Evelyn Sepp, the co-chair of the Estonian Greens, and Marko Kaasik, the list's anchor, explain the party's views on the European Parliament elections in a special edition of the "Otse uudistemajast" podcast.

For many voters, it may be the first time they have to choose between candidates from the same political party running together in the same electoral district, since the whole of Estonia is in the same electoral district this time. Of course, the competition within a single political party can sometimes be even fiercer than the competition between parties, but it seems that in your case, you can't say that, because the probability that one of you will win a mandate in the European Parliament is relatively low.

Evelyn Sepp: It's small, indeed; but it's an example of collaboration.

What are your goals as a political party or as candidates in this campaign, given your realistic assessment of your own chances? Of course, getting elected is a possibility, but as you said, it's not very realistic that that could happen. What is your larger or broader goal?

Sepp: The broader goal is to reinvigorate Estonian politics and revive the competition of ideas. For us, it is also, in a way, the first step in rebuilding the party. For us, the European election campaign is not the end of a phase, but essentially the beginning of one.

Marko Kaasik, do you agree?

Marko Kaasik: In principle, yes. During this election campaign, we are presenting our views and advocating for a green worldview to ensure its continued presence in the Estonian political landscape. We're already thinking about the next campaigns and elections.

You already have one important result to show from these elections. The Estonian election law requires a deposit, which has increased to more than €4000 in these European Parliament elections due to changes in the minimum wage. You failed to pay the required amounts for the majority of candidates and challenged the amount in court. The Supreme Court granted you the right to register your list as a matter of law and is now awaiting guidance from the European Court of Justice on how Estonia should proceed. Did you simply not have the money, or was it a matter of principle?

Sepp: It's still a matter of principle. There is no point in rushing to represent people with different economic capacities, so to speak, and their rights, if the first step is not taken so that everyone can actually express their political will and participate in the process. This is a step for all Estonians, that the election is not an elite club for the rich and privileged. This is absolutely a values-based issue and the fact that we broke through is actually a direct reflection of our real capacity and the values that we stand for.

Of course, it could have been pure coincidence.

Sepp: It wasn't just a coincidence.

If you had €40,000 on your bill, you might not have filed this complaint.

Sepp: It was certainly not an accident. It was a very value-driven, well thought-out move. I introduced this myself from my background as a law graduate and a person with good social nerves...

If you had had that €40,000 or €50,000 on the account, would you have paid the amount necessary?

Sepp: No.

Hand on the bible?

Sepp: Absolutely.

Should there be some kind of barrier so that not just anyone may run as a candidate in any election, including the present EU elections?

Kaasik: This barrier should certainly not be a wealth census, which is what the current deposit actually is. Especially at the size it is in the current European elections: it could be, for example, signatures – a certain number of signatures to be collected.

Speaking of European elections, how many signatures should there be?

That is a much more complex question. But I would suggest that there should still be a few thousand.

How many members do you have in your party?

Sepp: About 800.

So you wouldn't get a few thousand signatures per member directly from your own party?

Kaasik: No, but...

Sepp: It's not about us. I just want to say it again - this is a fundamental issue in Estonian legal culture. This is not something that the Greens have to worry about. It is actually a matter of principle and a question of moral compass for everyone who participates in Estonian political life.

Okay, let's go to the so-called issue-based view.

When I look at the political parties in Estonia during the last five years, which coincided with the last mandate period for the European Parliament elections, and try to see the situation from the perspective of the Greens, it appears to me that your concern stems from the fact that some large, well-established, and well-organized political parties have incorporated your popular ideas, or more broadly, "Green" ideas, into their programs, rhetoric, and marketing strategies. However, when the real Green parties emerge, or have the term "Green" in their names, they are powerless.

How do you compete, for example, with the Reform Party, which has such a strong and comprehensive environmental agenda that a small party like yours has nothing to put next to it?

Kaasik: How much of that have they put into practice over the decades when they've had the chance?

