THE TIMES POLL : Sacrifices to Save the Environment Favored : Survey: Respondents say they would sort trash and forgo car air conditioners. But they draw the line at higher taxes to help save endangered wildlife.

Southern Californians say they would tolerate significant life style and economic inconveniences to protect the environment but would not pay higher taxes to help save endangered wildlife, a new Los Angeles Times Poll found.

The region gave the environment about the same priority as the rest of the nation and expressed strong inclinations to make sacrifices for environmental protection, including separating their trash and forgoing car air conditioning.

The poll also found that Southern Californians blame public indifference for environmental problems and are more concerned about local issues rather than global ones, such as the greenhouse effect.

They overwhelmingly oppose offshore oil drilling, tend to support policies restricting coastal development and feel wary about swimming in Southern California’s polluted waters or eating fish caught from them.

Although the survey reflected respondents’ intentions, and not necessarily their behavior, it nevertheless revealed strong support for a wide variety of measures now being considered by officials to protect Southern California’s air and other natural resources. These include the banning of drive-through restaurants and the closing of environmentally fragile public lands.

More than half of those surveyed said they believe that the environment should be protected even if it costs “a great deal” of money and means that “some people” will lose their jobs. Nearly three-quarters of Orange County’s respondents expressed this view, a reflection of the county’s relative prosperity. The lower the incomes of the respondents, the less likely they were to give the environment priority over economic concerns.

Los Angeles and Orange County residents tend to be less satisfied than the rest of the nation with their environment, the poll found. Only 21% of those polled in Los Angeles and 28% in Orange County rated their environment better than other places, compared to 34% in San Diego, 36% in the rest of Southern California and 42% in rest of the nation. Almost half of all Southern Californians polled said their quality of life has declined, compared to only 38% for the rest of the country.

The Times polled 2,690 people across the country over five days in late November, taking the largest sample from Southern California. The survey has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, with the results likely to vary by that much in either direction.

In a comparison of the nation’s regions, the poll found that New England has the most environmentally committed residents, followed by the Midwest, Mountain, mid-Atlantic and Pacific states. The South was the least environmentally concerned, according to the poll.

Not surprisingly, the most popular environmental remedy with residents may be the least burdensome: giving up wasteful food packaging that is straining the capacity of landfills. Nearly all of the Southern California respondents said they would be willing to accept simpler packaging, including a ban on insulated foam cups and restrictions on plastics to reduce waste.

More than 90% said they were willing to separate trash for recycling and give up smog-producing leaf blowers, barbecue-lighter fluid and aerosols, and wasteful disposable diapers, razors and lighters. Driving less often to reduce air pollution was slightly less popular (86%), as was giving up car air conditioning and drive-through restaurants and banks (82%), forgoing visits to environmentally sensitive public lands (79%) paying higher taxes to clean up water (73%) and living in smaller houses to conserve forests (70%).

I. A. Lewis, director of the poll, said the large numbers who indicated they would make such sacrifices merely reflect the respondents’ attitudes, which he likened to “New Year’s resolutions.”

“There is always a difference between attitude and behavior,” Lewis said. “It’s not to say they don’t mean it, that they’re not strongly committed to the environment. But they don’t always end up doing” what they say.

Still, the embracing of such ideas is certain to encourage efforts by state and regional air quality officials to reduce smog by measures that require life-style adjustments.

Already, officials have approved plans to reformulate aerosols and barbecue-lighter fluids and are considering banning gasoline-powered leaf blowers and drive-through restaurants and banks. Car manufacturers are attempting to develop air conditioners that will not give off substances that destroy the Earth’s ozone layer, which protects life from ultraviolet radiation, and federal officials have closed some public lands to conserve wildlife.

Southern Californians were less receptive to other environmentally sound but at times inconvenient practices. Nearly as many of the region’s respondents said they request plastic shopping bags as ask for paper, even though some kinds of plastic bags do not decompose in landfills. The rest of the nation showed more sensitivity to the problem, choosing paper over plastic by more than a 2-1 margin. Both groups, however, were about evenly divided over whether plastic bags should be banned.

The poll found that Southern Californians want to protect wildlife as long as such protection does not mean higher taxes. A majority said they opposed raising taxes to save such threatened species as the California condor and the northern spotted owl, and those willing to pay would limit the levy to an average of $103 a year.

However, asked whether they were more sympathetic to efforts to protect endangered species or to industries that are hurt by such attempts, those polled came down solidly on the side of animals. That finding may be bad news to the Pacific Northwest timber industry, which complains that efforts to save the spotted owl have reduced logging in old-growth forests. Nearly 60% of Orange County respondents sided with wildlife over industry, followed by 50% in Los Angeles and 46% in San Diego.

