Kertu Birgit Anton: climate law bill is not worthy of the law

Kertu Birgit Anton criticises the climate-resilient economy bill, arguing that it has been based on business interests rather than on the genuine need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more rapidly. In her view, the bill in its current form is not worthy of the law.

Estonia's climate-resilient economy bill has sparked heated debate – the question is not merely how ambitious Estonia's climate goals should be, but also whose interests the legislature should actually protect. Opinion writer Kertu Birgit Anton believes that those who drafted the bill have made the wrong choice.

Anton argues that the bill has not been based on the seriousness of the climate crisis or on the science-based need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. Instead, in her view, the drafters have primarily taken into account the readiness – or lack thereof – of the loudest business voices to make their operations sustainable. In practice, such an approach means that the bill sets targets according to the current comfort zone, not future needs.

The climate-resilient economy bill is one of the most important environmental legislation being considered in Estonia at present. The law should establish a framework by which Estonia's economy gradually becomes carbon-neutral and set binding targets for both the state and businesses.

Criticism of the bill has also been raised by several environmental organisations, who believe that the timelines and measures envisaged in the draft do not align with the requirements of the Paris Climate Agreement or the goals of the EU Green Deal. Anton supports the view that truly ambitious climate legislation should provoke resistance even among those who are not ready for rapid change – and the relatively little criticism of the current bill is a rather worrying sign.

Anton calls on lawmakers to thoroughly review the bill and place the conclusions of climate science and long-term public interest ahead of narrow business convenience. According to her, the law should be a document that drives change, not one that impedes it.