6. DECISION-MAKING AND CONTROL OF ENERGY POLICY

As before, decision-making in energy issues is felt to be distant and the opportunities to influence it slight. Two out of three (65%) think that citizens’ opinions have not been sufficiently heard in energy decisions. This opinion has been dominant throughout the follow-up period of the study. In the results now received, criticism is again slightly more extensive than in the previous measurement. Thus the lowest value of the follow-up reached in the year before last did not mean a permanent alleviation of public opinion [Figure 24.].

In various connections there proved to be extensive confidence in the legislation and official control relating to energy solutions. This is also true with regard to nuclear power, the attitudes towards which pay crucial attention to safety considerations. Two out of three (65%) agree with the view ‘The authorities have coped well with the safety control of nuclear power plants in Finland’. Only a marginal minority disagree (5%). Despite the openly accepting tone, the grade is more reserved than a year earlier (73% agreed). Like-mindedness is still greater than in the results for the 1980s that form the main part of the time series (the question was introduced to the last study after a break of nearly twenty years) [Figure 25.].

In connection with this, the safety of the new nuclear power plant under construction also receives absolution. The claim that ‘When the fifth nuclear power plant is completed, it will be even safer than the existing plants that have proved to be safe as such’ is accepted by one half (49%). The estimate is only rejected by one in eight people (12%). As a matter of fact, the result is the same as a year earlier; the difference is mainly the growth in those without an opinion [Figure 26.]. In the present study opinions were also tested with an opposite claim, which was quoted directly from the information material of the movement against nuclear power. The claim ‘The safety of the new nuclear power plant currently being built in Olkiluoto was not investigated sufficiently before the building permit was granted’ is only advocated by one in five (20%). On the other hand, there are hardly more of those who oppose (31%), while the main group is formed of those who cannot or do not want to take a stand one way or another [Figure 27.]. Together the mentioned results indicate that the ‘prototype’ criticism expressed in public, according to which the selection of plant type means that our country is assuming a risky position, has not had any significant sounding board in the public opinion.

When the aspect of control is extended to the level of the European Union, opinions become more complicated. Although the role of the EU as an overseer of the national practices in nuclear power issues is considered recommendable, it is not believed that this would directly benefit our own country. This is how the results of the two questions addressing the theme can be interpreted. The claim ‘Decisions about regulations concerning the safety of nuclear power and nuclear waste should be made jointly at the EU level, not in each member country separately’ is agreed with (55%) much more than disagreed with (25%). The support for joint regulations has weakened slightly from the previous measurement but is at the same level as two years ago [Figure 28.].

The reaction to the extended claim ‘If the EU issues common safety standards on nuclear power, they would enhance safe use of nuclear power also in Finland’ is more sceptical and also more uncertain. Three out of ten (29%) are in favour, while an equal number (28%) is against. The result does not deviate substantially from the earlier results. However, the belief in that Finland will benefit has weakened rather than strengthened (no figure).

Naturally, the government does not have the sole right to decision-making in energy matters. Companies also make energy-related decisions, and their strategic policies are more influential the more the conventional steering power of society moves over to the markets. However, independent decision-making by companies arouses mistrust amongst the population. Fewer than one in five (18%) accept the idea that companies should be able to decide for themselves which energy sources they use for producing electricity. This right is rejected by more than half of the respondents (58%). The most recent result indicates that the demands for control continue to have strengthened. Taken together with the change registered in the latest measurement, the overall change is considerable. Explaining the phenomenon is rather complicated. One background motive may be some kind of a more general criticism towards the ‘arbitrariness’ of the market-based system, which is felt to be excessive [Figure 29.].

Both energy-related decisions and their informed public criticism should be based on information on the matters in question. According to earlier studies, energy information is not withheld as such, and people do not feel that they are living in a vacuum in that respect. At the moment, half of the respondents (50%) agree with the view that there is a sufficient amount of reliable information available on energy matters. Less than one in three (29%) are not satisfied with the information supply. The distribution does not show a significant change from the previous measurement. Even though the time series is relatively stable, confidence in the availability of correct energy information has strengthened rather than weakened during the follow-up [Figure 30.].