Vilbiks talked to Vikerraadio about the recently unveiled draft climate law and a package of amendments to the Conservation Act and Forest Act that it entails.

The Estonian Council of Environmental NGOs, of which the Estonian Fund for Nature is a member, has said in a press release that the planned climate law would work to deepen the environmental crisis and its proposed targets would likely contribute to global warming by more than two degrees. Please explain based on what do you conclude this?

If you'll permit me, I'd start with why we need a climate law in the first place. We need it to protect people by mitigating climate change, which is already and will increasingly cause health and economic damage and loss of biodiversity. We need to curb greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible if we are to handle these challenges.

Scientists all over the world have said that we need to do it decisively and quickly in this decade if we are to prevent the worst. Warming adds to risks, and every extra 0.1 degrees brings slightly more intensive heatwaves, rains and drought, if we think about agriculture. That is why most countries in the world, including Estonia, have joined the Paris Agreement, which prioritizes reducing global greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. That is the background.

The climate law works to dial back Estonia's ambition and postpone necessary climate activities, even though they should be undertaken post haste. We find it is not justified for Estonia not to reduce its emissions over the next six years in the conditions of the climate crisis. Emissions are even set to grow in some sectors. We are also walking back existing obligations – the target used to be a 70 percent reduction by 2030 compared to the 1990 level, while it's 59 percent now etc.

The ministry has explained, in the explanatory memorandum of the bill and when presenting the draft law, why we cannot hit all of these targets. For example, regarding the agriculture sector, the Ministry of Climate says the emissions reduction target agreed at the EU level simply isn't feasible for Estonia. We cannot achieve a 24 percent reduction by 2030 because it would impact our food security. Do you understand the ministry's argumentation?

We don't know the methodology the ministry uses when it concludes that we cannot hit EU targets, which is why I cannot provide a real answer. Food security is undoubtedly very important, but in a situation where Estonia exports a lot of the grain it produces, we cannot simply draw an equals sign between food security and food production.

We must also keep in mind that climate change is a major threat to food security. It causes unpredictable weather conditions, droughts and floods, which will render farmers increasingly vulnerable in the coming decades. That is why we need to curb emissions to protect agriculture. Mitigating climate effects is especially cost-effective if combined with other environmental measures also in the context of agriculture. Taking measures to protect the soil and biodiversity works to also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a lot to gain from doing these things simultaneously.

The Estonian Council of Environmental NGOs finds in its press release that the plan would cause Estonia to move away from its Paris Agreement obligations and postpone reducing greenhouse gas emissions until the next decade. I asked Minister of Climate Yoko Alender (Reform) about it and was told it is not true. What should I do and who is hiding the truth when the minister says the the climate law's targets are in line with the Paris Agreement, while you say they are not. Who is lying?

By joining the Paris Agreement, we agreed to maintain the global average temperature rise well below two degrees and make efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees. To achieve that, we need to calculate how Estonia's goals correspond to the Paris Agreement. The explanatory memorandum does not include relevant calculations.

While the Ministry of Climate has commissioned a study from TalTech to calculate Estonia's carbon balance, the bill is not based on that TalTech scenario which would allow us to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

This trajectory would require Estonia's emissions to be decisively reduced by 2030 to remain within the 1.5 degrees target and even the two degrees target. In other words, because the bill suggests our emissions will remain unchanged for the next six years, or until 2030, Estonia's contribution would very likely not correspond to the 1.5 degrees or even the two degrees target. That is our logic, and it is not just our opinion but is also based on a study the Ministry of Climate commissioned itself.

I guess the listener will have to decide for themselves whether it's the Ministry of Climate or environmental organizations that are lying. What about the environmental organizations' experience participating in the climate law working groups, and to what extent have your proposals been considered in the draft law and its explanatory memo?

I'd like to point out that in several working groups more ambitious targets were agreed upon, including energy, transport and agriculture, while they've not made it to the draft law. For example, the transport and mobility working group proposed sticking to the recent target of reducing sector emissions by 24 percent by 2030 compared to 2005. But the final figure in the bill is 13 percent, and there are other such examples.

I've heard that working groups could have been organized better, as some voices tended to drown out others. But the fact we had these working groups was, of course, positive. Never before has a piece of environmental legislation sported such a level of inclusion in Estonia. However, it should be a component of inclusion for some of the input to make it to the law. Right now, it seems a lot of what the discussions arrived at has been shelved.

I attended a demo event of these preliminary stages, and what I came away feeling was that of what the working groups discussed and their proposals, measures that would directly force people to alter their behavior and impact their wallets were primarily left out of the draft law and the memo. For example, they do not mention a congestion charge for Tallinn and Tartu, there are no measures to motivate people to eat less meat and prefer a vegetarian diet. As an environmental activist, why do politicians tend to cross out such measures, what are they afraid of?

They've said that they have only considered measures the effect of which can be calculated in metric tons [of emissions]. While it is true that the results of behavior-related measures can be difficult to predict, it does not mean they're unimportant.

Some are included in the law's plans – supporting public transport, certain spatial measures. In the end, it is a matter of political choices what to keep. On average, Estonians eat twice as much meat as what is recommended by the Institute for Health Development. It is a valid question why the state does not prioritize addressing something that negatively impacts both public health and the natural environment. We know that beef is among the least environmentally conscious choices one can make. You'll have to ask the minister.

Reactions to the climate law have come from various directions, and the field tends to be quite polarizing. I believe many have read ERR's interview with former Prime Minister Juhan Parts where he claims that fossil fuels use and greenhouse emissions are only set to grow until 2050, while the climate law would impact Estonia's competitiveness and require a host of uneconomic investments. To quote Parts, "Does anyone really believe that our tiny input will somehow fix the planet?" I presume that people who've read the interview largely fall into one of two groups – those who agree with him and those who absolutely do not. I'm giving you the chance to comment on the words of the former prime minister in the name of the Estonian Fund for Nature.

It is interesting that while we believe Estonians could be prominent in other fields – such as the digital transition, sports or quality of education – despite our small size, why then do we want to give up before the game even starts when it comes to environmental matters? If your neighbors pollute their surroundings, does it mean you need to do the same? It seems to me that ethics are not dependent on one's size, and small players like us also have the choice of whether to try and improve matters or allow crises to deepen.

I spotted a factual mistake in Parts' interview. The recent overview by the International Energy Agency finds that the trajectory we're on will see fossil fuels use peak before 2030, not continue to grow until 2050. But the report also states that fossil fuels demand will continue to be much higher than what would allow us to meet global climate targets. To close, is there anything you would like Climate Minister Yoko Alender to answer on the radio?

I have no question as such. I would simply like to emphasize the importance of keeping in mind, when putting together the climate law and in the months left until its passing, that its aim is to alleviate climate change for the economy to fit in the boundaries of nature, and not the other way around. That is paramount.

--

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