The previous survey questions regarding the greenhouse effect and global warming have repeatedly indicated that people experience these phenomena as an actual threat with a connection to environmental pollution. As early as the late 1980s, 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. Most people consider climate change as an actual and serious threat, which the entire world should begin to immediately stop. This has left relatively little room for scepticism.

In the current survey, the climate change theme received less emphasis than usual. Instead of using indicators measuring the ideas relating to the threat, the theme was surveyed with a couple of new questions studying the issue from a different viewpoint. However, the part anticipating the impacts of climate change was included in the questions outlining the future, which will also be examined in this study (see Chapter 8).

The statement that studies the role of the EU in international efforts, 'The EU should not rush in controlling climate change, but wait for other countries to carry out the same measures/at least the measures the EU has already taken', divides respondents relatively clearly. However, the restraining statement receives much more rejection (53%) than acceptance (37%) [Figure 20.]. The direction of opinions has also been demonstrated in the previous comments that dealt with the role of the EU and emissions trading from different viewpoints. However, it has already been previously noted that opinions regarding these 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 emissions trading system, clearly fewer respondents accept it than when global responsibility or the role of the EU as a leader is mentioned. However, even the EU's unilateral emissions reduction measures are generally accepted rather than rejected.

When the further construction of nuclear power plants is included in the setting, uncertainty can be seen as the major issue. If the statement 'Without constructing a new nuclear power plant, it is very difficult for Finland to fulfil the obligations of the EU climate agreement' is supported more often (34%) than rejected (26%), the largest group is still that with no opinion (40%). However, the share of those agreeing with the statement is still greater than in 1999 (only 23% supported it), when the indicator was last included in the survey [Figure 21.]. The differences in opinions within the population strongly follow the same logic as opinions on nuclear power in general. Supporters of the National Coalition Party consider it the most necessary and supporters of the Greens consider it least necessary to employ further nuclear power plants in order fulfil agreements. However, all population groups find it difficult to decide on the issue.

In addition to being a threat, climate change is also considered a possibility. The statement according to which 'Investments in technology preventing climate change would offer Finland a strong export asset' is supported by three out of four (77%). The view is rejected by only a small minority (7%) [Figure 22.]. Hopeful attitudes widely pervade all population groups. Not even those in favour of nuclear power and those against it, who have opposite opinions on almost everything, do not really stand out from each other. The question of whether or not people believe that the view in the question is realised will be answered in the last chapter of the report as the different scenarios are weighed up.

Opinions on individuals' share and possibilities to work for the environment were measured by the statement 'By purchasing eco-labelled electricity that is generated without emissions everyone (every citizen and company) can take care of their own responsibility/share in the climate bee'. Like-mindedness (61%) is clearly stronger than disagreement (18%). If the tone of the statement is more conditional (can take care) than normative (should take care), it can be considered to indicate potential preparedness for individual climate actions [Figure 23.]. The differences between population groups are not great in this connection either as the majority of all groups agrees with the statement. However, those most in favour of nuclear power are more reserved than the average, which might be influenced by the question formulation: even though nuclear power is emission-free, it is not eco-labelled.