Roheleppe eesmärgid seavad otsustajad valikute ette. Fookuses on metsandus mitte tuulepargid!

Taavi Veskimägi roheplaanist The green Deal goals focus on trees, N OT windmills!

Taavi Veskimägi roheplaanist: saastekvoodid jõuavad energiast edasi teistesse sektoritesse

Loe pikemalt Äripäeva veebist:

The green Deal goals of Estonian should be met using trees, NOT windmills!

A call for an national discussion on industrial forest felling to get the Green deal done smarter.

The Forest Strategy must support people, nature, and the climate. Not bow for industry power. The green deal (C02 targets) makes the people pay for industrial forestry. Before discussing windmills, Estonia better discusses forest felling first! That matters more for the Green deal we argue below.

We can’t fight climate change by chopping down trees to burn them  so renewables rules that encourage this are not fit for purpose. Even the best sustainability criteria in the EU hasn’t kept forest destruction out of energy production. The EU must stop counting wood straight from the forest towards renewables targets, and national governments must stop subsidising this destruction.

Forest cover by land area is a global indicator of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as an EU-SDG indicator. Read. 21 July 2021. European Green Deal: Commission proposes new strategy to protect and restore EU forests.

Forestry as effective means for global carbon emissions.

IPCC also took cognisance of land use, soil management.

EU views forests are an essential ally in the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss thanks to their function as carbon sinks as well as their ability to reduce the impacts of climate change

Estonian forestries are powerful. Often in foreign hands. Many of our protected areas in Estonia are under growing pressure from logging interests, for example.

To achieve the climate goals easy Estonia must keep its forests. The forests are mostly in private hands. A new law to protect forests can stop all that. A battle with a few powerful aristocrat rich industrial landowners is ahead. The people of Estonia can reduce the cost of the Green deal by protecting and managing the forests smarter we explain.

The European Union does not have a common forestry policy. Forestry policy, therefore, remains primarily a national competence. Are some countries making a mistake? After the green deal C02 capture matters more than the value of wood.


A birch forest captures 700 kg C02 per hectare. A pine forest captures 1600 kg per hectare. Here is the link to the research paper. Exact numbers are depending on temperature, soil, and even long needles where each factor can change the number by 50%. For our rule of thumb calculations, a cautious average will do. More research is needed. (always ???? ) Here is the article.

An number example: Cars linked to trees and C02.

The EU CO2 car emission number is aprox. 0,1 KG C02. a KM. You could say that one hectare compensates for driving 16000 km neutral. Maybe double, because EU demands only a 55 % reduction of C02 emissions.

Conclusion. On the average each Estonian stands for 2 Hectare of land. A factor 100 times the rest of the EU. Let the rest of the EU build windmills and take all the measures. Estonina is gifted by larges forests. It’s EU own fault to fell their forest ones. Maybe plant them back? Read. 21 july 2021. European Green Deal: Commission proposes new strategy to protect and restore EU forests.

Major point is that the Forests play a significant role in helping to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. EU forests absorb 417 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, which corresponds to around 9% of total GHG emissions (4 450 m tonnes).

The forest industry Increased harvesting and clear cuts mean that Europe’s forests are absorbing 15 per cent less carbon dioxide than they were 20 years ago. That means that forest felling in countries like Estonia is responsible for more C02 in the atmoshpere than the average industrial activity.

Please take a look at this 2021 forest strategy letter and ask some questions like: Can anyone explain to me why Sweden and Finland absorbs so much more than Estonia in this EU data? Guess it’s private versus public forest….Do have Estoninas now have to pay for that? Estonina must do some serious calculations on C02 before buying windmills. Before we also discussed that in Estonia there are many factor less wind to show that the economic picture is not made and not healty.

Again you see you cannot copy ideas and strategies from Brussels to Estonia easily. In the case of the forest, Estonian people might end up rich 😉 Can Estonia discuss what’s just, right, and responsible for all? Please keep in mind that most Estonian forests got into the hands of foreign companies after rough independence and years of though banking colonization. Maybe even pay the forest landowners, to open the hard dialog. But keep in mind that most once noble rich forest landowners in the EU have not more than a cost to maintain the forest they hardly can exploit. Owning a forest becomes like owning an historical monument. Can Estonia have a temporary halt on extreme forest feelings going on now?

Art. 5 of the The Constitution of the Republic of the people of Estonia tells us “The natural wealth and resources of Estonia are national riches which must be used economically.” For the people that means that we need low Green deal costs.

The task of the prime minister is to defend the constitution. The parliament should make the best policies on the green deal. A national Green Deal debate is needed.

Here a newspaper that tells that the energy sector is not the solution for matching Green policies. Taavi Veskimägi on the green plan: emission allowances will be transferred from energy to other sectors.

Loe pikemalt Äripäeva veebist:

Elering Taavi Veskimägi roheplaanist: saastekvoodid jõuavad energiast edasi teistesse sektoritesse

Loe pikemalt Äripäeva veebist:
Elering Taavi Veskimägi roheplaanist: saastekvoodid jõuavad energiast edasi teistesse sektoritesse Loe pikemalt Äripäeva veebist: