Om Helene Cheret

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Helene Chéret has created 111 blog entries.

Our consumption is the blind spot in climate policy

Political negotiations have been called for a revision of the Climate Act, and a 2035 target is to be set for Denmark's territorial CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, however, territorial emissions only cover emissions that occur within Denmark's borders. It is therefore crucial that we also begin to address consumption emissions, which have so far been a blind spot in Danish climate policy. If we measure consumption-based CO2 emissions, which include all emissions associated with Danes' consumption patterns, regardless of where in the world the emissions occur, it is difficult to see the green pioneer that the Climate Act otherwise stipulates that Denmark should be.

The argument against a consumption-based climate target is often that we have difficulty influencing emissions outside Denmark, and that there are no political tools to address them. But circular economy is one tool that can both help reduce consumption-based CO2 emissions and at the same time contribute to strengthened competitiveness and resilience in a geopolitically uncertain world.

Together, we have therefore prepared a catalogue for waste prevention and circularity with a wide range of concrete initiatives that can also contribute to reducing consumption-based CO2 emissions. The catalogue is based on a strong understanding of circularity, where the first and most important principle is to prevent waste and pollution. Here, we will highlight a few initiatives that are an obvious place to start in terms of reducing consumption-based CO2 emissions, and present a number of conservative estimates of the effects.

Durability and recycling
According to CONCITO, 18 percent of Denmark's consumption-based emissions come from the public sector. Therefore, there is a lot to catch up on if you look at public procurement of over 400 billion kroner annually.

The Climate Council also points to public procurement as an obvious tool for reducing consumption-based climate emissions and notes that the government's lack of focus on the area contrasts with the government's basic promise to reduce the climate footprint from public procurement.
Therefore, we propose that public procurement should, as a standard, demand quality products with long lifespans and warranty periods, take-back schemes, repair services, and guarantees for the availability of spare parts and upgrades, where relevant.

Recycling should also be included in all tenders for contracts where recycling solutions are available, and the state, municipalities and regions should establish material banks so that used furniture and other equipment can circulate and get a new life. If we switch to quality goods with a 30 percent longer lifespan in the state's purchases of, for example, furniture and IT equipment, there will be fewer new purchases. This alone will save around 90.000 tonnes of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) annually compared to the amount purchased in 2023. This corresponds to approximately three percent of the climate footprint from state purchases, and the proportion will increase if we also require recycling and repair. If we include municipalities and regions, the potential will be much greater.

In addition, public kitchens, with over a million meals a day, can play a key role in the green transition of Danes' eating habits if clear political goals for climate and sustainability are set. CONCITO proposes, among other things, a new climate goal of a maximum of one kilo CO2e per kilo of purchased raw material in 2050, with a benchmark of reaching below 1,5 kilo CO2e per kilo already in 2030. Reaching below one kilo CO2e per kilo of purchased raw material will in some cases mean reductions of 40-70 percent of the current climate footprint.

If we follow the proposal, public kitchens alone could reduce emissions by around 83.000 tonnes of CO2e per year by 2030 and around 142.000 tonnes of CO2e annually thereafter. This is a conservative estimate, and the real gains could be considerably greater.

Achieving the climate goals requires significant efforts with more plant-based food, less food waste, local seasonal ingredients, and better data and tools to measure climate footprint. A proposal prepared by the Danish Food and Nutrition Association, the Frej think tank, and CONCITO highlights a number of levers such as updated and transparent procurement agreements, reduction targets for food waste and climate impact, further training for nutrition professionals, and a stronger involvement of kitchen expertise in decisions about the content and quality of food.

We must preserve and renovate
According to CONCITO, construction and maintenance of private homes accounts for nine percent of consumption-based emissions. This does not include public construction and construction projects, which are included in the public sector category.

New construction and renovation of buildings in Denmark is largely carried out with materials produced abroad, which are therefore not included in the territorial calculations. However, we have good opportunities in Denmark to regulate the climate emissions associated with our construction. Here, we propose, among other things, that a 'preserve or explain' requirement be introduced in the building regulations, so that demolition of our existing building stock only takes place in cases where it can be justified on health or safety grounds. If we introduce a 'preserve or explain' requirement and can thus avoid demolition of 50 percent of the buildings that are demolished simply to build new ones for the same purpose, we will save at least 44.000 tons of CO2e per year. In practice, the gain will be significantly greater, because the requirement not only extends the lifespan of existing buildings, but can also reduce the need for new construction: More square meters will be renovated and transformed instead of being demolished and rebuilt.

'Use and throw away''culture
Things like clothes, shoes and electronics account for about ten percent of Danes' consumption-based CO2 emissions. We must therefore move away from the 'use and throw away' culture, where we constantly buy new, and instead become better at buying good quality products with a long lifespan, buying used and having them repaired if they break. For example, if we halve our consumption of textiles, we can save about 1.000.000 tons of CO2e per year and at the same time cut the enormous amounts of textile waste that follow our consumption. But this requires political regulation that makes the greener choice the easy choice and, among other things, makes it easier and cheaper to have our products repaired.

