Preserve more buildings and make construction more circular

In Copenhagen, Aarhus and other Danish cities, new concrete buildings are booming, and the infrastructure agreement will use DKK 161 billion. DKK from 2022-2035 to build new motorways and new infrastructure. The world of yesterday and business as usual is extended with concrete and asphalt into the future.

Have we understood the seriousness of the climate crisis? From Vejle to Esbjerg and Stevns you are already affected by the floods, and more wild weather awaits in the future if we do not change course. And it's urgent.

Denmark's share of global CO2-budget (200 gigatons of CO2) expires in 2029, if we focus on our national emissions, but if we look at the Danes' global consumption-based emissions, the budget is eaten up in 2026. This puts us under severe pressure to implement a significant change of course in all sectors. This also applies to the construction industry, which today stands behind it 31 per cent of Denmark's total resource consumption, and 40 per cent of all our waste.

Fortunately, large parts of the construction industry are demanding more and tougher legislation to the benefit of our climate, environment and resources. So perhaps the time is ripe for a fundamental change in the way we relate to the building stock in Denmark?

In May, a broad majority in the Folketing entered into an additional agreement that will lower the limit value for new buildings to 7,1 kg CO2e/m2/year in 2025 and to 5,8 kg in 2029. It is progress that the construction process is also counted against the limit value. But you still shoot way too high over the target. That way we won't win in the green Champions League. In fact, we need to get down to 0,3 kg in 2030, as can be seen from Reduction Roadmap 2.0, which over 630 companies and organizations support.

It is not enough to simply lower the limit values ​​for new construction. We also need to think more broadly and more holistically. The embedded energy and CO2-consumption during the entire use phase, renovations and demolition and transport after end of life should be counted. We should break with CO2-silo thinking. PFAS and other dangerous chemicals should be removed from construction, so that it becomes easier to reuse and recycle materials. If we are to create absolutely sustainable construction in the future, it must stay within all planetary limits and not just the 1,5 degree target in the UN agreement

There are absolute limits to how much more Denmark can build in the future. The big challenge in the coming years is to transform the existing building mass, to have building materials recycled many times and to reduce energy and resource consumption in all parts of the value chain.

In the Green Transition Denmark, we have carried out a thorough review of the many different laws and regulations that currently regulate construction. Our Report – Circular construction: From thought to political action - which was made with support from Realdania, shows a clear common denominator: In the Building Act, the Building Regulations, tax legislation, the Environmental Assessment Act, Construction Acts, the Planning Act and the Building Conservation Act, it is more the exception than the rule that demands are made for circularity and a lower consumption of resources.

In the case of public construction projects, the client is neither met with targets nor requirements to reduce the climate or resource footprint. In most construction laws, history repeats itself. And in the Public Procurement Act there is no requirement to promote new facilities with the lowest possible climate and resource impacts. The Ministry of Finance is pushing for total costs to be as low as possible, and economy trumps environment.

In Denmark, green taxes as a share of gross domestic product have fallen 2 per cent., where two decades ago they were up to 5 per cent. of GDP. We still tell each other nice stories about the green front runner nation, where the polluter pays, but we don't really appreciate nature, climate and the environment properly.

The tax system is not at all designed to support circular design, a lower consumption of resources, less new construction, more renovation, transformation and fewer square meters. The high price that the climate and the earth pay for the massive production and consumption of building materials is in no way reflected in the raw material tax, which today is as low as DKK 5,56 per m3, and which has only increased by DKK 1990 since the 0,56s. The raw material tax has not kept up with the price development. The same applies to the landfill tax, which is only DKK 475 per ton, which is why too many building materials that could well be reused or recycled are still deposited in Denmark. And there is a demolition deduction for depreciable commercial buildings, which leads to even more demolitions, where the building mass should be transformed instead.

In the tax legislation, there are strong incentives to build new and big. With the new property assessments, the land liability is set on the basis of the absolute best utilization of one's land - regardless of whether you per square meter has utilized its full potential or not. If you build new, you are exempt from paying property value tax for a period, while during renovation you have to pay full price - largely unaffected by how big or small the renovation is.

RGO's mapping shows that Danish legislation is full of stumbling blocks that need to be cut. The public authorities lack a clear mandate to prioritize circular solutions. In the Planning Act, there is no requirement that municipalities must include circularity or resource consumption in their municipal plans. But they should.

In addition, there should be a mandatory requirement that all new buildings and facilities positively affect nature, biodiversity and the climate, and that Danish buildings use recycled materials to a greater extent. Circular requirements should be incorporated into every corner of the legislation, so that reductions in climate and resource consumption seep through every small crack in the legislative foundation.

In RGO, we recommend that the politicians, in the upcoming revision of the building regulations, purposefully set circular requirements for improved lifespan, adaptability, design for separation and demolition, and set clear targets for recirculation of building materials. With all new building permits, the developer should be required to produce a circular action plan, and when people want to demolish existing detached houses, villas and commercial buildings, there should be a 'keep or explain' requirement. Often it is better to preserve and renovate many of the old buildings that deserve more life rather than being razed to the ground.

Danes' consumption of materials has increased by as much as 7 per cent. in the last decade, and every Dane consumes 25,3 tons of materials every year, shows Statistics Denmark's latest ten-year overview. This is significantly more than the 14,4 tonnes that an average EU citizen uses. Together with Luxembourg, we have the highest consumption footprint of the EU countries. Construction and construction - along with large imports of oil and wood biomass for burning - are helping to push the numbers sky high. By focusing on circular construction in all laws and regulations, we can significantly reduce material consumption.

We should learn from the best here. The EU's circular front-runner is the Netherlands, which has a goal of halving the consumption of all materials and resources by 2030. They recycle 24,5 per cent. of the virgin materials that enter the economy, where the figure in Denmark is only 4 per cent. - according to Circularity Gap Report. In the Netherlands, they work purposefully to create a circular economy, because they have understood that high energy and resource awareness is the key to future competitiveness.

The Netherlands builds twice as many square meters of housing as in Denmark per year, but the construction sector's resource consumption - measured per inhabitant – is only a quarter of what it is in Denmark. They have set a target of 100 per cent. recycling in the construction sector in 2030, and they will more than halve CO2- the imprint of concrete. Imagine if our new Minister of Social Affairs and Housing, Sophie Hæstorp Andersen, set a goal that we in Denmark should be as skilled as the Netherlands in making circular construction?

This chronicle was written by Bjarke Møller, director of the Green Transition Denmark and was published in Berlingske on 4 November 2024

By |2024-11-07T14:13:26+01:004 November 2024|Chronic|Comments closed to Preserve more buildings and make construction more circular
READ MORE

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.

By |2024-10-22T08:57:44+01:0022. October 2024|Chronic|Comments closed to Solar cells can free us from oil sheiks and gas dictators. So stop being so negative
READ MORE

The pension companies' black investments are bad management of Danes' money

For the financial sector, sustainability is not only about environmental benefits, but also about economic sense. But for Denmark's ten largest pension companies, there is still a long way to go to adjust their investments in the food sector. This is shown in a report we have prepared. It is time for the pension companies to prioritize a green and financially sound future – just as they have done in the energy sector, where they have shifted investments from coal to wind and solar energy, which has just become the largest source of energy in Europe. Most people probably agree that investments in new coal mines and oil wells should be avoided in order to reduce the environmental and climate impact. Therefore, it should also be a matter of course that the harmful intensive animal production and associated deforestation are put in the same category.

