The most recent research data reveals somewhat conflicting signals in other attitudes regarding the environment and growth. Some of the indicators show that the direction of development visible in the two previous surveys continues, whereas some show that the direction is breaking or changing altogether. Some of the current changes can be considered opposite to all expectations as they do not follow the previous 'logic of the economic recession', i.e. the way in which the changes in economic cycles were reflected in the results in 1990s. Altogether, it is a question of small movements and the general division of attitudes has not experienced a radical change.

The view that financial and industrial activities are restricted too much in the name of nature conservation gains a little more opposition (45%) than acceptance (38%). The share of those in favour of the 'anti-environmental' statement is now considerably (7 percentage points) greater than a year before. However, the last survey recorded slight movement in the other direction; thus, the latest result does not deviate substantially from the average level of the past years (no figure).

The preparedness in principle to compromise over personal standards of living in order to reduce the environmental impacts and risks resulting from energy production is high. More than one half of respondents (58%) express this kind of preparedness, while about one in four (24%) refuse. The distribution shows that the willingness to make sacrifices has decreased and thus it strengthens the indication that was revealed the last time. Thus, the trend-like increase in the preparedness to compromise that had continued for years has ended. The result does not comply with the development of attitudes registered during the economic recession, according to which people are 'supposed to' show a certain willingness to make sacrifices during poor times (which can also be seen in the funds collected by charitable organisations). The time series that describes the entire follow-up period shows that during the years of economic recession in the early 1990s, the preparedness to compromise gradually increased and then abated to the earlier level as economic cycles improved [Figure 25.].

In spite of opinions on the surface, the undercurrent of public opinion is still distinctively soft - in other words, environmental and social rather than technical, financial and material values are stressed. There is also a contradiction between the environment and growth. It is quite another issue whether these well-being objectives rule each other out or not. Public opinion relating to future energy needs has indicated a belief in growth for a long time. In the autumn 2008, the boom of public opinion - as well as the boom in the national economy - ended and expectations started suddenly to weaken. Now six out of ten (61%) estimate that the need for electricity will be much greater in the future than at present. Approximately one in five disagree (19%). Even though the distribution is still clearly slanted it is more spiritless than the year before. Together with the slight decreased measured a year earlier, the difference to the last 'successful' year (2007) is already significant. For this part, the 'logic of the economic recession' works in much the same way as previously [Figure 26.].

This means that the question has also previously proven to be an excellent indicator of Finland's economic situation and changes in the general attitudes of society. An exceptionally clear projection of the development of economic and social conditions over the past decade can be observed in the time series concerning the future need for electricity. The economic recession at that time - which was predicted by ordinary people much before decision-makers and economic experts - clouded the vision of growth year by year so that the total change from the peak consumption years in the late 1980s to the deepest recession in 1993 turned out to be rather dramatic. In 1994, a turn indicating a quick return of the belief in growth was measured in opinions, and this was maintained and even gradually increased until 2007. A similarly growth-oriented result was last obtained at the end of the 1980s, before the recession. It remains to be seen whether the changes in attitudes are now going to be repeated in the previous way. The current economic crisis is still so recent that all of its consequences have not been realised in society or in the public opinions related to it.

Even though economic growth is shunned as a value, it does have demand, especially when it has disappeared. A statement regarding this issue, 'The problems caused by the economic recession show the need for economic growth', is approved by about every other respondent (49%). Slightly fewer than one in four (23%) disagree. The result is very similar to that in 1995 when this statement was last included in the survey. In addition, the previous time series that covers the years 1991-1995 is quite stable. However, this does not show the indicator's numbness for the economic cycles - all measurements concern either the 'real' years of recession or the time period right after them when the lessons learnt during the recession were still well remembered [Figure 27.]. When the current result is analysed in more detail, it can be stated that, in the political field, supporters of the three largest parties look for growth the most and that it has least importance for supporters of the Greens and the Left Alliance.

Although public opinion relating to environmental issues is critical, views on energy companies as environmental players have been positive. Now, less than one half (45%) are of the opinion that Finnish energy companies are currently acting in an environmentally responsible manner. Slightly fewer than one in four (23%) disagree. The distribution shows a change in the development of attitudes. The increase in reservations, which has continued for several years, did not continue but the figures are now significantly more trusting than a year before. If it was somewhat difficult to clarify the reason behind the previous increasing trend, it is also difficult of explain the current change. It was assumed that the criticism publicly raised against energy companies was one of the reasons for increasing mistrust. Even though the criticism has never directly concerned the environment-related measures of energy companies, these may also be seen in a more negative light due to the so-called 'logic of totalities' that governs corporate and sector images [Figure 28.]. However, the explanation was weakened as the increase in criticality did not seem to be targeted solely at the energy industry but a similar change in attitudes had also been shown to concern other industries more generally¹.

______________________________