwell Founder and CEO 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 Matthew K. Fong President Strategic Advisory Group 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 Mark Paul Deputy Treasurer California Treasurer Phil Angelides 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 The PPIC Statewide Survey Advisory Committee is a diverse group of experts who provide advice on survey issues. However, survey methods, questions, content, and timing are determined solely by PPIC. - 27 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento 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 Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Cheryl White Mason Vice-President Litigation Legal Department Hospital Corporation of America Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves General Manager Community Development Department City of Los Angeles Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau 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 Robin M. Kramer Senior Director The Broad Foundation 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 O San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 O Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org O info@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:38:07" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_705mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:38:07" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:38:07" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_705MBS.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) }