Tag: global warming

State Struggles to Enact More Robust Climate Targets

California’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions thus far have made the state a national leader. But the momentum may be slowing. A struggle over recent climate legislation resulted in a less-ambitious version of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) being signed into law by Governor Brown last week and the deferment of a bill (SB 32) that would have strengthened the state’s 2006 climate law.

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) established the foundation of California’s plan to address climate change by reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state is on track to meet the 2020 limit, and now policy efforts are shifting to longer term goals. Emission-reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050 are already set forth in executive orders (former Gov. Schwarzenegger’s S-3-05 and Gov. Brown’s B-30-15) but have not yet been incorporated into law.

SB 350 is seen as a major step toward reducing GHG emissions in the longer term. It mandates that half of the state’s electricity come from renewable resources and that buildings double their energy savings by 2030. But a third piece of the original plan, which proposed to cut petroleum use in cars and trucks by half over the next 15 years, was dropped. Since the transportation sector is a major contributor to GHG emissions (37% in 2013), this is could make it more challenging to meet long term emissions reductions. To make up for the loss, the Air Resources Board adopted a modified version of its Low Carbon Fuel Standard that requires a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2020.

The second slowdown was the deferment of SB 32 until at least next year. The bill would amend the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 to include the 2030 and 2050 emission-reduction targets from the executive orders. It failed to pass in the assembly.

Our July PPIC Statewide Survey found that solid majorities of Californians (69% adults, 62% likely voters) favored the proposal to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. When asked about the original goals of SB 350, 82 percent of adults supported the increase of electrical generation from renewables, 70 percent favored doubling energy efficiency in buildings, and 73 percent supported reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent by 2030. Although Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support these goals, majorities of Republicans support the goals of increasing renewables and energy efficiency. Overwhelming majorities who favor these policies also view global warming as a serious threat to the economy.

The state’s approach to reducing GHG emissions has achieved important results. The mix of policies has resulted in a cleaner economy, while population and GDP have continued to grow. Looking ahead, a study for the California Energy Commission shows that with the mix of technologies and practices proposed by state agencies, emission reductions of 26–38 percent below 1990 levels could be achieved by 2030 at a cost of $8 per household per month (or $14 if commercial and industrial costs are all passed on to households).

California’s multi-faceted approach to combating global warming has placed it in the vanguard of worldwide policies. Yet 2020 is just around the corner, and clear targets to reduce GHG emissions for the longer term still evade us. To remain on the leading edge of global climate regulations, the state will need to adopt more robust and forward-looking policies. It would also be worthwhile to explore a new narrative to reduce the partisan divide on this issue, given Californians’ widespread support for the state’s energy goals.

Learn More

Explore PPIC’s climate change page.

 

The Drought and Californians’ Views on Climate Policy

The California Legislature is considering bills that would expand state efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One, SB 32, would require that California reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Another, SB 350, would require that petroleum use in cars be reduced by 50 percent, half of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy sources, and buildings double their energy efficiency—all by 2030.

Our July statewide survey examined support for the goals of these bills. We found that strong majorities of Californians favored each of these proposals but that support varied among partisans, with Democrats and independents more likely than Republicans to be in favor. However, a closer look reveals that party registration is not the only driver of these views.

Within the parties and among independents, registered voters who think global warming has contributed to the drought are far more likely to support the ideas in these bills than those who don’t. Among Republicans, solid majorities of those who think global warming has contributed to the drought also support SB 32 and SB 350. Meanwhile, among Democrats and independents who do not think global warming has contributed to the drought, support for SB 350 drops to about half or less.

By the same token, Californians who think climate change is having an impact today are more likely to support these policies than those who don’t think it will have an impact until sometime in the future—and much more likely than those who think climate change will never have an impact.

These findings suggest that Californians who make a connection between climate change and their daily lives are much more likely to support policies to address it. They also suggest that attitudes toward ambitious climate and energy goals are not simply partisan, but that they are related to individual beliefs about the impact of climate change.

