When comparing the results with those from the previous year, general stability as well as some noteworthy changes can be observed. Interesting trends can be seen in the results in the longer term. Furthermore, the time series shows the seesaw nature of the popularity of various energy forms: when the popularity of one production method increases, the popularity of another or several others usually decreases. One of the most common features in the changes measured now is that the attitudes towards fossil fuels are even more critical than before.

The attitudes towards coal have become increasingly negative over the years. The breaking of this trend that was registered in the survey two years ago proved to be a false alarm. The current result is the most pessimistic in the entire history of the survey. The figures are rather desolate and clearly more negative than the lowest figures in the early 1990s (affected by the debate over forest deaths and acid rain at the time). Undoubtedly, the latest development in attitudes has been accelerated by the debate on climate change, in which coal has clearly been given much of the blame. With the start of emissions trading, coal as an energy source has become an outright outcast. It is evident that since 1986, when there was hope that the use of coal would increase rather than decrease, support for its use has radically declined [Figure 2a.].

The approval of peat has significantly decreased in comparison to the previous survey. It is the largest single annual change in the survey of energy forms. The newest result is historic because the net figure of this form of energy is now negative for the first time as its opposition has exceeded its support. The development of the support for peat shows clear variation, i.e., gradual increases and decreases in approval. In recent years, attitudes have shown a declining trend. The latest peak of support back at the turn of the millennium is now well in the past. The long-term trend in the fluctuation in attitudes does not seem to be directly connected to the debate on greenhouse gas emissions. However, the attention that peat has received in connection with emissions trading is probably reflected in the figures for the previous years [Figure 2a.].

The popularity of natural gas is only slightly more positive than the previous year. However, the previous two surveys have shown a drop in support, thus it is more likely a stop in the decrease in support than an outright increase in support. The passive figures in the last surveys are most probably a result of the attention given to certain international events. The policy of shutting off the supply of natural gas to those who voice unwanted opinions is also reflected in other indications which show a growing concern about the availability and price development of natural gas. Altogether, the history of the opinions regarding this energy form is quite peculiar. Its permanent popularity in the early part of the follow-up period - the attitudes towards this energy form remained incomparably positive for sixteen years - turned into a visible downswing in 1999. After this somewhat surprising change, the figures became even more negative, as if they were seeking the correct level. The figures in 2003-2005 already indicated a stabilisation of attitudes, but after that a new decrease was observed. It seems that there are several reasons for the development of attitudes. In addition to issues relating to availability and price, the decline in the environmental image of the energy form likely added to reservations. Natural gas, traditionally considered environmentally viable, has been 'revealed' as a fossil fuel, not necessarily a good friend to the climate [Figure 2b.].

The attitudes towards nuclear power have remained at the same approval level that they rose to in the survey five years ago. The current distribution is the same as in the previous year. Also, a comparison with the previous results shows long-term stability, a kind of a plateau in the support curve. Thus, the latest results also confirm the previous view: the trend in the popularity of nuclear power is relatively permanent and not a momentary swing in public opinion or a statistical error due to random fluctuation. [Figure 2b.]. The attitudes towards nuclear power are also assessed later in connection with the attitudes towards the building of a fifth nuclear power plant (Chapter 2.).

The popularity of hydropower has remained high for a long time. The extensive acceptance of this energy form has remained steady for a significant period. When studied by decade, the development of its support takes on a gradually rising shape: The average opinions in the 1990s were more accepting than those in the 1980s, and those in the 2000s are more accepting than those in the 1990s. The current figures represent, although by a very narrow margin, the greatest sympathies towards hydropower in the entire follow-up period [Figure 2c.]. The time series shows that support has increased 'in secret' for a long time, slowly increasing without any major leaps. The firm support is, above all, a result of the Finnish origin of the energy source and its lack of emissions.

Wood and other bioenergy sources were as desirable as sources of energy for electricity generation as they were in previous years. Despite the slight decrease, support for these is very strong and has also remained relatively stable. This fuel category has only been included in the comparative series of questions in nine surveys, so it is not possible to give any description of a longer-term development for its support [Figure 2c.]. The other follow-up questions on the use of wood indicate, however, a steady trend of a positive basic attitudes at all times. The role of wood in the Finnish culture as well as its role in providing new jobs have been deemed the key factors in favour of its use as an energy source. Positive attitudes can also be seen in the respondents' willingness to promote the use of bioenergy, even by means of tax relief. Furthermore, the view that it would be more beneficial to use biomass in the production of energy and heat than to refine them to biofuels to be used in vehicles gains fairly extensive support.

For wind power, the survey also points at unambiguously high figures. In the 2005 survey, a slight decrease was observed. It did not, however, indicate any significant increase in scepticism, but was a temporary hiccup in the trend. The current approval ratings for wind power together with the result of 2000 were the highest during the entire follow-up period. As is the case with wood, this form of energy was included in the comparison for the ninth time [Figure 2d.]. Even earlier, the popularity of wind power has been high nearly every time that this question has been brought up in any form. Views on wind power are also examined in this study under the subject of attitudes toward alternative energy forms (Chapter 5.).

On the other hand, oil - another more recent candidate in the comparison - is shunned even more than before. Attitudes towards the use of oil as an energy source in electricity generation (naturally, in Finland the principal uses of oil are elsewhere) have now reached a new low. Even though the time series for a certain period already indicated some alleviation of the criticism, the five latest surveys indicate that this stage has come to an end [Figure 2d.]. In addition to its poor image, oil is burdened by its strongly fluctuating price, which is sensitive to changes in the global political situation.