Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’
Are Californians Really Against Postponing AB32?
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:
What Really Matters
The Field Poll recently asked a scientifically valid number of Californians (who, we’re sure, feel just great about having been scientifically validated) a pretty important question as primary season rolls around:
Thinking of the November election for Governor, how important will the candidates’ position on each of the following issues be to you in deciding whom you would support?
The issues were asked in random order; here they are alphabetically: crime/prisons, education, environmental protection, gasoline prices/energy, global warming, health care, illegal immigration, jobs/economy, state budget deficit, taxes and water.
Only those living in a time warp would be surprised that economic issues rocked the vote … and rocked it hard. Jobs and the economy was ranked most important by almost 60 percent, followed closely by the state’s budget, a few decimal points behind. At the other end of a scale, in near-lockstep for the last two positions were environmental protection and global warming. A scant 23 percent of those polled ranked the imminent destruction of the planet by greenhouse gases as the top priority in their decision-making.
We wonder why, given these results, politicians throughout the state, from Sacramento to local city councils, remain so deferential to environmental interests when these greater environmental protections (as if the laws on the books don’t go far enough already!) come at the cost of jobs.
To “Save the Planet,” California must be America’s growth leader
If America’s greenest metro areas are in California, why do environmentalists make it so hard to build here?
The answer may benefit your project.
It may come as a surprise to you, but you’ve probably been indoctrinated by the environmental movement. Don’t think so? Well, just answer this question: Is LA – sprawling, smoggy, freeway crisscrossed LA – a “green” city or a “brown” city?
If you answered “brown,” you’re wrong. It turns out that Los Angeles is the fourth greenest metropolitan area in the country. Why’s that? Because the climate here is temperate, so LA’s carbon footprint for air conditioning is less than Atlanta’s or Houston’s, and its footprint for heating is smaller than that of Minneapolis or Chicago. So says a study by Edward Glaeser and Matthew Kahn, UCLA and Harvard profs respectively.