Californians and Climate Change

It’s been nine years since the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” had its debut and AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” was passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Since then, Republicans and Democrats at the federal level have sparred over the scientific evidence on global warming, the government’s role in regulating greenhouse gases, and energy policies that will promote economic growth and well-being. Still, California likely voters’ strong support of AB 32—through good economic times and bad—has barely budged (66% PPIC July 2006, 63% PPIC July 2015).

The July 2015 PPIC poll finds that Californians’ economic fears are part of the reason for their steady support for AB 32—which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. Among California’s likely voters, 69 percent say global warming is a threat to California’s economy and quality of life.

Another reason for likely voters’ support for AB 32 is their hope that it may improve the jobs outlook. Asked about the economic impact of state actions to reduce global warming, they are more likely to say the result will be more jobs for people in the state (34%) than to say that the result will be fewer jobs (24%) or that there will be no impact on jobs (29%).

Our polling finds a strong link between likely voters’ fears about the impact of climate change and hopes about state action to address it. Among those in favor of AB 32 today, the overwhelming majority say that global warming is a serious threat to the state’s economy. And a plurality of the supporters of AB 32 say the state’s actions to reduce global warming would lead to more jobs (44%). Less than a third (30%) say these actions would have no effect on job numbers. Just 14% say the result would be fewer jobs.

Californians have not only expressed consistent support for the state’s current goals to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they favor expanding those efforts. Solid majorities of likely voters strongly support three ideas proposed by Governor Brown earlier this year and reflected in SB 350, which is under consideration in the legislature: reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50% by 2030, increasing the use of renewable energy for the state’s electricity to 50% by 2030, and doubling the energy efficiency in existing buildings by the year 2030. Most likely voters also support the proposal in another bill, SB 32, which would require the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Once again, strong support of these more ambitious climate goals is tied to the perceived economic effects of both climate change and the state’s actions to address it. Overwhelming majorities of likely voters who favor the new proposals say that global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy (88% reduce petroleum use; 82% increase renewable energy; 85% double energy efficiency; 87% reduce greenhouse gas emissions). Among likely voters who favor these new proposals, pluralities say that California’s actions to reduce global warming will lead to more jobs. Small minorities who favor the new climate change proposals say there would be fewer jobs as a result of actions to reduce global warming.

To reach California’s goals to curb emissions, the state will need to find ways to drastically reduce its greenhouse gases and reliance on fossil fuels. On this topic, the poll finds strong majority support for policies that encourage more electric vehicles and solar power. Overwhelming majorities who favor these policies also view global warming as a serious threat to the economy. Pluralities of those who favor these proposals expect that actions to reduce global warming would lead to more jobs.

PPIC’s surveys have consistently shown that most Californians are aligned with the state’s current efforts and proposed policies, and that they have made up their minds about the perceived economic impacts of climate change and state actions to curb it. Still, the ongoing political debate over what steps to take relies on partisan talking points borrowed from the national arena. There is a shortfall of factual analysis to help leaders—and all Californians—understand the costs, benefits, and trade-offs they are being asked to make. Specifically, will climate change take a greater toll on poor and disadvantaged communities? How will climate change policies improve job prospects in these communities?

As one of the most important issues facing California’s future, climate policy is certainly deserving of a well-informed discussion and a thorough public hearing as new climate-oriented proposals make their way through the legislative process this summer.

Video: PPIC Statewide Survey Briefing

As discussions continue in Sacramento about drought relief, funding for higher education and transportation projects, and an extension of Proposition 30 tax increases, PPIC surveyed public opinion on these and many other topics. At a briefing last week in the capital, PPIC researcher Jui Shrestha provided the survey findings. Among the key points:

  • Two-thirds of Californians say the regional water supply is a big problem, and two-thirds say people in their part of the state are not doing enough to respond to the drought.
  • While most adults say that spending money on the maintenance of California roads, highways, and bridges is very important, there is little support for increasing the gasoline tax or vehicle registration fees to do so.
  • Half of Californians favor extending the Proposition 30 tax increases, and about a third favor making them permanent.

Climate Change and California’s Future

Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s president and CEO, opened the PPIC conversation on climate change this week with these remarks. We invite you to watch the video of the event.