This means, among other things, that we should not be constantly bombarded with advertisements on social media that encourage us to buy new things. A British study has shown that 32 percent of the British people's consumption-based CO2 emissions can be attributed to advertisements that make us buy things that we would not otherwise have bought. A possible measure could include a ban on advertising for fast fashion, as is underway in France, and limiting influencer-based marketing. A benchmark for consumption-based CO2 emissions should also be followed up with a national strategy and action plan that, among other things, focuses on circularity.

In connection with the government's climate program, the Climate Council has criticized the government for not presenting measures "that explicitly intend to reduce consumption-based emissions."
We are therefore happy to enter into dialogue about the means to reduce these emissions.

This debate post was published in Information on 3/12 2025.

Senders: Mette Hoffgaard Ranfelt, Sebastian Jung-Wederking, Lone Mikkelsen, Malene Høj Mortensen and Michael Søgaard Jørgensen – Representatives of the Danish Nature Conservation Association, the Circular Industry Association, the Green Transition Denmark, Plastic Change and IDA's Society for Technology Assessment, respectively.

By |2025-12-03T10:08:35+01:003. December 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to Our consumption is the blind spot in climate policy
READ MORE

Support is failing us both in agriculture and nature

Every month, more than one billion is given in support to Danish agriculture, and the majority of that money comes from the EU's agricultural support. Two-thirds of the money is paid out according to how many hectares a landowner has. This means that large farms get the biggest gain, which is getting bigger and bigger. At the same time, 1,3 full-time farms closed every day in 2024, and there are currently fewer than 5.800 full-time farms left. The hectare support, as it is now, is therefore helping to drive the negative structural development we see in agriculture today, and is one of the main reasons for the challenge of generational change in agriculture. On top of that, Denmark is the country in the EU that spends by far the least money on supporting rural areas, nature and small-scale agriculture. Let's take some examples.

A new scheme in agricultural support is the so-called organic schemes, where farmers can receive extra support to do something good for the environment, climate or nature. The organic schemes are intended as the carrot that will get agriculture to take green initiatives. But Denmark's implementation of these organic schemes has been a resounding failure. We are the country in the EU that spends the second least money on these schemes, and the money we spend has almost no effect. Why? Because we have designed the schemes inappropriately. Danish farmers can only choose between four organic schemes – the lowest number in the entire EU. In comparison, Lithuania offers 16 different schemes that have a much broader scope.

At the same time, the four Danish organic schemes rarely benefit small and medium-sized farms. The organic schemes are therefore designed more for large farms. Our few schemes are so unattractive that only 60 percent of the allocated budget was used in 2023. Instead, one could imagine an organic scheme that supported organic fruit and vegetable production in Denmark. Only 0,6 percent of Denmark's cultivated area is currently used to grow fruit and vegetables for human consumption. In a time of talk about the importance of self-sufficiency, it is strange that our own food supply is not prioritized.

Denmark is a bottom-scraper when it comes to redistributing support from large to small farms. To support small and medium-sized farms, the EU has just created a tool for member states, where they must use at least 10 percent of the hectare support for redistribution, but the Danish government, together with only one other EU country, has chosen to ignore this mandatory tool completely. The result? The largest farms swallow by far the majority of the billions in support, while small and medium-sized farms – the backbone of many local communities – struggle to survive. This promotes land concentration, so that Danish soil is distributed in fewer and fewer hands.

This increases indebtedness, as the individual farmer needs more and more capital to buy a farm. And it makes it more difficult for young farmers to start their own farm, as the per hectare subsidy encourages speculation in land and continues to push up prices. In short, all other EU countries are doing better than Denmark.

We can start by creating more and better organic schemes that actually reward close-to-nature and agro-ecological farming that takes care of our drinking water and the micro-life in the soil. And then we can activate redistributive support so that small and medium-sized farms get a fair chance, while ensuring that the new generation has access to land by ending the per-hectare support. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to use agricultural support as it was intended: to create common goods for common money.

This opinion piece was published in Jyllands-Posten on 27/11/2025. 

The senders are: 

ANDERS LED BEHREND Deputy Chairman, Free Farmers – Living Land, JACOB WESTERGAARD ​​MADSEN Association Director, Andelsgaarde, MICHELLE SKELSGAARD ​​SØRENSEN Food Policy Advisor, Green Transition Denmark, TOBIAS UNGER COFF Board Member, Copenhagen Food Community, EMMA LETH Secretary, Association for Regenerative Agriculture, LOTTE NYSTRUP LUND Co-founder of the Biomagine community, HARALD KRABBE Farmer and co-founder of the Biomagine community.

By |2025-12-01T13:58:39+01:0027 November 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to Support fails us both in agriculture and nature
READ MORE

Turn off the tap in time: Municipalities must take responsibility for chemical pollution of drinking water

PFAS and pesticide residues threaten our drinking water. However, the pollution does not start in the waterworks, but when chemicals are discharged into the environment. Therefore, municipal decisions are needed on permits, control and land use. Only in this way can we ensure clean drinking water in the future. For the benefit of citizens' health, the environment and the economy.

