By Plenary Sessions: Aivar Kokk

It refers to discussions held with a "benchmate" and expresses respect for the work of the Environmental Committee, wishing them "strength and perseverance." It acknowledges that one aspect of the draft bill is "very fair and noble," demonstrating a willingness to find positive aspects even in proposals that have been met with criticism. It emphasizes the necessity of "proceeding step-by-step" toward adopting a green mindset.

Demonstrates a readiness for constructive cooperation by proposing specific solutions and raising relevant questions. It expresses respect for the ministers' "substantive responses" and recognizes their commitment. It supports the initiatives put forth by business associations and their proposals aimed at tightening legislation.

Demonstrates respect for colleagues and ministers by using polite forms of address like "Dear Minister" and "Dear colleagues." Acknowledges the contributions of members from other parties, such as the previous speaker who has a background as a family doctor. Offers constructive solutions and proposals, rather than just criticism, thereby showing a willingness to cooperate in policy formation.

He/She mentions conversations with the minister regarding energy topics and participation in the work of the energy commission. He/She acknowledges that the draft bill is good and that various electricity generation options must be provided, even though Isamaa holds differing views. He/She shows openness to cooperation but emphasizes the necessity of discussing all alternatives.

He/She constructively addresses the Prime Minister to ask for assistance, while offering specific solutions. He/She expresses readiness to cooperate with the government in solving energy issues, putting forward practical suggestions (pellet technology). The language used is geared toward cooperation ("can you contribute/help," "I offer you an idea").

They show no significant willingness to cooperate, focusing instead on criticism and accusations. While they do ask the commission representatives for clarification, their approach is more accusatory than constructive. They demand answers but fail to offer any clear compromise solutions.