By Bjarke Møller|2025-05-16T14:19:36+01:0016 May 2025|Uncategorized @da|Comments closed to Annual Report 2024
General Assembly of the Green Transition Denmark
Place: The hall in Kulturhus Indre By, Charlotte Ammundsens Plads 3, 1359 Copenhagen
Agenda:
1. Choice of conductor
2. Approval of the board's report
3. Approval of accounts, budget and quota
4. Proposals received
5. Election to the board of directors
6. Election of auditor
7. Optionally
Access only for paying members.
The time when the fossil supremacy of the world topples has moved much closer
Bill Clinton once said "It's the economy, stupid", but it would probably be more accurate to say: "It's the energy, stupid!"
Because when Donald Trump gave his victory speech on election night, he said "leave the oil to me". One of his main messages during the presidential election campaign was "Drill, baby, drill". He is completely indifferent to global climate change. He will extract more. Burn off more. Even if it burns the globe.
With Trump in power, the USA will - again - opt out of the UN climate agreement from Paris. And fuel extra under the fossil energy. That shouldn't be surprising. The USA is today the world's number one fossil superpower. It is the country that extracts the absolute most oil (20 per cent of the world's oil production) and the most gas and LNG gas. A large part of American power, prosperity and competitiveness rests on enormous amounts of fossil energy.
Trump is not alone. Putin has also built his power on fossil energy. For a number of years he made Germany deeply dependent on the continuous supplies of cheap Russian gas. It was part of a geopolitical game for dominance. He started the war when the EU countries were very vulnerable and got 45 per cent. of its gas from Russia.
Fossil energy finances authoritarian regimes
The invasion of Ukraine and the bloody war have changed all equations in German and European politics. Because the war triggered an energy crisis in 2022 that led to increased inflation. It shook the European economies. As during the energy crises of the 1970s, which also created higher inflation, energy can shake and topple governments. Citizens' anger increases with energy prices, which make more and more goods more expensive. Because the goods have large amounts of embedded energy. This also applies to our food. Because industrialized agriculture uses so much artificial fertiliser, pesticides and diesel-powered machinery, 655 liters of diesel oil are used each year to produce a Dane's food.
Two-thirds of the EU countries' gross energy consumption is fossil energy, which is imported for DKK 390 billion. euros per year. This corresponds to 2,7 per cent. of the gross domestic product. And it is also more than the EU countries spend on defence. But then 18 per cent. of the EU countries' gas – despite a string of energy embargoes – still comes from Russia, the money is used to wage war for. It harms our security. It is high time to wake up to the harsh geopolitical reality: As long as we in Europe do not free ourselves from fossil dependence, it is our strategic Achilles' heel. The import of fossil energy funds authoritarian regimes to the east, which threaten our security. We are gambling with our future if we do not quickly free ourselves from fossil fuels.
Power the green energy revolution
Fortunately, there is a solution to the challenge!
Through a targeted and ambitious climate and energy policy, it is possible for the EU countries to completely free themselves from fossil energy within fifteen years. For 95-100 per cent. of the technological solutions already exist. Solar and wind energy are today cheaper than fossils in terms of lifetime costs, and like batteries, they fall rapidly in price. Sales of electric cars have increased significantly, and from area to area the battery revolution is taking hold. It is now realistic to build an electric society that is run by 100 per cent. green power.
We are in a global race towards ever lower marginal costs of energy. It is a green energy revolution driven by rapidly falling prices for solar, wind and batteries. The time when the fossil supremacy of the world topples has moved much closer.
Energy is key to governments' dominance and ability to deliver prosperity. And when it becomes more expensive, inflation, increased social uncertainty, unemployment and stagnation follow. The latter can bring down governments. Anker Jørgensen, Jimmy Carter and many others experienced it. The same could be the fate of Olaf Scholz in Germany next year. Energy is the big X-factor in economics and politics.
China has long since understood how important it is to free itself from the import of the fossil energy that makes the country dependent on foreign powers. Since the financial crisis in 2007/8, the Chinese state has invested massively in scaling up green energy technologies and electrifying society at lightning speed. They are today the world's leading nation in solar cells, batteries and electric cars, and if the EU countries do not wake up soon, the Chinese will also achieve a dominant position in the wind turbine and heat pump industry. We were once Europe's frontrunners in solar cells, but the governments pursued a market liberal policy and after the financial crisis they chose the austerity way out of the crisis. Instead, as China, we could have invested strategically in the industries that will create our future competitiveness. It is high time to wake up to the new economic and geopolitical realities. It's the energy, stupid!
Strategic industrial policy is the key
In Europe, we should pursue a proactive strategic industrial policy, where we purposefully use the state and take out loans to scale up the green industries and technologies that will free us from fossil dependence. It requires a Copernican turn in economic thinking. If the EU got more of its own resources – and e.g. all the money from the carbon trading – the community could take out cheap loans to accelerate the green industrial revolution. But there is still some resistance.
Mainstream economists imagine that it is primarily labor and technology that drive productivity up. In their productivity equation and economic models, energy still plays a relatively marginal role. But historically and over a long period of time, there is almost a 1-1 correlation between the amount of energy that is crammed into the economy and the increase in wealth that is created in society.
Energy is key to governments' dominance and ability to deliver prosperity. And when it becomes more expensive, inflation, increased social uncertainty, unemployment and stagnation follow. The latter can bring down governments. Anker Jørgensen, Jimmy Carter and many others experienced it. The same could be the fate of Olaf Scholz in Germany next year
Energy is the big X-factor in economics and politics. Because as the economist Steve Keen has said: "A person without energy is a corpse, and a machine without energy is a sculpture." Instead of seeing energy as a luxury that is taken for granted, we should understand it as the first and decisive prerequisite for prosperity, well-being and productivity. But what energy should it be? The answer to this question should be the highest priority for all ministers of state and finance in the EU.
EU countries burn 3,8 billion barrels of oil per year, and if the energy content is converted into human working years, it corresponds to 17,1 billion people working 24 hours every day of the year. Denmark is also heavily dependent on fossil fuels. As much as 68 per cent gross energy consumption in the entire Danish economy (including our international transport and activities abroad) is still fossil fuel, and that percentage has been fairly stable since 1968!
Within the framework of the Danish nation-state, 53 per cent of fossil energy consumption. Although clean renewable energy sources have grown significantly, only 13 per cent originate from of our gross energy consumption from solar and wind energy, heat pumps, geothermal energy and hydropower. At best, we have only moved one-sixth of the green transition away from fossils. Less than a fifth of Denmark's energy consumption is electrified. Electrification has stalled and its share of energy consumption has not increased in the last twenty years.
