The study also included a new set of questions. The working title of the questions was 'the money pits of society'. The respondents were asked in which amounts they would allocate public funds for different purposes. In order to link the example more closely to reality (a common obstacle to political decision-makers, as it is not possible to increase everything good at the same time), the task was also to establish targets that were possible to compromise in order to be able to implement the more important objectives. Even though the framing of the question is distinctively social, like a small party manifesto, it has a link to the attitudes towards energy issues. The idea was to study how the objectives related to energy issues and the environment relate to the other development targets of society.

As a whole, the result becomes very much similar as to when people are asked before elections what the future government or municipal decision-makers should do. The service expectations that are related to the welfare state move into the lead, i.e., geriatric care (84% would allocate more funds than now, 1% less than now) and health care (77%/1%). A high priority is also placed on preventing young dropouts (72%/3%), and the opinions often reflect the tragic events prior to the time of the survey [Figure 28.].

The new objective of the energy policy, i.e., the use/implementation of renewable energy sources, is also ranked among the highest in the profile (77%/4%). Even though the demand is strong, the result should be interpreted considering the framing of the question. It is not a question of absolute amounts of money but changing the relative proportions of different items of expenditure, i.e., a certain kind of 'regulation of the system'. Thus, the result concerning renewable energy does not mean that the same amount of money was to be invested in it as in the more massive categories of expenditure in the budget. However, the result shows that the public opinion is quite soft and thus it confirms the other results in the report.

When it comes to other energy-related objectives, it can be seen that preventing/controlling climate change is considered high in priority (55%/11%). However, in the comparison, the matter is only ranked a little above the average. In the profile, environmental protection in general is already below the average (45%/11%) - although additional contributions are required. The relatively weak reaction is most probably a result of the survey objects being so close to each other. When the environmental aspects are divided into several different survey objects, they partly tend to eat into each other in the comparison (the same can be seen, for example, in social security where one part, i.e., geriatric care, is at the top of the comparison but as a general statement the matter is not really emphasised).

Of the other items of expenditure that are placed high on the list, one can mention unemployment, for which a clear majority wants additional contributions (61%/7%). Although the economic crisis that suddenly began in the autumn had come to the public's attention already months prior to the beginning of the data gathering and the employment forecasts had gradually darkened, it can be assumed that after the time of the survey employment has become more important.

In the profile, there are three objectives that worry people the least. The things in which the allocated funds would be decreased instead of increased are culture (11%/51%), development aid (14%/45%) and national defence (18%/38%). The opinions provide a different kind of message when it is considered that people do not want to cut the funds, but that there are certain things in which they are ready to compromise if they have to. One of them deals with national defence. The annual two percent increase in the allocation for defence allowance defined by the Finnish government some time ago does not seem to be in line with public opinion.

When analysing the people's 'shadow budget' according to population group, there can be found both agreements and disagreements. Even though differences due to gender are not significant as a whole, there are certain systematic differences. Women would provide more capital for all social and environmental matters than men. On the other hand, the things to which men are more sympathetic - would increase funding or reduce it less - are the operational preconditions/competitiveness of companies and national defence. As a result, it is discovered that men are altogether more stingy; women's choices would create a larger budget deficit [Figure 29.]. Women (77%) and men (76%) would equally invest in the use and implementation of renewable energy. The objective is also widely supported by all other population groups (the smallest value (69%) is from the supporters of the National Coalition Party, and the peak value (94%) from the supporters of the Greens).