Clarity Blog

We are big fans of the Public Policy Institute and its surveys of public opinion in California.  We like that its executive director, Mark Baldassare, came out of Chapman University here in OC, and we like even more that it presents a largely unpartisan take on what Californians are thinking.  But we’re disappointed in PPICs handling of AB32 and Proposition 23 – California’s “save the planet” global warming law, and the Nov. 2010 proposition to delay its implementation.

In a news release announcing the results of the institute’s annual Californians and the Environment survey, PPIC said:

… Californians’ views on another contentious environmental policy issue have held steady since last year. Two-thirds (67% today, 66% in 2009) favor the state law (AB 32) that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 is the focus of renewed debate because Proposition 23 on the November ballot asks whether the law should be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5% or below for a minimum of one year.

Because the ballot language has not been finalized, we posed a more general question about timing: Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53%) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait.

Is that really what Californians said?  We don’t think so, and here’s why:

Before getting to its question on Prop 23, PPIC asked a series of questions that made it difficult to get an unbiased response to the state’s opinion on delaying implementation of AB 32. They are:

On another topic, which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen—[rotate order] (1) they have already begun to happen; (2) they will start happening within a few years; (3) they will start happening within your lifetime; (4) they will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations; [or] (5) they will never happen?

and

Do you think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away, or isn’t it necessary to take steps yet?

and

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?

Only then was a question asked about “the state law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020,” which 67 percent said they supported.  Then came a slow, fat pitch:  Do you favor or oppose California making its own policies in this area, separate from the federal government?  Of course a majority likes California doing that – people almost always favor the government that’s closer to home over the one that’s farther away.

Then, at long last, came the Prop 23 question, which PPIC described as “general” since exact wording of Prop 23 isn’t yet available: “Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improves?”  The result was much less skewed than were the answers to any of the global warming questions that preceded it: 53 percent said act now, 42 percent said wait.

We can’t help but think that if all the set-up questions had been about the state’s economy, high unemployment, the flight of jobs to other states, and California’s budget mess, rather than about global warming, the results would have been much more favorable to the idea of repealing AB32.

That said, the “Yes on Prop 23″ campaign has a tough fight ahead of them because a majority of Democrats and half the independents feel AB 32 will lead to more jobs, as do 24 percent of Republicans.  To win in November, the Prop 23 folks are going to have to convince California voters that cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the state will indeed lead to more jobs – except they’ll be in other states, as more companies flee the Golden State’s repressive and costly regulations.  They would do well to make an example of Spain, where every new green job has cost 2.2 old-school jobs.

Tags: AB32, Global Warming, green jobs, Prop 23, Proposition 23

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 29th, 2010 at 9:07 am and is filed under Environment, Government, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.