Full poll re­sults

Los Angeles Times - - Latextra - mar­got.roo­sevelt @latimes.com

See Sun­day’s Times for full poll re­sults on the races for gover­nor and U.S. Se­nate.

Prop. 23,

about one-fifth of likely vot­ers had not yet taken a po­si­tion.

Forty per­cent fa­vor the ini­tia­tive and 38% op­pose it, es­sen­tially a dead heat.

Typ­i­cally, ex­perts say that a bal­lot ini­tia­tive that has less than 50% sup­port at this stage of a cam­paign faces trou­ble be­cause un­de­cided vot­ers usu­ally — al­though not al­ways — tend to end up vot­ing no.

Cam­paigns for and against Propo­si­tion 23 are just now gear­ing up. But can­di­dates in Cal­i­for­nia’s sharply con­tested gu­ber­na­to­rial and Se­nate races are al­ready at­tack­ing each other over Prop. 23, which is a lit­mus test for ap­peal­ing to many green-lean­ing vot­ers.

In the bat­tle to suc­ceed Gov. Arnold Sch­warzeneg­ger, Demo­crat Jerry Brown op­poses the mea­sure. Repub­li­can Meg Whitman said Thurs­day that she will vote against the ini­tia­tive, but would nonethe­less sus­pend the global warm­ing law for a year if she is elected.

In the Se­nate race, in­cum­bent Demo­crat Bar­bara Boxer, chair­woman of the Se­nate En­vi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee, op­poses Prop. 23, and her GOP ri­val, Carly Fio­r­ina, has en­dorsed it.

The ini­tia­tive’s main fun­ders are Valero En­ergy Corp. and Te­soro Corp., two Texas-based oil com­pa­nies with re­finer­ies in Cal­i­for­nia, along with Koch In­dus­tries, aKansas-based oil con­glom­er­ate that has fought fed­eral cli­mate change leg­is­la­tion.

The sur­vey of 1,511 reg­is­tered vot­ers, in­clud­ing 887 con­sid­ered likely vot­ers, was con­ducted be­tween Sept. 15 and 22.

The polling was con­ducted by two na­tional sur­vey re­search com­pa­nies, the Demo­cratic firm of Green­berg Quin­lan Ros­ner and the Repub­li­can firm Amer­i­can View­point. The mar­gin of er­ror for the likely voter sam­ple is plus or mi­nus 3.3 per­cent­age points.

Car­bon diox­ide and other green­house gases are trap­ping heat in the Earth’s at­mos­phere, warm­ing tem­per­a­tures on land and in the oceans, ac­cord­ing to sci­en­tific stud­ies. Cal­i­for­nia has be­gun to feel the ef­fects, with ris­ing sea lev­els, the dis­rup­tion of habi­tats for plants and an­i­mals, and di­min­ish­ing moun­tain snow­packs that are crit­i­cal to the state’s wa­ter sup­ply.

Cal­i­for­nia’s global warm­ing law, also known as AB 32, is the most sweep­ing in the nation, re­quir­ing green­house gas pol­lu­tion to be slashed to 1990 lev­els by the end of the decade and set­ting a goal of an 80% re­duc­tion by mid-cen­tury.

Over time, the law would af­fect nearly ev­ery in­dus­try and house­hold in the state, with reg­u­la­tions to cut the car­bon in­ten­sity of gaso­line, re­quire auto com­pa­nies to build more fuel-ef­fi­cient cars, force elec­tri­cal util­i­ties to switch to so­lar and wind en­ergy, make build­ings and ap­pli­ances more en­ergy-ef­fi­cient and en­cour­age denser devel­op­ment with ac­cess to pub­lic trans­porta­tion.

The find­ings of the Los An­ge­les Times/USC poll are sim­i­lar to a July poll by the Pub­lic Pol­icy In­sti­tute of Cal­i­for­nia, a non­par­ti­san think tank.

Two-thirds of Cal­i­for­ni­ans in that sur­vey said they fa­vored the ex­ist­ing green­house gas law, but prob­a­ble vot­ers were evenly split on whether the state should “take ac­tion right away” or “wait un­til the state econ­omy and job sit­u­a­tion im­prove to take ac­tion.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.