3.1. Climate change

Questions regarding the greenhouse effect and global warming have repeatedly yielded results which indicate that people experience these phenomena as an actual threat with a connection to environmental pollution. As early as in the late 1980's, Finns tended to see a connection between air pollution and current weather conditions that were deemed exceptional. Now that there has been discussion about this issue under the concept of climate change, the phenomenon has been unambiguously clear.

More than three out of four (77%) now agree that the rains, storms, floods and other exceptional weather conditions¹ in the past few years are an indication of climate change - in other words, show that pollution has upset the balance of nature. Only one in ten (10%) dare to disagree. Even though like-mindedness has prevailed here before, when examined together with the results of the two previous surveys, the result indicates a clear difference from earlier surveys. The visibility of new evidence in the media has likely further convinced the population. The evidence includes dramatic news on the destruction caused by catastrophes (the figures of the survey two years ago were increased by the hurricane Katrina battering New Orleans shortly before the survey was conducted). Furthermore, personal observations about people cutting the grass in December and ice-fishing from the pier in the absence of ice likely have an increasing impact on public opinion [Figure 13].

This way of thinking also emerges in direct connection with energy generation. Three out of four (76%) think that the use of coal and other fossil fuels should be considerably restricted in order to stop the greenhouse effect. The share of people having this opinion is slightly higher than last year. This assertion has had extensive support for a fairly long time, however (not included in the figure).

The opinions on climate change were also studied by using another thesis which was formulated as clearly as possible. The purpose of this indicator, included in the survey for the first time last year, was to test how extreme an argument relating to the climate can be and still be accepted. The reactions to the statement 'Climate change is an actual and extremely serious threat which the entire world should begin to immediately eliminate by any means possible' show that there is no such limit. The fact that the statement is like a cry for help does not diminish its acceptance. A great majority (85%) agree; only a marginal minority (6%) disagree. This is the most unanimous opinion in the entire extensive research material. The share of people having this opinion is almost the same as last year [Figure 14]. Differences among demographic groups - i.e. the fact that there are practically no differences - show how concern about the climate is a uniting factor for the entire society.

Earlier research information should also be mentioned in this connection. Three years ago (2004) an extensive series of questions was used to measure the ideas regarding climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. The questions tested the respondents' trust in the genuineness of the phenomenon. At that time, as many as three in four agreed with the statement that climate change is an actual threat requiring efficient measures. The opposite claim, stating that the climate change is not true or at least the threat has been exaggerated, received more rejection than acceptance.

The 'all possible means' principle seems to also cover all the means used to reduce emissions that have been criticized in the media. This is shown by another new statement measuring attitudes toward emissions trading. More than half of the respondents (55%) agreed with the statement 'Emissions trading should be continued as soon as the Kyoto Protocol period ends by applying a new international treaty that is as extensive as possible', while only a few disagreed (13%). The fact that the share of unsure respondents increased to a third (32%) also shows an increase in uncertainty. It has been noted that the opinions regarding the trade of emissions are highly dependent on how the statement used in the survey is formulated. If the statement refers to the potential national problems arising from the system, clearly fewer respondents accept it than when global responsibility or the role of the EU as a forerunner are mentioned. However, even unilateral emission reduction measures of the EU are generally rather accepted than rejected. Other research data on attitudes relating to climate change also indicate the same phenomenon².

______________________________