Summary
Denmark will convert 15% of its farmland into forests and natural habitats over the next 20 years to combat fertilizer runoff, which has caused severe oxygen depletion in Danish waters and marine life loss.
The $6.1 billion plan includes planting 1 billion trees and acquiring farmland, addressing emissions from agriculture, Denmark’s largest greenhouse gas source.
The initiative supports Denmark’s 2030 goal to cut emissions by 70% from 1990 levels and makes it the first country to impose a carbon tax on agriculture under its Green Tripartite agreement.
I think Schleswig-Holstein should applaud and aid that initiative of our brothers in the north, we can offer a decent amount of wild pigs to populate those forests.
Be aware though that this is probably a ploy to have enough wood for a proper fleet to re-take Skåne.
So rather than finding alternatives they are just outsourcing the pollution? How environmental of them.
Denmark is primarily an agricultural exporter. They produce more than they use domestically
We already have solutions, they are largely not technological, but in changing what we consume and produce. Animal products produce substantially worse results compared to any plant-based foods across virtually every metric. Technological solutions don’t move the needle much as even worst case production of plants comes out ahead of the best case production of animal products
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives?The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
Denmark doesn’t really produce beef, they’re all into pork.
Lamb and mutton production is going to continue all over Jutland no matter what you do we need sheep to mow the dikes. One long pasture all around the peninsula.
The article was using beef and lamb as an example. It holds across much more than those
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
If you want a lower-carbon diet, eating less meat is nearly always better than eating the most sustainable meat.
once again poore-nemecek is infecting the discourse with bad science
Have they specified the type of farmland being converted?
The land owners are expected to voluntary allocate the areas, allowing them to keep the land best suited for their production. However, due to biodiversity requirements, they can’t just choose only wetlands. So, nobody knows right now.
In 2023 the municipalities made the following map of potential areas. The green is existing classified forest. The yellow are potential areas.
I didn’t realize they had so few existing forrests.
It’s worth noting the deal also specifically increases taxes for animal agriculture above a certain size/emission threshold
For farmland type, they are specifying low-lying soils as primary targets. Low lying soil specifically because reforestation/rewilding can have higher impact
Another important thing to note is that a large amount of farmland is used for feedcrop production in general around the world. For instance, around 90% of Denmark’s cereal crop production goes to animal feed
What does that mean
It means that they’re not going to stop eating the food this farmland was producing, so it’s gotta come from somewhere.