Financial headache

Though food production constitute a smaller part of the companies' portfolio, they have collectively invested several billions in the sector, primarily in the environmentally harmful intensive animal food production. In addition to harming biodiversity, it is economically unwise to have the money invested in this part of the sector. For many years to come, the intensive animal production will be under pressure on a wide range of environmental parameters, and with an upcoming CO2 tax, it will become more expensive for some farmers to run their animal production at the same level as before. And if the technological solutions from the green tripartite agreement do not work, the tax must be revisited, which will mean that the animal part of the sector may face even greater financial losses and become an investment headache for the pension companies.

Unsustainable production

The animal food production is one of the biggest causes of global deforestation, loss of biodiversity, water pollution and CO2 emissions. The production seizes large areas of land for feed, which could instead produce food directly for people and at the same time make room for more nature. At home, it constitutes the animal food production 85 per cent of of agriculture total CO2 emissions, and in 2030 stands agriculture to derive 46 per cent. of Denmark's total greenhouse gas emissions. Simultaneous recording agriculture well over 60 per cent of our total area - of which 80 per cent goes of that area for animal production to the great detriment of climate, biodiversity and the environment. And the connection between food production and biodiversity, several of the companies are aware of. In the report, seven out of ten companies acknowledge that animal food production has a negative impact on climate and biodiversity. Some of the companies have also started to take measures in this area. For example, P+ has invested in a plant-based food company that produces convenience products, and Danica Pension has excluded animal food companies due to their connection to deforestation. So there is not such a long way from thought to action, but much more needs to be done.

Invest green

The pension companies have a unique opportunity to change the situation - that is why we have come up with ten concrete recommendations. Among other things, the companies should make use of active ownership to push for a plant-based food transition, stop new investments in intensive animal production and instead prioritize investments in plant-based foods. In this way, the relatively small amounts invested in the food sector can easily be switched from harmful animal production to plant-based production. Because it requires a much smaller area to feed the population with plant-based foods rather than animal-based foods. This will not only be good for the climate and biodiversity, but also for the Danes' economy, as the plant-based food sector is growing strongly and can provide good investment returns, which will benefit the Danes' pensions. At the same time, the companies also contribute to reducing the intense feed production, so that there can potentially be even more space for nature in the future for the Danes whose money is managed by the pension funds. Therefore, pension companies should show the rest of the financial sector how to adapt the economy to future climate and environmental requirements.

This chronicle has been published in Børsen. The senders are: 

Rune-Christoffer Dragsdahl, general secretary, Danish Vegetarian Association

Clara Drenck, project manager, finance and foodservice, Danish Vegetarian Association

Christian Fromberg, campaign manager for agriculture, forests and nature at Greenpeace

Thomas Meinert Larsen, climate policy advisor, Climate Movement in Denmark

Bjarke Møller, director, Green Transition Denmark

Britta Riis, director, Animal Protection

By |2024-08-15T12:19:10+01:0015 AUGUST 2024 |Chronic|Comments closed to the pension companies' black investments are bad management of the Danes' money
READ MORE

Time for a showdown with the worst myth of our time

Many mistakenly believe that the green transition will be expensive. If you look at the numbers, you will see that our current behavior will result in even greater costs

We often hear that the green transition will be expensive. And an Epinion survey for Kraka-Deloitte has shown that eight out of ten Danes think so. But that is a myth. A damn myth. It is high time to do away with it.

In several European countries, angry farmers or truck drivers have demonstrated - e.g. against higher diesel taxes. They imagine that saying goodbye to the internal combustion engine is a costly affair that could cost people their livelihood and push more people into unemployment. It might not be so strange.

Human psychology has always had a hard time letting go of something familiar and embracing something new. Since the primitive societies, man has warmed himself by the fire, and in the industrial and fossil era we have fired endless amounts of oil, gas and coal.

That behavior has had a high price with environmental damage, pollution and health problems. We are now in the midst of a serious climate crisis, with global temperatures reaching 2023 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 1,48. Unfortunately, the governments make it worse by giving 7000 billion. dollar a year in state support for fossil fuels, which exacerbates the climate crisis. That money can be used more sensibly for green conversion.

We will face large additional costs in the coming years if we do not quickly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and accelerate the phasing out of fossil fuels. Otherwise, there is the prospect of more natural disasters and extreme weather. Temperature increases of over 2 degrees Celsius can cost between 5-10 per cent. of our annual prosperity, economists estimate. And SwissRE estimates that the loss could reach 18 per cent. of GDP at 3,2 degrees.

Far more efficient

In Europe, over 300.000 people die prematurely each year due to air pollution, which is not least due to the burning of fossil energy and solid wood biomass. Several million lost working years are lost productivity and an expensive bill. Up to 10 per cent is destroyed annually. of Denmark's gross domestic product, as a result of fossil pollution, loss of biodiversity and damage to nature. As long as we cling to the combustion society, we live in an extremely destructive economy.

Around 10-13 per cent. of the energy in fossil fuels is lost during extraction, mining, transport and refining before the oil, gas and coal reach consumers. Afterwards, even more of the energy is wasted in the internal combustion engine. In the petrol car, only 12-30 per cent reach. of the energy stored in the petrol up to the wheels, where in an electric car it is between 75-80 per cent.

In the same way, heat pumps are three to five times more energy efficient than houses heated with oil and gas boilers or from power plants that fire with solid wood biomass.

The combustion society is extremely inefficient with large energy losses at all stages. Research studies estimate that the transformation from a fossil energy system to an electrified energy system can cut 40 per cent. of the final energy consumption. Renewable solar and wind energy can directly drive electric motors, and it is far more efficient than fossil fuels for internal combustion engines.

The energy loss during transmission with cables over long distances is nothing compared to losses in the fossil system, where oil and gas are lifted from the underground every year, transported over long distances and refined.

We should now reap the benefits of modular and scalable green technologies that can be mass-produced and come down in price. In the last ten years, the price of solar cells and batteries has fallen by 80 per cent, offshore wind by 73 per cent. and onshore wind 57 per cent.

Solar cells and wind turbines are cheaper than fossil fuels in lifetime costs, and the energy can be used directly and more efficiently in electrified transport, industry and heat supply. Supplemented with energy efficiency improvements, batteries, geothermal heat, wave energy and some green hydrogen, we get a cheaper energy system.

Take advantage of replacement

Many old fossil cars, oil and gas boilers and biomass power plants will have to be replaced in the coming years, and it will make economic sense and Danish competitiveness if the governments ban the sale of new fossil cars and oil and gas boilers (or tax them by fire).

On lifetime costs, electric alternatives powered by green power are much more efficient. It is a widespread myth that the green transition will be expensive. It will be both cheaper and much cleaner.

This chronicle was written by Bjarke Møller and was published on the Stock Exchange on 2 March.

By |2024-03-04T12:40:07+01:004. March 2024|Chronic|Comments closed Time for a showdown with the worst myth of our time
READ MORE

Speed ​​up green business policy

If we do not invest purposefully and strategically in new green technologies and solutions, we are looking into a future with high additional costs to patch up the climate damage. But how do we approach the challenges?

In 2023, global temperatures increased by 1,48 degrees Celsius, and we are about to blow up the UN's Paris Agreement in a dangerous way. Climate change is a systemic risk. Our entire way of consuming and producing must be rethought. If we do not invest purposefully and strategically in new green technologies and solutions, we are looking into a future with high additional costs to patch up the climate damage. So how is the challenge approached?

