Session Profile: Mart Maastik

The political position is strongly opposed to the government's energy policy, which is characterized as panicked and lacking priorities (the "Brown Movement"). The primary focus is opposing the fast-tracked approval of the environmental impact assessment for offshore wind farms, as this threatens quality standards and creates unfair competition for onshore wind farm developers. A clear objective has been lost regarding how to ensure Estonia's necessary electricity production at the best price while minimizing environmental damage. The political platform is results-oriented, highlighting the government's failures (Eesti Energia losses, the shutdown of the Auvere plant).

The speaker demonstrates expertise in renewable energy development, environmental impact assessment (EIA) methodology, and noise regulations. Technical terms such as "infrasound noise," "low-frequency noise," and "resonant frequencies" are employed, emphasizing that current Estonian standards do not account for lower frequency sounds. The expertise relies on citing scientific research and developments occurring worldwide to confirm the seriousness of the concerns.

The rhetorical style is critical, logical, and cautionary, grounded in facts (the special audit of Eesti Energia, the costs of Auvere) and technical concerns (noise regulations). The tone is particularly worried about the health of coastal residents, warning that establishing industrial parks without sufficient studies would amount to "human experimentation." The speaker uses the metaphor of "Brownian motion" to characterize the government's activities.

The speaker recently met with developers of onshore wind farms, signaling active engagement with economic stakeholders. They also referenced the appeal submitted by the Saare Coastal People's Society, demonstrating that the concerns of local communities are being incorporated into the work of the Riigikogu.

The main opponent is the government and the Riigikogu coalition, who are being criticized for their ineffective energy policy and the selective reduction of bureaucracy. The criticism is procedural (why is the Environmental Impact Assessment for only offshore wind farms being fast-tracked?) and political (unclear objectives and a lack of understanding). The opposition is intense because the government’s actions are considered potentially detrimental to health and dishonest.

Insufficient data.

A strong regional focus is currently on Saaremaa, where the concerns of the Saare Coastal People's Society are being highlighted regarding the impact of the proposed offshore wind farm. Specifically, emphasis is placed on ensuring the continued physical viability of living in the coastal areas, which are situated just 11 kilometers from the industrial park.

The speaker supports the reduction of bureaucracy but demands its implementation across every sector, not just selectively regarding wind parks. Concern is expressed over unfair competition, given that offshore wind energy production is subsidized and provided with special conditions, while onshore wind farm developers might as well throw their investments in the bin.

The primary social concern revolves around the health and quality of life of residents in coastal areas, which is being jeopardized by the low-frequency and infrasound noise generated by offshore wind turbines. There is a demand that developers cease using people as test subjects and that up-to-date noise regulations be implemented to protect the health of both humans and animals.

Legislative attention is currently focused on opposing the draft bill concerning the acceleration of the environmental impact assessment process for offshore wind farms. The speaker proposes not supporting the bill, demanding a reduction in bureaucracy across all sectors and the preservation of EIA quality.