By 2030, non-residential buildings with the poorest energy performance must reach at least energy class F, and by 2033, energy class E. The estimated cost is €290 million, yet government support is generally not considered necessary.

The state orders, entrepreneurs pay

Does the ministry really believe entrepreneurs voluntarily pay large heating bills and cannot decide for themselves when insulation upgrades or heating system improvements will pay for themselves? Entrepreneurs know how to count money. Now an official comes along who thinks they know better.

In one industrial building, equipment generates enough heat on its own. In another, constant ventilation is required. In a third, only a small portion of the space is heated. Some tractor repair shops or production buildings are used for only a few months each year. Insulating such a building may never pay for itself. Have these differences been taken into account, or is it simply easier to impose the same obligation on everyone?

It creates the impression that government agencies must continually invent new requirements to justify their own existence. The entrepreneur's role is to pay the bill. Businesses have only recently been forced to make costly upgrades to comply with new fire safety requirements. Now another mandatory investment looms. Has anyone calculated how much all these successive requirements will cost entrepreneurs and ultimately the state itself?

Small and medium-sized rural businesses will be hit hardest because they lack the financial resources available to large corporations. For some, it could mean shutting down operations. In rural areas, every business closure means lost jobs, lower tax revenue and another blow to local communities.

If people do not move away from their hometowns, they will have to travel dozens of kilometers farther to work. More driving, more fuel consumption and more emissions. Where is the climate benefit in that? Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of lost local jobs and longer commutes?

€290 million is money entrepreneurs could invest in production, equipment, jobs and wages. Instead, the state dictates how the money must be spent, even when the investment will not pay for itself during the building's useful life.

Will an official be held responsible if an entrepreneur has to take out a loan, abandon expansion plans or close a business? Of course not. And does the ministry understand that those hundreds of millions will ultimately be reflected in the price of products and services? The bill will be paid by Estonian consumers through higher food, goods and service prices.

We must also consider the footprint of construction work

A separate issue is the climate footprint of the renovation process itself.

The production of insulation materials, transportation, construction work and waste all generate CO₂ emissions. If a building is used only a few months per year, the resulting energy savings may be minimal. Has anyone calculated how much CO₂ would actually be saved through renovation and how much additional CO₂ would be generated in the process? Do the savings even offset the environmental impact of the construction work?

No one disputes the need for energy savings, but they must make economic and environmental sense, not simply serve as another box checked in an official's report.

The goal of climate policy cannot be to move people from rural areas to cities, end livestock farming and agriculture, and close barns, industrial buildings and tractor repair shops because they are not insulated well enough.

Estonian entrepreneurs know very well how difficult it is to earn money. Yet the state seems to believe their wallets are bottomless. Perhaps it is time to stop telling entrepreneurs how to spend their money and start thinking about how to let them earn it.

--

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