Climate Act Works Against Its Own Objectives With Legal Ambiguity

Kaspar Kaljurand, environmental law attorney at law firm Eversheds Sutherland Ots & Co, believes the Climate Act currently awaiting second reading in the Estonian Parliament contradicts its stated goals. The substantive implementation of the Act is delegated to government agencies through legally non-binding roadmaps, which Kaljurand considers unconstitutional. This approach curbs investment rather than stimulating it, contrary to the Act's stated purpose.

The Climate Act currently awaiting second reading in the Estonian Parliament has raised serious legal questions. Kaspar Kaljurand, environmental law attorney at law firm Eversheds Sutherland Ots & Co, contends that the Act-which has cost approximately 400,000 euros to prepare-works against its declared objectives.

Objectives and Reality Diverge

The Climate Act's stated purpose is to ensure legal stability, consistency, and clarity to develop a climate-resilient economy, and to stimulate investment. According to Kaljurand, however, the Act does precisely the opposite: its vague content creates legal uncertainty that dampens business investment.

The core problem lies in the fact that a substantive "empty" law expressed as a political declaration is delegated to government agencies for implementation. These agencies must then create roadmaps that have no legal weight whatsoever. This structure means the Act's actual content remains vague and legally non-binding.

Constitutional Contradiction

Kaljurand points out that this delegation contradicts the Constitution. When the legislature leaves significant legal questions unresolved and transfers them to the executive branch through documents with no normative force, it violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Furthermore, this approach undermines the allocation of responsibility. If roadmaps have no legal binding force, there is no clear accountability for their non-implementation, either for businesses or state authorities.

Investment Suffers

According to Kaljurand, the Act's actual impact on the investment climate is negative. Investors need a clear legal environment where rules are understandable and predictable. A system based on legally non-binding roadmaps cannot provide this, leaving the Act's economic objective unachieved.