|
Attitudes towards nuclear power have been the most important stimulant and watershed in the Finnish energy debate for a long time. It is the clearest element in the realignment of the front lines in energy policy and stands behind all opinions one way or another. In practice, the other energy alternatives and their pros and cons, as well as the development of the entire electricity generation system, are always assessed in relation to the nuclear power alternative. Naturally, this deliberation took the form of open antithesis in Parliament's decision on nuclear power and the debate leading up to it. 2.1. Further construction of nuclear power The study has followed the general attitudes but also specifically the attitudes towards further construction of nuclear power. The question asked in the form of a claim 'The fifth nuclear power plant should be built in Finland' has been included in all measurements since 1984. The long duration of this trench warfare is shown by the fact that this question has kept its relevance for as long as twenty years. When the question was constructed, it was hardly thought that it would still be topical in the new millennium. The form of this question will not be outdated until the fifth nuclear power plant has been built. The number of people in favour of further construction
is now greater (47%) than the number people rejecting it (33%). The
division is essentially more positive towards nuclear power than a year
ago (36% in favour, 46% not in favour). Considering the capability of the
follow-up study to produce stable results (the results do not vary
unsystematically from one study to another), the difference can be seen as
unusually large. A larger shift in the time series is seen only in 1986,
when the Chernobyl accident resulted in a collapse in the rising positive
attitude towards nuclear power in Finland. Anyway, the present result is
unique, as no earlier measurement has shown a division that indicates
greater support for acceptance than for rejection. Consequently, it shows
the greatest support for nuclear power throughout the follow-up period [Figure
3.]. There are probably various factors behind this change. One of these factors is no doubt the intense and even passionate public discussion following the nuclear power decision and the related opinions of the different interest groups. Although there was no referendum, a large amount of information was given to citizens. The media piled up information even for people who were not much interested in this topic. However, this is an inaccurate interpretation so far that this information should have been seen (and been better remembered by citizens) already in the earlier measurement of autumn 2002. Partly, this is probably a result of relatively everyday social and psychological adaptation processes. In socially contentious issues, political decision making - its result - influences public opinion. The same type of 'swallowing the facts' has been seen, e.g., in attitudes towards the EMU decision. Although membership in the monetary union was previously not accepted, afterwards seen as a fact, it is more acceptable, even a good thing. In this respect, the concept of cognitive dissonance is also suitable in this interpretation. In order to avoid a conflict between a person's mental and conscious elements, it is easier to adjust one's own attitudes ('nuclear power is probably not so dangerous anyway') than to change the circumstances
|