In Denmark, we have long taken clean drinking water for granted. We can no longer do that. Findings of PFAS, pesticide residues and other harmful chemicals in groundwater wells across the country have shown us that we face a challenge that is not only about technical handling and legislation – but also about will and prioritization, especially in municipalities.

When Ingeniøren now focuses on water in connection with the upcoming municipal elections, it is an obvious reason to ask: Who actually takes responsibility before the pollution hits our tap? All too often, chemical pollution has been something that people react to after the damage has occurred. A discovery in a borehole, a shutdown of a supply, a cleanup paid for by the citizens. But the pollution does not start in the waterworks – it starts on the ground surface, in old industrial areas, at fire drill sites, in fields, and in treatment plants, where municipalities have both regulatory responsibility, planning tools, and political influence. This is where the effort must be made if we want to secure our drinking water for future generations.

Municipalities must take stronger, proactive responsibility

The eternal chemicals – PFAS – have received well-deserved attention, and several municipalities have already acted quickly when detected. But that does not change the fact that large parts of the chemical effort are still characterized by firefighting and ad hoc solutions. What we lack is systematic prevention, and here it is crucial that the municipalities take on stronger responsibility.

This requires that the chemical threat be considered in both physical planning, environmental approvals and efforts around vulnerable groundwater areas. When permits are granted for facilities and activities close to extraction areas, much stricter requirements should be set for which substances may be used and how risks are assessed. It also requires that old maps of landfills, industrial sites and fire stations not just gather dust, but are actively used to map and monitor potential risk zones.

Municipalities today have both the knowledge and the data needed to prevent new pollution – but this requires proactive, not reactive action. Targeted monitoring and ongoing assessment of whether current uses and discharges pose a risk must be carried out. Municipalities should require extended analyses from waterworks and ensure that the relevant chemicals are tested – including those not yet covered by national limit values. And most importantly: there must be transparency about findings and risks, so that both citizens and professionals can act in a timely manner.

Clean water now or a sky-high bill later?

It is also crucial that municipalities start thinking long-term and financially responsible. Cleanup and remediation measures are expensive – and the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be. If municipalities do not invest in prevention now, the bill will hit. And it should not hit utilities and consumers as it does today. It should hit the polluter, so that it becomes what the law dictates; that the polluter pays.

In the Green Transition Denmark, we therefore call on municipalities to make chemical pollution a central theme in the election campaign. Politicians must take responsibility and set clear demands for their administrations and supplies. They must ensure that citizens' health comes before short-term economics or administrative convenience. Drinking water is not just a technical resource - it is a societal task. And if we want to avoid clean water becoming a luxury in the future, we must act now. Not the next time PFAS is found in a well - but today, in the municipal council, in the local plan, in the permit, in the election promise.

We know what is needed. And we know where the problems lie. So the question is no longer whether we can secure our drinking water. The question is whether we will. Whether the municipalities will.

This debate post was published in Ingeniørens WasteTech on November 11th. 

By |2025-11-13T10:04:02+01:0013 November 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to Turn off the tap in time: Municipalities must take responsibility for chemical pollution of drinking water
READ MORE

The construction industry needs a clear national strategy against PFAS – we can't wait for the EU

It recently emerged that building products such as rubber tape, surface-treated wooden floors, and glass and rock wool may contain PFAS – building products that can be purchased in regular hardware stores, for example when renovating and building new. PFAS is extremely difficult to break down. When it is included in building products, we risk spreading pollution to soil and groundwater for decades after the building has been built. It is an invisible pollution that we pass directly on to future generations.

In connection with the report 'PFAS in building materials – challenges and solutions on the path towards circular construction' PFAS was found in 25 percent of the tested building products. The level of PFAS in some samples is so high that it exceeds the limit value proposed in the PFAS restriction proposal. A proposal that is under negotiation in the EU system. However, a strong lobbying effort from the chemical industry is watering down the bill as revealed by 'The Forever Lobbying Project'.

This is despite the fact that PFAS increases the risk of kidney cancer and high cholesterol, among other things, and can reduce the effectiveness of vaccines in children. PFAS are also suspected of being endocrine disruptors. In addition to the problematic health effects of PFAS, another big question is pressing: What do we do with the requirements for more reuse and recycling of materials and the large amounts of construction waste when these contain PFAS? According to a report from the Nordic Council of Ministers, PFAS-related health and environmental impacts cost European society between 52 and 84 billion euros annually.

There is new legislation on the way that deals with chemicals more broadly. This includes the Waste Regulation and the Construction Products Regulation, but only harmful chemicals are mentioned here and not PFAS separately. We need innovative developers. But in order for them to act, clarification is needed in the PFAS area. We must therefore take other paths while we wait for the EU's decision on the PFAS ban. Denmark should create a national strategy for phasing out PFAS in construction.

Requirements for the content of harmful chemicals should be tightened so that information about ingredients, including PFAS, becomes available to everyone. This would be an important step towards circular construction.

