By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The speaker demonstrates deep expertise in the field of ornithology and environmental protection, identifying as an ornithologist and presenting population data and the endangered status of rare birds (e.g., the little curlew, spotted eagles, and divers/loons). Furthermore, he/she possesses detailed knowledge of energy projects and financial mechanisms, criticizing the massive subsidies allocated to offshore wind farms and the pumped storage project. The speaker bases their arguments on conversations with energy specialists and specific knowledge concerning particular bogs and national parks.

The speaker demonstrates knowledge of international treaties (Optional Protocols) and the legislative process (impact assessments), questioning their practical relevance. To support his arguments, he utilizes specific percentage data from public opinion surveys regarding the draining of state resources. Furthermore, he raises questions concerning national defense, the foreign duplication of critical services, and the context of oil shale in the Baltic states.

The speaker demonstrates detailed awareness of the Kultuurkapital funding processes, knowing the precise grant amount (€5,850) and the number of rejections (four times). The expertise focuses on the bottlenecks in cultural sector funding and the fate of specific projects (Toomas Lepp's film about Arnold Rüütel).

The expertise is clear when discussing e-elections, particularly concerning international monitoring and analysis. The speaker is aware of the OSCE delegation's involvement and specifically inquires about the progress of their analysis.

The speaker demonstrates expertise in the field of energy policy (offshore wind farms, subsidies, the green frenzy) and social regulations (flavor bans, directives). They reference previous legislation and committee discussions, and demand detailed data (percentages, impact assessments). Furthermore, they are familiar with similar legislative steps taken in other countries (Poland).

The speaker demonstrates knowledge of legislative procedures, emphasizing the importance of the existence and quality of impact assessments (impact analyses). References to sociological studies regarding public opinion towards the government are also used to support the argument.

The speaker demonstrates detailed awareness of the energy policy timeline and the associated financial volumes (2.6 billion euros, and the EU's 100 billion). He relies on an external expert (a high-ranking state official/energy specialist) to explain the essence of the scheme: directing taxpayer money straight into the pockets of renewable energy businessmen. He highlights specific dates and events, such as the publication of the Clean Industry Directive and the expulsion of the Social Democrats from the government.

The speaker demonstrates expertise in legislative procedures, particularly concerning the quality of impact assessments for draft legislation and the restricted legal framework. He/She uses specific examples (e.g., a catering entrepreneur with 24 vans) and numerical data (a 5,000 euro registration fee) to illustrate the economic harm caused by the policy.

The speaker demonstrates specific knowledge regarding the health impacts of wind turbines, referencing a specific scientific study (Zhang, Chen, Xie) concerning the effects on the hippocampus and spatial cognition in rats. Furthermore, they are familiar with the details of legislative procedures and state budgetary expenditures (€70,000), inquiring about the substance of the committee discussions.

The speaker demonstrates awareness of the procedures and deadlines for transposing European Union directives, noting that this should have been completed already last December. He/She is familiar with the scope of the directive under discussion, knowing that the range of entities is limited to 18 companies. He/She also makes a rhetorical reference to the earlier "Piirissaare Sailor Directive."

Insufficient data.