Ten years ago, California led the nation in climate change policy when it passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, landmark legislation that required the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. While passed largely along partisan lines, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was signed into law by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Notably, the law enjoyed the support of a strong majority of Californians—including two in three adults across parties—in our July 2006 Statewide Survey.
Today, the state is prepared to meet the reduction targets set forth in AB 32. As policymakers debate how to further reduce emissions, a strong majority of Californians continue to favor these targets. But now there is a wide partisan divide. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (80%) are in favor, compared to a majority of independents (56%) and fewer than half of Republicans (44%).
The evolving partisanship can also been seen in Californians’ views about the state’s role as a leader in global warming policy. In 2006, solid majorities of Californians across parties were in favor of California making its own global warming policies separate from the federal government. Today, a solid majority of adults are still in favor, but the partisan divide has widened. Democratic support has held steady (73% in 2006, 70% today), but support among Republicans (62% in 2006, 49% today) and independents (70% in 2006, 55% today) has declined by double digits.
What’s changed since 2006? In California, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been replaced by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, who has been a vocal leader on climate change and made the issue a major component of his agenda. At the national level, there is a contentious debate about global warming, as well as a growing partisan and ideological divide.
Democrats and Republicans in our surveys have also become more ideologically divided. Democrats describing themselves as “very liberal” made up 14% of Democrats in our July 2006 survey, while that group encompasses 30% of Democrats today. Similarly, Republicans describing themselves as “very conservative” made up 21% of Republicans in July 2006. The “very conservative” constitute 31% of Republicans today.
Despite a widening partisan divide, Californians’ support for state policies to address global warming has been consistent in the 10 years since passing AB 32. Indeed, a strong majority of Californians (68%) favor a proposal to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% of 1990 levels by 2030. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (78%) support the proposed goals, compared to fewer than half of Republicans (39%). Independents are in the middle, with 59% in favor of the expanded goals.
Does the partisan divide on global warming policy mean that there is intraparty cohesiveness? Not necessarily. Among Democrats, there is strong majority support regardless of ideology and other demographics. But Republicans as a group are less cohesive. In fact, support for further reducing greenhouse gases exceeds 50 percent among nonwhite Republicans. Among independents, support for global warming policy mirrors that of the party that these nonpartisans lean toward.
Further reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be a real test for California as it seeks to address climate change. The ongoing political debate over global warming may well continue, and once more, the nation will be watching to see what California does next.
These budget allocations reflect a striking shift from California’s budget of forty years ago, when the state spent a larger share on higher education and a much smaller share on corrections. But by the 2008–2009 budget year, allocations to higher education (11.1%) and corrections (10.7%) were almost identical. In the years since, higher education spending has outpaced corrections in relative terms, largely because recent criminal justice reforms have drawn down the number of adults in state custody and on parole. Nonetheless, California spends more on corrections and less on higher education today, in relative terms, than at nearly any point in the past thirty years.
PPIC:
Since 1980, personal income has grown at vastly different rates across the state. Workers in the Bay Area and Orange County earn substantially more (on an aggregate, per capita basis) than the average Californian. Residents in the Central Valley and Sierras, the Inland Empire, and the far north earn substantially less than the statewide average. These disparities have grown over time. In 1980, per capita regional income ranged from 80% to 111% of statewide per capita income. Today, this range is wider, with the Inland Empire at 66% and the Bay Area at 138% of the statewide average.
However, the value of post-secondary degrees has been increasing even in occupations that traditionally have not required college education—including the jobs that comprise a larger share of the economy in lower-income regions of the state. So we might expect regional disparities in college degree attainment to be narrower today. But this is not the case. 
Both measures hold promise for raising significant funds and represent an alternative source of revenue in a state that is heavily dependent upon personal income taxes. Together, they could bring in more than $2 billion in state revenue. This would be significantly more than the state’s other sin tax on alcohol, which raised about $350 million in 2014.
Nationally, California had the second-lowest cigarette smoking rate in 2014 (after Utah). But it’s worth noting that e-cigarette use nearly doubled among California adults from 1.8% in 2012 to 3.5% in 2013, complicating estimates of future revenue. If passed, the tax would also apply to e-cigarettes. If Californians use e-cigarettes as a substitute for cigarettes, then the measure will also capture revenue due to increased e-cigarette use. As we noted in our recent report, the additional revenue generated by taxing marijuana could be as much as $1 billion a year for the state. In the first full year after legalizing recreational marijuana, Colorado raised just over $120 million in state revenue, and Washington collected slightly less than $130 million. Given California’s larger population, the $1 billion figure is in the right ballpark. But since much is still unknown about the marijuana market, any estimate should be treated with caution.
The proposed taxes would be comparable to those currently in place in other states. If the tobacco tax passes, it would boost per capita revenue from $21 per resident to $50 per resident. This would still be below the national average of $57 per resident, though it would be much closer. For marijuana, the estimate of $1 billion in revenue would translate to about $26 per resident. Though there isn’t a national reference point for marijuana taxes, this number would be higher than the per capita amounts raised in Colorado and Washington. Interestingly, California’s alcohol tax revenue is less than most other states. On a per capita basis, California ranks 40th of the 50 states in alcohol revenue collected. In 2014, California collected only $9 per resident in alcohol taxes compared to the rest of the country, which raised $21 per resident. Doubling this rate—which would still be below the national average—could add another $350 million to state revenues.
Californians with education credentials beyond high school, from an associate’s degree up to a doctoral degree, have lower than average unemployment rates in general – and had smaller spikes in unemployment during the recession. Even workers with just some schooling beyond high school, but less than an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, fare systematically better than those without any college experience. The following figure shows how unemployment varied according to education levels since 2008. These estimates rely on detailed Census Bureau survey data, which is produced with a significant lag, so the most recent information we have pertains to calendar year 2014.