Photo: Henning Larsen / Ramboll Adobe stock license for #78118528

This debate post was published in Information on 13/11/2025. It was written by: 

  • The senders are: Anna-Mette Monnelly, specialist, Søren Jensen,
  • Martha Lewis, Head of materials, Henning Larsen
  • Lone Mikkelsen, senior advisor at the Green Transition Denmark
By |2025-11-13T09:49:40+01:0013 November 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed The construction industry needs a clear national strategy against PFAS – we can't wait for the EU
READ MORE

Politicians should stop burning wood in the municipality's supply

You need a strong cause that will generate support among the population, strengthen your municipality's green profile and make a difference to society. So while you're busy making election posters, Facebook videos and participating in various debates, we'd like to help you with a strong cause: Stop burning wood in the municipality's supply. Why, you might ask?

1) Citizens' wallets: Imports of wood pellets and wood chips have increased dramatically – more than 95 percent of wood pellets and 50 percent of wood chips come from abroad. Danish overconsumption makes us dependent on the global raw materials market, where prices fluctuate and are expected to increase, because wood biomass is a limited resource that must be used in many places in the transition. Electrification of heat production helps make heat cheaper for citizens in your municipality than when it is based on wood burning.

2) Climate: Although it looks green on paper, the burning of wood in Denmark has added over 120 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Wood actually emits more than coal, even when it is burned. The damage (increased drought, floods, forest fires) caused by increased warming will not be removed, even if a new tree absorbs the same amount of CO2 after a few decades.

3) Nature: At the same time, we are putting massive pressure on foreign forests – often far beyond our control. Countless bad examples show that certification is no guarantee of nature conservation, and a large part of the biomass is also undocumented today. This speaks against the fact that promises to use “sustainable biomass” ensure nature and climate conservation. In Denmark, the high demand for wood has led to a large removal of branches, tops, roots and dead wood. Danish forests have an average of 6,3 m³/ha of dead wood, and approximately 2/3 of the area has none at all. This is far below the levels necessary if the forests are to have any biodiversity value, where far more than 50 m³/ha is needed.

So you are helping both the climate and biodiversity by stopping the burning party.

4) Self-sufficiency: In these times, it is important to make oneself independent from geopolitical power struggles. Electrification with local self-sufficiency of renewable energy not only provides more security, but also allows the city's energy generation to benefit the local community and can contribute to the financing of local needs, such as the renovation of the village school, a cycle path or recreational areas. There are already many examples of this - including at Vejle, where a large solar park also benefits citizens with new paths, the clearing of watercourses and increased biodiversity.

Why now, you think? A lot has happened since biomass was introduced as a transitional solution to get rid of coal. In the meantime, we have increased the consumption of biomass to three times the globally sustainable level and burn around 90pct. of all the wood we consume in Denmark directly. Last year, the world passed 1,5 degrees of warming for the first time. When we burn wood, it immediately releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, which causes damage and increases the risk of serious, irreversible changes in the climate system. The time it takes for a newly planted tree to absorb the amount again is a growing problem in an already overheated world. Therefore, we should prioritize solutions that reduce emissions now – rather than those that will only work in decades.

At the same time, technological developments in heat pumps and renewable energy have boomed. That's the good news. Because there's no longer any need to burn wood for lukewarm water and electricity.

Therefore, it makes political and economic sense to set a clear course away from burning and towards electrification. But is it possible to avoid burning wood when we currently produce heat and electricity from wood? The answer is yes. It is possible to produce energy without burning trees and fossil sources.

There are now many good alternatives to wood. In Svendborg, wood burning has been replaced with heat pumps. Skærbækværket and Studstrupværket, two of the country's largest combined heat and power plants, will also abandon wood burning after Kredsløb, TVIS and EWII have decided that the heat they receive in the future should not come from wood, but from electricity-based solutions such as heat pumps that use local energy sources such as air, seawater, wastewater and geothermal energy.

Things are not going so well in Copenhagen, where there is talk of building a CCS plant at the Amagerværket. That is, the biomass plant, which is Denmark's largest consumer of wood. Over one million tons of wood, primarily from abroad. The large investment will be a big mistake that will lock the city into excessive wood consumption far into the future.

Now that we can electrify, it's crazy to ship millions of tons of wood in from forests around the world, just to burn it, spend billions on capturing and possibly storing the emissions, and thus delay the implementation of future truly renewable energy sources in your municipality's supply.

Your role as a politician

So what is your role as a local politician? As a local politician, you have a unique chance to secure the green supply of the future, protect citizens from price shocks and at the same time help our nature and climate. As you know, transforming the energy supply takes time. That's why it's important that you help make the decisions that put your local community on the right track, now.

Therefore, you must work to: 1) Adopt a municipal phase-out date for wood biomass in district heating – with a realistic milestone plan. 2) Prioritize investments in electrification with large electrically powered heat pumps, surplus heat and storage. 3) Stop investments in combined heat and power based on biomass combustion. 4) Drop plans for CCS at biomass plants.

