Over the past several years, and particularly since the 2006 release of Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, global warming has garnered a great deal of attention beyond the scientific community, both in the media and among politicians. A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted April 24-27, 2007, found that 89 percent of adults nationwide had heard or read a lot or some about global warming, compared to 66 percent who said the same in 2003. Furthermore, about half (52 percent) believed that global warming was a very serious problem that should be one of the highest priorities for government leaders, and half (49 percent) believed it was having a serious impact now—a fourteen-point increase from 2001. California is a good laboratory for studying public opinion on global warming because of its recent state-level policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In June 2000, when California residents in the PPIC Statewide Survey were first asked to name the most important environmental issue facing the state one in three residents (33 percent) named air pollution (see Table 1). Next came growth and overpopulation (12 percent), followed by pollution in general (9 percent), traffic congestion (7 percent), water pollution (6 percent), and water supply (6 percent). At that time, energy and global warming were mentioned by fewer than 1 percent of residents. Between June 2000 and July 2004, at least one in three still said air pollution was the state’s most important environmental issue, but by July 2005, the proportion naming energy had grown to 6 percent and the issue of global warming was beginning to register at 2 percent. By July 2006, energy at 12 percent and global warming at 8 percent were in the number two and three positions of all mentions, respectively, after air pollution (24 percent). Fewer residents mentioned the issues of pollution in general, water pollution, water supply, or growth and overpopulation.
The July 2006 survey showed some regional and political variations in those who named air pollution, energy, or global warming as the most important environmental issue, despite air pollution being the top mention across groups. Reflecting their exposure to poor air quality in Southern California and the Central Valley, 31 percent of residents in the Inland Empire (comprised of Riverside and San Bernardino counties), 28 percent in Los Angeles County, and 26 percent in the Central Valley named air pollution as the most important issue. Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area were the most likely to name energy (17 percent) and global warming (12 percent). Across political parties, most Democrats, Republicans, and independents mentioned air pollution, but Republicans were the most likely to name energy (18 percent) and the least likely to name global warming (2 percent).
In this most recent survey on the subject, we also found that most Californians were conscious of the threat posed by climate change. Nearly two in three said they believed the effects of global warming had already begun to happen (see Figure 1). This marked a six-point increase from July 2005 and was five points higher than among adults nationwide, according to a Gallup poll conducted in March of 2006.
Across political parties, three in four Democrats and nearly two in three independents said the effects of global warming were already occurring, compared to about half of Republicans, as did solid majorities across regions, racial and ethnic, and other demographic groups.
In answer to a second question demonstrating residents’ perceptions of the risk posed by global climate change, nearly eight in ten in July 2006 said that global warming was a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life for California’s future (see Figure 2). And while the 75 percent who agreed it was an at least somewhat serious threat in July 2005 was only four percentage points lower than in the following year, the proportion saying “very serious” jumped ten points, from 39 percent to 49 percent.
A strong majority of Democrats (63 percent) said the threat was very serious, compared to 49 percent of independents and 25 percent of Republicans. In fact, four in ten Republicans called it not too serious (19 percent) or not at all serious (21 percent). Racial and ethnic differences also emerged on this question, with greater proportions of African Americans and Latinos saying global warming posed a very serious threat than non-Hispanic whites and Asian-Americans.
In a third question assessing the perceived threat of global warming, 79 percent of Californians in July 2006 said it was necessary to take steps right away to counter the effects of global warming, compared to 17 percent who said it was not necessary yet.
Although most Californians have said immediate action is necessary since this question was first asked, the proportion has gradually increased, from 73 percent in July 2003, to 76 percent in July 2004, and 79 percent in July 2006. Solid majorities of 91 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents, and 59 percent of Republicans agreed in 2006, as did over seven in ten residents across regions and demographic groups.
For an issue that was garnering such concern among Californians but had not gained much regulatory ground at the federal level, it is not surprising that two in three residents in July 2006 said they would favor the California state government making its own policies, separate from the federal government, to address global warming (see Figure 4). The proportion supporting unilateral action by the state rose eleven points, from 54 percent in July 2005. At least six in ten across regions and political parties favored the idea in 2006.
In July 2006, residents were asked if they would favor or oppose three policy measures that could be used to address the effects of global warming in California. The first two were related to a piece of state legislation that was pending at the time, Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which was later signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. This law, sponsored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), intends to roll back California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent to 1990-levels by the year 2020. About two-thirds of Californians, likely voters, Democrats, Republicans, and independents were all in favor of this proposal. One in five adults (19 percent) opposed the measure, while 16 percent were unsure.
The Global Warming Solutions Act also stipulates that mandatory emissions limits be imposed on industry as a way to achieve the 2020 goal. About three in four residents and likely voters and large majorities across political parties said they would favor a policy to establish such limits for oil, electric, and natural gas facilities. Sixteen percent of adults were opposed, and 8 percent were unsure.
