Instead of worrying about nationalization, we must ensure the greenness of EU agricultural support

While the government negotiations are making headlines in the Danish media, some less talked about but potentially crucial negotiations are taking place on the framework for EU agricultural support after 2027.

This is where decisions are made that can in practice determine whether Danish agriculture continues on the same path as today, or whether we can use the billions in agricultural subsidies to ensure the major themes of the election. That is, clean drinking water, better animal welfare and a real green transition of agriculture, and that we have an agriculture that to a greater extent supplies us with food – organic – for people, rather than us using large areas for feed and having many animals.

Lack of earmarked budget

The European Commission opened the ballroom when it presented its proposal last July. The proposal includes increased flexibility and a move away from the “one size fits all” approach. “Nationalisation”, it says the warning from several of the voices that are vigilant about conventional agriculture here in Denmark in reaction to the new line in EU support. "The green is under pressure", says the verdict contrary to many of the green voices. A criticism that is quite justified because the proposal does not have a budget earmarked for green activities, as it does today, and because the Commission's proposal also, contrary to today, requires national co-financing of green initiatives.

The lack of earmarking and the requirement for co-financing risks meaning that greening will be downgraded. The social support, called direct income support, is both secured with a minimum budget and 100 percent EU funding. It should be the other way around.

There is also concern that the Commission will give individual countries greater freedom to formulate their own green requirements for farms, where the requirements have previously been the same for everyone across the entire EU.

But with the green warning and concern in mind, agricultural support, even with the Commission's proposal, can become a powerful national tool for change in the future.

However, this requires the Commission to take on the green flag and become a strong watchdog for the level of ambition.

Show more courage

The member states must of course, at a minimum, meet the obligations to which they are subject through EU directives and regulations, which aim to ensure increased biodiversity, reduced pesticide impact, a good aquatic environment, reduced ammonia emissions, groundwater protection and protection of our farm animals.

They are also welcome to be pressured to go further than that. However, we also believe that there is potential in the proposal if it is not watered down during the negotiations.

As a new feature, the Commission is opening up the possibility that agricultural support can be used to a greater extent to reward farmers when their production meets new requirements for climate, environment, nature and animal welfare. In addition, it will provide support for the extensification of livestock production.

And it is precisely the new aspect of the proposal that could be of great importance.

When farmers can receive payment for stricter national requirements, our politicians will be able to show more courage when making agreements that will reduce agriculture's climate impact, restore life in streams and fjords around Denmark, bring back more bird chirping and buzzing insects around cultivated fields, and significantly improve animal welfare.

The mess out of Brussels

The European Commission is trying to move some of the trouble with agriculture out of the streets of Brussels and back to the government cities of the 27 member states with increased national co-determination. This could indeed be interpreted as a form of nationalization of agricultural support.

On the other hand, it is wise to maintain support for our common union. The opposition to supranational rule cannot be ignored, and when you add that you will be able to make more targeted demands with less harmonisation, the possibilities of flexibility under certain conditions, in our opinion, outweigh the risks.

This may be what is needed for everyone, including our farmers, to think that requirements and support conditions make more sense, and for us to get the most green value for the support dollars.

Rather than worrying about nationalisation, the Danish negotiators should fight to secure funds for greening with 100 percent support, strengthen animal welfare and strengthen the prioritisation of green infrastructure in cultivated land. They should also fight for the support to be paid on the basis of profit and loss statements, and very importantly, for the Commission's role as a strong watchdog to be cemented in the final regulation.

We need to move forward with the green transition, not backward.

This debate paper was presented in the Althing on May 26, and was written by Sybille Kyed from the Danish Organic Society, Sophie Hastrup Christensen from the Danish Animal Protection Association, Anna Bak Jäpelt from the Danish Nature Conservation Association, Stella Staunstrup from the Plant Industry Association, Hanne Winter from the Danish Vegetarian Association, Egon Østergaard from the Danish Ornithological Association, Rune Havgaard Sørensen from the Danish Beekeepers Association, Christian Ege from the Green Transition Denmark and Pernille Fraas Johnsen from World Animal Protection.

By |2026-05-26T07:33:45+01:0026 May 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed Instead of worrying about nationalization, we must ensure the greenness of EU agricultural support
READ MORE

The electricity grid must adapt to a new reality if we are to be independent of external energy

Denmark is in the middle of government negotiations, where the direction of both the green transition and Denmark's security of supply is being undermined. At the same time, Denmark is facing three acute realities. An electricity grid under pressure. A green transition, which risks moving too slowly. And an energy system that remains too dependent on imported fuels. These are not three separate challenges. They are one overall problem that requires one overall solution.