When does Wammen wake up to deed?
Purely in terms of climate and in relation to air pollution, there are only strong arguments for freeing ourselves from fossil fuels. It is essential to solve the climate crisis, where 90 per cent of global CO2 emissions comes from the burning of oil, gas and coal.
But the Danish Energy Agency expects that in 2024 approx. 26 million barrels in the Danish part of the North Sea, and new fields are being opened because the government does not yet dare to confront the fossil burning community. Is it because the Danish economy is still driven forward by the energy from 120 million barrels of oil? Converted to human labor, this corresponds to DKK 540 million. working year.
Organizationally and mentally, it is a huge task to move from a fossil burning society and then create a climate-positive society that is powered by clean renewable energy and green electricity. Many find it difficult to imagine that it could be any different.
Some are desperately clamoring for nuclear power as a quick fix, even though it takes over a decade to build new nuclear power plants, and in terms of lifetime costs, a-power is significantly more expensive than solar and wind energy, even when backed by batteries.
From a purely economic point of view, there are only good arguments for boosting the green transition. In the global fossil energy system, fully two-thirds of all energy is wasted before it reaches the end users and makes real use in the form of work and services. When will Finance Minister Nicolaj Wammen recognize that much greater productivity gains can be reaped by electrifying all sectors of society and phasing out fossil fuels than by screwing up the labor supply or removing St. Prayer day? The obsession with creating a slightly larger labor supply is equivalent to squeezing the lemons at a tea party on top of the Titanic, which is sailing on fossil energy.
Unfortunately, the finance ministers are still holding their hand under the fossil waste economy. According to The IMF amounts to over DKK 7000 billion in direct and indirect state subsidies for fossil fuels globally. dollar per year or around 7 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the world's countries. Without government support, oil, gas and coal will be outcompeted on the market. In the EU countries, the fossils get more than 150 billion. euros in direct and indirect subsidies, if you include the value of tax credits and free allowances. It is organized stupidity that increases both citizens' energy bills and future climate bills.
Clean energy strengthens our competitiveness
There are no longer economic arguments for clinging to the dirty energy of the past. The prices of solar energy and batteries have fallen by over 80 per cent. in the last decade, and offshore wind has fallen by 73 per cent. Today, 56 per cent of electricity is produced from solar cells. cheaper than fossil energy, and onshore wind is 67 per cent. cheaper. It is high time to fully join the green energy race.
All forms of state support for fossil energy should be removed and channeled over to clean energy sources and green power. In Denmark, the fossil state subsidy was DKK 3,6 billion. DKK in 2022 – i.a. because energy-intensive companies and agriculture get large tax deductions when they burn fossil energy. This is almost double what the government will give in total support for solar and wind energy and heat pumps in the entire period from 2022-28! We have to go another way. The fossil subsidies should go completely, because they damage the climate and increase the total energy and climate bill.
We must go all-in on the cheaper renewable energy, also for the sake of future competitiveness. The Draghi report on Europe's competitiveness has shown that a key reason why European companies struggle to compete is that they pay 2-3 times as much for their electricity as their Chinese and American competitors. The best solution is to speed up the decarbonisation of the economy, as the Draghi report points out. We also have to in Denmark.
There is a good green alternative
Green Transition Denmark (RGO) has produced a report that shows that if Denmark increases its production of solar and wind energy ninefold and electrifies much faster road transport, heat supply and industry, we can completely free ourselves from all fossil fuels in 2040 The plan can cut 80 per cent. of Denmark's CO2e emissions in 2030, 90 per cent in 2035 and then reach 100 per cent. reduction in fifteen years. We must also invest much more in afforestation and biodiversity, and our calculations even show that it is a very good investment from a socio-economic point of view to establish a full 320.000 hectares of new forest by 2040 – i.e. more and faster than in the green tripartite.
The report - Clean energy within planetary boundaries in 2040 - shows that with this strategy Denmark can save as much as 2040 million by 207. tons of CO2 more than the government's climate policy. This is equivalent to shaving off five years of greenhouse gas emissions. It has a climate value of DKK 267 billion. DKK, if you calculate based on the Ministry of Finance's expected CO2 price in 2040.
We can also solve three major challenges that are often ignored in Danish climate policy: A) Phasing out the climate-damaging burning of solid wood biomass. B) Decarbonisation of our international air and shipping. C) Strong reduction of the embedded CO2 in all sectors' fossil consumption via a more circular economy.
We must electrify everything that can be connected to green electricity, because it is far more efficient in terms of energy than burning with fossil energy and wood biomass. Electric motors are 3-4 times more efficient than combustion engines. Heat pumps are 3-4 times more efficient than gas boilers. Denmark should be committed to the electrification of all sectors. During next year's Danish EU presidency, we should quickly scale up these solutions throughout Europe. We should waste less time and less money on expensive distractions with CO2 capture, pyrolysis or green hydrogen for industries where it is better to electrify. Virtually the entire industry can be electrified and it will be good business. The future is electric, and it is much more efficient and cheaper to electrify most of our economy than to continue to depend on fossil fuels that harm the climate. And green hydrogen must be produced with renewable energy in local industrial clusters and used in moderation to make e-fuels for aviation and shipping or fossil-free fertiliser.
For the past hundreds of years, Denmark has been a combustion society, where we first got our energy from burning down all the country's forests, and then we burned millions of tons of fossil energy a year to keep the wheels going. But the combustion society has caused climate change to accelerate dramatically, and it is high time to embrace 21st century green and electric solutions.
This is a chronicle by director Bjarke Møller, which was published in Dagbladet Politiken on 18 December 2024.
The lack of offshore wind bids in the North Sea has shaken the government and Denmark's green transition
There were no bids for the large offshore wind supply in the North Sea. Zero. What causes it?
It depends, among other things, on together with the fact that great uncertainty has been created in the market due to the government's stop-and-go policy of the past year: Last year, the open-door scheme was abruptly shut down, which gave wind turbine companies the opportunity to set up offshore wind after a first-come, first-served principle, thus closing the door to 23 GW of additional offshore wind and creating new uncertainty in the market. Since then, new requirements were set for state co-ownership, tighter delivery times and lengthy mapping, which weakened the supply as a business case. Yes, there have also been additional costs in the wind turbine market, which since 2022 has struggled with increasing inflation throughout the value chain, but it is getting under control.
