Greenhouse gas emissions are not the only recognised serious environmental threat. The growing debate over risks caused by fine particulate matter has also been noted. The slight majority of respondents (53%) agree with the claim 'Nowadays, particulate matter spreading in the atmosphere from traffic and the use of fuels in industry and power plants is the greatest health hazard in our living environment'. This result is in practice identical with the result received a year ago (no figure).

The new research material does not provide any essential changes with regard to general environmental attitudes. The view that financial and industrial activities are too restrictive in the name of nature conservation is rather more rebuffed (44%) than agreed with (33%). The distribution is slightly more favourable to the environment than in the previous measurement but almost exactly the same as in several previous ones (no figure).

In principle, preparedness to compromise over personal standards of living in order to reduce the environmental impacts and risks resulting from energy production is quite close to the previous measurement's level. Now, approximately one in two (52%) express this kind of preparedness, while about one in four (23%) refuse. Even though the distribution is clearly oblique towards acceptance, it is spiritless in relative comparison. With the exception of last year, a similarly flat distribution was last seen in the late 80s. The long-term trend of these opinions visualises an interesting time series reflecting changes in economic cycles. In the recession years of the early 90s the preparedness to compromise gradually increased and then abated to the earlier level [Figure 16.].

Also, in the light of other meters, the undercurrent of the public opinion is still distinctively soft - in other words, prioritising environmental and social rather than technical, financial and material values. This is also connected with the conflict between the environment and growth - whether or not these targets of wellbeing rule each other out is another question. People's views on future energy needs refer to an evident belief in growth. Three out of four (74%) estimate that the need for electricity will be much greater in the future than at present. Only a small minority (9%, Figure 17.) disagree.

This meter has proven to be an excellent indicator of the country's economic situation and the climate of society's attitude. It is possible to detect an exceptionally clear projection of development in the economic and social conditions over the past decade in the time series concerning the future need for electricity. The recession - the arrival of which was predicted by ordinary people ahead of the decision-makers and economic experts - clouded the vision of growth year by year so that the total change from the peak consumption years in the late 80s to the deepest recession in 1993 is almost dramatic. In 1994 a turn indicating a quick return of the belief in growth was measured in opinions, and this has been maintained in recent years. A result corresponding to the two last measurements - equally growth-oriented - was last received at the end of the 80s.

Although public opinion is notably critical over environmental issues, views on energy companies as environmental players are fairly positive. Slightly more than one in two (53%) are of the opinion that Finnish energy companies are currently acting in an environmentally responsible way. Only one in seven people disagree (14%). The result has not changed from the previous survey. The longer-term trend also reflects stable confidence [Figure 18.].