The end of the report surveys the future expectations of citizens. In a wide series of questions, the target persons were supposed to assess different issues on the basis of how likely they considered that these will actually take place during the following 10-15 years. The viewpoint of the question was factual, i.e. the task was not to say what is wished for but what one expects to happen despite one's own wishes. The primary target was to predict the future of energy. In addition to this, more general environmental and social development expectations were surveyed.

The results are somewhat surprisingly clear - certain things will take place, others will not. The most unanimous ideas about the future deal with nuclear power; this can be seen in the results in two ways. The top of the profile shows that the construction of another nuclear power plant is almost self-evident to citizens (87% consider this as either certain, very probable or quite probable). On the other hand, the bottom of the list shows that what is considered to be the most unlikely (of those included in the survey) is the idea that Finland would give up nuclear power altogether (3%) [Figure 51.]. A simplified picture of the results is achieved from a figure in which the different 'classes of belief' have been added together¹ [Figure 51b.].

However, the future of energy is not only seen as splitting of atoms. There is also quite strong belief (83%) in increasing the use of renewable energy sources. Several mutually consistent rationalisations are discovered for increasing the capacity in some ways. The idea that the consumption of energy will significantly grow is considered much more likely (66% believe in this, 34% do not) than that the consumption of electricity will decrease in such amounts that new large-scale power plants will not be needed (17%/83%). However, citizens have not abandoned the conservation of energy. Even though there were somewhat sceptical attitudes towards the possibilities of energy conservation (see Chapter 4.1), it is believed that good results will be achieved in the conservation of energy in the long run (67%/33%).

There is also more supplementary information about the themes studied in the report. Even though a great majority of citizens consider that investments in the technology related to preventing climate change would provide Finland with a strong export asset (see Chapter 3.2), the realisation of this idea receives more sceptical attitudes. The view according to which wind power and climate technology will become an export asset for Finland, divides opinions visibly (47%/53%). However, this is considered much more likely than the idea that nuclear power will become the export asset of Finland (22%/78%).

The development expectations concerning the environment cannot be considered too optimistic. The estimate according to which climate change will progress and cause significant problems in Finland is considered true (49%) almost as much false (51%). However, the view is optimistic if it is compared to opinions on global development. Almost everyone (82%/18%) believes the claim that climate change will cause significant problems elsewhere in the world.

The estimates concerning general economic and social development are relatively strongly polarised. Although there are more (63%) of those who believe that the economic recession will turn into a boom than those who do not believe this (37%), the distribution cannot be considered too optimistic when considering the long time-scale of the survey. The claim that concerns employment development according to which unemployment will change into a lack of employees receives somewhat more reserved results (53%/47%).

Because the question concerned looking into the future, independent of how it is desired to turn out, some of the estimates show a certain 'they will roll over us' spirit. The clearest example is the further construction of nuclear power plants; also those who do not support the matter at all believe strongly that it will take place (76% of opponents and 97% of supporters consider it probable). The analogous situation has also previously been observed, for example, before voting on the EU. Even though there were almost as many supporters as there were opponents of EU membership, practically everyone believed that the membership would happen.

When interpreting all the results, one should take into account that it is a question of a 'having to choose' setting in which the respondent had to predict something. The 'no opinion' choice, which was perhaps missed and, in some places perhaps the only wise choice, was not included in the scale. It is a question of an established practice in these kinds of vision groups, and it does not diminish the significance of the answers. The answers demonstrate if respondents consider the surveyed issues to be likely or unlikely.

If people's opinions are studied on the basis of gender, significant differences can be observed for some parts. Men consider the further construction of nuclear power plants more likely than women and - in connection with this - men also see that Finland's dependency of imported energy will decrease. Women's views turn out to be a little more pessimistic - or realistic, if it is thought that all kinds of belief in development is more typical for men. The greatest difference can be seen in the opinion concerning the regulation of the use of electricity in Finland. When interpreting the comparison, it must be observed that the differences in the estimates between genders show only the different directions of the opinions and their relative magnitude, not their absolute contents. For example, the further construction of nuclear power plants is widely believed by women as well as men; men just have a stronger belief [Figure 52.].

The question that extends to the future was also included in the 1991 survey partly with the same content. A comparison with the results in 1991 - that were collected during the beginning of the previous economic recession - shows certain similarities in the main features of development expectations. This is significant when considering the factual development that has taken place after the 1991 survey. Even though the position of nuclear power was, using current terms, very challenging - the fifth nuclear power plant faced problems for a long time when it was considered from point of view of public opinion and the opinions of decision-makers, and remained as such for a long time also after the period in question - citizens considered the construction of further nuclear power plants only a matter of time. The belief that the economic recession would turn into a boom was as strong as in the current study but the opinions on the development of employment were assessed more pessimistically. The fact that the problems caused by climate change were believed even more than in the current survey can be explained by the different threats of the times and the conceptual issues related to them. Even though the question already then - strongly in advance - referred to climate change caused by the 'real' greenhouse effect, the term was linked to the discussion of air acidity and forest damage that citizens found worrying at the beginning of the 1990s. In the comparison of the change, all other issues that might affect the comparability must be taken into account (see the notification in the figure) [Figure 53.].

______________________________