Session Profile: Martin Helme
Fifteenth Riigikogu, third sitting, plenary session
2024-03-07
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the prevailing climate policy, which is characterized as hysteria and a "grandiose Goebbelsian lie." The most important issues are energy security, maintaining Narva's production capacity, and protecting consumer prices. They support the development of nuclear energy and the rehabilitation of the oil shale energy sector, while opposing expensive renewable energy infrastructure projects. The political framework is strongly value-based, focusing on opposition to wealth redistribution schemes.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates detailed knowledge of energy infrastructure planning, referencing deficit generation areas, the Sõrve route, and the connection of offshore wind farms in the Gulf of Riga. Technical terminology is employed, and alternative scientific arguments are presented regarding the role of CO2, the planet's historical temperature, and the sun's influence on the climate. Specific proposals are put forward, such as constructing a nuclear power plant for the cost equivalent of existing cable projects.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, emotional, and confrontational, employing strong metaphors ("madhouse," "grandiose Goebbelsian lie," "charlatanism"). Appeals are directed at fear and injustice (the claim that everything will be taken away), promising in response social rebellion and the tarring and feathering of opponents. Logical arguments (the role of CO2, historical temperature) primarily serve ideological opposition.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The data is limited to two speeches during a single plenary session, meaning there is insufficient information regarding regular activity patterns.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary opponents are the proponents of the climate crisis, who are referred to as "hysterics" and "experts," and who are accused of implementing a wealth redistribution scheme. Specific political criticism is directed at Kristen Michal. Compromise is ruled out, as the speaker rejects any societal agreement to raise consumer prices.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Cooperation is lacking, especially concerning climate policy, where any societal agreement to raise consumer prices is rejected. The speaker positions themselves as the only "sane person in the madhouse," which points to strong isolation and confrontation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The regional focus is directed at Estonia's energy production capacity and infrastructure, emphasizing the negative impact of phasing out the Narva production facilities. Specific projects are mentioned, such as the Sõrve connection, the Gulf of Riga offshore wind farms, and the line planned for Saaremaa.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views are strongly anti-regulation, especially regarding CO2 fines, which distort energy markets and make oil shale expensive. The policy is viewed as a grand wealth redistribution scheme where consumers are stripped of their money, cars, meat, and homes. It supports investments in nuclear energy as a long-term and stable alternative to expensive cable projects.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are tied to the defense of personal freedom and lifestyle, opposing government attempts to restrict consumption (meat, cars, housing, travel) under the pretext of climate hysteria. It is emphasized that Estonians will finally rise up against this.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently aimed at opposing the existing energy policy and infrastructure development, particularly concerning the priorities for constructing new transmission lines (the Latvia/Sõrve route versus the Finland route). The speaker is a dissenter and advocates for building a nuclear power plant as an alternative, arguing it would cover the country's electricity needs for the entire century.
2 Speeches Analyzed