Before Christmas, the SVM government set aside 1 billion DKK for green technology support. It's a cautious start. But below 0,04 per thousand of GDP suggests as a tailor in hell in a climate crisis, which the government calls the greatest challenge of our generation. One should invest at least 2-3 percent of GDP, assesses leading economists such as Nicholas Stern. Globally, the current policy has set us off course 2,5-2,9 degrees Celsius, and it can cost over 2 percent of our annual prosperity in 2030 and increasing to almost 8 per cent. in 2050. We can show timely care through proactive and far-sighted investments.

Many private investors and foundations are tripping to get the capital out to breed, but the state should also speed up via far-sighted regulations, green public procurement and strategic business support. The state does not lack money to pursue a green business policy. But the government has used a good part of the discretionary space for tax cuts, which drive consumption even higher. But there are no incentives for green and sustainable behavior among consumers and companies, and the share of green taxes in GDP has more than halved since 2007.

In the last few years, the government has issued green bonds that have paid off 23,9 billion. DKK in the treasury. They must be invested wisely, but unfortunately this is not always the case. From 2021-27 is given over 19 billion DKK. in support of biogas plants around the country. The sector is greatly oversized, and this year it receives over a third of the total climate and energy support – more than solar, wind and energy efficiency improvements combined. The biogas support gives extra air to an industrialized agriculture with over 200 million animals, but the number must decrease in order to reach the climate goals and reduce nitrogen emissions. The politicians should rather give more support to the plant-based, organic and regenerative agriculture of the future, which can bring Danish food production within the planetary limits.

Green business support can contribute to solving the climate and biodiversity crises, but one should be careful not to make the green transition unnecessarily expensive by listening to a little too clever lobbyists. One example is CO2 capture and storage, where politicians have set aside DKK 38,7 billion. DKK. It is an uncertain investment in a expensive, immature and inefficient technology, which is difficult to scale. Rather than capturing CO2 at the end of the chimney, one should invest in technological innovation that can remove the cause of the problem. 8,2 billion DKK state support for CO2 capture at Ørsted's biomass plant provides a lock-in for burning wood that could otherwise be used much better - e.g. in construction. Today, wood energy is exempt from climate taxes, and from 2022-2027 the state will give up 4,3 billion DKK. for power plants that produce electricity from burnt biomass. You remove a biological CO2 store in the forests, and the power plants' burning of wood biomass emits 15-16 million tons of CO2 per year. It is foolish to give government support to it.

There is a clean alternative. HOFOR will now buy 10 large industrial heat pumps, which can cover 25-30 per cent. of Copenhagen's heat consumption. It is the future. The state should therefore not support CO2 capture at the Amager plant. HOFOR should rather install 40 heat pumps and set up more solar cells, wind turbines and batteries to cover power consumption. The heat supply of the future should be electric, because the heat pumps are 3-5 times more efficient in terms of energy than the incinerators, but as long as the state provides support for biomass burning and, on top of that, provides state support for CO2 capture at the end of the chimney, Denmark will end up in a dead end.

We should focus on green technologies that can be scaled quickly, have high added value and can be mass industrialized. Rather support industrial heat pumps, wind turbine nacelles or energy efficiency improvements, where Danish companies have top skills, than throw billions at new CO2 capture plants or CO2 pipelines. We are in the middle of an energy revolution, where the fast and agile are winning. Solar, wind and batteries are modular technologies where prices are lowered through mass industrialization and standardized processes. The price of solar cells and batteries has fallen by 80 per cent. in ten years. Landvind has become 57 per cent. cheaper and offshore wind 73 per cent. Solar and wind energy follow Wright's Law, and the price of solar panels drops by about 28 percent every time the number of solar panels doubles globally. For the wind turbines, the price drop is 15 per cent. per doubling.

Today, solar cells and onshore wind are cheaper than fossil fuels on lifetime costs. It is now cheaper for society to stop all fossil investments and patchwork solutions to the old energy system and make a rapid acceleration to a 100 per cent. renewable energy system.

Thanks to targeted business support and attractive incentives, the foundation was laid for the later market boom for solar cells and wind turbines. An innovative ecosystem was built that was scaled globally. Now China is doing it with solar cells, batteries and electric cars, while we in Europe fell asleep in the years when market liberal dogma, technology-neutral blindness and fiscal prudence reigned. We must learn from the great successes of business history.

Harvard professor Michael E. Porter wrote 34 years ago in his major work on the competitive advantages of nations that the state can play a key role through high standards, targeted research support, strategic public procurement and targeted business support for the maturation of critical technologies. A mission-driven and strategic business policy can stimulate the development of innovative ecosystems and ensure fierce competition between many companies that can scale up the new green solutions.

It was there when we in Denmark laid the foundation for the wind adventure. But that is not the case in relation to CO2 capture. Similarly, building a hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen pipelines to Germany is unlikely to be profitable. Transporting small and volatile hydrogen molecules over long distances is extremely expensive and demanding, and there are major safety risks. It will be far more economical and efficient to spend the money on expanding the transmission network. Then more green electrons can be sent from Danish wind turbines to Germany, where they can then produce the hydrogen locally for their chemical and fertilizer factories.

A number of lobbyists are trying to entice the politicians, but the global hydrogen bubble risks bursting. The large energy losses in hydrogen production and transport mean that there is far greater potential in full electrification of even heavy industries. Innovative cement and steel manufacturers are developing electrolysis-based processes. If the solutions are scaled, they will eat a part of the hyped hydrogen market.

We should invest much more in expanding our common electricity grid, but shift the main bill for the expansion of the electricity grid away from renewable energy producers and onto fossil energy sources. Remove all tripwires for solar and wind power and geothermal heat. Invest more in energy storage, battery technology and fuel cells, electrolysis and turbocharge the market for heat pumps, energy saving technologies and other cost-effective solutions that can quickly scale in a mass market and deliver big climate impacts in the next few years. Without rapid acceleration with scalable green technologies, we will be too late to solve the climate crisis.

The chronicle was published in Berlingske on 5 February 2024.

By |2024-02-13T12:19:56+01:007. February 2024|Chronic|Comments closed to Speed ​​up green business policy
READ MORE

Transformation of agriculture cannot be solved with technology alone

Danish agriculture is at a historic crossroads. Business as usual is no longer an option. The warning lights have been flashing for far too long, but the politicians have not dared to give a clear signal about where agriculture should move in the coming years. This also applies to agriculture's co-responsibility for solving the common climate challenge. Either a structural adjustment and sustainable renewal of agriculture in Denmark is made, or we risk a continued winding down of this industry and the associated food production. Unfortunately, the government has scrapped the planned negotiations on a new vision for the future of agriculture. And now, instead, plans are being made to patch up agriculture's large climate emissions and provide state support for a new chemical fix, where the cows must be given a white powder, Bovaer, without assurance that it does not harm the health of both humans and animals. This is the completely wrong way to go.

It is high time to take the bull by the horns.

The first prerequisite is to recognize reality instead of displacing it into a symbolic political value war between country and city. In Denmark, we have an extremely intensive and industrialized form of agriculture that is deeply dependent on state subsidies, fossil fuels, fertilizers, chemicals and is extremely capital intensive. It has ended with fewer farms, far fewer people in the countryside and dying villages. The number of farms has fallen by 75 per cent. for the last 45 years and we are witnessing a linear winding down of independent farmers year by year and the average age says steady because the young generations do not bother to take over. Maybe they've seen the writing on the wall?

