PPIC: Voters Oppose Offshore Oil & AB 32 Rollback
By large margins, California’s likely voters oppose expanded offshore oil drilling and believe that enforcement of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions law will create more jobs – not kill them – a new Public Policy Institute of California poll shows.
Public attitudes are polarized between Democrats and Republicans on the two high-profile environmental issues but, significantly, the crucial swing blocs of independent and moderate voters both oppose the GOP position by 2-to-1.
With tight races both for governor – where PPIC shows Jerry Brown ahead of Meg Whitman 37-to-34% with 23 % undecided – and for U.S. Senator – where Barbara Boxer leads Carly Fiorina 39-to-34%, with 22% undecided – the poll points to key political opportunities for the front-running Democrats to differentiate themselves from their Republican rivals.
Given the registration advantage of Democrats in statewide elections, PPIC President and CEO Mark Baldassare told Calbuzz, the poll’s findings on the views of independents, particularly on the jobs vs. greenhouse gas regulation debate, are “hugely significant.”
“The ‘more jobs versus fewer jobs’ debate will be a center of discussion this fall with the effort to suspend AB 32,” Baldassare said. “It poses a real challenge for Republicans to explain why they believe differently” than most voters.
Climate change and jobs: As a political matter, the findings on AB 32 — California’s landmark legislation to regulate emissions — offer the clearest look yet at the state political landscape surrounding the issue of climate change, at a time when debate on the matter is growing more vocal.
Conservative Republicans, joined by several large coal and oil companies, have qualified Proposition 23 for the November ballot. The initiative would suspend enforcement of AB 32 unless and until unemployment fell to 5.5 percent in the state; AB 32 requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
With the state unemployment rate now at 12.5 percent, supporters of the measure argue that the greenhouse gas law is an environmental “job killer” that California cannot economically afford. But the recession has had little effect on changing the public’s favorable opinion about AB 32, according to the poll, which shows likely voters:
1-Favor AB 32 overall by 61-to-28 percent; while Democrats support it 80-10 and Republicans oppose it 49-39, independents support the law 73-16%.
2-Think California should make its own policies, separate from the federal government, by 56-38%, with Democrats backing that position 63-to-30% and independents by 60-to-30%, as Republicans say California should not have its own climate change policy, 50-43%.
3-Believe that global warming is a very or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in the state by 63-to-35%; Democrats perceive it as a serious problem, 86-12% while Republicans do not find it so, 55-41% and independents express serious concern 77-to-22%.
For the 2010 campaigns, however, the most important numbers on the climate change issue show that likely voters, for now at least, are rejecting the central argument of the conservatives and industry groups spearheading the Prop. 23 effort, namely that tough greenhouse gas emissions regulation is a “job killer” making the recession worse.
In fact, a large plurality of likely voters believe that state global warming legislation will increase employment. While PPIC did not poll the ballot language of AB Prop. 23, because the final version was not available when they were in the field, researchers did ask about the jobs argument:
Do you think that California doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the state, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wouldn’t affect the number of jobs for people around the state?
The result: By 43-28, likely voters said it would mean more jobs, not fewer; Democrats took that stance 57-14%, while Republicans said it would mean fewer jobs, 43-to-24%.
Swing voters agreed with the Democrats: Independents said global warming measures would mean more jobs rather than fewer, 50-to-25%, while moderates agreed, 49-to-20%.
Offshore oil drilling: In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon calamity in the Gulf of Mexico, the poll showed a dramatic swing in attitudes about offshore oil drilling in California.
After many years in which state voters strongly opposed expanded drilling off the coast, sentiment began to swing in favor two years ago, when gas prices spiked.
In 2009, when asked their view about more drilling off the coast “to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil,” likely voters favored drilling 55-to-41%. But in the new survey, likely voters oppose drilling 59-to-37%, a huge swing of 36 points.
“After consistently opposing more offshore oil drilling, residents began to waver as gas prices increased,” Baldassare said. “But events in the Gulf appear to have renewed opposition to more drilling here.”
