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

There is something that the farmers' associations must have misunderstood.

Four different farmers' associations think in a post to the Althingi that we are wrong when we, in a previous post advocates for targeted nitrogen regulation, which will mean that the fields that pollute the most are also the fields that have the greatest requirements for nitrogen reduction.

In the tripartite agreement "Agreement on a Green Denmark", the new stricter requirements for agricultural nitrogen emissions are otherwise described as "targeted regulation" that is intended to "provide a major incentive for removal". But now local agricultural organizations believe the opposite – that regulation should not be targeted. We'll leave that aside for a moment.

The four debaters also write that their model is more “fair.” But the question is: fair for whom – and how?

Because yes, a targeted model hits some harder than others. It's in the name. Those who pollute the most must contribute the most. The farmers' associations' model, on the other hand, means that we all pay the same in taxes regardless of income. It may sound simple, but try explaining to the low-wage earner why they should pay the same as the billionaire. It's simply not fair.

Distribution between state and business

It's a bit the same here: Why should farmers on the most vulnerable soils have the same nitrogen quota as those on robust land? Where's the fairness in that? And when we talk about fairness, it's not just about the neighbor, but about the distribution between state and business.

The state, i.e. the taxpayers, has already paid 43 billion kroner for agriculture to take the most problematic lands out of operation, so that our distressed marine environment can get a much-needed break and get more nature for the money.

One could easily argue that the nitrogen requirements should be implemented as so-called compensation-free regulation, where the polluter must bear the costs of stopping the pollution, as is known from the vast majority of other industries in Denmark. This was also the case with the previously reduced nitrogen standards for agriculture, which were removed with the agricultural package in 2015, which switched to a so-called "polluter pays" model.

The most robust soils

Now a historic green tripartite agreement has been decided, where 400.000 hectares of agricultural land will be converted into forest and nature. As mentioned, the state has allocated 43 billion tax kroner, but nitrogen regulation must provide the final push so that we can once and for all reclaim agricultural land for the benefit of biodiversity, the marine environment and Danish citizens.

But what the farmers' associations are actually proposing is that the state should pay even more money to agriculture to cover up the fact that it does not want to regulate where the problems are greatest. And then there is the argument about food production. The farmers' associations write that "agriculture must continue to be able to produce and export food and thus have strong production that is profitable and contributes to jobs in dairies and slaughterhouses."

But there is something here that they must have misunderstood. Because in the targeted nitrogen regulation we propose, it is precisely the most robust soils that are affected the least – that is, precisely where it makes the most sense to produce food. In the farmers' associations' own model, on the other hand, it is the robust soils that take the biggest hit. In other words, they make it less attractive to grow where food production is actually most appropriate from a socio-economic perspective.

Let's get one thing straight.

And let's get one thing straight: If we really want to create new jobs, exports, and enough food to feed more people, according to the researchers, it requires investments in plant-based foods, not more dairies and slaughterhouses.

According to Christian Bugge Henriksen, associate professor at the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark can create 9.000 to 27.000 new jobs if we just manage to occupy one to three percent of the global plant-based market. At the same time, it will enable us to produce far more meals per hectare than we do today, where 80 percent of agricultural land is used to grow animal feed. It is a system that is neither area-efficient, future-proof, nor contributes to food supply security.

So when the farmers' associations talk about green tripartite, fairness and honesty, one could wish for a little honesty in return. Because if you really don't believe that the goals of the tripartite should be achieved, then feel free to say so straight away. Because with their model, it will simply be impossible within the framework of the green tripartite. And if we are to borrow the debaters' own rhetoric again, one could ask:

Is it really "fair" that the rest of society has to pay for people to continue to pollute - despite the fact that they themselves have signed a pledge not to do so?

This debate paper was presented in the Althing on November 24 and was written by Trine Langhede, Green Transition Denmark, Anna Bak Jäpelt, Danish Nature Conservation Association, Christian Fromberg, Greenpeace, Torben Hansen, Danish Sport Fishing Association and Thomas Kirk Sørensen, WWF World Wildlife Fund.

By |2025-11-24T10:18:46+01:0024 November 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to There is something that the farmers' associations must have misunderstood
READ MORE

PFAS pesticides threaten our 'clean' drinking water

In Denmark, we have been proud of our clean drinking water for many years. But there is a serious threat lurking: PFAS pesticides. These chemicals have found their way into our groundwater. PFAS substances, also called “forever chemicals”, are extremely problematic; they are very difficult to break down in nature, they accumulate and they have the potential to cause damage to both the environment and health.

Greenpeace has in a new analysis documented that agriculture has used PFAS pesticides in protection areas near wells in 59 municipalities between August 2023 and July 2024. In the municipalities where the situation is worst, more than half of the protected areas have been sprayed with these harmful pesticides.

When spraying takes place in the very areas where drinking water is formed – and where it is therefore intended to be protected – it is no longer a theoretical risk scenario. It is reality. The Ministry of the Environment has even recognizedthat a large part of the damage to the groundwater has already occurred.

Although the Danish Environmental Protection Agency withdrew the approval of several PFAS pesticides earlier this year, these agents are still legal until November 2026. In addition, it is still possible for agriculture to use Secondly, PFAS-containing pesticides that are not regulated.

An important political effort is expected, where spraying bans are being worked on in the municipalities. Not only in the fields where drinking water is formed, but also near schools and institutions, for example. It should also be ensured that it is the polluter who pays the bill for the purification of drinking water – not the citizens, as is the case today. Because it is certainly not free.

It is about our shared supply of clean drinking water — about ensuring that future generations can drink clean water from the tap. It is about protecting nature, groundwater and the sea, because pollution from agriculture does not stop at the field boundary. The pollution will further burden watercourses, coasts and seas.