Today there is only 7100 full-time farmers, who owns his own farm. In the last twelve years alone, the number has fallen by over 42 per cent, and meanwhile the dream of self-employed farmers is winding down. Over half of the operating result originates from state aid, and in 2012-16 the figure was one hundred percent. Ministry of Finance has calculated that agriculture in 2022 received no less than DKK 11,8 billion. DKK in direct and indirect state aid, some of which are also tax rebates, including exemption from paying diesel tax.

Most farmers have a strong desire for freedom and celebrate the idea of ​​a free market economy, but most have ended up under a new yoke: deeply dependent on state aid, the products of the chemical industry, feed imports for the animals and interest payments on the high debt of DKK 285 billion. DKK, which has accumulated. It was not the vision that, back in the late 1800s, made farmers and homesteaders proudly join forces in the cooperative movement and jointly build local dairies, slaughterhouses, community centers, colleges and cooperatives. The love of nature, plants, animals and country life is sung by generations in the high school songbook. This love is shared by many Danes, also in the cities. But where have we ended up? For many, the dream of freedom has ended in a debt prison and a mass-producing treadmill, where the petrochemical industry tries to seduce agriculture into squeezing the lemon extra. But the earth, the animals and nature can no longer bear it.

We have blown the planetary boundaries by several clog lengths and biodiversity and the marine environment are threatened. Economists at the University of Copenhagen have calculated that environmental damage, overuse of natural resources and air pollution cost Denmark DKK 245 billion each year. DKK. It is a conservative estimate, because when drinking water and the marine environment suffer, there is an additional bill that is far greater and affects several generations. We need a new social contract. Denmark should no longer allow agriculture to cause such great environmental damage to our society and common natural heritage.

How is the trend reversed? Denmark is the most intensively cultivated country in Europe, and the agricultural land makes up 60 per cent. of Denmark's total area. But at the same time, Denmark is one of the countries in the EU with the least protected nature. Both on land and at sea, nature is crowded. Denmark's seas suffer from historically high levels of oxygen loss, and only 5 per cent of the Danish waters are in good ecological condition. Even if Agriculture & Food tries to convince citizens and politicians that it is always the fault of others – i.e. nitrogen emissions from our neighboring countries, or from the cities' waste water – it is no use denying the facts. For decades, our leading scientists have said that the biggest problem is agriculture's excessive nitrogen emissions. In fact, the amount of nitrogen should be reduced by at least 30 per cent or more if we are to hope that the fish population can grow again in Danish waters, and Denmark must live up to the EU's water framework directive. We have to do that in 2027 at the latest, but because the politicians have let it stand for many years, our common sea is dying, and Denmark is miles away from complying with the EU requirements.

Agriculture can help save the marine environment, but at Axelborg they want to shirk responsibility. Danish farmers who want to do something good for the community end up as hostages in this political play. And the outcome does no one any credit.

Not only the marine environment suffers. So does the groundwater. IN over 54 per cent of the drinking water boreholes excessively high levels of pesticide residues have been found. In 2016, it was a fifth of the drillings. It is a sad legacy to leave toxic drinking water to the next generations, but if the country's farmers continue to listen to the chemical industry and their power point presentations, this destruction of our shared natural heritage will continue. The yellow rapeseed fields may be beautiful, but biodiversity is also threatened. Over 40 per cent of the Danish bee species are endangered or already extinct. And the fewer pollinators, the more vulnerable future food production is. It will help if we can recreate small biotopes, field divides, stone dykes and more wild natural areas all around the country, and then Denmark should completely or partially stop spraying with poison. If we are to protect the groundwater and the marine environment, there should be at least withdrawals 600-800.000 hectares of agricultural land, the researchers estimate.

And then there is the climate. IN in the last fifteen years, agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases have not been reduced, and now it makes up a third of Denmark's total emissions. In 2030, it could be up to half if the government backs down from introducing a high and uniform COXNUMX2e-tax. But in Denmark, all parts of society should bear their fair share, so that we reach the climate act's goal of reducing CO2e-discharges with at least 70 per cent compared to 1990. In fact, agriculture should cut 65 per cent. of its emissions by 2030, but for far too long the politicians have not dared to introduce that CO2e-tax, which all economists say is the most cost-effective way to solve the climate challenge.

Until now, the SVM government has hesitated with CO2the e-tax, and support will be given to feed additives called Bovaer. It is a white powder (3-Nitrooxypropanol or 3-NOP) which can be mixed into feed to reduce the cows' production of methane gas. Formally, the substance is approved, but it is not harmless. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have assessed, that it can be harmful for humans to inhale, touch and get in the eyes. In addition, have Aarhus University in a study concluded, that the animal welfare of Bovaer is not sufficiently elucidated, and that cows with large doses of Bovaer in the feed eat less, which may be due to the fact that the feed additive causes discomfort for the cow.

It is not yet known how Bovaer used over a longer period of time will affect human health and animal welfare. It is hoped that the substance will reduce methane emissions from cows 28 30 per cent, but it costs approx DKK 800 per tonnes of CO2e. Furthermore, it seems hasty to give large government support to a fairly unproven technology produced by a single company. On top of that, a new control system must be built to ensure that it is used correctly.

Bovaer looks like a new shot in the arm in an increasingly industrialized agricultural system filled with fossil energy, artificial fertilizers and chemicals, which step by step is losing its connection to nature, the environment and common sense. Surveys from the Netherlands and Sweden shows that cattle methane emissions can be reduced by approximately 30 per cent simply by putting the animals on fresh grass. Rather than betting on a technological fix like Bovaer, it is more effective to introduce a CO2e-tax. Will it be over DKK 216/tonne CO2e, it becomes unprofitable for farmers to keep the many low-lying lands in operation.

Historically, Danish farmers have been good at adapting. They can do it again. Excavating and wet-laying the low-lying soils is one of the effective and cheap climate measures. And it promotes biodiversity. In addition, it could be made more attractive to set up wind turbines or solar cells on the worst soils, so that farmers can make money from supplying green power to the grid and removing fossil fuels from the Danish energy system. At the same time, trees and new natural forest could be planted. In Denmark, there are currently 627.000 hectares covered with forest, but if we plant an extra 300.000 hectares of forest, we can eventually remove over 3 million. tons of CO2 from the air every year. The most infertile agricultural lands and areas near streams and the coasts can be advantageously converted to forest, which provides natural CO2-catch with well-tested biological methods rather than pouring a lot of tax dollars into an immature, inefficient and expensive CO2-trapping at power plants, cement factories and waste plants. We can choose another path in Danish climate policy. Both agriculture and forestry can become part of the solution.

In 2022, Denmark exported food and beverages worth DKK 141 billion. DKK, and there are many employees in the ancillary industries, so it is an important profession. But agriculture is not entitled to special environmental and climate treatment compared to other industries. In industry, demands are made that the polluter pays the bill, and this should also be the case in agriculture.

However, we will never reach the goal of reducing agricultural emissions if we do not also tackle a structural change that reduces large-scale animal production.

The annual release of greenhouse gases from all farm animals is over 7,5 million. tons of CO2e. The production of meat and dairy products weighs very heavily in the climate account, and this is due to, among other things, a large energy loss, as feed must first go through an animal rather than growing food directly for humans. Thus, Denmark imports 1,8 million tonnes of soy, most of which is used to feed farm animals. The global footprint from here is 3,8-4,3 million tons of CO2e. In reality, Danish livestock production swallows more protein from imported soybean meal than it delivers to our plates, and this gives Denmark a large global climate footprint that should be reduced.

