A common narrative suggests climate issues are a problem only for younger generations — something distant, something in the future, something we have taken to heart. There is truth in that rhetoric. We are already living amid extreme weather and climate‑driven social problems that will only intensify as political indecision continues. It is now young people's turn to speak up about the Climate‑Resilient Economy Act.

Before discussing what is good or bad in the current draft, we must answer two essential questions: why do we need this law, and for whom?

For whom and for what?

Despite confusing and misleading messages in the climate debate, we need a climate law primarily so society can withstand climate change. We must rapidly mitigate climate change to a level that allows us to adapt to it.

To do this, Estonia must reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration. This inevitably means restrictions that affect the rights of individuals and businesses. Such decisions can only be made through law — which is why we need a climate act.

For whom? Above all, for future generations — those who cannot participate in the debate because they are too young or not yet born. Yes, climate impacts are already here, but young people will live with the consequences far longer than those currently making climate‑policy decisions.

Under the Paris Agreement, nearly all countries committed to achieving climate neutrality by 2050. The average age of members of the Riigikogu's environment committee, which is preparing the bill for its second reading, is around 50. In 2050, when the real effects of their decisions become clear, many will be around 75.

We, however, will be only 46. The burden of these decisions falls largely on the next generation, not on those making them today.

Climate change is already here — in deadly heatwaves^₁, more frequent urban floods², and rising sea levels that threaten islands³. These human‑driven impacts can no longer be fully avoided, but we can prevent them from worsening. That is the responsibility of the Riigikogu.

Intergenerational justice

If emissions are not reduced quickly enough now, future reductions will need to be far faster and far harsher. This means a double burden for future generations: coping with worsening heatwaves, floods, storms and food shortages, while also fulfilling unmet international climate obligations — such as keeping global warming below 1.5°C or achieving climate neutrality by 2050 — which may require even stricter limits on economic activity.

This contradicts the principle of intergenerational justice, which requires today's generation to shape policy in a way that does not undermine future generations' ability to exercise their fundamental rights or live in comparable conditions.

This principle stems from both the Paris Agreement and the preamble of the Estonian Constitution. In 2021, Germany's Constitutional Court ruled parts of Germany's climate law unconstitutional because it placed a disproportionate emissions‑reduction burden on future generations⁴. Estonia should not repeat that mistake.

Climate change already affects young people. Many must study in school buildings that become unbearably hot by June. Such adaptation challenges will only grow.

A climate law — and the process of adopting it — must be based on intergenerational justice. That begins with listening to young people. Yet the current draft seems shaped mainly by a small number of business interest groups that prefer the status quo.

Whose interests?

Criticism of the draft does not come only from young environmental activists. Nearly all stakeholders have raised concerns: opposition parties Isamaa and the Centre Party, former coalition partners the Social Democrats, the Estonian Employers' Confederation, the Estonian University of Life Sciences, the Chancellor of Justice, and many experts and interest groups.

Political feedback has been striking. A recent Delfi article reported that Isamaa and the Center Party abandoned attempts to amend the bill, arguing it is not worth fixing a law no one is satisfied with. Lauri Laats of the Center Party added that negative feedback stems not from climate denial but from the bill's lack of added value. The Social Democrats highlighted the need for sector‑specific emissions‑reduction programs in energy, agriculture and waste management. Reform Party members agreed that the role of the Climate Council should be reconsidered⁶.

The Youth Environmental Council has provided written feedback multiple times during the early drafting phase (2023–2024), held numerous meetings with ministry representatives and ministers, and participated in the climate‑law steering group.

For us, the main goal of the law has always been to limit polluting industries and support a transition to technologies and social systems that drastically reduce emissions so that nature can cope with the remaining climate impacts. Our living environment must also be able to adapt to the impacts already arriving.

The draft prepared by the Ministry of Climate ignores international obligations and fails to deliver effective climate policy.

First, it does not set meaningful emissions‑reduction targets. The goals in the draft do not help Estonia meet its Paris Agreement obligation to contribute proportionally to keeping global warming within 1.5°C. The Supreme Court has also indicated that the Constitution requires this⁷.

The draft's climate targets are even weaker than current ones. This could be fixed by basing targets on Estonia's greenhouse‑gas budget calculated by TalTech researchers⁸. Otherwise, we pass a negative emissions budget to young people.

Second, the actions proposed are not legally binding. The law does not require businesses to do anything. If no one is obligated, no one may meet the targets — offering young people no certainty.

Third, the law lacks sector‑specific emissions‑reduction targets, which the Supreme Court has also said are necessary. Without them, no sector can be required to reduce emissions, leading to costly future legal disputes for environmental permits — paid for by current and future taxpayers. These gaps also violate intergenerational justice.

The minimum needed for survival

A climate law with sufficiently ambitious emissions‑reduction targets is not elite sport, as one former rower‑turned‑politician has claimed. It is the minimum required for survival.

The current Riigikogu must set climate targets in law, because at the present pace the world will exceed 1.5°C of warming by 2030⁹. We must set and meet the necessary targets before then.

In the 2023 elections, a majority of voters supported parties — Reform, Eesti 200, the Social Democrats and the Centre Party — that promised to adopt a climate law.

On behalf of young people, we ask Riigikogu members to consider future generations when drafting the climate law.

In 25 years, today's young people will likely sit in the Riigikogu chamber. We will face the problems that could still be solved today. Our generation will have to decide where to find money to deal with climate damage.

Already, some young people suggest that this money should come from the pensions of today's decision‑makers. Short‑term decisions made for immediate gain may become very costly for those making them now. If they do not consider future generations' rights today, why should we consider theirs later?

The football World Cup has just ended. Voters have passed the ball. For Riigikogu members, the climate law is now in extra time. The ball is at their feet.

The Youth Environmental Council is an advisory body under the Ministry of Climate that represents the environmental interests of young people and youth organizations at both local and international levels. Its goal is to involve young people in environmental discussions and policymaking.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!