The creation of the Ministry of Climate has drastically altered governance related to the environment. The so-called mega-ministry combines most aspects of economic administration with the environmental domain.

This gave rise to both expectations and doubts. There were expectations that governance would take serious steps to transform our society in a way that would best equip us to handle the impending environmental crisis. Doubts arose from the concern that, if the former Ministry of the Environment – tasked with curbing business in the public interest – now incorporates a significant economic and industrial component, it opens the door to the possibility of "the fox guarding the henhouse" developments.

The central question is whether this newly created mega-ministry will prioritize economic interests over environmental protection, or whether it will draw clear boundaries set by the environment and nature within which the economy and businesses can operate. The latter is the only viable option to ensure long-term public interest and a livable environment for future generations. I emphasize that even new industries, including renewable energy, have environmental impacts. Thus, there are limits to such production. There is no way around it: all growth has its limits.

The climate law was supposed to become a new framework law that would provide the backbone for the sustainable functioning of our society, offering clarity about the limits placed on the economy and society. The climate law must focus on the entirety of the environmental crisis and address climate change as one aspect of it. In this sense, the law is unavoidably necessary.

One of the key slogans of the legislative intent was that the economy must operate within the boundaries set by nature, something former Minister of Climate Kristen Michal (Reform) affirmed in his earlier statements.

However, a look at the draft quickly resulted in disappointment. It seems that the drafting process was not structured but rather haphazard. The protracted process and its result are also marked by a shocking narrowing of the law's scope: instead of a climate law addressing society as a whole, what emerged was the Climate Resilient Economy Act. This may reflect the nature of the new ministry and the inherent risks it carries.

Society more than just economy and industry

Now, let's move on to the draft itself. I will highlight just a few particularly troubling issues, especially those that have received less attention so far.

The draft contains two central parts. The first deals with mitigating the effects of climate change, which is reflected in the emission reduction targets set for various sectors. The problem is that even the general goals are too modest. Even worse, the targets diverge from those outlined in earlier strategic plans, such as Estonia 2035 and the National Energy and Climate Plan. Incidentally, the backtracking on climate goals that have already been presented in the energy and climate plan is not allowed under European Union guidelines, which we have ourselves approved.

Logically, setting goals should be accompanied by a roadmap to achieve them, as well as measures for what to do if the targets are not met within the specified timeframe. Yet, no such roadmap or measures are found in the draft. So, the question remains: what happens if the targets are not met?

Additionally, Estonia is stepping back from the obligations it took on under the Paris Agreement, which is, in turn, in conflict with our Constitution. According to the Constitution, international treaties ratified by the Riigikogu take precedence over domestic legislation. This apparent constitutional conflict must be resolved before the parliament can proceed with the draft.

The second central part of the draft, dealing with adaptation, is entirely unacceptable. It is hard to believe, but unlike mitigation, not a single target is set for adaptation, and only vague provisions to develop action plans are outlined.

What makes this particularly absurd is that, according to the explanatory memorandum, the climate law is necessary precisely because the content of action plans is not legally binding, and what we need are legally binding frameworks and targets. Yet, the draft provides none. Furthermore, while mitigation is something that can be pursued through global cooperation, how we prepare for climate change is largely in our own hands.

The following areas remain essentially unaddressed and without any objectives: climate events and the availability of services dependent on infrastructure for the population; the protection of people's rights and health, particularly for vulnerable individuals, in the face of climate change; the awareness of the public sector, citizens and businesses regarding climate change; the state of biodiversity and the protection and restoration of ecosystems; the sustainability of the bioeconomy; considering climate change in land use, food production, water supply, forestry, planning and construction; and the promotion of nature-based adaptation solutions.

In reality, all aspects affecting people, communities and the environment have been left without any objectives. It is wrong, and also extremely dangerous, to view the environmental and climate crisis, which is already beginning to affect society, solely through the lens of big industry and the economy. Society is not just the economy and industry. The draft needs significant revision to ensure that issues related to people, local communities and the environment are appropriately addressed.

Draft law needs complementing

There are some positive aspects in the draft, particularly the principles outlined for its implementation. However, these principles are undermined by the fact that the draft itself violates them. Before it reaches the Riigikogu, the provisions of the draft must be aligned with these principles, and some important elements need to be added.

Here are a few examples. Emission reductions have been largely deferred to the future, placing an unjustified burden on future generations, despite the fact that action should begin immediately. This contradicts the principle of intergenerational justice mentioned in the draft. As it stands, future generations will be required to do more than we are. Since adaptation – especially in the area of health and the rights of the most vulnerable groups – is inadequately addressed, the draft is also not aligned with the principle of a just transition.

New so-called green industries also have environmental impacts, yet no targets have been set for ensuring the preservation of ecosystems or biodiversity. This clearly overlooks the principle of maintaining alignment with other environmental goals.

Interestingly, the emission reduction targets set in the draft do not appear to be based on the scientific analysis commissioned by the Ministry of Climate on Estonia's greenhouse gas budget, which would be an appropriate foundation for moving towards carbon neutrality.

Thus, it's difficult to consider this budget scientifically based, as required by one of the principles in the draft. Moreover, since the calculations behind the presented targets are not publicly accessible, it is impossible to verify their accuracy. Verifiability is a central criterion of a science-based approach.

Another missing principle in the draft is that achieving climate resilience should not come at the expense of environmental degradation in other countries. The Earth's environment is shared, and addressing issues in one country at the cost of others is not a solution but a deception.

It is also worth noting the obligation placed on local governments to develop and implement climate and energy plans. It is essential that these plans are not just formalities but are well-prepared and achievable. This requires that municipalities have the necessary competence and funding, or at least a clear path to acquire these resources, which is not the case at present.

Certainly, it is a positive step that the draft has finally been presented to the public after a long wait. On the other hand, the draft now requires a thorough review and significant revisions. The road ahead is long and complex. The worst outcome would be the emergence of hollow rhetoric, suggesting that if everyone is criticizing the draft, it must be a reasonable compromise. This is not the case.

On one side, there is a hidden understanding that the economy must not be restricted due to the environmental and climate crisis, or if it is, only cosmetically. On the other side, there is the view that the draft must fully account for the vast scale of the climate crisis and set appropriate limits on how we operate.

It is utterly unacceptable that the existential environmental and climate crisis would not be addressed simply because doing so is not "cost-effective" in economic terms – that is, because it is deemed too expensive. It is crucial to understand that failing to respond to the crisis will be incomprehensibly more costly for both us and future generations.

--

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