Last year, the German state received a total bid of DKK 94 billion. DKK from companies that want to set up 7 GW of offshore wind in the Baltic Sea, so if we had approached the process like the Germans and stuck to a reformed open-door system, instead of delaying and bureaucratizing the tender, Climate Minister Lars Aagaard would hardly stand around inventing bad excuses now. It is deeply disappointing that the Danish offshore wind adventure has come to a standstill. It damages the wind turbine industry, and the politicians should have red ears.
Lobbyists in the industry and the hydrogen business now claim that the companies cannot get finance in the wind projects because there is no clarity about the hydrogen pipeline to Germany. They are therefore pushing to get the state to put its hand on the stove here and provide money or state loan guarantees to build an expensive new hydrogen infrastructure. They do this because the green hydrogen produced in electrolysis plants will swallow large amounts of green electricity from the sea wind.
Havvinden's business cases cannot be fixed with a hydrogen tube
But the equation hardly holds. In reality, it is very uncertain that a good business case can be created for exporting large quantities of green hydrogen with a hydrogen pipe to Germany and spending up to DKK 130 billion. DKK over 15-20 years to build a new hydrogen infrastructure across the border. And there are several reasons for this:
Firstly: Green hydrogen cannot compete with direct electrification because there are large conversion losses compared to the technological alternatives powered by direct green electricity. Even a number of the heavy and energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum and steel, appear to be electrified, and up to 92-98 per cent. of Europe's industry can be powered by green electricity. Even innovative cement factories are on the move. We will see a price race between direct electricity and hydrogen, with the latter losing out. If nations invest in building large, heavy hydrogen economies and a heavy hydrogen gas infrastructure, they will be crushed in the global competition by the nations that, among other things, China puts green power into the economy.
Secondly: Hydrogen should be used sparingly and to a limited extent. We will need green hydrogen to produce the next generation of e-fuels for air and long-distance shipping, for e-fertilizers and the chemical industry. When you produce these green fuels with green electricity, it effectively corresponds to an indirect electrification of air and maritime transport, which can eliminate fossil fuels. But green hydrogen is very expensive to produce, and i.a. therefore, it should not be used in road transport and in the heating sector, because here the electrical solutions, which are much cheaper, win
Thirdly: Price always makes a difference. Green hydrogen is several times more expensive than fossil hydrogen, so it can only manage on the market with heavy government support if much higher CO2 taxes are introduced or the EU makes even tougher displacement requirements.
Fourthly: Competitive pressure challenges the business case for exporting green hydrogen. Although Denmark has enormous wind resources in the North Sea, green hydrogen from Denmark can hardly compete with the price of green hydrogen from Spain, France and North Africa, which not only have large amounts of wind energy, but are also enriched with much larger solar resources. Several analyzes show that green hydrogen from Denmark can be more expensive than, for example, green hydrogen from Spain, Polish onshore wind or Dutch offshore, and the Germans are hardly so stupid that they will buy more expensive hydrogen from Denmark if they can get it cheaper from other countries ?
Fifth: Localization is best. Global hydrogen production today is highly localized because it is both expensive, difficult and risky to transport hydrogen over long distances. It is the world's smallest molecule, and the risk of leakage – with fatal climate effects and major health risks – is significant. It takes three times as much energy to transport hydrogen as gas, and over a 30-year period, according to energy expert Paul Martin lose at least 10 times as much energy by transporting hydrogen over long distances as by sending green electricity through high-voltage lines.
Sixth: The German chemical industry is expected to demand a lot of green hydrogen in the future, but the problem for the Danish offshore business case is that land-based solar and wind in Germany are cheaper in lifetime costs than Danish offshore wind. The Danish state should not waste money on a hydrogen pipeline across the border to service the German chemical industry or Dutch refineries, because there does not seem to be a solid market pull or a sensible business case for it. Also in the future, it will be more cost-effective for the Germans and the Dutch to set up more wind turbines and solar cell systems - what they currently does at a much faster pace than Denmark – and then produces the green hydrogen locally where it is to be used. Likewise with Denmark.
Seventh: We need more green hydrogen in Denmark, so don't export the molecules. In the Green Transition Denmark's climate and energy plan for a fossil-free Denmark in 2040, we propose that more green hydrogen must be produced in Denmark, but that it must be used to locally produce e-fertilizer and e-fuels for the ships and aircraft on the long distances that bunker energy in Denmark. Highly localized industrial clusters should be built – e.g. in Esbjerg, Åbenrå and a few other places - where local production of both renewable energy and e-fuels can be scaled up in strong industrial clusters. It will also ensure more Danish jobs and more green value creation in areas that may otherwise be challenged by emigration to the larger cities. Calculations carried out by EA Energy Analysis for RGO show that in 2040, Denmark must produce approximately 90 petajoules of green e-fuels in order to decarbonize Danish ships and planes abroad. At the same time, the advantage is that it is much easier and cheaper to export e-fuels than the raw hydrogen molecules, if the demand is there in the market.
How to solve it: Put turbo on the electrification
So how to create a better business case for more offshore wind in Denmark? There is another, faster and more direct way than hydrogen to create increased demand for green electricity, and that is the direct electrification of all sectors. That transition should be accelerated, and here the politicians can make a big difference with forward-looking regulations.
Only 19 per cent of Danish society is electrified today, and that electrification has been stalled for the last two decades. One of the reasons see i.a. appears to be that green electricity has paid higher taxes, charges and grid tariffs than fossil fuels - at least if the latest figures published by European Energy are to be believed. Another reason is that massive government support has been given to the burning of wood biomass and biogas, which prolongs the combustion society. In this decade alone, over 30 billion is given. DKK in state support for biogas, and from 2022 to 2029 biomass burning will receive almost DKK 5 billion. DKK in direct state aid. That form of state support distorts the market in favor of combustion energy at the expense of the green power from renewable energy. And that delays the electrification of Danish society.
More than half of Denmark's energy consumption is still fossil, and if you add heating biogas and biomass, it is still up to 87 per cent. of all energy in Denmark that is burned. Only 13 per cent comes from completely clean energy solutions such as solar and wind energy, geothermal energy, hydropower and heat pumps. In the future, Denmark's fossil energy consumption and power plants should be electrified, which is also more efficient, as large energy losses are avoided in the process. In rough figures, it will require us to use three times as much green electricity in the future if we are to convert the existing fossil and biomass consumption into electricity. If this Danish electricity consumption is to be covered by offshore wind alone, one can safely list the 23 GW of offshore wind that was already in the open-door pipeline, which the government unfortunately slammed the door on.