Another proposal designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions was signed into law by former governor Gray Davis in 2002. Assembly Bill 1493, also sponsored by Assemblywoman Pavley, would require automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks beginning in 2009. About eight in ten residents (78 percent) and likely voters (80 percent) said they favored this law as a way to address the effects of global warming. Among Democrats, 88 percent agreed, along with 79 percent of independents and 71 percent of Republicans. In opposition to this measure were 16 percent of adults, with 6 percent unsure. Support was similarly high the previous four times this question was asked, beginning in 2002.
In sum, we find in California an increasing concern about global warming and an increase in perception of the threat posed by it, and growing support for independent state action to address this environmental issue.
Using the data from the PPIC surveys for further analysis, we have found that attitudes about state government play a significant role in support for state-level global warming policies in California. Belief that the state is on the right track in addressing this issue is a strong predictor of support for global warming policies, as is the belief that California should make its own policies to address this issue and approval of the governor’s handling of environmental issues. On the other hand, federal government attitudes are not related to support for state-level global warming policies, including approval of the president’s handling of environmental issues and the belief that the federal government is on the right track on global warming.
The much more significant role played by state government than the federal government in predicting support for state-level global warming policy is important. The July 2006 PPIC survey was taken at a time when Californians were largely in agreement across demographic and political groups about the threat of global warming and support for global warming policies. Also, GOP governor Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled legislature were involved in host of bipartisan activities on this issue, including the passage of AB 32 last fall. By contrast, although Californians have a negative attitude toward the president and the federal government’s activities in the environmental policy arena at this time, this is not a significant factor in their support for state-level policies. As other states consider a move toward state-level global warming policy, these results would suggest that people’s support depends much more on their confidence in state government than their disapproval of the federal government in this policy domain.
Some other areas would be worthy of additional research. In our examination of policy support, we did not look at willingness to make personal changes in behavior to address the issue of global warming, or to make personal economic sacrifices to ameliorate the problem. Although Riley Dunlap argued in 1998 that regulations and incentives at a national and international level would be more important than changes in consumption and behavior at the individual level, willingness to address the issue at a microlevel through policy could also be important. In a 2006 mail survey with adults nationwide, Anthony Leiserowitz found that while there was overwhelming support for the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions (90 percent) and for the Kyoto Protocol (88 percent), support dropped dramatically when it came to instituting a “gas guzzler” tax (54 percent), instituting a market-based emissions trading system (40 percent), raising taxes on businesses (31 percent), and raising the gas tax (17 percent) as ways to address global warming.
In a similar vein, it would be useful to distinguish between the personal and the greater societal threat of global warming in determining policy support. Sammy Zahran and colleagues recently found personal risk perceptions to be a strong predictor of policy support (in a geographic analysis, perceptions were an even better predictor than objective measures of risk). Irene Lorenzoni and Nick Pidgeon have pointed out that the threat of climate change remains somewhat distant and abstract, and that willingness to make lifestyle changes and to support policies will depend on personal and societal risk perception, knowledge, and trust in government to handle the issue. As global warming is becoming a fact of life in the twenty-first century, there will be ample opportunities to study the link between measures of public opinion and policy support in California and elsewhere.
Sonja Petek is research associate and survey project manager at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), and Mark Baldassare is president and CEO at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy and directs the PPIC Statewide Surveys.
On September 27, 2006, California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the landmark Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This piece of legislation was not only the first of its kind in the nation, but it was based on an assumption about global warming that the governor articulated it in the September 27, 2006, Sacramento Bee this way: “The science is clear. The global warming debate is over. We have a responsibility to act now.” AB 32 codifies the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, a reduction of 25 percent from current levels. As one way to help the state reach this goal, mandatory emissions limits will be imposed on the large industrial emitters, such as oil, electric, natural gas facilities.
But this wasn’t the first time California forged its own path in attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to curb global warming. In 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed into law Assembly Bill 1493, which mandated a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and light trucks beginning with the 2009 model year. As this deadline fast approaches, the state faces a dual set of challenges. First, automakers have filed several lawsuits against the state of California to challenge emissions regulations. Second, the state is waiting for a much delayed decision by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as to whether California should be granted a “waiver of federal preemption” to set its own vehicle emissions standards as a way to regulate air pollution.
A major hurdle was cleared in April 2007 when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from autos and would have to provide a scientific basis for why it was not doing so. Still, the EPA has yet to make a decision about granting a waiver to California. The outcome of this decision does not only affect California’s regulatory ability; since the passage of AB 1493, eleven other states have adopted California’s regulations. If California is granted a waiver, these states will be able to implement their regulations as well.