We have the technology and the economics in place – now it’s about direction. With a clear plan for phasing out wood biomass, you can strengthen the municipality’s green credibility, ensure stable and competitive heating prices and create local value. It’s a hot topic that can win votes – and that makes a difference. If you need more knowledge, we’re happy to help you get through the topic.

The article was published in Avisen Danmark 1/11 2025. The senders are: Lars Bonderup Bjørn, CEO, EWII. Christina Ihler Madsen, Climate Movement in Denmark. Erik Tang, Green Transition Denmark. Jakob Kronik, Secretary General, Verdens Skove. Asbjørn Haugstrup, Chief External Relations Officer, Innargi. Helene Hagel, Climate and Environmental Policy Manager at Greenpeace.

By |2025-11-03T09:32:04+01:003 November 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to Politicians should stop burning wood in the municipality's supply
READ MORE

The toxic legacy in our buildings: Get PFAS out of construction

When talking about PFAS, most people think of contaminated groundwater, fire-fighting foam or frying pans. Few people know that PFAS can also be found in, for example, contact lenses, guitar strings, condoms and garden cushions. Or in the many different building products that create the framework for our everyday lives.

But the report 'PFAS in building products – challenges and solutions on the path towards circular construction' reveals that the construction industry has a major and overlooked problem. Namely PFAS, which can potentially be found in everything from paint, sealants and floor coverings to insulation and facades. PFAS make the materials water, dirt and fire repellent, among other things – but they are also highly toxic and almost impossible to break down.

That is why PFAS are also referred to as eternal chemicals. The substances accumulate in people, in nature – and in our buildings. The report's test of 44 building products purchased in Danish DIY stores showed indications of PFAS in every fourth sample. There were PFAS indications in roofing felts, wooden floors, insulation and facade panels. This means that today we build and transform homes, schools and offices with materials that may in the future be classified as hazardous waste. This is the opposite direction of the circular economy – we are incorporating harmful chemicals into construction that can destroy our precious resources, and that future generations will have to deal with.

Legislation lags behind reality

The construction industry has received another incentive to contribute to the circular economy with the new legislation on selective demolition, and the ambitions for transformations and increased recycling are increasingly central to major developers. But how can we recycle a material that potentially contains harmful chemicals?

The EU and Denmark have taken important steps towards banning PFAS in clothing and kitchenware, but construction is largely unregulated. Only a few substances such as PFOS and PFOA are banned. The rest of the more than 12.000 PFAS compounds fly under the radar.

The new Construction Products Regulation could be a turning point. It will require documentation of substances that are harmful to health and will eventually introduce a digital product passport. But as it stands now, information about content will only be available to authorities – not to architects, contractors or builders. It is absurd that the industry that has to make choices about materials should not be allowed to know the chemical content. If PFAS is to be eliminated from construction, legislation must create transparency. Anything else can look like authorized greenwashing.

Responsibility and action – from developer to manufacturer

The PFAS report points to a number of concrete solutions. Developers and consultants must set requirements such as requesting documentation, requiring analyses performed in approved laboratories and choosing materials without PFAS. PFAS is not necessary to create durable or functional buildings; what we built 100 years ago did not contain PFAS. There are alternatives. Manufacturers must take their share of responsibility. PFAS can be designed out of products, and substitution must be an active goal. The companies that lead the way should be highlighted as role models.

At the same time, digital material and building passports should be introduced, where PFAS and other harmful chemicals are registered. This will give the craftsmen and recycling sector of the future the knowledge they need to handle materials safely and enable the real estate sector to get a handle on what their investments consist of.

The hidden price forever

The Nordic Council of Ministers has calculated that PFAS-related health impacts cost society between 52 and 84 billion euros per year in Europe. This includes costs for treating liver damage, thyroid diseases, obesity, fertility problems and cancer. In addition, there are costs for landfill, clean-up, etc. This is not only a real-time economic disaster. Future generations will pay the bill, which will only grow as long as we continue to use PFAS. Avoiding PFAS is not a technical challenge – it is an ethical and economic necessity.

A call to politicians and industry

PFAS in construction is a problem that cannot be seen or smelled. But it can hide in the walls, roofs and floors around us. In order to future-proof our society and resources, we must stop building new environmental bombs. Therefore, politicians must extend the PFAS ban to include construction products, introduce requirements for content declaration and support the development of alternatives to PFAS.

The construction industry has a unique opportunity: to become the first sector to take responsibility for its own materials – from cradle to grave. But this requires us to say no to the eternal chemicals and yes to a truly free and informed choice.

This debate post was published in Ingeniøren's media BuildingTech on October 31, 2025. It was written by: 

  • Anna-Mette Monnelly, specialist, Søren Jensen
  • Martha Lewis, Head of materials, Henning Larsen
  • Lone Mikkelsen, senior advisor at the Green Transition Denmark
By |2025-11-13T09:53:33+01:002 November 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to The toxic legacy in our buildings: Get PFAS out of construction
READ MORE

Youth environmental monitoring shows need for 'tougher' legislation

What does plastic pollution look like in Danish nature? 30.000 children and young people in Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands have given us a rare detailed picture of what is actually out there. And something is striking: We hardly find any plastic lids anymore. On the other hand, there are still cigarette butts everywhere. Both products have otherwise been the target of environmental regulation in recent years, so why this difference?