The timing is important, and the expansion will realistically take place in several stages. The large energy islands in the North Sea and Bornholm have now been postponed because the project economics have become enormously expensive. There is no reason to cry about that. The construction does not fit together. The state does not have to pay for the expansion with offshore wind. Instead, you can choose a market-based development without requirements for state co-ownership and create a new model for profit sharing. Instead of running strict retail management on the part of the Danish Energy Agency, we can allow the developers of the renewable energy to bid themselves with the solutions in relation to capacity, net coupling and turbine density, as long as they meet set requirements for the environment and biodiversity. It is a new kind of open-door model, and Germany has shown the way, and they have received the European Commission's acceptance that it is also within the competition rules.
The wind developers must have a business case, and here the politicians have a very important role. It is not enough to make airy and hopeful future promises from Esbjerg to Marienborg. You also have to do your homework. Here, it is urgent above all to speed up the electrification of Danish society, so that the demand for green electricity increases in the coming years. We need to get out of the current stalemate. Politicians can start by removing all fossil subsidies, introducing a climate tax on wood biomass, lowering electricity taxes more and letting the state co-finance part of the electricity grid – as is also done in Germany. And then you should quickly clean up all the crooked support schemes that today massively favor the burning of wood biomass and biogas at the expense of solar and wind energy, heat pumps, geothermal energy and energy storage. And the double taxation of batteries should be removed, so that it becomes attractive to invest in future energy storage on batteries.
Far-sighted and proactive regulation is needed. You can, for example, adopt a 2035 end date for piped gas to households with gas boilers, and now ban the sale of new oil and gas boilers. Biogas can be used better and provides higher value if, for example, it is used to produce the next generation of e-fuels in aviation. The gas must not be burned off in people's households, because there are good alternatives in district heating and heat pumps. You should also ban the sale of new fossil-fuel cars from 2025/26 or put extra high penalty charges on new fossil-fuel cars so that they are priced out of the market completely. Preferably quickly.
A 100 percent electrification of road transport will, according to RGO's calculations require approximately 18-20 TWh, and according to figures from EA Energianalyse, electrifying road transport towards 2040 is a profitable private business. If the state subsidy for biomass is removed, and a climate tax is introduced on biomass burning, it can boost the electrification of the heating sector. Thus, industrial heat pumps and electric boilers, powered by clean solar and wind energy, will have a fairer competitive situation, which is only fair, as they are clean green heating solutions. A faster electrification of the heating sector, industry, road transport plus agricultural and construction machinery can increase the demand for green power in the coming years, and thus provide a better business case for the developers who want to set up solar cell systems or wind turbines on land and at sea. It is high time that the politicians took action in this toolbox.
Add green power to Denmark's competitiveness
The direct electrification of these sectors will be economically advantageous and strengthen Denmark's competitiveness. Green electricity produced with solar and wind is already cheaper than fossil energy, and it is a unique opportunity that Danish politicians should not let go to waste.
Electrification of all sectors in Denmark is actually much more important than betting on hydrogen export via a hydrogen pipe, for which the industry's lobbyists want the state's help. Towards 2035, there may not be more than 4-6 GW of green hydrogen production in Denmark. Perhaps Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and other players dream of raising the figure to perhaps twice as much, but right now it seems that there is no business case for it, as many green hydrogen products do not reach the decisive investment decision .
In round numbers, 6 GW of hydrogen requires approximately 24 TWh of green power, and not much more is needed to produce e-fuels for planes and cargo ships that refuel on Danish soil. So instead of fantasizing about that hydrogen tube and imagining the Danes that it will cause our wind adventure to run aground, the politicians should get into work clothes and turbocharge the electrification of Danish society. We must also invest more in expanding the electricity grid for our neighboring countries. In the future, we must sell even more green electrons to our partners in the EU community, who must begin to free themselves from the fossil fuels that are currently imported for over DKK 390 billion. euros per year.
If the green transition is to speed up, it requires a sharp focus on the most cost-effective measures and having them scaled up more quickly. In Danish climate and energy policy, too much time and too many state subsidy kroner are currently being wasted on green hydrogen export, pyrolysis and CO2 capture. But you can get much more climate effect for the money if you instead focus sharply on electrifying Danish society and arrange support schemes, taxes and charges so that they promote more solar and wind energy, batteries, heat pumps and geothermal energy.
This is a slightly edited version of a comment that Bjarke Møller has written for the magazine Ræson, and which was published in the magazine on Wednesday 11 December 2024
Biomass burning: A blemish in climate policy
Burning solid wood biomass is a blemish on Danish climate and energy policy. I have, among other things, told to TV2, who has made an Operation X documentary about biomass with the title "Burning Deceit". After thorough research, the broadcast has revealed that entire tree trunks are felled in the USA and Estonia and made into wood pellets, which are later burned in this country, i.a. in Ørsted's cogeneration plant.
Ørsted will probably use the classic communication strategy: Attack, deny and never admit defeat. But the Operation-X revelations are a failure. And it should not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the international press's revelations of the many gaps in the certification schemes – e.g. FSC – under which Ørsted and others cover themselves. Ørsted has an ambition to be a climate frontrunner and to become a nature-positive company, but the new revelations should be another wake-up call to CEO Mads Nipper to get out of the bubble. It is absolutely not sustainable to burn wood biomass and turn it into electricity or heat.
Red ears
There should also be red ears to the politicians, including Climate Minister Lars Aagaard, who warmly defend this practice, even though the Climate Ministry has stated in a reply to SF's Signe Munk in the Folketing that the Danish burning of wood biomass over 20 years net leads to a discharge of 114 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. This roughly corresponds to what agriculture emits over 8,7 years!
Every year, Denmark imports over 3,5 million tonnes of wood biomass, which is sent by diesel ships to Denmark, and massive state support is given to it. The TV2 broadcast has calculated the direct and indirect support at DKK 6 billion. DKK in 2023. Of this, 478 million DKK direct support to the power plants that burn wood biomass to make electricity.
In addition, there is indirect support in the form of a technical tax exemption for businesses and households, which in the Ministry of Taxation's Fiscal Economic Statement for 2023 is calculated at DKK 5,5 billion. DKK/year.
The heating with wood biomass should – according to the climate burden – be subject to a tax, but it is not. This gives them a competitive advantage compared to other energy sources that do not get that free ticket. Fortunately, tax exemption will be phased out next year as a result of the industry's green tax reform, but if the total direct and indirect state support is calculated over the entire period for 2022-2028, biomass reaps a total profit of DKK 21 billion. DKK That is more than 10 times more than is given to solar and wind energy during this entire period!