Every day we hesitate, the situation worsens. It is high time we prioritize the health of citizens and the environment over short-term economic interests.

The debate post was published in Sjællandske Nyheder on November 16, 2025, and was written by Lone Hjorth Mikkelsen, Green Transition Denmark and Claus Jørgensen, KV candidate for SF in Lejre.

By |2025-11-17T15:26:53+01:0017 November 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to PFAS pesticides threaten our 'clean' drinking water
READ MORE

How municipalities and regions can promote the circular transition

The municipal and regional council elections are now upon us. The posters have gone up on the lampposts, and the candidates are working hard to get as many crosses as possible next to their names.

And in the multitude of climate and environmental initiatives that are currently taking up space on political agendas, we would like to focus on one that is less well-known: namely the work to reduce resource consumption. Because here too, municipalities and regions can make a noticeable difference.

In Denmark, we use far more of nature's resources than the Earth can actually sustain. Our annual consumption of virgin resources – that is, new materials – is 24,5 tons per capita. This is approximately three times more than a 'sustainable' level. At the same time, we have a very high consumption-based climate footprint, and we are some of the worst in Europe at producing waste – and thus among the worst at preventing waste. Not exactly a combination that rhymes with a green pioneer country.

So when the new local and regional councils across the country take office on the other side of the election campaign, there is ample opportunity to reverse the trend. Circular initiatives that reduce resource consumption often create positive synergy effects while reducing resource use and waste volumes. We have seen this, among other things, in a project, where the waste company Renosyd has established brush fences for garden waste together with citizens and schools since 2022. The project has reduced the amount of garden waste and fuel consumption in connection with transporting the waste, improved biodiversity and strengthened the local community.

The many local collaborations between municipalities, recycling centers and voluntary organizations with thrift stores are another good example. The list of good ideas is long, and we have collected lots of concrete examples in our joint 'Catalog for waste prevention and circularity'.

Below we highlight three concrete proposals that the new municipal and regional councils can tackle after the election:

1. Plan for repair, reuse and circularity

The first place to start is in the planning of our cities. Local planning is a powerful tool that can be used actively to promote repair, recycling and circularity.

This could be by securing space for repair cafes, sharing schemes and similar citizen initiatives. Here people can meet to borrow and repair products so that they can have a longer life instead of being thrown out. The municipality can help residents' associations or landowners' associations establish such initiatives. This can also be done by the municipality making a portion of its own premises and areas available for citizen-driven activities after hours. In this way, public resources are utilized in the best possible way – around the clock.

2. Prioritize recycling and circularity in procurement and tendering

Another important area of ​​focus is the municipality's and the region's own procurement. Municipalities purchase a total of approximately 110 billion kroner per year and account for approximately 46 percent of total CO emissions.2-emissions associated with all public procurement.

This includes everything from furniture and kitchen equipment to cleaning and construction projects. This means that municipalities have a responsibility to not only spend tax dollars on what is cheapest at the time of purchase, but also on what takes into account resource consumption and the consequences for the climate, environment and nature. This could include, among other things, the municipality and the region demanding products with long lifespans and repair guarantees in public tenders. This may be more expensive now, but cheaper in the long term. And there are good opportunities to incorporate these considerations into municipal procurement. This could, for example, be done by establishing material banks where used furniture and equipment can circulate between municipal institutions.

This could be phasing out disposable service in public institutions and workplaces or recycling systems for takeaway packaging. Procurement and tendering should generally be assessed based on a product's entire life cycle: How is it produced, how long can it be used and reused, can it be repaired, and how is it handled when it eventually ends up as waste? When recycling and repair become the norm rather than the exception, we reduce both waste and CO2-emissions, resource consumption and total economic costs.

Public procurement and tenders can be a strategic tool to achieve climate goals or specific circular ambitions, and at the same time an opportunity to support innovative, circular companies.

3. Increase the amount of reusable products rather than disposable products in healthcare

In the regions, the healthcare sector has gradually become characterized by massive single-use consumption and thus also a large amount of waste production. This applies to everything from surgical steel scissors, which are used to make a single cut and then thrown away, disposable textiles, disposable plastic products and even disposable electronics. A large part of this disposable equipment is produced outside Europe – and at a time when there is generally increasing focus on secure supply chains, we should also look into how we can replace the massive consumption of disposable equipment with reusable equipment.

This applies, among other things, to textiles, where the focus should be on purchasing reusable textiles with long durability and repair services. This applies to disposable equipment for, for example, surgeries, where in many areas it makes sense to instead demand reusable equipment and reintroduce sterile centers. And of course, this also applies to much disposable electronics, which can be advantageously replaced by long-lasting reusable electronics.

Fortunately, the transition from disposable to reusable equipment is a focus area in the Danish Regions' joint strategy for green hospitals, and some regions are working on pilot projects in this area. But it deserves much greater focus – both for reasons of resource consumption and climate, as well as strategic autonomy and security of supply.

There are plenty of places where the municipal council and regional council can take action to become more circular.

Good election campaign.

This debate was published in Klimamonitor on November 14, and was written by Lone Mikkelsen, senior advisor for circular economy and chemicals at the Green Transition Denmark, Malene Høj Mortensen, political manager at Plastic Change, Mette Hoffgaard Ranfelt, chief environmental policy advisor at the Danish Nature Conservation Association, Michael Søgaard Jørgensen, expert in circular economy at IDA Technology Assessment, Charlotte Louise Jensen, senior consultant in the food and consumption program at Concito & Kristina Klaaborg Kjøller, political consultant at the Circular Industry Association

By |2025-11-17T09:53:15+01:0014 November 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed to How municipalities and regions can promote the circular transition
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

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