By Months: Yoko Alender

There is no criticism; the speaker is rather focused on clarifying the concerns and doubts raised by committee members (e.g., Andres Metsoja, Tiit Maran). Primarily, confirmation is sought from the minister regarding the accuracy of the information provided by the officials, which indicates a need to dispel uncertainty.

The direct political opposition is not criticized. Criticism is rather aimed at systemic challenges, such as the improper disposal of electronic cigarettes and strategic dependence on China regarding critical raw materials.

The speaker sharply criticizes the initiators (the opposing side) of the draft bill aimed at expanding the wind energy impact zone, citing their ideological opposition and insincerity, and alleging that they do not actually want cheap electricity. He also takes aim at "traveling protesters" who are obstructing local proceedings. The criticism targets both their political ideology and the substantive incompetence of the bill itself (for instance, a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of the impact zone).

The criticism is directed against the spreading of false claims (such as those regarding the Paris Climate Agreement and local benefits) and against the Isamaa party, which opposed the oil shale reserve bill. In the speaker's assessment, this opposition would jeopardize energy supply security. He advises Isamaa to rethink its stance and condemns the use of inappropriate historical parallels (references to the 1940s).

The main opponent is the Isamaa Party, which is being sharply criticized for proposing to halt the proceedings of a crucial bill. The criticism is political and procedural, highlighting the significant inconsistency between Isamaa's actions and their public rhetoric regarding oil shale. The opposition is direct and intense, but it focuses on political conduct, not individuals.