This time around, participants debated issues relating to the competitiveness of the EU economy, energy, and the green transition.

Overall, the perspectives from the politicians taking part underlined something of a consensus on the need for reform within the EU, the slashing of bureaucracy and over-regulation, while also maintaining important existing protections and creating a fairer competitive environment.

The panelists virtually all suggested a focus on making the EU more business-friendly too, without compromising on essential standards and rights.

Appearing on the panel were: Yoko Alender (Reform), Annela Anger-Kraavi (Parempoolsed), Rain Epler (EKRE), Lauri Laats (Center), Rasmus Lahtvee (Greens) Liisa-Ly Pakosta (Eesti 200), Jüri Ratas (Isamaa) and Riina Sikkut (SDE), while the show hosts were Liisu Lass and Andres Kuusk.

On being asked about supporting the rapid implementation of the green transition, Jüri Ratas recalled his time in government, Ratas was prime minister late 2016 to early 2021, when the 2050 climate neutrality goals were approved.

"However, we must first meet our targets set for 2030, which is ambitious, but Estonia can manage," Ratas said.

"The most important point is the renovation of housing stock. The green transition cannot constitute a planned economy," he added.

"Changes will definitely occur, but it is crucial for Estonia that our business competitiveness is not lost. We must protect our firms via the European Innovation Fund. The concept behind the green deal is that we can play our strengths; Estonia needs to expand its energy portfolio," Ratas stressed.

The Isamaa European candidate, formerly Center Party leader, also noted that in addition to the existing Estlink undersea electricity connections, an additional, similar links needs to be installed.

Annela Anger-Kraavi meanwhile expressed concerns over the green transition, stressing that it should not compromise public welfare or be implemented via command economy tactics, either.

She said: "Estonia did not stand up for itself in the European Council regarding the green deal, yet now smaller targets are being set for Estonia in the direction of a climate-resilient economy. That same minister has agreed to various treaties."

Anger-Kraavi argued that Estonia struggles to advocate for itself within the EU and criticized what she called a lack of trust in landowners when it comes to biodiversity conservation, noting that species searches are being conducted on private lands without their owners' being made aware.

Rain Epler criticized the green transition as ideological extremism, aimed at reaping funds from a large proportion of the population and of businesses, to benefit a narrow interest group. "This is harmful to the economy. For example, German industry has been relocating and downsizing."

"There are also U.S. states which have switched to renewable energy, yet it's not sustainable," Epler went on, highlighting what he saw as the economic and practical challenges of transitioning to green energy.

Riina Sikkut contra-wise argued for the necessity of the green transition to prevent further environmental degradation.

Sikkut said: "The green transition states that we cannot produce more pollution than we currently do. We need innovation to preserve biodiversity, though the transition should not come at the expense of lower-income individuals. This means they need to be compensated for it."

"Leadership is needed to drive the Green Deal forward, but, fortunately, EU member states have agreed on climate neutrality," Sikkut added, highlighting the collective commitment within the EU.

Yoko Alender highlighted the green transition as representing not only a new opportunity but also one which is inter-connected with security concerns. "We have so far been dependent on Russian fossil fuels, but the green transition will ensure our energy independence."

"Dependence on China is also a significant issue, yet we also have rare earth metals, in Sillamäe," Alender went on.

Rasmus Lahtvee of the Greens stressed the inclusive nature of the green deal, stating: "The Greens are talking about a green deal where no one gets left behind, neither people nor businesses."

Lahtvee lamented the irony of criticisms directed at the Greens, given that it is other parties which have been making the decisions which have led to economic decline.

"It's almost funny to hear accusations aimed at the Greens. In Estonia, the Greens are blamed for almost everything, yet It is the other parties who have been making the decisions so far," Lahtvee said.

Lauri Laats also voiced concerns over the burdens of the green deal on Estonian people and businesses. "If we make a giant leap in the use of electric cars, then we become dependent on China, as a battery manufacturer."

"People needing to replace their home gas boilers—this directly affects them. Switching from gas boilers requires funds, but these have not even been allocated from the EU; it's still under discussion," Laats continued.

Liisa-Ly Pakosta argued for necessary changes without sacrificing equality. "If we don't want to burn up our planet, changes are needed, but they must be just," Pakosta said.

"Europe has already done much to break free from dependence upon Russian natural gas; only 5 percent of the EU's gas purchases currently come from Russia, and even that will soon disappear thanks to a new round of sanctions. People are not going to be forced to disconnect their gas boilers, and there will be no coercion in terms of home renovation. The EU provides funding, for those that choose this," she went on.

Lahtvee advocated for a smarter energy grid, citing the inefficiency of Estonia's current reliance on oil shale-generated electricity.

"Euro for euro earned, Denmark's spending is one seventh of Estonia's, primarily because we are using oil shale energy."

"We need to eliminate support not just for oil shale but for all fossil fuels, to then grasp the real price we have to pay," Lahtvee argued.

He stressed that investments should be made into network security to ensure security of electricity supply in more outlying areas of the country, and that following the green deal in developing energy systems would facilitate this.

Liisa-Ly Pakosta outlined the EU's stance on oil shale, noting that while it hasn't been banned, it has been set at price levels which would discourage its long-term use. "Natural gas hasn't been banned either; biogas can be used, for instance."

At the same time: "We need to accelerate our efforts to meet the renewable energy targets we promised to the EU 15 years ago," Pakosta added.

Pakosta also expressed concerns about accepting draft legislation from officials which may impose excessive obligations on Estonia.

On nuclear energy, Pakosta noted that: "the EU has agreed that nuclear energy is clean, and should at least be considered as an option in Estonia."

Epler argued that energy security in Estonia and in Europe could be ensured through oil shale, nuclear energy, and coal too.