Biomass support slows down electrification
Biomass burning is a disgrace, because with massive state support you actually worsen the climate crisis. Not only because the extra CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, but also because you remove a CO2 store in the forests. Increased afforestation is one of the most cost-effective ways to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, but the Danish state provides support for felling trees abroad. And the EU still regards biomass burning as a clean renewable energy source, even though in practice it damages the climate both calculated over 20 years and 100 years. In Denmark, biomass burning makes up approximately two-thirds of what we call renewable energy, but it is based on a displacement of climate realities that it is counted there. This is also why you should watch the Operation X documentary and listen to the experts who appear in the broadcast.
Biomass burning should be phased out quickly and by 2035 at the very latest, the import of wood fuel from abroad should be stopped.
Already today, there are good and cost-effective alternatives in the form of heat pumps and electric boilers that can be powered by clean green electricity from solar and wind energy, as well as geothermal energy in parts of the country. But they are discriminated against by the state in the support schemes. The massive state support for biomass – it receives a total of DKK 4,6 billion. DKK in direct support from 2022-28 – is helping to delay the electrification of Danish society. Only 19 per cent of our total gross energy consumption is electrified, and development has stalled in the last few decades. In this decade alone, more than 50 billion in direct and indirect state support for biogas and biomass burning, which is many times more than is given for energy efficiency improvements and solar and wind energy. Heat pumps, which can replace the many oil and gas boilers in Danes' homes, get just over DKK 100 million. DKK in government grants from 2022-28. The incentives are skewed, but we should support faster electrification of the heat supply. And our district heating plants and the industry should invest much more in industrial heat pumps and electric boilers - and stop building new biomass plants - so that we can accelerate electrification.
Taxes and support schemes hit the wrong mark
In Denmark, taxes and fees, as well as the support schemes, do not help to support a cost-effective green transition. Both support schemes and taxes are currently helping to delay the transition away from the combustion society. That's the big story beyond the Operation X cover-up. It doesn't get any better than the fact that European Energy has revealed in a new report that it appears that green electricity (including grid tariffs) is more heavily taxed than fossil fuels, calculated per energy unit. The drastic increases in grid tariffs since the climate election in 2019 are now threatening the business case of many renewable energy developers. And because the politicians do not do more to increase the demand for green electricity either – you can, for example, stop the sale of new fossil-fuel cars in 2025/26 and set a faster end date for gas in the pipeline - then we have ended up in a catch-22 situation.
There is too little demand for green power for the RE developers to get a good business case. And with the skewed support schemes, taxes and tariffs, both fossil fuels and heating with wood biomass provide some advantages that tie us firmly to the combustion society. This is also why the development of wind and solar energy has stagnated and is now lagging behind our neighboring countries.
If the government wants to take the green transition and the climate crisis seriously, a rapid phasing out of all subsidies for combustion energy should now be done - including the DKK 3,6 billion. DKK that have been given in direct and indirect fossil subsidies - and introduce a biomass tax that corresponds to their real climate impact. At the same time, you should continue to lower electricity taxes and find another way to finance the expansion of the electricity grid than sending the entire extra bill to the renewable energy developers who can help us free ourselves from fossil fuels. Let the fossil energy consumers pay a larger part of the bill for the transformation away from the fossil system.
If you remove the lopsided subsidies for combustion energy and reduce electricity taxes/grid tariffs, there will also be much greater demand for green power, which will strengthen the business case for solar and wind energy, heat pumps and geothermal energy. And Ørsted, what are they going to do? They should jump full steam ahead as a nature-positive company. They should immediately stop greenwashing their burning of biomass and phase it out with clean green alternatives. Ørsted now has the chance to put itself on the right side of climate history. If they don't do it, then they also have to take the beating that their "dieselgate" and tactical evasive maneuvers entangle them ever further into. And yes, and I hope that Green Power Denmark will soon emerge as a true defender of electrification instead of clinging to the past and the combustion society.
This debate post has been published in Klimamonitor on 6 December 2024.
Call for an extraordinary general meeting in RGO d. 27/12
Green Transition Denmark is holding an extraordinary general meeting, and it will be held on 27.12.2024 at 10:00 – 11:00.
The general meeting is held online on teams.
Agenda:
1. Election of a new auditor
2. Optionally
Note to the points:
Adv. 1. Election of a new auditor
At their meeting on 26.11.2024, the board of directors has decided to nominate a new auditor for the general meeting.
The board nominates the audit firm KPMG to carry out the audit task for the Green Transition Denmark.
KPMG was chosen based on the criteria: competence, knowledge of projects, knowledge of associations, willingness to cooperate and responsibility.
Members who wish to participate in the extraordinary general meeting can register by sending an email to Svend@rgo.dk, labeled "general meeting".
The hidden green funds of the Finance Act
The other day, a number of media outlets chose to summarize the financial law agreement's contribution to the green transition in four points, which in total amount to DKK 430 million. DKK next year. But it is actually just a drop in the ocean of what will be given to the green transition in Denmark next year. Because did you know that more than 7 times as much is given to biogas? And 1 1/2 times as much is given in support to cogeneration plants that burn solid wood biomass.
If you zoom right in on the financial law agreement concluded between the Government, the Socialist People's Party and the Radical Left, you can find four results that have been highlighted as green. But how green are they? 400 million DKK the tradesman deduction for energy renovations, climate protection and service deductions. There are also three circular initiatives with DKK 15 million. DKK for deductions for repairs of white goods, DKK 10 million. DKK to develop a textile action plan and 5 million DKK to a partnership for takeaway packaging.
However, the way in which the tradesman's deduction is screwed up is quite problematic. Why should government funds be used for a service deduction of DKK 17.500? per person, which can also be used in relation to cleaning, window cleaning, childcare and garden help - also for well-to-do families who should be able to afford it themselves? And seen through green glasses, it would have been much better to spend all 400 million. DKK for energy renovations and climate protection.
The three new efforts in the circular area are so small that their green effects are relatively uncertain. Denmark needs a new resource strategy that effectively reduces our excessively high resource consumption – 25,9 tonnes per year. inhabitant per year, but then it will take a few years and a bit of hands to develop a textile business plan. It is fine to make partnerships for take away and promote a little more repairs of white goods, but who believes that 10-15 million DKK per year will move quite a lot? Instead, the climate and resource footprint of public procurement for DKK 448 billion could be much more effectively reduced. DKK per year, and it would be badly needed, because CO2e emissions from public procurement appear to be increasing, not decreasing, towards 2030.