The mass experiment was carried out by Astra in collaboration with the University of Southern Denmark, Roskilde University and the Royal Danish Academy, and is the starting point for the research project Change4Circularity – a sub-project of TRACE, the national partnership for circular economy. In both 2019 and 2024, plastic waste in nature has been mapped as part of the large citizen science project. At the same time, a number of different types of environmental regulation have been implemented in these years with a focus on plastic. By comparing the results, it becomes clear which type of legislation actually has an effect and meets the purpose of avoiding plastic waste in nature.

Cigarette butts took clear first place in the mass experiment as the most found type of waste in both years. In both experiments, cigarette butts thus accounted for approximately one third of all collected plastic pieces. We see the opposite trend for a number of other products, of which significantly more were collected in 2019 compared to 2024. This applies, among others, to plastic straws, plastic lids for drinking bottles and large carrier bags with handles.

It's about proper regulation

The difference is not about coincidences, or that we have started to throw selected plastic products in the trash. It is about how these products are regulated. There is now a legal requirement that plastic lids on drinking bottles must be attached. This means that the lid is no longer dropped or thrown away, but is physically attached to the bottle. Straws have been completely removed from the market, while a minimum price has been introduced for large carrier bags, so that they can no longer be given out for free in stores. The measures mentioned, which include mandatory design requirements, outright bans and financial incentives, therefore appear to be effective in reducing the amount of plastic waste in nature.

When it comes to cigarette butts, however, a completely different path has been chosen. Instead of requiring prevention, the tobacco industry has simply been imposed with a so-called clean-up responsibility. This means that the producers have to pay for the municipalities to collect the butts. Not a word about preventing the butts from ending up in nature in the first place. Not a single incentive to change product design or behavior. The result? Butts and nicotine pouches are still everywhere – from schoolyards and beaches to city squares and parks.

Producer responsibility is an extremely soft form of regulation, and with it we effectively accept that millions of cigarette butts are thrown into the environment every single day as long as someone pays to pick them up afterwards. It is neither effective nor sustainable.

Cigarette butts are among the most widespread forms of waste globally. They contain plastics and chemicals that harm animals, soil and aquatic environments. The fact that they are still everywhere is not due to a lack of attention. It is due to a conscious political decision not to impose requirements for design and prevention, but only 'cleaning up' in the form of an economic desk exercise.

We can do better. The data from the mass experiment shows that targeted regulation works. When we set requirements for product design, use financial incentives and bans, it makes a difference. Therefore, we urge that it is these types of 'tougher' legislation that politicians incorporate into future environmental legislation.

It's time we brought regulation into the 21st century. The environment can't just be vacuumed after the party. We need to prevent the waste from ending up there in the first place.

This debate post was published in Naturmonitor on 30/10 2025.

Senders: 

Lone Hjorth Mikkelsen, Green Transition Denmark,

Malene Høj Mortensen, Plastic Change,

Mette Hoffgaard Ranfelt, Danish Nature Conservation Society

Niels Toftegaard, Circular Industry Association

By |2025-10-30T11:15:14+01:0030. October 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to Youth environmental monitoring shows need for 'tougher' legislation
READ MORE

Lax nitrogen requirements will turn the green tripartite into an empty shell

The dead fjords, the greasy muck and the fish floating lifeless up to the surface have become a sad symbol of an unbalanced marine environment. The reason is well known: Every winter, large amounts of nitrogen from the fields are washed into fjords and coastal waters. Nitrogen that feeds the algae and suffocates life below the surface.

There are big plans for the green transition, including with the Green Tripartite, which aims to convert 15 percent of Denmark's agricultural area to nature. 43 billion kroner has been allocated to make it attractive for farmers to take the most polluting land out of use. But without ambitious nitrogen regulation, the green transition is like a bottomless boat - no matter how hard we row, we will still take in water. Neither the 'reverse Dalgas' nor a balanced marine environment can become a reality if we do not work hard. Therefore, we call on the government, SF, Radikale Venstre, Conservatives and Liberal Alliance to introduce ambitious nitrogen regulation that creates an incentive to convert the agricultural land that pollutes the aquatic environment the most.

The foundation of the green transition

Nitrogen emissions are not just a problem for the aquatic environment – ​​they undermine Denmark's entire green transition. Without control of nitrogen emissions, it will be difficult to achieve our climate goals, create better nature and comply with the EU's Water Framework Directive. Lax regulation will make the Green Tripartite an empty shell, an expensive compromise with limited impact, and our fjords and inland waters will continue their decline. Nitrogen regulation is therefore the bedrock of Denmark's green transition. Without it, the project will sink. With it, we can ensure that investments are actually translated into progress for life in the inland fjords and waters, more nature, more ecology and a real climate effect.