Now it's election time. They're coming forward with promises to implement all of these measures. Climate Minister Kristen Michal (Reform), with the assistance of officials, is drafting the climate law and implementing a green turnaround. His colleague, Urmas Paet, a party colleague in the European Parliament, has been vocal about environmental issues over the past five years. You don't stand a chance there. So these big parties have fully appropriated the ideas, even in a rhetorical sense.

Sepp: I think it's actually a very good control question. Actions speak louder than words; you have to look at what they've actually done.

But these do, too.

Sepp: Here I dare to disagree, probably both of us, and very strongly. Let's do a little reality check – the future of young people, Estonia's climate targets, the world's climate targets and running an oil plant in Estonia, you name it... also talking about an innovative economy, water protection and the fact that we will continue for several decades with oil shale energy, but mainly with oil shale mining. 90 percent of drinking water is actually pumped out of the mines and so wasted, and so on. What is the reality? In ecological terms, it is about as far as it can be from what is actually meant by an environmental protection program.

It's really a green-washing program that's being sold to people by stealing the word "green," and that's unfortunate.

Kaasik: It is precisely in this law on a climate-resilient economy, as it is now called, in this forthcoming draft law, again...

Have you seen this draft?

...the proposed extension of oil shale mining by about 10 years, which is out of the question in Europe.

On the issue of oil shale and oil refineries, you said that we have to look at the actions of the Reform Party, which has very broadly integrated the green agenda. Essentially, they have nearly dismantled Eesti Energia and nearly prevented the construction of the oil refinery, even though about 90 percent of the plant was already complete.

Kaasik: Nearly.

Yeah, but they have very clearly moved in that direction with their actions.

Sepp: No, I would rather say that they left Estonia without energy security. Despite our high electricity bills, a significant part of the Estonian population experiences long periods of weeks without electricity. They can't afford to pay these bills, while it is the investments that were not made in time that caused them.

Let's face it, what is happening with Eesti Energia in economic terms, where it has been run to – you could call it a pre-bankruptcy situation.

A few days ago I watched you in the big election debate on ETV, where you were with the leaders of the other parties. I had the impression that, based on your statements and answers, you could be a member of a coalition government. To a very large extent, with the exception of Rail Baltic, you took exactly the same positions as any politician from the Eesti 200 or the Reform Party.

Sepp: I agree with the impression that we are certainly a party that is fit for government today in terms of our programmatic views and our know-how.

But I am unlikely to become a Reform minister, and I am not working towards that goal.

To do that, you would have to leave your current party.

Sepp: What I really liked about the jury's feedback was the realization that the Greens don't really talk about flowers and butterflies. Of course, we have a national budget; we must consider the economy; and we must address serious issues such as green industry, real energy security, and even real security. It should come as no surprise to anyone that we are not really living on trees, but that we understand what is really going on in the world and are able to respond and provide solutions.

Would you agree? (to Kaasik)

Kaasik: Yes. I would add that if we talk about the current three coalition parties, the Greens generally have quite a lot in common with the Social Democrats on social policy, also at the European level. It is far from being exactly the same or very similar in terms of environmental policy, but I have also noticed that social democrats across Europe have started to talk more and more about environmental issues in recent years.

All the major political parties have started talking very strongly about environmental issues.

Sepp: It can't be a question of fashion, it's really a question of survival. It's also really a survival issue in the sense that obviously people have to be able to work if they want to work, obviously, they have to be able to pay their living expenses, obviously, the living environment has to be clean and sustainable – all those kinds of issues. How many quarters have we been in a recession? Ten, I think.

If numbers are down tomorrow, it will be 10.

Sepp: After all, the problem is that the economy is not well or the processes are not well managed. This development, which affects the development of the economy, people's livelihoods, is not well managed. And since we are not part of it, there is a real reason to look at how to move forward.

Do you think the phrase that Climate Minister Kristen Michal often uses, that "the economy has to fit into the environment" or whatever it was, is that the right phrase?

Sepp: That's a good line, because in fact everything we live by should fit within the confines of the planet.

The recession, or economic contraction, should actually be a pretty good outcome if you look at it from that perspective.

Sepp: I'm trying to say, you can help me; so the question is what we measure and what we infer from those measurements.

We measure gross domestic product.