We are a small country with less than 6 million. inhabitants, but the number of farm animals has blown nature's carrying capacity. It's over 1,4 million cattle and dairy cows, are produced over 30 million pigs and over 100 million poultry, the majority of which goes for export. Every year is slaughtered 17 million pig, around 450.000 cattle and 100 million poultry in the Danish slaughterhouses, but large numbers of animals in Denmark are far beyond what the climate and environment can bear. Furthermore, we should take animal welfare seriously.

About 15 million are exported. live piglets each year with animal transport. But what fewer people know is that there 10,1 million people die every year. piglets out in the stables and as much as 23 per cent. dies in the first days after birth. It is the story of a food production machine that has broken down and is showing serious signs of illness. Business as usual is no longer a sustainable option.

The other day, the government decided to scrap the plan to set up a partnership to come up with a vision plan for Danish agriculture. This is the absolutely wrong decision. Many of the environmental challenges cannot be solved simply by introducing a CO2e-tax in a closed tripartite negotiation in 2024 or by giving state aid to Bovaer in the queues.

It is urgent to take proper care of both the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis, to reduce agricultural emissions of methane and nutrients, to reduce pollution of drinking water and to improve animal welfare. This can only happen through a structural adjustment.

The large-scale animal production must be reduced, and we must bet much more on plant-based organic foods if Danish agriculture is to have any hope of becoming sustainable in the future. The number of farm animals should be adjusted to the available amount of feed and take climate, environment and animal welfare into account. This means that by 2040 the number of pigs should be reduced by 95 per cent, and the number of cattle and poultry should be reduced by 65 and 75 per cent respectively, but by investing more in plant-based foods, the same amount of protein can be made for human food like today.

This is shown in a new joint report - "A new way for Danish agricultural production and food consumption within the limits of the planet - from Foder til føde II" - where RGO together with the Danish Nature Conservation Association, the Danish Vegetarian Association, the Protection of the Animals, the Association for Regenerative Agriculture, the Association Climate Movement in Denmark, Greenpeace, World Animal Protection and the National Ecological Association have made a visionary proposal for how Danish agriculture can become climate neutral by 2040 and produce within the planetary limits.

Our vision is for Denmark to become a green front-runner nation, where all Danish food is produced using organic and regenerative methods, delivering tasty, nutritious, high-quality food without the use of poisons and pesticides. The support schemes must be restructured so that they can support this development. A tax on animal production, removal of the VAT on fruit and vegetables, more green requirements for public procurement and a green transition fund can help to accelerate renewal in agriculture.

The large reduction in the number of farm animals and conversion to more plant-based food production makes it possible to remove 680.000 hectares of agricultural land and allocate more to wild nature and larger forest areas, which can absorb more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Until 2027, half a million should be withdrawn. hectares of agricultural land, and the livestock population must be reduced by at least 50 per cent. in 2030, so that agriculture can actively help solve the climate crisis and reduce the leaching of nitrogen into streams and the marine environment.

It is a visionary, ambitious and realizable plan to develop and renew Danish agriculture so that it can once again operate safely within the planetary boundaries. Instead of disbanding agriculture with increasingly environmentally-damaging industrial operations, it must be developed and made absolutely sustainable, so that agriculture in 2040 becomes climate-neutral and gives more back to nature than it takes.

The chronicle was written by Trine Langhede, Niklas Sjøbeck Jørgensen and Bjarke Møller.

By |2023-12-14T13:33:27+01:0015 November 2023|Chronic|0 Comments
READ MORE

The government's climate actions continue to fail – also in the RE plan

"Climate action" is prominently displayed on the SVM government's front page play out about more solar and wind on land. No less than three ministers presented the plan on 9 October and called it a big step on the way to a quadrupling of electricity from solar and wind on land by 2030.

But does it deliver real and effective climate action? It is urgent because climate change is accelerating dramatically with record high temperatures this year, and some climate scientists believes that we may break the 1,5 degree ceiling in the UN's Paris Agreement as early as next year.

Unfortunately, it is far too slow to install more solar cells and wind turbines in Denmark, and we have lost our position as a green front runner nation.

Last year only a little over half a gigawatt was built in the country's municipalities, even though the war in Ukraine and the energy security crisis should have shaken us all out of Denmark's many years of sleep.

In the last five years, only an extra 1,4 GW of solar and wind energy has been installed on land. It is far, far too little if we are to free ourselves completely from fossil fuels, which still make up 53 percent of Denmark's gross energy consumption.

It's still going at a snail's pace, the government still hasn't cut the many bureaucratic tripwires over and around 1000 mills are in a queue in the municipalities' case processing.

Unfortunately, the government's new renewable energy plan delivers not a single new concrete action.

Instead of designating new renewable energy parks – this should have happened in the autumn of 2022 and has now been pushed to 2024 – they are talking about "32 areas with potential", about which they will start a dialogue with the municipalities and the developers.

Conducting dialogue and talking about potentials is no art, but when will the government deliver real climate action?

The government foliage in the plan, that they will "significantly" improve the compensation schemes, so that "neighbors and local communities get more money and benefits from living close to solar cells and wind turbines".

The intention is very good, but the action is postponed until later. For the government, it must first prepare an "analysis of possible profit and compensation schemes for neighbors of particularly large electricity transmission facilities."

Ok, the government writes that a quadrupling of renewable energy towards 2030 can increase the amount that the installers give to municipalities and neighbors from approximately DKK 2 billion to a total of DKK 4,5 billion.

Sorry, but the compensations in the green pool to the municipalities are paid per megawatt, and in the VE bonus scheme affected citizens receive support per kilowatt. All other things being equal, this should mean that the compensation should increase by four times.

But the government will only slightly more than double the payments. What is sold as "significantly greater gains for neighbors and local communities" unfortunately looks like a deterioration of the current payments per megawatt.

Finally, let's talk about the incentives. Not only locally, but also nationally.

Our entire tax system and support schemes should be designed to take as many fossil fuels out of our energy system as quickly as possible and make it even more attractive to invest in solar and wind energy, in batteries and energy storage.

We should also quickly phase out state-supported biomass burning in our heating sector and go all-in on electrification with heat pumps and geothermal heating, powered by clean solar and wind energy. But unfortunately that doesn't happen because there is far too much path dependence and far too little agency.

We cannot solve the worsening climate crisis just by talking about new potentials and setting up fine future visions for 2045 and 2050, which must also be delivered in the climate act in 2025 and 2030.

The same vigor as the government and the responsible parties showed during the corona pandemic is needed. But the SVM government still needs to show that it can deliver. On the contrary, one is quite reluctant when it applies.

For example, as when the civil servants' constructive proposals for new tenders for offshore wind were rejected - an open door 2.0 - or when the climate minister cancels the energy crisis and allows the public institutions to increase the temperature from 19 to 23 degrees.

And in the game for new and higher CO2-taxes, a delaying tactic has been used. It is a shame when it is the most cost-effective measure.

Yes, we talk a lot about CO2- charges, but I just checked Denmark's statistics, and the total taxes on carbon dioxide and CO2 emissions have fallen in real terms by 6,8 percent since 2013.

The government should raise CO2-the tax more quickly for industry, and introduce it just as quickly for agriculture, which since 2013 has not lowered its emissions of greenhouse gases at all.