The most contaminated soils must be removed

To be effective, nitrogen regulation must be targeted. It must make it less lucrative to cultivate the lands that pollute the aquatic environment the most, while the more robust lands are not unnecessarily hit hard. There is a big difference in the amount of nitrogen emissions from different farms – one farm can easily emit ten times as much nitrogen as another. Therefore, it is crucial that we take the right lands out of cultivation. Such regulation makes it both economically and environmentally sensible to convert vulnerable lands to nature, wetlands and forests, and to convert more of the lands that are still under cultivation to organic farming. This will reduce pollution, store carbon and benefit biodiversity. And it will keep sky-high land prices in check.

Lax regulation wastes money

The Danes have already allocated 43 billion kroner to the Green Tripartite. It is a historic investment in our shared nature. But if we do not get strong and targeted nitrogen regulation, we risk that the money will not deliver the promised benefits. If the most polluting soils remain in rotation, nitrogen emissions will continue. We may therefore end up spending billions and the fjords will remain dead, instead of targeting the effort and thus tackling the core of the problem. This is both environmentally and economically irresponsible. The Green Tripartite was a compromise but also an opportunity. An opportunity to create a Denmark where we get life back in the sea, and where nature, climate and agriculture can exist side by side. But that opportunity will drown if we do not get nitrogen regulation that can keep the ship afloat.

The green transition doesn't just require more money – it requires solid requirements and regulation. Without effective nitrogen regulation, we can't land dry-shod. With it, we can finally set course for a marine environment in balance – and a Denmark that holds water.

The debate contribution was presented in the Althingi on 20/10/2025.

Senders: 

Jacob Mark, department head, Danish Nature Conservation Society
Christian Fromberg, campaign manager for agriculture, forests and nature, Greenpeace
Tobias Krog Udsholt, senior economist, Think Tank Hav
Trine Langhede, advisor for food and bioresources, Green Transition Denmark
Torben Hansen, nature and environmental consultant, Danish Sport Fishing Association
Thomas Kirk Sørensen, lead specialist, WWF

Photo: Troels-Lange/University of Southern Denmark

By |2025-10-29T13:20:36+01:0029. October 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to Lax nitrogen requirements will turn the green tripartite into an empty shell
READ MORE

Industry players are so big that they prevent us from doing our job

We are five Danish environmental organizations with one core task: to secure nature and the environment for future generations. To say the least, this task is in a bad state. The emission of greenhouse gases and the continued support for fossil energy are extremely alarming. The ocean suffers from overfishing and chemical pollution. Meat consumption drives nitrogen pollution of the ocean. Groundwater is filling up with more and more chemicals, and we burn biomass in uncontrollable quantities. The production of single-use plastic and fast fashion textiles is growing year by year. We fly and drive private cars like never before.

It is difficult to find the bright spots and it is time for us to take a more fundamental stand against the democratic structures that weaken the environmental movement. We have a proposal for how we can change the balance of power in Danish environmental politics so that our popular mandate gets the impact it deserves.

Two crucial analyses about Danish democracy have seen the light of day, the Power Report 2.0 and the Power Map 2024. Both analyses point to major structural challenges in our democracy.
Research leader Michael Bang Petersen is leading the Danish Parliament's Power Inquiry 2.0. In his initial conclusions, he emphasizes that there is a direct connection between economic muscle and access to influence policy-making in Denmark. According to him, money can be exchanged for influence on legislation. He points out that a layer of lobbying companies and PA agencies has emerged in Denmark, which acts as a bridge between the business community and politicians in Denmark. Industry can activate this layer with its budgets, but we Greens cannot participate. We consider this to be a serious democratic problem that delays or, in the worst case, prevents green solutions.

In addition to the Power Survey 2.0, the Power Mapping 2024, prepared by A4 Medier, has seen the light of day. This focuses on networks as access to power, and the 100 most powerful people in Denmark are mapped, including the power elite in the green area. According to the researchers behind the study, people from the business community are again dominant, with only two people from the green organizations represented. For example, large emitters of greenhouse gases, such as agriculture and the cement producer Aalborg Portland, are strongly represented on the list of the power elite in Denmark. The same applies to the Confederation of Danish Industry and the Danish Chamber of Commerce. According to the researchers, industry is greatly overrepresented and thus has a decisive influence on the political decision-making processes.

In practice, two analyses mean that we green organizations rarely have a decisive influence on legislation in Denmark. A good example of how power plays out is when the previous government was to implement the Climate Act of 2019. Here, the government established the so-called climate partnerships, primarily led by a number of industries, including Aalborg Portland, Danish Crown, Letbek (plastics company) and SAS. Companies with strong networks and financial muscle to buy access via lobby organizations. Their powerful position and financial muscle meant that the government let them lead the implementation of a climate law that greatly affected them themselves. The government let the fox guard the chickens; the environmental and climate organizations sat in the second row or outside.