In what may be a discouraging finding to some conservationists, 55% of those polled in Southern California said they oppose killing animals even if they are driving other species to extinction. Interference by man has caused an unnatural explosion in the population of some animals that prey on endangered species, but animal rights’ activists have stymied efforts to protect these vanishing creatures by killing their predators.

The poll also found that environmental issues could decide a political race if the candidates held distinctly different positions on a pressing issue. Forty-eight percent of the Southern Californians polled said they would switch parties to vote against a candidate who favored expanding the economy at the expense of the environment, even if that candidate represented the voter’s other views, while 28% said they would switch to vote against a candidate who favored the environment.

Asked to say which of eight problems was the nation’s most “important,” Southern Californians ranked the environment fourth along with the national budget deficit and behind drugs, crime and AIDS, and above a decline in morals, disarmament and foreign trade.

Compared to the rest of the country, Southern California is less satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the environment, according to the survey. Only 39% of Southern Californians said he has done a good job on environmental issues, compared to 46% of those living elsewhere. Lewis, who directed the poll, attributed Bush’s poorer rating at least in part to the large number of Democrats in Los Angeles County, which accounts for half the region’s population.

The poll found more concern about local environmental problems (49%) than global ecological concerns such as destruction of the ozone layer (40%). Nearly 50% of the respondents said air pollution was the most important environmental problem today, 41% singled out toxics, such as hazardous chemicals in the water supply, and 26% cited pollution of rivers. Other problems cited in order of their importance were traffic, global warming, wildlife, uncontrolled development and the loss of open space.

Forty-two percent of the Southern Californians surveyed said they drink bottled water, compared to only 16% in the rest of the country, and more of the region’s respondents said the reason was concern about toxins rather than taste. Bottled water was preferred by about half the San Diego and Los Angeles respondents and 40% of the Orange County residents.

Nearly half of those asked said swimming is unsafe in the region’s waters. Forty-four percent said they would not eat fish caught off Southern California, with Los Angeles County respondents almost equally divided on the question.

Oil drilling off the coast was opposed by two-thirds of the Southern Californians polled, and 50% said they support the California Coastal Commission, which was created to protect the shoreline from rampant development. The commission got a vote of confidence from a majority of the respondents in Orange and San Diego counties, where development along the coast has spawned contentious debate.

The public is most responsible for endangering the environment because it “doesn’t seem to care,” according to 44% of Southern Californians polled. The survey also found substantial numbers who blamed government (32%) and business (31%) for environmental problems. Only 6% singled out farmers, despite regular complaints by environmental groups over farmers’ use of potentially hazardous pesticides, and only 1% laid the blame on hunters.

In a ranking of who should bear the burden of cleanup, Southern Californians most often cited government or business or said both sectors should share the responsibility with private interest groups.

Lewis said the relatively large responsibility placed on business for harming and cleaning up the environment may be a legacy of the Exxon Valdez oil spill earlier this year.

“The real big problem here is for business,” he said. “There is a black eye there that is going to take them years to get over.”

VIEWS ON THE ENVIRONMENT Answers to questions by 1,067 respondents interviewed in Southern California and 1,623 repondents in the rest of the nation. 1. How does the environment in your neighborhood compare with other places in the U.S.?

Response from residents in: L.A. COUNTY ORANGE SAN DIEGO Better than average 36% 27% 42% On a par with average 50% 37% 48% Worse than average 26% 32% 15%

REST OF TOTAL REST OF Response from residents in: S. CAL. S. CAL. U.S. Better than average 36% 27% 42% On a par with average 50% 48% 44% Worse than average 14% 22% 12%

2. What do you consider the single most important environmental problem today?*

Response from residents in: S. CAL. REST OF U.S. Toxic wastes in water supply 41% 48% Air pollution 49% 44% Damage to rivers, lakes, oceans 26% 34% Global warming 12% 12% Destruction of wildlife forms 10% 11% Traffic congestion 18% 9% Uncontrolled economic growth 9% 9% Loss of open spaces 7% 5% Other mentions 5% 3% Don’t know 4% 4%

3. Who’s to blame for endangering the environment?*

Response from residents in: S. CAL. REST OF U.S. Public 44% 39% Business 31% 37% Government officials 32% 35% Consumers 11% 11% Auto drivers, truckers 16% 9% Farmers 6% 7% Hunters 1% 1% All equally 16% 15% Don’t know 1% 4%

4. Do you favor or oppose drilling for oil off the coast of Southern California? Response from residents in: S. CAL. Favor: 22% Oppose: 69% Don’t know: 9% 5. Would you eat fish if you knew it was caught off Southern California? Response from residents in: S. CAL. Would eat: 50% Wouldn’t eat: 44% Don’t know: 6% 6. Do you think the ocean waters off Southern California are safe for swimming or not? Response from residents in: S. CAL. Safe: 38% Not safe: 48% Don’t know: 14% *Respondents were allowed up to two replies. SOURCE: Los Angeles Times Poll