California has found its way to broad, bipartisan agreements on environmental issues for decades. The state has been a leader in efforts to improve air quality, conserve open space, and protect the coastline. The public has typically embraced these “green” policies. In a PPIC poll in 2014, majorities of Californians said that “stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost,” while fewer said they “cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.” Despite increasing evidence that climate change poses a major threat here and abroad, the federal government and international community have been slow to act. California, on the other hand, has been responding since the early 2000s with some of the most far- reaching policies in the world.

Most notably, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Democratic legislators and signed AB32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act—in 2006. It committed California to reverse the trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions and to lower those emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. It was hailed as a watershed moment in California history that would also have far-reaching consequences nationally and internationally.

In the years that followed, the governor and legislature worked to comply with the law by adopting a number of major policy changes. These include efforts to expand renewable energy, change community development, and create a market price for carbon through a cap and trade program. In 2010, a campaign led by Democrat Tom Steyer and Republican George Shultz persuaded voters to soundly reject Proposition 23, an initiative to suspend AB32. Voters then passed Proposition 39 by a wide margin. This 2012 initiative closed corporate tax loop holes to pay for clean energy projects.

The state’s response to climate change has had consistent support from a broad coalition that cuts across racial/ethnic, economic, and regional groups—while the amount of support has varied along partisan lines. In the PPIC annual environment survey last July, 68 percent of adults said they favored the emission goals identified in AB32. Strong majorities have expressed support for the law since we first asked about it in 2006. Sixty-five percent of Californians are also in favor of the state government making its own policies to address global warming—separate from the federal government. Majorities have expressed this preference since we first asked about it in 2005. And sixty-one percent say that the state government should act right away to reduce global warming rather than wait for the economy and job situation to improve.

One reason the state’s response to climate change has had such strong support is the high level of concern about the issue among Californians. In a PPIC poll last December, 76 percent of adults said that global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California. More than seven in 10 have expressed this view since we started asking this question in 2005.

Another explanation for Californians’ support is the perceived economic benefit of the state’s policies. In the PPIC poll last December, 43 percent of adults said that California’s efforts to reduce global warming will result in more jobs for people around the state. In contrast, 29 percent said the state’s effort will not affect job numbers, and only 21 percent said it will result in fewer jobs. Californians have always been much more likely to say that taking action on global warming will result in more jobs— rather than fewer—since we began asking this question in 2010.

Today, California climate change policy has reached another pivotal moment. Last year, the state Air Resources Board declared that California is now on track to achieve its greenhouse gas emission goals by 2020, just five years from now. Earlier this year, Governor Brown and state legislators proposed that California recalibrate its climate change policies with a new set of goals reaching farther into the future. As before, the new goals are ambitious and contentious.

In January, Governor Brown proposed three new goals to be accomplished in the next 15 years: increase the amount of electricity produced from renewable sources from one-third to 50 percent; reduce today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent, and; double the energy efficiency of buildings and make heating fuels cleaner. SB 350 by Senators Kevin de Leon and Mark Leno reflects the governor’s new goals for 2030. And SB 32 by Senator Fran Pavley would set California’s greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2050 at 80 percent below the level reported in 1990.

There is much to consider in setting these goals and we know that change of this magnitude is not easy. Governor Brown said in his inaugural address: “Taking significant amounts of carbon out of our economy without harming its vibrancy is exactly the sort of challenge at which California excels. This is exciting, it is bold, and it is absolutely necessary if we are to have any chance of stopping potentially catastrophic changes to our climate system.”

California can benefit from the innovation, technologies, and new jobs generated by the state’s leadership on climate change policy. Achieving the goals, however, will also have costs and require lifestyle changes around transportation, employment and housing decisions.

The climate change policies in place today and the proposed goals will affect every Californian. To talk about some of the experiences so far and the issues raised by a new set of climate change goals, we have put together a bipartisan panel that reflects several key perspectives. The panel includes state and local government representatives, as well as business interests from different sectors of the economy.

The state’s climate change policies are among the most difficult and important issues to surface this year. We hope that a public dialogue about the challenges that we face, the goals under consideration, and the trade-offs involved in upcoming policy choices will help California to achieve its brightest future.