You should also raise the diesel tax at least to the German level and scrap the exemption for agriculture from the diesel tax.

Fossils have been handled with velvet gloves for far too long. The state's revenue from fossil energy taxes has actually fallen by 12 percent or DKK 3,8 billion compared to 2013.

These taxes should be significantly increased, and can, for example, finance a faster expansion of our dilapidated electricity grid, so that there are no stopping blocks for setting up more renewable energy.

In the energy system of the future, electrification of all sectors is the main key to freeing ourselves from fossil fuels and saving up to 40 percent of our total energy consumption.

Annually, the state collects more than DKK 11 billion in electricity taxes, so can't we manage to expand the Danish electricity grid with DKK 40-80 billion in the next ten years?

Instead of raising the fossil energy taxes, those who set up solar cells and wind turbines are hit by extra tariffs and contributions. Unfortunately, that is the reality.

From the climate election in 2019 to 2024 the connection contributions to get on the transmission grid have increased by 8 times for solar cells and onshore wind, and the extra payment to get on the distribution grid has increased by a factor of 13 for onshore wind and a factor of 14 for solar cells, shows a calculation made by European Energy.

Sometime in the future, when the whole of Denmark is free of fossil fuels, there is good logic in the fact that those who use the electricity grid will also have to pay to use it and expand it.

But as long as more than half of our gross energy consumption is fossil, the drastic increases in connection fees and feed-in tariffs are indirectly helping to delay the green transition and extend the lifespan of fossil fuels.

And it also gives an unfair competitive advantage to the biomass plants, which are exempt from taxes and until 2026 have the prospect of DKK 3,2 billion in government support to convert solid wood biomass into electricity.

The same applies to the biogas plants, which are both exempt from CO2tax and, on top of that, is fattened up with DKK 10,7 billion in state aid for the financial laws from 2023-2026.

It is only fair and reasonable that producers of renewable energy must pay something back to the neighbors and the local community on an ongoing basis, and let's develop a new model for ongoing profit sharing.

But if we are to solve the climate crisis, in the next five to ten years we should favor those who deliver the best green solutions and send the biggest bills to those who damage the climate and the environment.

It is time for a green visit of all the green taxes and fees, so that we can put extra turbo on the transition away from fossil fuels.

This chronicle was written by director Bjarke Møller, and was brought to the Alting on 30 October 2023.

By |2024-01-23T16:24:18+01:0030. October 2023|Chronic|0 Comments
READ MORE

CO2 capture: It was called a "climate technological breakthrough". It would be great if it were true

Sometimes the solution is just around the corner... When climate minister Lars Aagaard presented a broad settlement on CO2-catch, -transport and -storage, he said that "a new piece of Danish climate history" is being written. In 2024 and 2025, 26,8 billion will be distributed. DKK to two consortia, which must raise up to DKK 34 million. tons of CO2 from 2029 and fifteen years onwards. All the settlement parties cheered. It was called a climate technology breakthrough. It would be great if it were true.

Everyone who is deeply concerned about the accelerating climate crisis longs for a solution. But we also have to be realistic. The settlement does not live up to the climate act's requirement that the green transition "must be done as cost-effectively as possible." CO2-trapping is today the absolute most expensive and most uncertain form of climate action that exists. In the Green Transition Denmark, we have thoroughly investigated the international experiences with CO2- capture in industry, at waste plants and cogeneration plants, and they show that the results so far are incredibly poor. It is a pre-commercial, immature and very expensive technology that has proven extremely difficult to scale up. The plants capture much less CO2, than the sellers and lobbyists claim. Instead of catching 85-98 per cent, the catch rate is rather 65-75 per cent. and in some places the real efficiency is all the way down to 0-25 per cent, when you count the entire process from capture to storage.

In several places, the plants have been shut down again due to very poor operating economics. Or they stand and suck even more public funds out of the treasury. Politicians thus run a very large risk when they want to invest on a large scale to capture CO2one in.

Big energy guzzlers

The technology also consumes a lot of energy. Energy consumption at the plants is typically increased by between 13-44 per cent. and at biomass plants it can be as much as 55 per cent. extra energy. The extra bill ultimately ends up with the consumers, which in turn will affect society negatively.

At a time when Denmark should be saving energy - so that we can free ourselves from fossil fuels faster - the politicians will give DKK 26,8 billion. DKK for new CO2-capture plants that will increase energy consumption. Politicians are running a very big risk by betting so unilaterally on the all-important breakthrough for a technology that is still very immature and has such low efficiency. You choose a pick-the-winner strategy and will choose two consortia that do not have a technological off-the-shelf product that can be quickly scaled up. Oligopolies are rarely efficient, and with uncertain and insufficient information, they offer themselves here with a stand-alone solution.

The agreement on CO2-capture, -transport and storage have the worst possible economic design, and there is a very high risk that the dream of carbon capture will be changed to policy capture. The next thing may very well be that the state comes under pressure to build a new CO2- infrastructure with pipelines throughout the country, and that you end up putting several billions in co-financing to make it happen. It is high time to stop, get a little more economic and climate realism into the debate.

More climate effect for the money

If the politicians absolutely want to show action and create a pick-the-winner strategy, you could get a much bigger and faster climate effect for less money by providing new advantageous support and tax models for wind turbines, solar cells, heat pumps, energy efficiency improvements or energy storage. In these markets, there is already fierce competition, and it is much easier to scale the solutions up in the market. These well-known green technologies are already far more cost-effective and can remove fossil fuels from our energy system faster than probably as much of that CO2- catch that the politicians hope for in the coming years. An ambitious national energy efficiency strategy that adamantly pursues faster electrification of transport, industry and the heating sector can e.g. save at least DKK 5 million tons of CO2 in 2030 – and it will provide a much better energy economy. Fossil combustion is 3-5 times less energy efficient than heat pumps and electric vehicles, so the faster we replace fossil fuels with green electricity, the more we strengthen Denmark's future competitiveness.

The political agreement on CO2-trapping does not help Denmark free itself from fossil fuels, but patches up business as usual by betting on state-supported trapping of the chimneys. In the spring, they gave DKK 8,2 billion. DKK in support for Ørsted, which will make CO2-capture at its biomass-fired plants, and it is already a huge rate. Instead of laying down a clear plan for a faster phasing out of heating with solid wood biomass in the Danish heat supply – which currently emits over 15 million tons of CO2 per year – 8,2 billion have been invested. DKK over 20 years to be able to capture 8,6 million tons of CO2. It would have been much better and much more future-proof to advance an electrification of the heat supply by investing in industrial heat pumps powered by solar and wind energy and supplemented by heat storage and geothermal heat. Instead, the politicians chose to put everything on the table at Ørsted. The state aid corresponds – after deduction of VAT – to approx. DKK 755/tonne CO2. And on top of that, Ørsted will spend up to DKK 400/tonne to transport CO2 with trucks from Avedøre to Asnæs and then with LNG-powered ships to the Northern Lights warehouse off the coast of Western Norway. When betting on CO2-catch, one should also factor in the energy and climate bill for the transport over long distances, and in this case it happens with ships, which for 90 per cent that person is powered by the climate-damaging methane gas. On top of that, you should add that it takes up to 30 years to have a net positive effect of CO2-capture on wood-fired biomass plants, because it takes many years to absorb the same amount of CO2 in the forests, which have disappeared in the biological storage from all the wood that Ørsted's plant burns. It is far from the company's branding of creating nature-positive solutions.