Together with the researchers, the green organizations hold large amounts of knowledge about how we should transform society. Knowledge that does not reach the crucial political decision-making processes. One thing is clear: Industry has taken power. This is clear after we have seen the first results of the upcoming Power Investigation 2.0 and the Power Mapping 2024. The question is how we change our democracy so that the environment has a real voice.

If we green organizations are to truly live up to the popular mandate we have achieved, we must equalize the differences in the balance of power between the industrial and environmental organizations. This requires transparency and funding. In Denmark, we have, in a European context, very closed lobbying. Open registers of lobbying in Denmark will automatically start a healthy discussion about who is in power in Denmark.

Our framework conditions must be changed so that we have the strength to seriously interfere at the top of power and carry the many solutions that we each have in our possession to the country's politicians. Right into the crucial decision-making processes. Here, direct support for the work of environmental organizations with political advocacy is a prerequisite. The financial leeway leaves room for the Folketing to decide that the political work of green organizations should be prioritized and supported financially.

Danish foundations can also help to carry out this task. Only if we take up the debate and confront the democratic constraints that our democracy has mistakenly created can we fairly constitute an equal party in the game of which solutions politicians choose. This will be a direct response to the democratic distortions that the Power Inquiry 2.0 and the Power Mapping 2024 expose.

We hope that Danish parties will go to the polls on the premise that we greens should be more on the field. Our climate and environment are in need. It is in the interest of society that the industry meets a much more qualified counterpart in terms of which solutions best address the climate challenges. Solutions that will create green business models and lead to clean drinking water, a clean ocean, more wild forest nature and less plastic consumption and pollution. Today, the playing field is occupied by the industry players. This directly prevents us from carrying out our work in a democratic manner.

This opinion piece was published in Politiken on July 4, 2025 and was written by:

Bjarke MøllerDirector, Green Transition Denmark, Frederik R. SandbyHead of Secretariat, Climate Movement in Denmark, Esther Michelsen KjeldahlCo-founder, Fossil-Free Future, Henrik Beha PedersenFounders, Head of the Board, Plastic Change, Nanna Jochumsen and Jakob KronikCo-Secretaries General, Forests of the World

By |2025-07-07T08:51:58+01:007. July 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to Industry players take up so much space that it prevents us from doing our job
READ MORE

The EU's climate target for 2040 is politically important – but insufficient from a climate perspective

The European Commission has today presented its long-awaited proposal for a climate target for 2040: a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990. Politically, it is an important step to be able to bring together member states broadly around a proposal within the recommendation. But from a climate perspective, it is insufficient – ​​especially with the possibility that countries can meet the target partly through the purchase of climate credits.

“The 90 percent reduction target by 2040 is an important step forward, but still not enough. It is at the low end of the recommended level. The EU should aim for 95 percent to ensure sufficient climate action and at the same time strengthen its competitiveness and energy security. When the goal can also be met with climate credits, we risk postponing a real and fair transition,” says Britt Dam, climate and energy advisor at the Green Transition Denmark

The Danish Green Transition Denmark recommends a target of at least 95 percent without the use of climate credits and with a linear reduction path towards 2040. With the necessary political will, it is both technologically and economically possible.

An ambitious 95 percent target will not only put the EU on course for the necessary climate neutrality as early as 2045 – it will also strengthen the EU's competitiveness and reduce its dependence on imported fossil fuels.

This is supported by the EU's own climate science advisors (ESABCC), who assess that early, national transition is both realistic and beneficial for the EU's economy, innovation and geopolitical leverage. At the same time, they warn that the use of climate credits will have a negative impact on the EU itself, as well as undermine the fairness of the EU's contribution.

The EU has everything to gain from leading the way
A 95 percent target would strengthen security of supply, reduce energy bills and increase investment in future technology. According to the Green Transition Council's analysis, the target can be achieved through massive scaling up of solar and wind, electrification of transport, industry and heating, and energy efficiency. This would make the EU independent of fossil fuel imports to an annual value of 350 billion euros.

At the same time, a new report from the European Environment Agency (EEA) shows that a rapid expansion of renewable energy and electrification can save up to 57 percent on citizens' energy bills as early as 2030. There are thus major economic benefits to be reaped from an ambitious climate and energy policy.

Therefore, the Green Transition Council calls on the Commission and the Member States to raise ambition and reject climate credits.. A rapid and deep transition is needed to meet the limited European CO₂ budget. A target of at least 95 percent will make the EU a stronger global actor – both climate-wise and geopolitically.

By |2025-09-24T08:51:22+01:002. July 2025|Press release|Comments closed to the EU's climate targets for 2040 is politically important – but insufficient from a climate perspective
READ MORE

Contact

Green Transition Denmark
Kompagnistræde 22, 3
1208 Copenhagen K
Denmark

CVR: 15428376

Find staff

Privacy Policy

info@rgo.dk

Support the green and sustainable transition

Disclaimer: This website has been translated using automated translation software powered by third-party services. We will continuously make efforts to improve the translations from Danish.

Do you want to follow our work?

A fast path to green knowledge!

Go to Top