The Politics of Global Warming

The Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. The law—which requires state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions—received strong majority support (65%) among Californians when the PPIC Statewide Survey first asked about it in July 2006, with strong majorities of Democrats (67%), Republicans (65%), and independents (68%) in favor.

Overall support for the law remains strong: in our July 2014 survey, 68 percent of Californians said they favored it. But the partisan makeup of the supporters has changed significantly. While support among Democrats and independents has remained solid, it has gradually decreased among Republicans. Today, 81 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents favor the law, but only 39 percent of Republicans do.

What happened?

We have found that this partisan divide is linked to two main factors. The first is the increasingly common belief among Republicans that global warming is not imminent. Fewer Republicans today say the effects of global warming have already begun (47% 2006, 35% today) or that global warming poses a serious threat to California (57% 2006, 48% today). Attitudes among Democrats and independents have not changed much.

The second factor is rising concern among Republicans that addressing global warming will affect the economy and jobs. From the beginning, proponents of AB 32 have argued that the threat posed by global warming requires immediate state action and opponents have expressed concern about the economic impact of regulating greenhouse gases. Our survey shows that during the Great Recession, support for taking action right away declined among all Californians. Support did not drop much among Democrats and independents, and it bounced back as the economy recovered. But immediate action on global warming was never popular among Republicans, so perhaps it is not surprising that even as the state’s unemployment rate declined from its peak in 2010 most Republicans continued to say the state should wait until the economy improved.

Their differences may be growing, but partisans do still agree on some aspects of addressing global warming. Majorities across parties continue to favor requiring increasing energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances. They also favor requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions.

These results show that policymakers face a challenge in forging compromises on the contentious aspects of climate change policy. But they also have areas of consensus to build on.

Climate Change, Fracking, and Drought—Oh My!

Last week’s release of the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment prompted a discussion of several major policy issues under consideration in Sacramento. A panel convened by PPIC talked about the survey’s findings on climate change policy, particularly public attitudes toward a potential increase in gas prices when new regulations for transportation fuels begin next year.

PPIC research associate Sonja Petek set the stage for the panel discussion by presenting the survey findings. The panel included Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica); Anne Baker, a senior advisor at the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies; and Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable. The panelists said they supported the goals of the state’s climate change policies. They encouraged a public education effort about the extension of the cap-and-trade program to transportation fuels. The survey found that most Californians also support the policy change, but support drops sharply if it means higher gas prices.

The panel was divided on the state’s approach to fracking, a controversial process for extracting underground oil. Bloom is the author of a bill calling for a moratorium on fracking. Lapsley described the economic benefit of having more in-state oil production. The survey found most Californians opposed to fracking.

The panel also discussed water policies and the drought. In the survey, Californians name water as the number one environmental issue this year, and a narrow majority of likely voters support an $11.1 billion bond that is scheduled for the November ballot. Support is higher for a lower bond amount, something that is under discussion in the Capitol.

Californians and the Carbon Tax

California is leading efforts to address climate change, and public support for state action on this policy has been strong and steadfast. In the July PPIC Survey, six in 10 likely voters say that global warming’s effects have already begun and favor the state’s requirements that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

The landmark law laying out these efforts—AB 32—relies on a “cap-and-trade” program for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The state government currently enforces emissions “caps” by issuing permits that can be “traded” among companies at quarterly auctions. The state is getting ready for the AB 32 legislation to impact transportation fuels in 2015, with costs—which are unknown—likely passed on to Californians at the gas pump. Under these circumstances, some policymakers are having second thoughts about the cap-and trade program and are reconsidering a carbon tax on companies for their greenhouse gas emissions.

In our polling over the past five years, Californians have been more likely to express support for a carbon tax than a cap-and-trade system. In the July PPIC Survey, 54 percent of likely voters favor a carbon tax on companies’ greenhouse gas emissions—identical to the support that we found in July 2009. By comparison, 43 percent of likely voters favor the current cap-and-trade system when read a description in the July PPIC Survey—similar to the 44 percent who supported this proposal in July 2009. This support for a carbon tax doesn’t appear to be a simple reflection of a desire to tax business. A carbon tax on companies is a more popular proposal than raising overall state taxes paid by California corporations, which had a mixed response (48% favor, 47% oppose) in the March PPIC Survey.