What it all means: As a practical matter, the PPIC poll represents especially bad news for GOP Senate candidate Fiorina.
She has positioned herself on the far right on a host of issues, including her call for expanded drilling off the coast of California, and her support for Proposition 23, coupled with her mocking of Boxer’s oft-expressed concern about climate change (Fiorina calls it a fixation on the weather) and her questioning of the science of global warming.
With 41% of likely voters saying the candidates’ views on the environment are very important, compared to 21% who say they are not too important, Boxer leads Fiorina overall, 39-to-34%. Each candidate has very strong backing from her own party but Boxer leads among independents 35-29%.
In the governor’s race, Whitman has switched her position on offshore drilling several times and, most recently, opposes it, while Brown consistently has been against.
In courting right-wing voters in the GOP primary, Whitman said she would suspend AB 32 for at least one year, while Brown has been adamantly against relaxing it.
It’s significant that Whitman has not yet taken a position on Prop. 23 and, given her flip flops and flexibility on other issues, it would not surprising to see her come out against it yet. Our guess: she’ll say she’s got a better plan and Prop. 23 goes too far. This, of course, would raise new questions about her opportunism and commitment on the issue by both sides of the debate.
The PPIC findings are based on telephone (landline and cell) surveys of 2,502 Californians, conducted July 6-20, in English, Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese and Korean. The margin of error for the sub-sample of 1,321 likely voters is plus or minus 2.7 percent.
You can access the complete poll here.
Fiona Witman please come to pappa. The voters are waiting in the booth, er…woodshed, and their waving a mighty paddle. When times are tough voting against arrogant billionaires may be the most fun an unemployed 99’er can have.
I just don’t know how big of an impact on swing voters these issues will have in November. Looking at the SD15 race and considering the candidates’ records and messages, one would think that Laird would have won the special election in a coastal district with good voter reg trending, rather than scraping by and Blakeslee almost winning the majority. If offshore drilling isn’t enough to swing that district, how much will it really impact the statewide races?
There are a number of issues in SD 15 that impact what should, I agree, be a very clear choice. Many of these were engineered by Republicans and our dear governator.
#1 Lack of awareness because of the special election and the timing of the first June ballot. I personally talked to plenty of voters who didn’t know what the “extra” ballot was for and threw it away.
#2 Money spent by big oil and big insurance to paint Blakeslee as a moderate and education champion (and not a former oil executive and GOP tax hatchet man)–and to demonize John Laird as some kind of out-of-control tax freak. I mean, come on! Blakeslee voted for the same pay raise for himself that everybody in the Assembly did. But the ads make it sound like Laird was responsible for it all on his own! Despite heroic fundraising by the campaign, infusions of cash from outside groups, and donations from the state Democratic Party–the Laird campaign hasn’t been able to match the funds the corporations have poured in to the Blakeslee campaign. It’s up to Californians inside and outside the district to decide whether or not we want to let these corporations buy a seat in our State Senate. Because that’s what they’re trying to do. If you don’t like the idea, volunteer at http://www.LairdforSenate.com
#3 A gerrymandered district. This is not a strictly coastal district. Rather it looks like some kind of a sick snake that winds across 5 counties and 250 miles. In Santa Cruz John’s environmental record is playing well. In Santa Clara people are not as concerned about offshore drilling.
There are probably more. But these are the ones I’ve seen and heard about.
On the flip side, once voters do hear about Blakeslee’s real record, their response is usually, “Why I wouldn’t vote for somebody who wants to drill off our coast! Doesn’t he watch the news?” This is probably why he’s refused almost all public appearances except fundraisers. He doesn’t want to face up to his real record. John’s record, on the other hand, is why thousands of Californians are giving up our spare time to work for his campaign. Why he’s willing to debate Blakeslee at a conservative forum. And why, if you haven’t volunteered yet, you should go to http://www.LairdforSenate.com and do so right away.