Sepp: An economy can also grow if you are not so resource intensive, if it is based on a circular economy, if you have something that people put into it, namely smart thoughts, ideas, added value. There are two things to distinguish here.

But this added value is now declining a little.

Sepp: We are not attracted to that line at the moment.

Kaasik: Let me just give a brief explanation...

And what do you think the content should be, instead of the current one?

Kaasik: Definitely the green industry, definitely...

What is the green industry? Is the new pulp mill or plastic recycling plant in Ida-Virumaa a green industry? These even receive support from the Just Transition European Fund under the greening initiative.

Sepp: I haven't seen all the details, but under certain conditions it could be.

Is a wood chemical plant a green industry?

Sepp: Under certain conditions.

What are these conditions?

Kaasik: Again, I would say that quite abstractly, or generally speaking, activities that use a lot of our brain and less of our natural resources are welcome. They are more environmentally sustainable, as well as economically sustainable.

Sepp: As long as we don't have sensible alternatives to plastics, for example, recycling plastics is, in a sense, inevitable. We can give it a long lifespan and get the things we need out of it. We will have to put up with it until there is a smarter technology.

Just a note. The oil shale industry, a subject of your criticism, has developed over the past century, utilizing basic technological know-how and human intelligence, primarily developed from Estonia.

Sepp: It may be of Estonian origin...

This is our national wealth, our intellectual property.

Sepp: There is nothing wrong with intellectual property per se, but indeed, the environmental impact that it has left us is something that cannot be used to build a smart future.

Kaasik: Today, it's the knowledge of the past that is of particular historical interest.

But if we look at Tallinn University of Technology, they are also working on new technologies; should they stop that too?

Sepp: I would like to come back to the two baselines. All this sector in Ida-Viru County, with all due respect, has created a situation today where the water regimes in Northern Estonia are so badly damaged and the problem is getting worse. It has created a situation where the health indicators of children in Ida-Viru county – asthma and everything else – are significantly worse than in the rest of Estonia. Unfortunately, these processes are only getting worse. How do we calculate the so-called benefits and harms, and is it even moral?

Let's focus on the economy as a whole. Let's assume that after the next elections to the Riigikogu, which are about three years away, you manage to get as many seats in the Riigikogu as the Reform Party currently has, i.e., 37 or 38 seats. This is still practically the size of a majority parliamentary group in Estonia. What would you do differently in such a situation compared to the current ruling parties?

Sepp: That's a good provocative question.

This is not a provocative question. You must have thought about it.

Sepp: We are thinking about it. I would prefer not to give a full answer today because I am focusing on the European elections, but we can come back to that in a few months.

In the meantime, are you getting so much smarter?

Kaasik: There are many things, but one of the things that definitely needs to be done is to pass a climate law – not a climate-resilient economy law, but really a forward-looking law that needs to be passed and implemented, and various other things where we are the red flag of the European Union, especially on environmental issues. This has to be done so that we can be a so-called normal European country.

Sepp: Let me rephrase that. If you're asking about one thing that should be different, it's that when you engage people and spend their time, energy, and brainpower, you must genuinely engage them, consider them, and listen to them.

Is this a criticism of the current climate law?

Sepp: The climate draft is an unfortunate process indeed, which began with such grandeur and ambition, and in its current state, despite our involvement and familiarity with its stages, is a betrayal and a waste of our time and energy.

Kaasik: Also forest policy issues, which for many years have in fact been dealing with a semblance of inclusion.

Sepp: Environmental corruption is in fact what the Environmental Agency offers us, along with the various ministries that have, so to speak, curated environmental issues over time.

You talked about recession earlier - nine or 10 quarters of recession. If you were the head of the government or a member of the government, what would you do to get the Estonian economy growing?

Sepp: I want to say one thing. First of all, taxes are not an economy. It doesn't have that much effect on the economy. What we have is "raise tax, lower tax, that's economy". No, it's domestic subsistence, it's domestic purchasing power, it's jobs all over Estonia, it's the so-called innovative economy, or maybe there are labor taxes...

Livelihoods, jobs, and incomes should grow. How would you do it?

