By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The criticism is directed at ministry officials (Aive Telling) and the former minister (Riina Sikkut). They are accused of lacking knowledge regarding the harmful effects of the wind turbines and failing to possess the necessary equipment and accreditations required for effective state control. The opposition is procedural and political, underscoring a significant regulatory failure.

The main opponent is the Reform Party government and coalition, which is accused of selling off Estonia's resources, violating the constitution, and acting as Brussels' lackey. The criticism is intense and accusatory, charging the government with a policy of driving the people out (or "impoverishing the populace") and labeling their actions as "brutality." Compromise is ruled out because the government "rides roughshod over" the opposition "all the time."

The opposition is directed against the bill's flawed wording and the introduction of discretionary power, criticizing it as a potential avenue for the unequal treatment of individuals. The criticism is intense and politically motivated, warning that when the law is implemented, individuals might be favored or burdened based on their perceived undesirability.

The main opponents are the Government of the Republic and the market player Bolt, who are accused of aggressive lobbying and seeking a monopoly in order to drive traditional taxis out of the market. The government's position is described as "substanceless" and "something pulled out of thin air," suggesting that laws are being created solely to serve specific interest groups.

The opposition's stance is intense and directed squarely at the coalition members and the Riigikogu Presidium. The criticism is both procedural (concerning the disregard for sound legislative practice) and political (concerning the ignoring of the will of the people and the mere execution of orders). The speaker rejects compromise, demanding the dissolution of the Riigikogu and new elections.

The opposition’s stance is intense and aimed squarely at the coalition (the Reform Party, Eesti 200). They are criticizing the constitutionality of the coalition's proposed legislation and the poor attendance record of their MPs. Criticism is also being leveled at the competence of government experts and officials, particularly concerning their knowledge of infrasound. Furthermore, they are demanding individual accountability. The speaker stresses that the opposition was absolutely correct regarding the motor vehicle tax.

The opposition is directed at the legislator, who failed to follow the principles of good law-making during the drafting of the act by neglecting to analyze the impacts. The criticism is severe and focuses on procedural deficiencies, rejecting the argument of urgency. The goal is to take the dispute to the Supreme Court, which suggests a complete lack of readiness to compromise.