Need a break to think

Before the politicians throw themselves into a new round of generous state aid of DKK 26,8 billion. DKK on top of the eight billion already given to Ørsted, a pause for thought is needed. In the Green Transition Denmark, we recommend that the remaining state funds for CO2-catch is frozen until 2030, when the experiences with Ørsted's plant and other countries' experiences with CO can then be evaluated2-catch. At that time, you can assess whether the technology is sufficiently efficient and has come down in price, that it is worth investing in.

It is far too big a rate now to throw 26,8 billion. DKK after two consortia that one hopes – but does not know – can deliver. In the meantime, energy efficiency improvements, solar and wind energy and heat pumps should be quickly scaled up. Here you can get much more climate effect for the money. And there is much else that can be done. Lars Aagard may know this well. Because when he launched his historic settlement, he said that the annual catch of 2,3 million tons of CO2 corresponds to what 900.000 cars emit. Yes, exactly! So why do we have to spend 26,8 billion tax dollars to bet big time on the ability of two consortia to deliver something that does not yet exist, when instead you could stop the sale of newly registered fossil cars. If you do it in 2025 – e.g. by introducing an extra high tax on fossil cars - we can already avoid an extra 2030 fossil cars driving around on Danish roads in 630.000. That alone will save DKK 1,8 million. tons of CO2 annual. On top of that, you can for 9,2 billion DKK (in aid to farmers for operating losses) extract and wet an extra 135.000 hectares of low-lying soils, and this can according to RGO's calculations capture approx. 3 million tons of CO2 per year from 2030. The hard investment in future CO2-catch looks like birds on the roof and expensive future dreams. It will be much better to bet on the already existing green technologies that actually work and can be scaled up faster at much lower costs.

The chronicle was written by director Bjarke Møller, and was published in Berlingske Tidende on 18 October 2023.

By |2024-01-23T16:24:34+01:0019. October 2023|Chronic|0 Comments
READ MORE

The climate coverage does not lack victims. It misses you

When the media cover the climate crisis, it is often with politicians, researchers or business leaders as sources.

That this type of source takes up the most space is not particularly surprising and does not differ much from other genres in journalism. Those with money and power are naturally called more, as they often have more influence and are the center of stories that are important to more people.

But the problem with letting the people in power dominate the narrative of the climate crisis is that those who read, listen or watch are left in a powerless state without belief that they can do anything about the problems themselves.

Although it is imperative that politicians create the structural changes that are needed, we as a society face a task that requires everyone to see themselves as part of that task and believe that it can possible.

As Line Weldingh, PhD student at Roskilde University, has just concluded in her mapping of Danish media's climate journalism, there is a need to include a larger selection of sources in the coverage, so that there is room for more "ordinary people" .

More diversity in voices means greater likelihood of identification and engagement.

Identification has always been important to journalism. Ask any first semester journalism student and they will quickly be able to list the news criteria, identification being one of them.

Every intern will know the format with a news item and a case story, where you get to put your feelings on a problem.

When we talk about climate change, we often talk about big numbers and abstract concepts such as temperature increases, CO2-discharge and sea level rise.

While this data is crucial to understanding the scale of the problem, it can also seem distant and irrelevant to ordinary people.

The problem for many newsrooms is that it can be difficult to spot the obvious case stories in the climate coverage.

The times when it may seem most obvious to find relevant cases for climate stories are often when disaster strikes, as in Norway, where the media brought interviews with witnesses in the middle of the sad events.

Or when Danes e.g. who this summer were caught close to an area of ​​forest fires during their holiday in Greece.

Many people can relate to that situation, and of course it is also important to tell when we Danes are actually suddenly standing and can feel the climate crisis up close.

But if these kinds of human stories stand alone without also telling about options for action and positive future scenarios, then we risk leaving people paralyzed and hopeless.

What we miss in the media image is therefore not people who are victims of the climate disasters, but the personal stories of people who find their own paths towards climate action. The stories that can inspire, remove the feeling of powerlessness and describe situations and considerations they can see themselves in - and not least give a sense of community.

Around the country there are lots of people who are trying to change their local communities themselves.

We can see this, for example, in connection with the project Yes in my backyard (YIMBY), where we interview people who take a joint initiative to set up wind turbines, establish jointly owned solar cell systems or try to get an energy community going so that they can get rid of their oil or gas boiler.

Others set up an entire housing community, where people live in low-energy houses, live on their own organic vegetables and get green energy from solar cells and their own wind turbine.

Some do it for the climate, others for the community, the economy or the survival of the village.

These stories break with the otherwise fairly widespread narrative of the Not in my backyard trend.

We hear a lot about how local citizens are very concerned and angry when new wind turbine or solar cell projects are presented at public meetings.

But we don't hear much about the people who themselves initiate local green transformation, and who show that we can all contribute to the solutions in our local community, workplace, study, etc. based on our own prerequisites and opportunities without having a doctorate in climate science, but by joining forces with others.

We highlight and focus on the mentioned stories because we have received fund support for the project.

But they would get far greater reach and attention if the major media platforms carried them.

And there is not only a need for these kinds of stories - there is also a demand.

In several surveys, the Danes answer that they are worried, but at the same time do not know what to do to act on the climate crisis. And although it is obvious to think that they just need more articles like "Seven good tips for living sustainably", that is not the solution.

In climate communication research, the theory that the transfer of information leads to action has long since been buried. That's not how people work.

We have a lot of psychological defense mechanisms that stand between the climate messages and our actions. Like categorizing a message as untrue if it creates cognitive dissonance in us, or overlooking stories in our feed that don't quite fit our worldview or are unmanageable.

But this knowledge is unfortunately not part of the curriculum in the country's journalism education, and for many journalists it is unaccustomed to having to think about how one's journalism affects the recipient.

We need to change that, as an EU report on climate journalism also emphasized earlier this year.

People need hope and inspiration – and the media must also help support this.

Of course, the personal stories must not be made at the expense of critical journalism, scientific accuracy and in-depth analysis. But they must supplement the coverage with a human dimension that motivates and engages.

By giving those voices more space in the news coverage, the media can help provide inspiration for how to get involved – and make active climate action the norm.

And in addition to the positive effects it will have for society, if more people start thinking in new ways, it will most likely also have positive effects on the media's readership.

Especially for young media users, who turn their backs on traditional media to a greater extent than the rest of the population.

Young people want media that takes responsibility for the climate crisis, and more than a third want media that calls for climate action according to Danes' use of news media 2022.

In a world where we often measure progress in terms of technological achievements and economic gains, it is worth remembering that our greatest achievements are often found in our ability to understand and support each other.

By including more human stories in climate coverage, we can remind ourselves of our shared destiny, our ability to act, and our capacity to take responsibility for the planet we share.

"We hear a lot about how local citizens are very concerned and angry when new wind turbines or solar cell projects are presented at public meetings. But we don't hear much about the people who initiate local green transitions themselves."

This chronicle was published in Jyllands-Posten on 16 October 2023, and was written by journalist Sofie Hviid, together with Helene Cherét, editor at RGO, journalist and partner in climate journalists, Søren Bjørn-Hansen, and Simon Elsborg Nygaard, Ph.D. in sustainability psychology.