In that light, the four "green" measures mentioned above are drops in the ocean. More symbolic politics than significant green measures.
The big winners
So let's instead go in search of the big green money in the Finance Act. That is, those that really express a prioritization. First, mention should be made of the implementation of the green tripartite agreement for agriculture, which, in addition to the parties behind the Finance Act, was also concluded with the Conservative People's Party and the Liberal Alliance. In 2025, DKK 4,6 billion will be realized here. DKK, where almost half goes to removing carbon-rich low-lying soils. This is really positive, because there has long been a rush to extract the low-lying soils, which release a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.
DKK 782 million will also be given. DKK for increased afforestation, and DKK 1,2 billion DKK for a number of nitrogen-reducing measures, and our much-needed water environment really needs that. These are efforts that can contribute to promoting the green transition.
In the Green Transition Denmark, we still recommend that you go much further in terms of making a structural change in agriculture, away from intensive animal production and towards more plant-based production. There we must state that the implementation agreement for the green tripartite does not do away with intensive agricultural production, which in recent decades has had a very high price for nature and the environment. On the positive side, however, it should be mentioned that next year there will be 50 million to the plant fund and for the promotion of plant-based foods, and this amount will be increased in 2026 to DKK 80 million. DKK per year. Organic agriculture also receives a small helping hand of DKK 10 million. DKK These are not major transformative measures, but they are the beginning of a long journey.
Agriculture is still the big winner when the Finance Act's many billions are distributed. Together with the EU's support schemes, agriculture will receive over DKK 15 billion next year. DKK in state aid.
Biogas and heating with wood biomass will receive billions of dollars in support
If you go deeper into the Finance Act's many grants, however, there are also large amounts of support for parts of the energy sector. And no. It is not for sun, wind and heat pumps. Next year, DKK 3 billion will be given. DKK in subsidies for biogas. It is actually more than twice as much as the Ministry of the Environment gets to protect the environment and nature!
In 2025, 682,5 million has also been set aside. in direct support to cogeneration plants that burn biomass to transform it into electricity. This happens even though Denmark's heating with wood biomass has an immediate discharge of over 15 million tonnes of CO2, and the time-weighted emission after twenty years is at least 4 million ton per year. Over a twenty-year period, the large-scale Danish heating with wood biomass emits a whopping 114 million tonnes of CO2, but if the climate crisis is taken seriously, this practice should be phased out as soon as possible. However, that doesn't happen.
So it's a long nose for those who think that the state is really betting hard on wind and solar energy. In terms of support and deductions, this is not the case at all. Fortunately, there is already a good alternative to burning wood biomass. Because it is possible to electrify Denmark's entire heat supply. As gas and biomass heating is phased out, we can provide households with a cheaper heating solution with industrial heat pumps and electric boilers powered by green electricity from solar and wind energy. This is shown by the Green Transition Denmark climate and energy plan, which can ensure a fossil-free Denmark in 2040. A renewable energy system can deliver safe and stable energy to the Danes if you also invest in energy storage in dam heat storage and batteries. But neither solar and wind energy, heat pumps nor battery storage are prioritized in the Finance Act.
Landvind has an outlook of DKK 216,9 million. DKK in support, and the solar cells receive DKK 98 million. DKK Today, solar and wind are the absolute cheapest sources of energy on lifetime costs, and we need much more to free ourselves from fossil energy. Havvind receives DKK 238,8 million. DKK for screening/preliminary investigation plus DKK 254,4 million. DKK to offshore wind next year, but if you zoom out for the entire period 2022-2028, the government expects to earn over DKK XNUMX billion. DKK on sea breeze. So the needy wind industry has no prospect of getting a helping hand from the public.
More than half of Denmark's gross energy consumption is still fossil fuels, so we need much more solar and wind energy, but a lot of the tax dollars are being wasted on providing massive state support for biogas and biomass burning, where we could get much more in terms of energy economics and climate the money elsewhere.
We can get more bang for our buck
If the state wants a quick and large climate effect, priority should be given to solar, wind, energy efficiency improvements, heat pumps and electrification first. But unfortunately that doesn't happen. Even the subsidy for energy savings of 546,1 million DKK next year is far behind biogas and biomass. Perhaps the time has soon come to revisit the green transition and take a critical look at whether we could get much more bang for the buck by investing differently. Several of the existing support schemes and tax exemptions provide large direct and indirect state support to selected industries and energy sources at the expense of others. Under this, the direct and indirect state support for fossil energy, which amounts to up to DKK 3,6 billion, could be appropriately phased out. DKK per year. It is harmful in relation to achieving the climate act's goals, but in the finance act there will still be a good opportunity for energy-intensive companies and agriculture to continue to receive a full deduction for their payment of fossil taxes when they use oil, gas and coke.
And then we probably also need a critical discussion of whether it is okay for the Danish state to sell CO2 quotas for DKK 1871,2 million. DKK in 2025, which enables others abroad to emit extra greenhouse gases. In the period 2024-28, the government expects to earn a total of DKK 7,47 billion. on the sale of CO2 quotas. In RGO, we believe that these quotas should be cancelled, so that you do not actively promote climate leakage with the help of the state. The latest green agricultural agreement must also be partly financed in this way.
It is not because the Danish state lacks money for a green transition. But the main problem is that we still get far too little climate and environmental effect for the money.
Solar cells can free us from oil sheiks and gas dictators. So stop being so negative
I was born and raised in a detached house in East Jutland near a heavily trafficked country road, where we could smell the stench of dead animals and slaughterhouse waste when the wind came from the west. We thought it was progress and didn't complain too much. Maybe we should. But someone who is really complaining is Jyllands-Posten, which in recent weeks has run a massive campaign against solar cells in Denmark. "Wild plan will plaster Jutland with solar cells", "Jernmarker makes Jutland darker" and "enormous areas must be covered by solar cells", are some of the bombastic headlines. Even Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been quoted as saying that it does not "look particularly cool" to live on a property that is surrounded by solar cells.
Maybe not. In recent years, the growth in solar cells has been great, and it is easy to zoom in on them when they stand in long rows on a bare field. But isn't there much else in the landscape that is a greater challenge in terms of area, aesthetics and in relation to nature? When will JP zoom onto the wide asphalt motorways that cut Jutland lengthwise and soon also through Egholm's beautiful natural area west of Aalborg? The next thing could be the Kattegat connection over Samsø and the scenic Røsnæs. When will JP go nuts on the large slurry tanks, grain silos and the pig factories - or the many biogas plants that take over 3 billion DKK. per year in state aid? Or the large industrial parks, the car parks, the many cars in the cities and the (black) paved country roads and motorways?
