3.1. Climate change

Questions on the greenhouse effect and global warming have repeatedly provided results that indicate that people experience these phenomena as a real threat in connection with environmental pollution. As early as the late 1980s, Finns tended to see a connection between the weather conditions, which were experienced as exceptional at the time, and air pollution. Now that there has been discussion about the matter in recent years under the concept of climate change, the same phenomenon has been unambiguously clear.

More than three out of four (77%) agree that the rains, storms, floods and other exceptional weather conditions of the past few years¹ are an indication of climate change, in other words, of the fact that pollution has upset the balance of nature. Only about one in ten (9%) dare to disagree. Even if like-mindedness has been great earlier, too, the newest result represents a visible differentiation from the earlier results. The attitude of those convinced may have been strengthened by the presence of new evidence – or events interpreted as such – in the media. The most dramatic recollection is presumably related to Hurricane Katrina and the devastation it caused to the city of New Orleans that preceded the study period [Figure 13.].

This way of thinking also emerges in direct connection with energy generation. Three out of four (75%) think that the use of coal and other fossil fuels should be considerably restricted in order to stop the greenhouse effect. The share is slightly greater than earlier and simultaneously (by a narrow margin) the highest in the entire follow-up period (no figure).The change is logically compatible with the increased non-acceptance of coal and fossil fuels in general (see Chapter 1.2.).

However, the desire for restrictions is strongly watered down when it is made concrete on the level of daily life with regards to electrical heating. The claim ‘The building of new electrically heated housing should be forbidden to reduce greenhouse gas emissions’ receives substantially more rejection (52%) than acceptance (17%). The result is strict in the sense that the question concerns future, not existing construction. However, there is a loophole for interpretation in the thinking that housing can also be heated with electricity generated by emissionless energy sources so that the restriction is not necessary (no figure).

Earlier research information should also be referred to in connection with the examination. In the previous study opinions on climate change were examined by an extensive series of questions which directly tested the belief in the truthfulness of the phenomenon. As many as three in four agreed with the view stating that climate change is a real and serious threat requiring efficient measures. On the other hand, the opposite claim stating that talk about climate change is not true or at the least exaggerated received more rejection than acceptance [Energy attitudes 2004, Chapter 3.1.].

______________________________