By |2024-01-23T16:24:44+01:0018. October 2023|Chronic|0 Comments
READ MORE

Slowing down of the open door scheme is a shock in the green innovation race

The government has created deep uncertainty about Denmark's green transformation of the energy sector. Unfortunately. The decision to suspend the open door scheme for offshore wind is a shell shock for the market operators who are ready to deliver up to 23 GW of additional green power. This is almost twice as much as the 12-13 GW of offshore wind that the state's public procurement and new energy islands ensure in 2030-32. We badly need much more wind energy if we are to free ourselves from dependence on Putin's fossil fuels and solve the climate crisis.

According to the Danish Energy Agency, it is necessary to slow down the open door projects because they may be in breach of the EU's state aid rules. However, it seems like a pseudo-argument, because as recently as December the European Commission approved the new German wind strategy, which without preliminary studies and without payment to the state lets private operators build wind farms in the North Sea. Under the impression of the corona pandemic and the energy security crisis, the EU has greatly relaxed the state aid rules. And on 30 December, a new EU regulation also entered into force, which must ensure rapid authorization and case processing for renewable energy, which is "a significant public interest." The official explanation from the Danish Energy Agency seems rather weak.

The other day it also emerged that it is not the Commission that has intervened, because the Danish government has itself approached them. This makes the situation even more bizarre. Furthermore, since 1996, Denmark has pursued an open-door policy in the North Sea, which has given fossil giants the right to extract oil and gas from the subsurface.

Damages trust and terms

The decision to put the open-door offshore wind turbine projects on hold is extremely worrying, because we are in a historic energy security crisis that requires swift action. In December, the SVM government wrote in its government foundation that it would boost the green transition and ensure rapid implementation. But now a go-stop policy is being pursued that damages confidence in the future investment conditions in Denmark. While neighboring countries such as Germany have switched gears to speed up the green transition, the Danish Energy Agency is putting the brakes on. This triggers a chain of negative side effects. It also affects mayors from Frederikshavn to Lolland. The coastal offshore wind farms must supply energy to the new Power-to-X factories, which ensure new jobs that can produce green fuels for aviation and shipping.

The Energy Agency's bureaucratic overcautiousness hurts many. For Denmark, as a green front runner nation, it is really bad. Consortia such as CIP-Ørsted were even ready to deliver 5,2 GW of wind energy in 2027-28. Instead of releasing market forces to accelerate the green transition, you might end up spending 3 years at the Energy Agency mapping the entire North Sea. Costly years in a historically deep energy security crisis.

If the government does not find a sensible solution very quickly, Denmark will not have enough green power in 2030 for the Power-to-X factories that are on the way, and which have the potential to create a new Danish business adventure. In the next 10-15 years, we must provide enough green power for millions of electric cars and the electrification of industry, agriculture and the heating sector, which can save CO2 and ensure far greater energy efficiency. It is a must win battle, where the worst bureaucratic stumbling blocks must be cut away. Every day and month wasted is critical. What can be done?

In the climate agreement on green power and heat, which a broad majority of the Folketing entered into on 25 June last year, they gave a handshake to unite "the ambitions for a massive green transition with good business sense. It must ensure that Denmark's marine areas and offshore wind resources contribute to future prosperity and welfare, and that Denmark achieves the greatest possible income and profit for Danish society, citizens and businesses while respecting nature and biodiversity." Here it must be acknowledged that the many open door projects do not quite live up to this.

The state received DKK 2,8 billion. DKK in at the tender for the Thor offshore wind turbine project off Thorsminde. Even if the open door areas are not located in such attractive areas, the state would be guaranteed to be able to bring home dozens of billions if the open door projects are sent out in public auction rounds. Furthermore, the market situation has changed since 2021. European electricity market prices have been pushed up because they are linked to gas prices, which have risen sharply during the war in Ukraine. And in the coming years there is the prospect of higher electricity prices, which increases the likelihood that the offshore wind turbine projects will even become very lucrative. Can the current government – ​​and the other parties behind the summer's settlement – ​​explain to the voters that they gave away open-door areas for free, and the energy companies may be bringing home above-normal profits for several years to come? It can be difficult.

The pace must pick up

But action must also be taken now. Speed ​​must sometimes be prioritized over the dream of perfect models. It's about leadership and balance. Without a rapid acceleration with much more renewable energy, we cannot free ourselves from fossil fuels. It is about Denmark's energy security in the future. Instead of squeezing the lemon too hard and getting too greedy, it is in society's interest to pick up the pace. The need for high speed speaks for giving the green light to the applicants in the open door scheme, but there is a lack of feasibility studies and establishment permits, so there is still a chance to adjust the framework for how the companies can use and sell the electrons on. Here it is particularly unfortunate that the government has not yet established the operative staff, NEKST, which can increase the pace of decision-making and action. Because right now it's all, way too slow.

Therefore, we in the Green Transition Denmark recommend that all settlement parties behind this summer's settlement come together as soon as possible and find a constructive solution to the crisis that Monday's slowdown has created. Instead of wasting time on probably non-existent problems with the EU's state aid rules, concrete action is needed. Feel free to think outside the box. What if you e.g. gives the consortia behind the open door projects the opportunity to pay an upfront amount that per gigawatt equivalent to the Thor project? Some operators are willing to do so. Alternatively, extra contributions could be required for the expansion of the transmission network and critical infrastructure, where large investments are expected in the coming years. Or you could create a new model for profit sharing. In the open door legislation, at least 20 per cent is required. co-ownership to the locals. This framework could e.g. be raised to 40-50 per cent, so that the local community and/or the state is ensured a fair profit sharing. Or you can demand a fixed rental payment. The conciliation circle should agree on what is best.

If the current open door crisis is resolved wisely, Denmark may well deliver 30 GW of offshore wind in 2030-31. But even more is needed if we are to create a 100 per cent sustainable energy system in Denmark and, on top of that, export more green power to other EU countries. Therefore, the government should invite the settlement parties to increase the pace of action. Much more wind and solar energy at sea and on land is a crucial prerequisite for solving the climate crisis, which also threatens biodiversity.

A fair and transparent model

Before the summer of 2023, the state should make a cluster tender for 10-20 GW of extra renewable offshore energy in Danish waters. There is no need for three years of mapping exercises in the Danish Energy Agency to find land for it. Introduce a new model for profit sharing so that the consortia do not have to frontload the payment to the state, as happened with the Thor tender. With inspiration from hydrocarbon taxation, you should make ongoing profit sharing, e.g. for a 40-year lease period. Such a model is fair and transparent, and it gives the consortia better liquidity to increase investments in more offshore wind. Then it is easier to ensure faster scale-up. The state should be more flexible with regard to specific land requirements, so that consortia have a freer hand to decide how many wind turbines are set up in the designated areas. In the Netherlands, the wind turbine density is three times as great as in the Danish parts of the North Sea. Think technology neutrality, so that the concession zones not only open up more offshore wind, but also allow solar and wave energy, as well as PtX plants with hydrogen production on the platforms. Make parallel environmental approvals so that you can get from offers to finished wind turbines faster. And please limit fishing bottom trawling, which destroys the seabed, and let the wind turbine plinths open up new spawning grounds. In the new tenders, the state should make high demands that all market consortia must, as a minimum, meet selected environmental parameters in relation to measurable CO2 emissions in the life cycle. Preferably require a 40-50 year lifespan for the turbines and take biodiversity into account. In this way, we can have an innovation race towards the top instead of a race towards ever more action paralysis.

This chronicle was written by Bjarke Møller and was brought to the Alting on 9 February 2023.

By |2023-11-24T09:20:54+01:009. February 2023|Chronic|0 Comments
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