"In recent years, the growth in solar cells has been great, and it is easy to zoom in on them when they stand in long rows on a bare field. But isn't there much else in the landscape that is a greater challenge in terms of area, aesthetics and in relation to nature? When will JP zoom onto the wide asphalt motorways that cut Jutland lengthwise and soon also through Egholm's beautiful natural area west of Aalborg?"
From the aesthetic angle that JP pursues in the solar series, surely this is next? But do you dare?
How about instead seeing the solar cells as part of a green progress that can make Denmark self-sufficient with cheaper green energy, free us from authoritarian oil powers and strengthen our competitiveness?
Solar cells can help nature
Solar systems, if set up correctly, can protect drinking water areas threatened by pesticides. They transform the sun's rays into clean energy and can free us from fossil fuels, which pollute the air and which are behind 68 per cent. of gross energy consumption in the Danish economy. With wind turbines, batteries, heat pumps and geothermal energy, the solar cells can pave the way for a 100 per cent renewable energy system. Far-sighted Judaeans have understood that it is a better business than the fossils.
Take e.g. for Hvide Sande district heating, which in the middle of an energy crisis could cut half the heating bill because they had invested in time in large Vestas wind turbines, solar cells, heat pumps and electric boilers, which are cheaper in the long run than burning with fossil fuels or wood biomass. It was economic and energy-wise common sense. And Hvide Sande made its solid contribution to reducing Denmark's emission of greenhouse gases. Imagine if all district heating plants and municipalities followed in their footsteps?
An alternative green energy plan
A total climate and energy plan of the Green Transition Denmark shows that it is realistic and possible to make Denmark a 100 per cent fossil-free economy in 2040. However, this will require the amount of solar and wind energy to be increased by 4,3 times in 2030 and by nine times in 2040. In relation to the government's climate projection, we can save DKK 207 million. tonnes of CO2e on the way there, and this can ensure consumers and companies 35-45 per cent. lower electricity prices in 2040, show calculations made by Ea Energianalyse.
It will strengthen Denmark's competitiveness, because the price of energy is important for whether you succeed or fail on the world market. In recent years, the installation of new wind turbines has unfortunately stalled on land and at sea, and there are too many bureaucratic stumbling blocks in Denmark. So it is tiresome to see a business newspaper plastering its pages with aesthetic anger against solar panels and energy parks.
We should rather demand more green energy parks both west and east of the Great Belt, so that the entire country's energy consumption can be made fossil-free. And new jobs can be created by producing the next generation of green e-fuels for our international shipping and aviation. It is bad for Denmark if we allow ourselves to be torn down by an aesthetic pursuit, regardless of whether it is in Viby or the Town Hall Square. It is a serious problem that the Danish economy is burning DKK 120 million. barrels of oil per year, and that the Danes buy new gas boilers and fossil-fuel cars when there are good green and electric alternatives. There are many jobs in the green transition – there are only in the wind industry 33.000 jobs, and most are located in Jutland.
By comparison, there are only approximately 7100 full-time farmers left. They get over 11,8 billion DKK. in state aid per year, while the solar cells can manage on market terms. Farmers are in a good position 60 per cent. of the country's 4,3 million hectares, and they have bet hard on industrialization and large-scale farming, so that the rural areas have become more and more depopulated. At the same time, the industry has shared a great deal of responsibility in relation to the climate, pollution of the drinking water, the biodiversity crisis and the widespread death at sea. And they don't want to pay for the pollution themselves, but would rather wipe it off on the taxpayers.
Denmark finds itself in a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis and is a bottom-scraper in the EU with only 1,6 points protected nature. So I understand the concern about what nature will look like in the future. But how about having a serious conversation about the large-scale animal food production and the new infrastructure projects rather than shaming the solar cells and wind turbines as scapegoats?
The solar cells will take up less than a fifth of the country's roads
Even if we increase the amount of solar energy by 11 times towards 2040, the solar cells will not cover more than 1 per cent. of Denmark. Many more can be put on roofs, over car parks and motorways, but the cheapest is setting up on bare ground. It must be possible to free up 1 per cent, because it is basically about Denmark's future energy independence and competitiveness. And yes, far more forests should also be planted, which can give us greater nature experiences, a richer flora and fauna and an additional climate benefit. Instead of complaining about the solar cells, you can be happy that they can earn extra money and benefit nature on run-down fields that have previously been sprayed with pesticides and fertilized with nitrogen, so that nature's flowers, the field's birds and the many insects disappeared . The developers can probably be persuaded to share a bit of the profits with the local community, and the legislators can give local energy communities better opportunities to flourish.
"Instead of complaining about the solar cells, you can be happy that they can earn extra money and benefit nature on run-down fields that have previously been sprayed with pesticides and fertilized with nitrogen, so nature's flowers, the field's birds and the many insects disappeared.”
Why should we waste so much time complaining about the green progress that has many benefits and delaying it again and again while the Chinese drive us into the middle of the new energy revolution, where the prices of green electricity from solar and wind are already is cheaper than fossil energy? Enter the Jyllands-Posten match. Today, the industry and the industrial zones fill a little less 1 per cent. of the area. The production of biofuels, which is uneconomical and stupid in relation to the climate, takes up a land area corresponding to 3 per cent. of Denmark. And the roads are full 5,4 points of the area or 232.000 hectares.
Most of us Danes would like to make room for the roads in the countryside and enjoy the freedom of driving. But that freedom has a price. Either we find a little more space for solar cells and wind turbines in Denmark, so that we can electrify the heat supply and industry, and run on clean green electricity that we produce ourselves. Or we must continue to import polluting fossil fuels from Russia and the Middle East every year, which will impose very large geopolitical, security policy and climate extra bills.
Of course, there are dilemmas in relation to the distribution of land, but it is high time that we have a serious conversation about what kind of progress we want in this country.
This is a chronicle written by RGO's director, Bjarke Møller, and it was published in Western-Posten on 22 October 2024.
More fossil fuels are sold than ever: "We're all fucked"
The world's societies are still deeply dependent on fossil energy. As much as 80 per cent of our total energy consumption still comes from oil, gas and coal, you can read in World Energy Outlook 2024, which the International Energy Agency (IEA) has just published. In fact, more fossil fuels were sold last year than ever before in world history. It is dramatic testimony to the lack of recognition of the seriousness of the climate crisis.
