Climate Law Bill Left Too Vague – Businesses and Greens Agree

At a Riigikogu special committee meeting, both business representatives and environmentalists found the climate law bill too general and unhelpful to either side. Specific regulations, targets, and cost-benefit analyses should be written into the law itself, not into roadmaps.

At a Riigikogu special committee meeting, the climate law bill drew criticism from both businesses and environmentalists – a rare situation where two typically opposing camps share the same concern. Representatives of both interest groups stressed that in its current form, the bill serves neither side.

The central criticism concerns the fact that the bill leaves essential regulations, specific targets, and cost-benefit analyses to so-called roadmaps rather than the text of the law itself. This leaves binding obligations hanging in the air with no clear guidance on how to fulfill them or who is responsible.

Holm: Regulations must be in the law

At the committee meeting, Holm pointed out that restrictions can only be set in law, not in roadmaps. Roadmaps are political documents without legal force – which means neither businesses can rely on them when making investment decisions nor citizens can use them to protect their rights.

According to business representatives, vague regulation is a major problem from an economic planning perspective. Without specific regulations, companies cannot assess future obligations or make long-term investment decisions. Environmentalists, for their part, worry that without binding provisions in the law, climate targets may go unmet.

The Bill Needs Substantial Review

Criticism from both sides indicates that the climate law bill requires a thorough substantive review before adoption. The law should create a clear legal framework that state institutions, businesses, and civil society organizations can rely on – and should not delegate central questions to roadmaps that lack binding force.