"We have our own oil shale, and the scientific capability to utilize it. Wind and solar power are environmentally harmful methods of energy production, but France successfully built nuclear power stations in the 1970s and is now reaping the rewards," Epler said.

He also suggested that support should be eliminated. "Once the subsidies are gone, wind and solar energy [prices] will skyrocket, because they have developed solely on the back of these subsidies."

Sikkut questioned the long-term viability of mining oil shale and other fossil fuels, and suggested biogas usage alongside other renewable energies as a solution.

"During windless periods, we can utilize biogas. It's also important to manage consumption. There is potential to control things when we use energy," said Sikkut said, stressing the importance of energy efficiency and alternative sources.

Sikkut however argued against the need for a nuclear power plant in Estonia, asserting that the state can achieve energy security via other means. She highlighted the importance of domestic consensus as well, and a firm stance in order to strengthen Estonia's position during EU negotiations.

"Estonia has proved itself an excellent negotiator at the EU, but the problem lies more domestically, where we can't agree on what is necessary and beneficial for Estonia," she said.

"Ratas says there is a market for oil shale, while Anger-Kraavi says we need oil shale plants to produce shale gas. But we need to agree at home on phasing out oil shale, to achieve better results during EU negotiations," Sikkut concluded.

Laats said Estonia needs oil shale to maintain controllable energy capacities. "This sector provides jobs. Why does Estonia want to be at the forefront of the EU in resolving all its issues?"

He highlighted the potential economic impact of transitioning away from traditional energy sources, suggesting that the energy deriving from the green transition in Estonia would be considerably more expensive even than current rates in the Scandinavian countries. "Including all charges, the electricity price in Estonia would be 16-17 cents per KW," Laats said.

Yoko Alender argued that it is in Europe's interest for European countries to develop together.

"Europe can help, by financially aiding the construction of connections between countries," she said. Alender also outlined Estonia's ambitious 2030 goal of generating all its energy needs from renewable sources.

"This is not an insurmountable obligation. There is a clear link between well-being and electricity consumption: We need new clean industries. Renewable energy, coupled with storage and possibly small nuclear reactors, will ensure Estonia's energy security of supply," she elaborated.

Ratas commented on the idea of constructing a nuclear power plant in Estonia, suggesting that while research is the right direction, one must not be naïve about the challenges which this would bring.

"While back in 2000 Finland thought that it would be able quickly to build a nuclear power plant, it only recently connected to the grid. Estonia can produce biogas, plus the Paldiski pumped storage plant needs to be finished," Ratas said.

Anger-Kraavi stressed the paramount importance of energy security. "Oil shale is not harmful to the climate if it is not burned, but we lack alternatives."

For Parempoolsed, contesting its first European elections and only its second election overall, it is crucial that the market determine what energy type is worth using, not subsidies for certain types of technology," she argued.

Anger-Kraavi also referenced the apparent renaissance of nuclear energy, noting the availability of next generation small reactors, which she said could potentially offer a viable alternative energy source for Estonia.

During the course of the broadcast, all the panelists also responded to questions from voters, mainly on whether boosting the competitiveness of the European economy is a realistic goal.

Lauri Laats acknowledged the challenges, noting that both the U.S. and China have far outpaced Europe in recent years. He pointed out that the bureaucracy has been a significant impediment to business. "Europe has been lagging behind, mainly because of the layers of bureaucracy, which stifles business initiative," Laats said.

Ratas concurred that bureaucracy is a barrier, and suggested that cutting it would foster economic growth and help the EU progress.

He also said that Estonia should advocate for more significant investments in the transport sector. "Cutting down bureaucratic hurdles can significantly contribute to economic growth, and make the EU more dynamic and competitive," Ratas said.

Alender, too, identified bureaucracy as a hindrance and proposed that with the introduction of each new regulation, previous ones should be reviewed to ensure they are still necessary and effective.

"There needs to be a balance between regulation and freedom for businesses to operate efficiently. By revisiting old regulations, we can streamline processes and foster innovation," Alender argued.

Sikkut emphasized the importance of government intervention and support for businesses needing to be consistent across countries.

She added that innovation is difficult for a single country to achieve alone, and stressed the need for increased cooperation between nations. "It's vital for countries within the EU to work together more effectively to foster innovation and support entrepreneurs," Sikkut said.

Epler highlighted that bureaucracy has become a significant problem, illustrating his point by referencing Elon Musk's approach at one of his companies, where he dismissed a team, only to rehire individually the workers it was felt were truly needed. This example underscores the efficiency gained by streamlining operations and reducing excesses, Epler claimed.

Anger-Kraavi commented on the issue of over-regulation in Europe, stating that the internal market has all but disappeared.

Her comment reflects a concern in some quarters that excessive regulation may be hindering the free movement of goods, services, and capital within the EU, undermining is a fundamental principle of the union in the first place.

Pakosta spoke about the disparity in support larger countries can offer their business sectors compared with smaller nations like Estonia. She advocated for reducing national support within the union, to create a fair internal market.

This position underscores the need for a level playing field that allows smaller nations' businesses to compete more effectively.

Sikkut agreed with Pakosta, adding that competitive advantages often come at the expense of human rights. She argued that regulation is not inherently bad if it ensures protection, such as in data security, highlighting the importance of balancing business interests with individual rights.

Lahtvee discussed the concept of a sustainable economic model, emphasizing the need to stop wasting resources and reduce bureaucracy. He pointed out the challenges faced by Estonian entrepreneurs who must undergo time-consuming certification processes in each country they operate in, which can stifle innovation and efficiency, he said.

Overall, the responses highlighted a shared concern among the politicians about the impact of excessive bureaucracy on economic competitiveness, and suggest a common interest in fostering a more business-friendly environment within an EU context.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!