Session Profile: Mart Maastik

The political position is one of strong opposition to the government's plan to accelerate the construction of offshore wind farms, especially near Saaremaa, arguing that the project is too expensive, environmentally harmful, and procedurally deficient. The speaker sharply criticizes the draft legislation, which consolidates permitting processes under the pretense of speeding up environmental impact assessments, arguing that this is a case of the ends justifying the means. The focus of the critique is on the policy itself (specifically its environmental and economic impact), emphasizing that the environment is being forgotten under the banner of fighting for the "climate."

The speaker demonstrates detailed knowledge regarding the establishment of offshore wind farms, the planning of power lines, and financial impacts, utilizing specific data and statistics. Particular emphasis is placed on the 330 kV power line protection zone (80–100 meters), the extent of associated deforestation (thousands of hectares), and the impact on properties (80,000). Economic comparisons are also presented (onshore parks are 5 times cheaper), along with the failure to account for nuclear power plant decommissioning costs in the case of wind farms.

The rhetorical style is critical, argumentative, and occasionally ironic, employing strong language (e.g., "exorbitantly expensive," "irreplaceable loss," "mystical climate"). The speaker combines logical, data-driven criticism (costs, line charges) with emotional appeals (the taxpayers' pockets, environmental destruction). The climate issue is referred to as a "mantra," and the reckless haste with which things are being done is criticized.

The speaker actively participates in the plenary session, asking questions of the minister and contributing to the debate on the draft legislation, focusing on specific details and areas of concern. This pattern of activity demonstrates a readiness to intervene in important legislative processes and to request additional time for the thorough presentation of their views.

The main criticism is aimed at the actions of the Ministry of Climate and the government, who are pushing through draft legislation and expensive infrastructure projects. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, accusing the opposing side of ignoring environmental impacts and rushing the process under the guise of reducing bureaucracy. Separately, the high cost of the Ministry of Climate’s name change (2 million euros) is also being criticized.

The speaker demonstrates cooperation with colleagues by publicly agreeing with the positions put forward by another deputy (Andres) regarding the bill's shortcomings. This cooperation is limited to opposition members who share similar views, and there is no indication of a willingness to compromise with the government.

A strong regional focus is placed on Saaremaa and Muhumaa, where the planned offshore wind farm and the new Estonia-Latvia electricity grid connection would cause significant damage. Local issues are emphasized, including the destruction of prime fishing and spawning areas, and the impact on 80,000 properties due to the new power line corridor.

Economic arguments emphasize fiscal responsibility and cost control, sharply criticizing the exorbitant cost of the planned projects (totaling billions of euros). It is argued that consumers will foot the bill for both the construction of the electricity grid (€2 billion) and the renewable energy fee (€3 billion over 20 years), while the theoretical drop in electricity prices will be minimal. Cheaper onshore solutions are preferred.

Insufficient data.

Legislative attention is currently focused on the opposition to a draft bill that aims to accelerate the permitting process for offshore wind farms by merging three separate permits into a single one. The speaker opposes this amendment, arguing that it will result in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) being rushed and consequently rendered insufficient.