Sepp: When they are not distracted, people who have freedoms and values in place are much smarter at working together.

If these people want to make a pulp mill, what will become of them?

Sepp: I don't think people want this pulp mill.

I have met many people who want to.

Sepp: Yes, a few individuals...

But the current government's interference was so severe that they decided to build the factory in Latvia instead.

Sepp: Whether they'll do it in Latvia, I'm not quite sure, and I'm not sure whether the Latvian people will be after a while supporting it, if it comes true, but it seems to me that...

You said that people shouldn't be bothered, let them increase their incomes – that's a very liberal view.

Sepp: There is no shame in raising incomes, but you cannot raise incomes at the expense of all other fundamental rights, and the right to the environment is one of the most important human rights.

Kaasik: Wasn't it the case that first they wanted to build in Latvia and they wouldn't let them build in Latvia, then they came to Estonia to build. Now they are playing the game of "but you won't let us, we'll go to Latvia instead."

On the one hand, I understand that Evelyn [Sepp] is saying that people shouldn't be bothered if they want to increase their incomes, but on the other hand, if that's the type of factory that somebody wants to do, that factory is not needed.

Sepp: The point is that if we have commercial forests that have been managed normally, there is obviously wood coming out of them. There is also the part of the wood that is just biomass that is left over; it is wise to do something about it. Then why not do wood chemistry? This is not a bad thing in itself, as long as you can put in technology that is really sustainable.

The problem with Estonia is that we have had such overlogging for so long. We don't have so much valuable wood left to make these durable products. Now we've got to the point where we should accept this pressure to clear-cut protected areas and so on.

I just want to say that economic growth is inevitably always linked to environmental impacts.

Sepp: Of course, there is some environmental impact, no one can deny that. Even we here today are in some ways, a pretty big environmental footprint...

Would it be wiser to cease to exist?

Sepp: It's just that in the end it [the ecological footprint] has to be fair, it has to be as sustainable as possible. You can't take more, you can't negotiate with nature by giving more.

Kaasik: If you replace an economic activity that has a high environmental impact with an economic activity that has a lower environmental impact, that is progress.

And you think progress is good?

Kaasik: Yes.

Would the tax policy that is currently in place in Estonia remain in place if the Greens were to decide on it?

Sepp: I think it needs a very complex rethinking.

Which direction?

Sepp: Perhaps two simple indications. I don't want to speculate and play with numbers here. On the one hand, we must set a fair price for the resources used as economic inputs, specifically environmental resources, to account for their value and the harm they inflict. On the other hand, it's evident that we need to significantly tighten labor taxes, for instance, if we aim to attract quality individuals and create jobs.

Kaasik: I think we should look more at the Nordic tax system, because we are getting close to their level in terms of economic structure and welfare. For instance, it is a well-established fact that the Finnish tax system generates approximately one-third more revenue for the state compared to GDP.

Sepp: The issue before that is that they are just doing so much smarter work, and they just have so much more added value.

If I understand correctly: The Estonian Greens are against the use of nuclear energy?

Kaasik: We are against today's relatively poor technology. Maybe there will be technological solutions that will be developed, the so-called fourth generation. There are molten-salt reactor (MSR) and a number of other solutions that are safer, meaning that if the process breaks down or something goes wrong, it stops and doesn't pollute the environment.

Sepp: It's not even about nuclear energy as such. It's not even about the question of nuclear physics. We know what nuclear physics is, we understand it.

This particular package, which is being offered to us, is somewhat controversial. The biggest challenge is the concentration of energy production, the security risks, and the economic risks. There is no credible analyst who has said that we can divide our energy portfolio and develop all different energy sources in parallel. In fact, it is not possible; we simply do not have the resources. This is also what President Kalulaid has said repeatedly, most recently at the meeting of the green technologies alliance. In fact, there were people sitting in the front row who nearly fainted during her speech.

I simply don't have the patience to run such an expensive, very high-risk policy, not even environmental risk, but economic risk. So this is what we are against. Energy security means dispersed production both in terms of technology and geography, it means jobs all over Estonia, and it means that we can get away from having a high concentration of production and risks in one place.

--

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