The fossil business as usual still dominates. And we're all screwed if we don't free ourselves soon from the fossil addiction. In fact, the global CO2 budget was only 200 Gigatons at the start of the year, and Denmark's share will run out in the next few years. It is urgent to develop a systematic plan to quickly eliminate and push all fossil fuels out of our total energy consumption.
So has the IEA responded? No, unfortunately no. However, let it be said right away. I am one of those who get excited every time the IEA's Executive Director, Fatih Birol, talks about the fossil age peaking soon. Birol writes in his foreword to the report that "clean electricity is the future". But even so, the IEA still reckons in their net-zero scenario that there is 15 per cent. fossil fuels in the world's total energy consumption in 2050. This is of course better than the governments' current political course, which aims for approximately half of our energy to come from oil, gas and coal in 2050. And the governments' promises can only reduce the proportion to 25 per cent. It's still way, way too much.
It can be done
In the Green Transition Denmark, we have presented in plan for how Denmark can completely free itself from all fossil fuels in 2040, and we will work to ensure that the EU can achieve this in the period 2040-45. The good news is that it can actually be done.
If you dive into the new IEA report, you can find a lot of interesting figures that document that the world is in the middle of a green energy revolution with solar, wind and batteries. The global production capacity for solar cells has increased 40 times in the last 13 years. For wind energy, it is six times. Last year, 550 GW of solar and wind energy was installed - and within the last five years alone, there has been more than a 4-fold increase in the installation of new solar cell systems. In the last year alone, the global manufacture of solar cells has increased by as much as 76 per cent. and 22 per cent were produced. more wind turbines. The demand is enormous, and not least China is blowing away all expectations. In the EU countries, on the other hand, it is still far too slow, i.a. because there are far too many bureaucratic and financial stumbling blocks.
Electricity prices in the EU countries are still 2-3 times higher than in the USA and China, and this damages the competitiveness of European companies. The EU countries import fossil fuels for over DKK 400 billion each year. euros, which is money that could be much better used to invest in a comprehensive restructuring of our energy system, so that in the future we will be 100 per cent self-sufficient in clean energy. A core task for Dan Jørgensen as the EU's new energy commissioner is to put extra turbo on the work of pushing fossil fuels out of the European energy system. We should multiply the amount of solar and wind energy, invest much more in battery storage and other forms of energy storage. And we must increase investments in the electricity grid and the important interconnectors that make it easier and cheaper to send green power across borders in the internal energy market.
It will be cheaper than the IEA thinks
Solar and wind energy are already cheaper than fossil fuels on lifetime costs, and even hybrid solutions – where onshore wind or solar cells are coupled with batteries – are now becoming competitive. And the other good news is that the IEA consistently – and unfortunately still in their new World Energy Outlook – underestimates the coming price drops for solar and wind energy. This means that the green transition will in reality be somewhat cheaper than they imagine.
It is now that the governments of Denmark and other EU countries should work hard to ensure a doubling of renewable energy - and fossil fuels must be phased out faster via a targeted electrification of all sectors, so that the demand for green power is also increased . It will also create an even better business case for RE developers. In relation to the climate, the economy and competitiveness, it should be a no-brainer.
This debate entry was written by Bjarke Møller and was published in Ingeniøren on 18 October 2024.
A broad majority wants to increase green investments by DKK 5 billion. DKK
PRESS RELEASE:
It is positive that the government, together with a broad majority in the Danish Parliament, is now allocating approx. 5 billion DKK from the green margin to invest in Denmark's green transformation. But it is only a small plaster on the wound in relation to the climate and nature crisis that we are in the middle of. This is what the Green Transition Denmark says in response to today's news that the government, SF, the Conservatives, the Unity List and the Radicals The Liberals will give extra money for climate adaptation, the district heating pool, afforestation, clean-up after generation pollution and PFAS, and purification of drinking water.
"It is commendable that a broad majority will invest approx. 5 billion DKK more in the green transition, and it is positive that they will increase the diesel tax, increase the district heating pool and clean up after the large generation pollutions, but unfortunately there are a number of serious thistles in the agreement that should be removed," says Bjarke Møller. He is particularly critical of the priorities regarding agriculture and road transport.
More gray than green in agriculture
"The plan delivers a more gray-scaled than green restructuring of agriculture. Why is more than half a billion set aside? DKK for methane-reducing feed additive, when the minister knows full well that there is still a lack of knowledge about the effect of these chemicals on animal welfare? You give almost four times as much to an uncertain technical fix as you give to plant-based foods and ecology. This is the completely wrong weighting," emphasizes Bjarke Møller. "We need a structural restructuring of Danish agriculture with a significant reduction in animal production, much larger investments in plant-based foods and rapid extraction of low-lying soils."
Green Transition Denmark praises that the agreement records how the 500 million DKK in the marine nature fund must be distributed, and that plans are also made for more afforestation.
"More afforestation is an effective way of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere in the future, it contributes to biodiversity and can also contribute to lowering some of the nitrogen and phosphorus that is washed into our water environment. That is why it is good that until 2028 they will give DKK 625 million. DKK for more afforestation. But in reality it is far, far too little. In comparison, the Svarer expert committee suggested that over 3 billion should be given. DKK for afforestation until 2030. RGO would like to encourage the parties to the agreement to raise the level of ambition further and plant far more trees in the forests and in the cities. It is a far better way to capture CO2 than via energy-intensive capture technologies on the chimney of climate-damaging biomass power plants," says Bjarke Møller.
Efforts on the roads are a mixed bag
The effort in relation to road transport is also a mixed bag, says the Green Transition Denmark.
"It is progress that they want to increase the diesel tax by 50 øre per litres, but it is still quite a bit below the German level, and on top of that they have chosen to continue to exempt agriculture from the diesel tax. It is far better for the climate if the diesel tax is at least raised by 90 øre per litres. It should be the end of Denmark appearing as a black diesel magnet for trucks south of the border," says Jeppe Juul, head of transport policy at RGO.
He is upset that the parties to the agreement will temporarily reduce the rates for the kilometer-based toll. "It is fine that you want to give up 750 million. DKK extra to promote the green transformation of road transport, but it is bad that they want to reduce the rates for the kilometer-based road tax by even more. They will give 161 million. DKK extra for trucks that run on biogas, but the money will be much better spent supporting electric trucks. In the future, all road transport should run on clean green electricity, and it is high time that the Danish Parliament accelerates electrification here," states Jeppe Juul.
The agreement can be read here