What are the attitudes underlying majority support for a carbon tax on companies? Most likely voters are concerned about global warming and want the government to take action. Those who express the most concern and support tend to favor a carbon tax over the cap-and-trade system. For example:

  • Of those who believe the effects of global warming have already begun, 75 percent favor a carbon tax and 56 percent favor the cap-and-trade system.
  • Of those who believe that global warming is a very serious threat to the state’s economy and quality of life, 78 percent favor a carbon tax and 55 percent favor the cap-and-trade system.
  • Of those who favor the state law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 76 percent favor a carbon tax and 57 percent favor the cap-and-trade system.

There is also a political dimension, reflecting the partisan differences in levels of concern about climate change and support for state action. Democrats are more likely to favor a carbon tax (72%) than a cap-and-trade system (54%), with similar trends for independents (56% carbon tax, 42% cap-and-trade). Republicans show similarly low support for either approach (32% carbon tax, 27% cap- and-trade).

The July PPIC survey also found that potential consumer costs play a striking role in views of climate change policies. Among likely voters, 70 percent, favor requiring oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions; however, favor for this policy declines to 41 percent if it means an increase in gas prices. What is noteworthy is that most higher-income Californians support lowering emissions—even if gas prices rise. In light of California’s uneven economic recovery, this finding suggests that the state lawmakers should be focusing on ways to limit the financial impacts of new global warming regulations on the state’s less affluent residents, not abandoning current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that enjoy solid support.

If policymakers are going to debate the pros and cons of these two policy options, it would be worth taking the time to better explain them to the state’s residents—especially since gas prices could increase with either option. Most likely voters have heard only a little or nothing at all about these competing proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One in four likely voters say they have heard a lot about the cap-and-trade system (24%) and awareness is similarly low for the carbon tax (28%) in the July PPIC Survey. Californians care about climate change and would likely welcome the chance to learn more about the decisions that are being made today to address the challenges of the future.

Testimony: Using Cap & Trade Revenues to Bolster Climate Policy

The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee focused Thursday on the governor’s proposal for spending revenue from the quarterly auction of emissions allowances that is part of California’s program to reduce greenhouse gases. The committee took testimony from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the administration, and a panel of independent experts. Ellen Hanak, PPIC senior fellow, was part of that panel. Here are her prepared remarks:

Thank you for inviting me to address you this morning. I’d like to focus my remarks on ways to think about achieving multiple benefits from the use of cap and trade auction revenues. In addition to a primary goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the governor’s budget proposal emphasizes two types of co-benefits: supporting disadvantaged communities (as required by Senate Bill 535) and creating jobs. It’s also important to recognize that the cap and trade revenues have the potential to strengthen an integrated climate policy for California that focuses both on reducing GHG emissions – or “mitigation” – and on helping the state prepare for some of the negative impacts that are anticipated from climate change – or “adaptation.” This approach to using the auction revenues is consistent with the legislative guidance provided by Assembly Bill 1532, which included climate adaptation as one of the desirable co-benefits of a spending plan.

A significant body of research suggests that the impacts from climate change will be significant in California, even if global efforts to reduce GHG emissions are successful. We are already seeing rising temperatures and accelerating sea level rise, and the science points to the likelihood of increased frequency of extreme events, such as more frequent droughts, wildfires, floods, and heat emergencies. Although it is difficult to attribute any specific weather shock to climate change, the current severe drought facing California highlights the importance of making investments to reduce our vulnerability to these types of extreme events.

Some mitigation and adaptation actions are complementary, in the sense that they simultaneously reduce GHG emissions while making us better able to cope with the expected impacts of climate change. Examples include efforts to improve energy efficiency in buildings, to manage energy demand, to conserve water, and to build more transit-oriented “sustainable communities.” All of these efforts reduce energy demand and hence, GHG emissions; they each also make it possible to better handle one or more of the anticipated negative effects of climate change. Energy efficiency and energy demand management lower peak energy needs during extreme heat events. Water conservation helps us cope with water scarcity. And denser, more transit-oriented, and walkable communities reduce the urban footprint, making it possible to lower the water use devoted to landscaping (which helps cope with water scarcity) and to keep more habitat available for California’s plant and animal species that are also being threatened by a changing climate. As another example, forestry management can help store carbon (providing GHG benefits), while also reducing the risks of wildfire and the potentially harmful consequences of such events for the state’s water supplies. (Last year’s Rim Fire, which threatened the water supplies for many Bay Area communities, illustrates this risk.)