Similar methodology was used in each Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Statewide Survey, with respondents selected at random from a computer-generated sample of listed and unlisted telephone numbers. In June 2000, June 2002, and July 2003, the sample included approximately 2,000 California adult residents, and interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, according to respondents’ preferences. In July 2004, July 2005, and July 2006, the sample was expanded to include approximately 2,500 adult residents, and interviews were conducted in five languages (English, Spanish, Chinese [Mandarin or Cantonese], Korean, and Vietnamese). Interviews in each survey took an average of twenty minutes to complete. 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 samples were closely comparable to the census and state figures. Survey data were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences.
Baldassare, Mark and Cheryl Katz. 1992. The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior 24:602-16.
Blocker, T. Jean, and Douglas Lee Eckberg. 1989. Environmental issues as women’s issues - general concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly 70:586-93.
Bord, Richard J., Ann Fisher, and Robert E. O’Connor. 1998. Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives. Climate Research 11:75-84.
Bord, Richard J., and Robert E. O'Connor. 1997. The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly 78:830-40.
Brechin, Steven R. 2003. Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climatic change and the Kyoto Protocol: The U.S. versus the world? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23:106-134.
Brechin, Steven R., and Willett Kempton. 1994. Global environmentalism: A challenge to the postmaterialism thesis? Social Science Quarterly 75:245-69.
Dunlap, Riley E. 1998. Lay perceptions of global risk—Public views of global warming in cross-national context. International Sociology 13:473-98.
Dunlap, Riley E., and Rik Scarce. 1991. Poll trends: Environmental problems and protection. Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 651-72.
Elliott, Euel, James L. Regens, and Barry J. Seldon. 1995. Exploring variation in public support for environmental protection. Social Science Quarterly 76:41-52.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/url-fr/fr24ap07.pdf
Greenberg, Michael. R. 2004. Is public support for environmental protection decreasing? An analysis of U.S. and New Jersey data. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:121-25.
Hershey, Marjorie. R., and David B. Hill. 1978. Is pollution a “white thing”? Racial differences in preadults’ attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 41:439-58.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1971. The silent revolution in Europe: Intergenerational change in post-industrial societies. American Political Science Review 65:991-1017.
Jones, Robert Emmet. 1998. Black concern for the environment: Myth versus reality. Society & Natural Resources 11:209-28.
Jones, Robert Emmet and Lewis F. Carter. 1994. Concern for the environment among black Americans: An assessment of common assumptions. Social Science Quarterly 75:560-79.
Kempton, Willet. 1991. Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental Change 1:183-208.
———. 1993. Will public environmental concern lead to action on global warming? Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 18:217-45.
———. 1997. How the public views climate change. Environment 39:12-21.
Krosnick, Jon A., Allyson L. Holbrook, Laura Lowe, and Penny S. Visser. 2006. The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: A study of popular concern about global warming.” Climatic Change 77: 7-43.
Leiserowitz, Anthony. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77:45-72.
Lorenzoni, Irene, and Nick F. Pidgeon. 2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77:73-95.
Mohai, Paul, and Bunyan Bryant. 1998. Is there a “race” effect on concern for environmental quality? Public Opinion Quarterly 62:475-505.
O'Connor, Robert E., Richard J. Bord, and Ann Fisher. 1998. Rating threat mitigators: Faith in experts, governments, and individuals themselves to create a safer world. Risk Analysis 18:547-56.
———. 1999. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis 19:461-71.
O’Connor, Robert E., Richard J. Bord, Brent Yarnal, and Nancy Wiefek. 2002. Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Social Science Quarterly 83:1-17.
Office of the Governor. 2006. Fact sheet: Governor pushes for federal and congressional action on global warming, levee repairs, April 11.
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Harpreet Mahajan. 1986. Gender differences in policy preferences: a summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly 50:42-61.
Somma, Mark, and Sue Tolleson-Rinehart. 1997. Tracking the elusive green woman: Sex, environmentalism, and feminism in the United States and Europe. Political Research Quarterly 50:153-69.
Sterman, John D., and Linda Booth Sweeney. 2007. Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change 80:213-38.
Tarrant, Michael A., and H. Ken Cordell. 1997. The effect of respondent characteristics on general environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and Behavior 29:618-38.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Standards; Request for Waiver of Federal Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing.
Uyeki, Eugene S., and Lani J. Holland. 2000. Diffusion of Pro-Environment Attitudes? American Behavioral Scientist 43:646-62.
Van Liere, Kent D., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 44:181-97.
Walters, Dan. 2006. Greenhouse gas bill helps Schwarzenegger to triangulate voters. Sacramento Bee, September 27.
Whittaker, Matthew, Gary M. Segura, and Shaun Bowler. 2005. Racial/ethnic group attitudes toward environmental protection in California: Is “environmentalism’” still a white phenomenon? Political Research Quarterly 58:435-47.
Zahran, Sammy, Samuel D. Brody, Himanshu Grover, and Arnold Vedlitz. 2006. Climate change vulnerability and policy support. Society & Natural Resources 19:771-89.