Agenda Profile: Mart Helme
First reading of the Riigikogu Draft Resolution "Supporting the Introduction of Nuclear Energy in Estonia" (431 OE)
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
Political Position
The political focus centers on the rationality of developing nuclear and renewable energy in Estonia, calling into question the coalition's simultaneous support for both directions. The speaker strongly insists that before nuclear energy is approved, it must be determined who bears the costs (pollution and health costs) and who receives the profits, emphasizing the need to protect the public interest against foreign capital. This stance is conditionally opposed until the financial risks are fully mitigated away from the public.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge of energy project timelines, contrasting the decades-long completion perspective for wind farms and a nuclear power plant (2035–2040). The argument is supported by referencing the position of TalTech scientist Jarek Kurnitski, who stresses the need to make a strategic choice between renewable and nuclear energy.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker's style is critical and questioning, demanding an answer regarding the rational choice in energy policy. Both logical arguments are employed (comparing time perspectives, citing a scientist from TalTech) as well as rhetorical devices (the metaphor "changing horses midstream"). The tone becomes particularly demanding and emotional when addressing the distribution of costs and revenues and the potential removal of profits from Estonia ("Swedish banks carrying it out in armfuls").
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The records indicate activity during the first reading of the nuclear energy bill at the Riigikogu session, with repeated questions and viewpoints being presented to the rapporteur. The speaker reverts to the same fundamental questions if the initial response fails to satisfy them.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is aimed at the coalition's energy policy, which is deemed irrational because it simultaneously supports both wind and nuclear energy. Opposition to the bill is conditional, based on a procedural and substantive requirement to clearly define who bears the costs and who receives the revenues. The speaker sharply criticizes a situation where profits could be moved out of Estonia, while the costs are left for the public to bear.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker publicly endorses the stance taken by colleague Helmen Kütt concerning the designation of the responsible party for costs and revenues within the draft legislation. This demonstrates a willingness to align with other Members of Parliament who share similar priorities regarding fiscal accountability.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on national energy policy and the choices being made, but specific regional projects are also mentioned, with reference to the wind farms being constructed in the Gulf of Riga. There is also a strong emphasis on protecting the health and financial interests of the Estonian people.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic viewpoints emphasize fiscal prudence and the protection of national interests, requiring that major energy projects do not impose health and pollution costs upon the Estonian people. Strong criticism is directed against the outflow of revenues from Estonia (a reference to Swedish banks), demanding that the distribution of income and expenses be legally enshrined.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Among the social issues being raised is the topic of healthcare costs that could potentially arise from the adoption of nuclear energy. The speaker emphasizes the need to protect the health of the Estonian people and ensure that these associated costs are not borne by the public.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative focus is the Parliament's Draft Decision 431 OE (supporting nuclear energy). The speaker conditionally opposes the bill, resolutely demanding that the distribution of costs and revenues must be clearly fixed within the draft; otherwise, they will not personally endorse it.
2 Speeches Analyzed