Kansalaisten kokemukset Suomen ilmastopolitiikan oikeudenmukaisuudesta

Abstract

<p>A survey was conducted in the “Justice in climate change policy” project to discover citizens’ views about <br>justice in Finland’s climate policy in general, as well as from the perspective of distributional justice, <br>procedural justice and compensatory justice. The survey was carried out from a regional perspective <br>and by examining factors affecting vulnerability. The material was collected through an electronic survey <br>in June 2022. A total of 1,487 people from the following three selected research areas responded to the <br>survey: Helsinki, Northern Ostrobothnia and Southwest Finland. The material represents the adult <br>population of the research areas in terms of the type of residential area, gender and age. The responses <br>to the survey, which included both closed and open-ended questions, were analysed using quantitative, <br>qualitative and spatial data methods. <br></p><p>Overall, the respondents considered Finland’s current climate policy to be moderately just. Some of the <br>respondents considered that the climate policy was too ambitious, while some felt that it should be more <br>ambitious. However, the majority considered it as only seeking more rapid mitigation measures. <br>Statistically significant differences were found between the different respondent groups. The biggest <br>differences were found between regions, both in their overall experience of justice, as well as in the <br>distribution of the impacts of climate policy and participation in it. Differences in perceived justice were <br>also found regarding the self-assessed economic situation and political orientation. Respondents <br>considering climate policy most just were characterised by a high level of education, a left-leaning <br>political orientation and living in cities. <br></p><p>Regarding the justice of climate policy, the majority of the respondents considered it merely to reduce <br>the economic and regional inequality caused by mitigation measures. The experience of injustice was <br>most common for statements referring to increased household costs as a result of mitigation measures. <br>On the other hand, a minority of the respondents considered it unjust that countries that polluted the <br>most would bear the main responsibility for the costs of mitigating climate emissions, or that Finland <br>would reduce its emissions regardless of the actions of other countries. A majority of the respondents <br>also felt that the special needs of different groups and silent parties (such as animals, nature or future <br>generations) should be taken into account. Contrary to the dimension of distributional and recognitive <br>justice, the responses assessing the justice of the procedures were more divided: at most, only about <br>half the respondents agreed at least somewhat with the statements concerning the procedures, and <br>slightly less than one third or even more than half disagreed with the statements, depending on the <br>statement. The differences between the responses concerning the various dimensions are probably due <br>to the fact that the statements of the first two dimensions of justice were related to what Finland’s climate <br>policy should be like, while the statements measuring the procedures described what Finland’s climate <br>policy is currently like. The results show that the majority of citizens agree with the principles of justice <br>in climate policy, but are divided in terms of views about how justice is realised in Finland’s climate policy. <br></p><p>Living in a sparsely populated area seems a factor that increases the experiences of vulnerability most <br>in view of distributional justice, especially regarding experiences of narrower mobility opportunities. In <br>turn, educational background was connected with perceived opportunities to participate: the most highly <br>educated felt their opportunities to participate were better compared with other respondents. The <br>participation of Finns in climate policy is poor: almost 40 per cent had never participated in it in any way. <br>The availability of information on participation opportunities was considered rather poor, and participation <br>was not perceived to have much impact. Highly educated respondents felt that their opportunities to <br>participate were better compared with other respondents. Helsinki’s residents felt they had been more <br>actively involved in climate policy compared with other respondents. <br></p><p>According to the survey, the respondents’ general knowledge of climate policy was on average poor, <br>and the actions or concepts related to climate policy were not well known. There were regional <br>differences in knowledge: the knowledge of those living in Helsinki was better than that of others. A connection was found between climate policy knowledge and the experience of justice: those who knew <br>more about climate policy felt climate policy was more just. </p><p>Despite attempts to do so, the survey did not reach enough linguistic minorities. The planning of climate <br>policy should also consider ways of making the voice of those groups that are more difficult to reach <br>heard.</p>