In a statement to Euronews, Fridays for Future Estonia argued that the world is currently in "a climate emergency" and that "every action a country takes should be made in accordance with that knowledge, because the actions taken right now have a life-or-death consequence." "Construction of the new oil shale plant is in direct opposition to moving towards a sustainable future where our lifestyle does not exceed the Earth’s limits," it added. It also flagged that "Estonia is currently on track to miss the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set for 2030 in the national development agendas – a course which is incompatible with Estonia’s obligations under the Paris Agreement." 

Ninety public figures have also signed an open letter to the government calling for the plant's building permit to be revoked and for public funding to be withdrawn. "The investment is in direct contravention of the European Union's climate protection strategy, even though Prime Minister Jüri Ratas has publicly promised to invest in mitigating climate change," they wrote. "The construction of the new oil plant violates section five of the constitution, according to which Estonia's natural resources constitute national wealth that needs to be used sparingly. The construction of an oil plant clashes with sustainable development goals and obligations pursuant to the Paris Agreement, inevitably raising the question of why invest in yesterday," they added. 

Shale oil is produced by heating oil shale rock fragments to convert the organic matter within the rock into synthetic oil and gas. It is one of the dirtiest oils because production typically leads to more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than conventional oil extraction. It can also require a huge amount of water to produce and generates a lot more waste material which then needs to be disposed of. 

Estonia had the second-highest GHG emission per capita in the EU in 2017 after Luxembourg, according to Eurostat. The latest report from the Ministry of the Environment states that emissions of carbon dioxide decreased by nearly 50 per cent between 1990 and 2017. The report also reveals that the energy sector is by far the country's largest producer of GHG emissions, accounting for 88.76 per cent of all emissions in 2017, adding that "since 2009 the GHG emissions are strongly related to the volume of exported electricity that is mainly produced from oil shale" [1].

In May 2020, various groups complained about Estonian plans to the EU Commission.  "The Estonian government's decision to invest taxpayers' money in the high-risk sector is unacceptable and contradicts EU goals, particularly with the present great need to use resources for resolving economic bottlenecks caused by COVID-19 and for ensuring a green transition," said  Elif Gunduzyeli, senior policy coordinator at Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-E), one of the signatories of the inquiry. The organizations requested an assessment from the European Commission regarding said contradictions as well as inquiring about specific measures the European Commission plans to implement to ensure that Estonia or other member states potentially receiving funds from the JTF will not use states' own resources or mechanisms to support contradicting goals. Signatories to the inquiry include the Estonian Fund for Nature, the Estonian Green Movement, the Estonian Environmental Law Center, CAN-E, CEE Bankwatch Network and numerous other organizations [5].

The background is as follows. After World War II, Estonian oil shale gas was used in Saint Petersburg (then called Leningrad) and in northern cities in Estonia as a substitute for natural gas. Increased need for electricity in the north-west of the Soviet Union led to the construction of large oil shale-fired power stations. Oil shale extraction peaked in 1980. Subsequently, the launch of nuclear reactors in Russia, particularly the Leningrad Nuclear Power Station, reduced demand for electricity produced from oil shale, and, along with a post-Soviet restructuring of the industry in the 1990s, led to a decrease in oil shale mining. After decreasing for two decades, oil shale mining started to increase again at the beginning of the 21st century. 

Research on the issues is being done by the Carbon Intensive Regions in Transition project – CINTRAN. “It is often thought that only the environment and economic impacts should be considered when dealing with climate change issues. However, it is equally important to consider social, cultural, demographic and political factors,” Annela Anger-Kraavi, a Cambridge University climate scientist, told Estonian World. Indeed, Ida-Viru County borders Russia and 73% of its inhabitants are ethnic Russians. Massive unemployment in the county could potentially cause political instability [4].

While the EU is providing funds (340 M€) in 2021 for a "just transition" away from shale oil, an audit commissioned by the Estonian Chemical Industry Association showed that shale oil production would bring Estonia €8 billion in wealth over the next 20 years. This figure does not include of course the environmental and healh costs.