The opinions on climate change observed in the above were a part of the more extensive survey of this subject area included in the present study. The series of questions surveyed the opinions not only on climate change but also on the Kyoto protocol on the climate intended to prevent climate change, as well as emissions trading that was about to be started as a consequence of the protocol at the time of the preparation of the study. The respondents had to evaluate different assessments and claims stated in public debate on the basis of how much they were in line with their personal opinions.

In various ways, the most supported opinions indicate that Finns have a serious attitude towards climate change. The claim achieving the number one position 'Russia and the USA should promptly bind themselves to the Kyoto protocol' (87% in favour) pleads for everyone else to adopt a serious attitude towards the issue. (Hesitation in Russia, which ratified the protocol later on, was still underway when the question was prepared.) In addition to regarding climate change as a fact, which was already examined ('real and serious threat requiring efficient measures', 74%), a third top-ranking claim is associated with the provision of information. The claim that 'citizens have received too little information on the effects of emissions trading' is backed by three in four (74%, Figure 15.).

Even if an opinion of 'more information is required' is an easy way to express social criticism in almost any matter, it can be regarded as having more weight than usual in the context under examination. The large shares of 'I don't know' answers in the response distributions in almost all areas also refer to the need for information. However, having no opinion is not only human but also honest and rational. This is particularly true when observing the fact that the subject area is new, complex and difficult to perceive. The degree of contradiction in information provided to the public does not facilitate opinion-building among people either.

Uncertainty extends to opinions on the fundamentals and efficiency of emissions trading. Even though the claim 'emissions trading efficiently supports the effort to prevent climate change' receives more acceptance than rejection, the figures are almost the same for the opposite claim 'emissions trading is a mere financial game that does not reduce emissions at all'.

Even though the public opinion is quite clearly in favour of the Kyoto protocol and emissions trading, their effect on the life of Finns are not necessarily seen as particularly positive. This is a question of a price that must be paid even though having to pay does not feel very comfortable - at least in the short term. The claim that 'the commencement of emissions trading will increase the price of electricity and the cost of living in Finland' is considered true substantially more often than false. A significant number of people favour the opinion that 'emissions trading is unfair on Finland (which has managed its affairs well)'. However, the results do not provide any clear answer to the general question whether emissions trading is an advantage or disadvantage to our country. The claims investigating this, 'Finland has good opportunities to benefit from international emissions trading' and 'emissions trading will result in great problems for Finland', produce almost equal distributions of responses. However, the share of uncertain respondents constitutes the majority in both cases.