By Plenary Sessions: Tiit Maran

The criticism is aimed at the decision-makers who established the 30%/70% targets without thorough discussion, as well as those who have failed to adopt the Environmental Sector Development Plan (KEVAD). The resistance is intense and centers on procedural deficiencies, with the opposing side being accused of unexpectedly and unilaterally imposing the decisions.

The opposition is directed at the government's policies and decision-making processes, particularly regarding the formation of councils and the draft environmental laws. The criticism focuses on procedural deficiencies (criteria for member selection and the exclusion of conflicts of interest) and the impracticality of the policy. The intensity of the attack is strong, demanding explanations as to why certain interest groups have been excluded.

The main opponents are the Ministry of Climate and the Government, who are criticized for failing to approve the strategic development plan and for the lack of transparency in drafting legislation ("behind closed doors," secretly). Criticism is particularly sharp regarding the unfair treatment of landowners and the "endless stalling" in the energy sector. The Minister is also misinformed, as he denies the sharp increase in logging in Natura areas, a claim the speaker corrects by referencing the National Audit Office.

The primary opposition is aimed at the failures of previous governments (specifically, ignoring the Natura assessment since 2004) and the current Ministry of Climate. He/She sharply criticizes the interests and rhetoric of the forestry industry that discredits conservation efforts, and condemns the decisions made by officials and politicians, which have eroded public trust in the state.

The opposition is aimed at the initiators of the legislative amendments, who are criticized for failing to create separate support or an alternative solution for young people. The criticism is policy-based and focuses on the government's inability to prevent young people from having to apply for subsistence benefits.

The criticism is aimed at the political power games and the coalition, which allow substantive proposals to be sidelined if they originate from the opposition. The speaker notes that his proposals, which the ministry initially deemed easily implementable, suddenly became unexpectedly complicated once they were associated with the opposition, suggesting procedural obstruction. He also criticizes the inability of the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government to grasp the significance of the living environment.

The primary criticism is leveled against the minister and the government, who are accused of fostering fatalism and disregarding consumer interests. The criticism is political, focusing on deficiencies in legislative amendments (competition) and regional policy (railway, rural support). The speaker also faults the minister for inconsistencies and contradictions between his earlier and later positions.