The governor’s proposal for spending the cap and trade revenues includes some activities that are clearly complementary in this sense, including weatherization of homes, energy efficiency in state buildings, water use efficiency, and forest fire prevention. Other parts of the governor’s proposal have the potential to be complementary if implemented carefully. For instance, urban forestry can lower energy demand, but it can also raise water demand unless care is taken to plant low-water-using tree species and to design the tree planters in ways that capture stormwater. (This type of approach is known as low-impact development, and it can help increase water supplies and reduce the water pollution associated with storms.) The same is true for the sustainable communities’ grants: They can provide multiple benefits if planning considers other factors besides encouraging transit use, like energy- and water-efficient buildings and landscapes.

In all, as much as a $300 million of the $850 million of proposed spending for next year falls into categories that potentially can contribute to an integrated climate policy addressing both mitigation and adaptation. At a minimum, the state should be attentive to the specifics of how these programs are implemented to ensure that they meet both goals. It could also be valuable to consider some rebalancing of the overall spending proposal to favor measures that contribute to these dual goals. As one example, it could be very beneficial to expand the effort on forest management in California’s upper watersheds.

In closing, I’d like to leave you with a couple of reflections on this idea of using cap and trade revenues to support an integrated climate policy. First is the question of reducing costs of climate change policy for Californians. In contrast to the view that cap and trade revenues should be focused solely on reducing the costs of GHG mitigation, I’d like to suggest that it’s also appropriate to think about using these revenues to reduce the costs of preparing for a changing climate. The cap and trade program itself is designed to help lower the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because it allows trading of emissions allowances to meet the cap. Preparing for a changing climate will also entail numerous costs for Californians, and using these funds in ways that also support such efforts will help reduce those costs.

Second is the question of what Californians think about the state’s role in climate policy. In PPIC’s most recent survey on this issue eight out of 10 residents said it is important that the state pass regulations and spend money now on efforts to reduce global warming. And eight out of 10 residents said it is important to pass regulations and spend money now on efforts to prepare for the effects of global warming. An integrated approach to using cap and trade revenues will help California meet both goals.

Californians Want the State to Lead

Californians have consistently supported their state government in making its own policies on national issues. Past PPIC Statewide Surveys have shown that residents want the state to address global warming, and they have also favored independent state action on health care. Now there is one more issue to add to the list: immigration. Our new survey shows that 58 percent support California acting on its own to improve the lives of undocumented immigrants in our state.

It is not surprising that Californians are looking to their state government to act on key issues like climate change, health care, and immigration. Residents increasingly view state government in a more positive light than the federal government. The governor’s job approval rating, which held steady for much of 2013, has now climbed to a record-high 58 percent. The legislature’s job approval rating, at 42 percent, is at a near-record high. In contrast, Congress’ rating—which fell to a record-low 18 percent in December—is now just 26 percent. And President Obama’s approval rating is near its lowest point, at 53 percent.

Californians are also optimistic that state elected officials can work together and accomplish a lot in the next year (57%), while far fewer hold this view of their federal leaders (37%).

California’s policymakers have been in sync with state residents. They’ve taken leadership on climate change, been proactive in implementing federal health care reform, and most recently enacted a series of laws affecting undocumented immigrants. In the last year, Governor Brown signed the Trust Act, which limits the criteria by which a local law enforcement agency can comply with federal deportation hold requests. He also signed bills allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain a California driver’s licenses and be admitted as attorneys. In doing so, Brown said, “While Washington waffles on immigration, California’s forging ahead.”

With few signs of gridlock easing at the federal level and one party in control in Sacramento, it will be interesting to see where else California decides to forge ahead.

Chart Source: PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government, January 2014.