Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Californians Are Willing to Pay for Cleaner Air

By Julie Johnson, New America Media. Posted July 30, 2007.


Many Californians are willing to pay more for environmentally positive goods and practices, according to a new poll. And for the first time, a majority of Californians consider global warming "a very serious threat."
Advertisement

Automakers take note: a majority of Californians are considering buying a hybrid or electric car as their next vehicle. It's not the alluring sleekness of the Toyota Prius driving people to consider spending premium rates on fuel-efficient vehicles; Californians are choosing what will both save money in the long run and be better for the environment.

A poll released Thursday suggests Californians are not always seduced by bargains. Many are willing to pay more for environmentally positive goods and practices across the board.

"People believe that we need to do more, even if it costs more," says Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, which conducted the poll.

Baldassare says the findings point to a sense of urgency that "we didn't see a few years ago."

The poll, sponsored by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, surveyed 2,500 California adult residents in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese and Korean.

Six out of 10 Latinos and whites said they'll consider buying a hybrid or electric as their next car, and more than half of African Americans and Asians agree. Latinos surveyed report the highest financial hardship caused by high gas prices (83 percent), though one in three carpool or take public transit. All respondents assert they've felt the strain of high gas prices (67 percent blacks, 65 percent Asians and 54 percent whites).

Hot air in state politics

In his crusade to promote better environmental practices Governor Schwarzenegger has created incentives for businesses and homeowners to install solar panels. He hopes to reduce energy consumption through a regional agreement with Western states to create a "cap and trade" system that allows companies to reduce their emissions and sell credits to companies with high emissions. He's even overhauled his '65 Chevy Impala's 800-horsepower engine to run on bio-diesel.

Despite his "green" image, according to the poll, fewer than half (47 percent) of Californians approve of the job Schwarzenegger is doing to protect the environment, a drop since January when his approval was 55 percent.

And most Californians are counting on their local government for environmental measures. Thirty seven percent of residents and 42 percent of likely voters believe state governments, not the federal government, should manage air quality and other environmental regulations.

Perhaps that is in reaction to the White House. Respondents were very critical of President Bush's environmental policies. Disapproval ratings went as high as 80 percent among African Americans, 65 percent among whites, 57 percent among Latinos and 56 percent among Asians.

Baldassare says they don't believe governments are doing enough to support clean air, drought management and climate change prevention, and this is what makes Californians willing to spend more.

Poor health in ethnic neighborhoods

The health of many ethnic communities is at risk due to pollution. Poll results show Latinos, African Americans and Asians are far more likely than whites to believe air quality is worse in lower-income areas. That belief is held most strongly by respondents with lower incomes. In the San Joaquin Valley, 58 percent of Latinos believe this to be true, versus only 19 percent of whites.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: california, environmentalism, cleaner air

Julie Johnson is a reporter for New America Media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What about rural CA?
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 30, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a better place to gauge the country's attitude on major issues such as the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about rural CA? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: What about rural CA? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: What about rural CA? Posted by: bingotree
The solution is national, not local, but, still, kudos
Posted by: wonkywriter on Jul 30, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good for Californians for being the first to really see the need for drastic steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, buying a Prius or Civic hybrid is not the answer. People think Toyota and Honda are "green" companies. Have you noticed that both are offering larger and larger trucks to their customers? Why do you think this is, other than profits? It's because for every hybrid they sell, they can sell another gas-guzzling truck or SUV and still maintaint their Corporate Average Fuel Economy numbers. The only way to realize a net savings on carbon emissions is to cut back on our driving, flying, and home energy comsumption. If we don't do it voluntarily, the government will have to apportion energy credits per capita (rationing). There's no other fair way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wait, aren't there more objective ways of determining clean air...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 30, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...than asking how somebody "feels about it this minute". Is the entire nation now going towards a "what's yer' gut say?" approach? I mean, c'mon:

The health of many ethnic communities is at risk due to pollution. Poll results show Latinos, African Americans and Asians are far more likely than whites to believe air quality is worse in lower-income areas. That belief is held most strongly by respondents with lower incomes. In the San Joaquin Valley, 58 percent of Latinos believe this to be true, versus only 19 percent of whites.

Don't worry, it gets better:

Their suspicion is true, but it's not because they are less well off. A landmark study by the United Church of Christ first conducted in 1987 and again in 2007 looked at the environmental health of ethnic communities. It found that regardless of socio-economic status, these neighborhoods are host to a disproportionate number of toxic facilities when compared to white neighborhoods. People living in neighborhoods within two miles of commercial hazardous waste facilities are usually (56 percent) people of color -- nearly double the percentage whom live beyond these areas.

Now, environmental science isn't my professional specialty; I leave that up to my wife. But I'm sure that there are qualified technicians out there with instruments who are able to give us empirical data in terms of "parts per billion of pollutant X" rather than couching the issue behind an arbitrary contrivance of the "environmental health of a neighborhood". Could someone:

a) please translate "environmental health" into the relevant data for me as it specifically relates to the particulates that folks may or may not be breathing, or at least assure me that the Church didn't make up a brand spanking new unit to justify it's position

b) please explain why this article, given the phenomenon--admittedly obscure, I s'pose--of diffusion, was written from such an unnecessarily pigment-centric point of view?

Dirty air (and water, etc.) isn't a "beliefs" issue; rather it is an issue to be measured, judged, and fixed when needed. In short, don't rely on your gut to better your lungs, and for pete's sake drop the "ethnicallydisproporationateracialawareness" meme. To make it more simple for those stuck in that mindset, this issue is for every "race" that has lungs. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Alternet is a bad joke Posted by: josh7337
» You know...josh7337.. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Every race has lungs but... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
If Californians really cared about the future of California
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jul 31, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Californians really cared about the future of California they would STOP over breeding so our future has less suburbs, less cars, less pesticides on fields (less people to feed), less water scarcity issues, etc.

Also doesn't much of our air pollution in the Golden State come from Asia?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that's why they're building power plants in eastern Nevada
Posted by: gerdhansel on Aug 1, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Import power and export pollution, that's the California way!!

Sen. Harry Reid is right to oppose the construction of coal-fired electricity plants in eastern Nevada, because he sees through California's hypocrisy on this issue.

It's called "let's pollute Nevada so we can suck more electricity into the California power grid." So California gets clean air with enough juice for all those air conditioners in Sacramento and LA (San Francisco doesn't need AC), and Nevada gets the dirty air.

Now that's the environmental equivalent of a sweetheart deal.

We Nevadans aren't surprised. After all California and 48 other states want to bury waste from the nation's nuclear plants in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Yeah, bury the most dangerous stuff on earth in a mountain 90 miles from Las Vegas.

But why should people in LA care about Vegas?

California also places stringent rules on oil refineries that jack up the price of gasoline for both California and its neighbors (I thank the California legislature every time I gas up my SUV).

California speculators have jacked up the price of real estate in Reno and Vegas so high that people who work for a living can't afford to buy a home. A lot of those little piggies are going to slaughter now that the housing bubble is bursting, but they're taking a lot of families down the tubes with them.

Right neighborly of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE Nevada's Yucca Mountain Posted by: AsteroidMiner