By Plenary Sessions: Züleyxa Izmailova

The main opponent is the government, specifically the Reform Party, which is accused of deliberately deepening the climate crisis and undermining the foundations of democracy. Criticism targets both political decisions (forestry, nuclear energy, wood pellets) and procedures (the marginalization of scientists, cuts to the Environmental Board, and the prioritization of lobbyists). Compromise with the government's current policies is clearly ruled out, as these policies serve narrow business interests rather than the public good.

The main confrontation is aimed at the government's forestry policy, the Prime Minister, and Andres Sutt, the Minister of Energy and Environment. The criticism is political, focusing on the policy's ambiguity and the risks it poses, which would allow the forestry industry to eliminate restrictions on logging volumes and create "tree fields."

The primary opponent is the Reform Party and its leadership, who face sharp criticism over political contradictions and outdated tax policies. The criticism is policy-driven and intense, accusing the party of a mismatch between stated goals and the means used to achieve them. The opposing minister's self-assurance is treated with sarcasm.

The primary adversary is the Reform Party and Michal’s government, who stand accused of eroding democracy and making non-transparent decisions. The criticism is intense and accusatory, claiming that the government serves the interests of narrow business circles (party funders) at the expense of the entire society. The opposition targets both specific policies (logging) and procedures (lack of public involvement, and the reduction of democracy under the guise of cutting bureaucracy).

Direct opposition or criticism of the policies is not voiced; instead, questions are posed to the minister regarding the government's activities. The speaker assumes the role of an overseer, seeking confirmation regarding future plans.

Fierce opposition is directed against the Reform Party-led government, which is accused of long-term inaction and the deterioration of conditions in the Natura areas since 2004. The criticism is intense and focuses on the failure to implement policy and the adoption of "highly questionable maneuvers" to avoid infringement proceedings.