Greenhouse gas emissions are not the only recognised environmental threat. The growing debate over risks caused by fine particulate matter has also been noted. This is shown by the results of two measurements addressing the subject area. According to them the energy sector is not uninvolved as a cause for the problem. More than one out of two (56%) agree with the claim ‘Nowadays, the fine particulate matter spreading in the atmosphere from the use of fuels in power plants and industry is a serious health hazard’. Comparatively few (14%) disagree with this claim. However, a worse emission source is found in traffic. The claim ‘Nowadays, the fine particulate matter spreading in the atmosphere from traffic is a serious health hazard’ is considered true by almost three out of four (73%, 9% disagree) [Figure 14.]. Fine particulate matter was also regarded as a serious threat in the three previous measurements. However, due to the change in the form of the question, the results received now are not comparable with the earlier results1.

The new research material does not reveal any great shifts with regard to general environmental attitudes. The view that financial and industrial activities are restricted too much in the name of nature conservation receives a little more rejection (42%) than acceptance (37%). The distribution is slightly less pro-environmental than a year earlier, but as a matter of fact the same as in the previous measurement (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, slightly more than one in two (54%) express this kind of preparedness, while about one in four (23%) refuse. Even though the distribution is clearly oblique towards acceptance, it is rather spiritless in relative comparison. The long-term trend of these opinions visualises an interesting time series reflecting changes in economic cycles. In the recession years of the early 1990s the preparedness to compromise gradually increased and then abated to the earlier level. During the nine last measurements the distribution has not changed much [Figure 15.].

Also, in the light of other meters, the undercurrent of public opinion is still shown to be 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. In any case people’s views on future energy needs refer to an evident belief in growth. Three out of four (76%) estimate that the need for electricity will be much greater in future than at present; only a small minority (8%, Figure 16.] disagree.

This meter has proven to be an excellent indicator of the nation’s economic situation and the changes in the climate of society’s attitude. It is possible to detect an exceptionally clear projection of development in 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 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 1980s 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 three last measurements – equally growth-oriented – was last received at the end of the 1980s before the collapse of the economy. One should hope that the results have no prediction value.

Although public opinion is critical over environmental issues, views on energy companies as environmental players have tended to be positive. Now almost one in two (46%) are of the opinion that Finnish energy companies are currently acting in an environmentally responsible way. More than one in four (28%) disagree. Even though the distribution clearly emphasises acceptance, it is considerably more reserved than a year earlier. Thus the time series that has long reflected steady confidence shows some degree of a flaw. Even though exhaustive explanation of the reasons for the phenomenon may be difficult, we may assume that at least a partial reason lies in the criticism publicly raised against energy companies before the study period. Even if the criticism did not directly concern the environmental measures of energy companies, they, too, may be seen in a more negative light due to the ‘logic of totalities’ that governs corporate and sector images [Figure 17.].

 ______________________________