Denmark needs to become a green electrostat, where we not only produce more renewable energy, but also manage to use it wisely and efficiently throughout the energy system. As wind and solar take up more space, the character of the energy system is changing. Production is becoming more fluctuating, and the value of electricity increasingly depends on when it is used. Therefore, flexibility, storage and intelligent interaction between sectors are becoming crucial. It is no longer enough to produce green electricity. We must be able to use it when it is there and do without it when it is not. In practice, this means that the energy system must be able to handle both hours of very high production and periods of low production. Without the necessary flexibility, we will either waste green electricity or have to maintain expensive backup capacity. Flexibility and storage are therefore not a supplement to it. green transition. It is a prerequisite.

It is about being able to shift consumption in time, store energy across hours and days and, increasingly, also connect sectors together. When electricity, heat, transport and industry are thought of as one integrated system, new opportunities arise to balance energy much more efficiently than if the sectors were developed separately. Local energy use also becomes crucial in this context. When electricity can be used close to where it is produced, the load on the electricity grid can be reduced, especially if consumption can also be moved away from peak loads. This frees up capacity and makes the energy system both cheaper and more robust. The sectors that can combine electrification with flexibility and storage as well as local energy production will therefore be central to the energy system of the future.

District heating is a clear example of a central player in the energy system of the future, because it can use electricity on a large scale when there is plenty of it and reduce its consumption when there is a shortage. At the same time, district heating can store energy in large “heating batteries”, which is already an integrated part of the energy system. However, district heating does not stand alone. A robust energy system requires the interaction of several solutions. Industrial flexibility, Power-to-X, batteries and intelligent management of consumption solve different tasks and can play a role in making a system based on wind and solar work.

If Denmark is to be less dependent on imported energy, it does not just require more green power. It requires an energy system that can operate stably on its own resources, while at the same time exploiting strong collaborations and electricity connections to our neighbouring countries. This means a system based on wind and solar, where security of supply depends on our ability to balance production and consumption. Energy independence is therefore a question of system design, which is increasingly about how we use the electricity grid.

Denmark is facing an acute bottleneck in the transmission grid, where the demand for grid connection far exceeds the available capacity. More than eight times Denmark's total electricity consumption is queuing up for the grid. At the same time, the way we allocate capacity is not geared to the reality we are facing. Energinet has therefore been forced to put everything on hold until an emergency package is in place. There is no doubt that the grid must be significantly expanded in the coming years, and that the pace of expansion must be increased. But expansion alone is not enough. When the demand for grid connection exceeds capacity so significantly, we also need to prioritize how the existing capacity is used.

Today, allocation is largely based on first-come, first-served basis and project maturity. This is a model from a time when the electricity grid was not a scarce resource. But it is today. The consequence is that capacity risks being tied up in projects that do not contribute to flexibility or security of supply, while solutions with high system value are delayed. Without clear prioritization, we risk an energy system where investments are delayed, green power is not optimally utilized, and companies have to wait for years for grid connection. This will not only slow down the green transition, but also weaken Denmark's competitiveness. When the electricity grid is a scarce resource, it must also be prioritized as one. This means that we must make choices. Not all projects can get access at the same time. And not all projects should have the same right to unlimited grid capacity at all hours.

Therefore, capacity should be targeted at solutions that make the energy system more robust. Solutions that can take power when it is there, store energy and reduce the need for expensive grid expansion. In other words, projects should be assessed on their contribution to flexibility, security of supply and efficient use of green power. Here, electrification of heat, industrial flexibility and other forms of system integration play a key role. If Denmark is to succeed in the next phase of the green transition, therefore, a new approach to the electricity grid is required. Scarce capacity should not be distributed randomly. It should be used where it creates the greatest social value. This means that a national prioritization framework should be introduced, where projects are assessed based on their contribution to flexibility, system value, local energy use, CO2 reduction and better utilization of existing grid capacity. At the same time, a clear prioritization category should be established for socially critical electrification, including electrification of district heating. Tariffs and connection conditions must support flexible electricity consumption to a much greater extent. Today, they do not sufficiently reflect the value it provides for the electricity system when consumption can be shifted in time.

Denmark has a strong starting point. We have renewable energy, we have the technologies, and we have companies and sectors that are already driving development forward. We know what it takes to build an energy system based on wind and solar with high security of supply. The question is whether we design the electricity grid so that it supports that development. The new government should therefore ensure that scarce electricity grid capacity is used where it creates the greatest social value, including for green heating and socially critical electrification. Tariffs and connection conditions must support flexible electricity consumption to a greater extent so that green power is used efficiently. At the same time, the electricity grid must be expanded more proactively, but in a way where expansion goes hand in hand with better utilization of existing capacity.

Denmark has both a capacity problem in the electricity grid and a prioritization problem. And without clear priorities, we risk exacerbating both. Therefore, the next phase of energy policy should not only be about more electricity production and more electricity grid. It should be about a more intelligent, flexible and economically efficient electricity system, where we use the existing infrastructure better before we uncritically build more. Energy independence does not just require more power. It requires that we use the electricity grid as the scarce and valuable resource that it is.

This opinion piece was published in Jyllands-Posten on May 2, 2026, and was written by Maj Baltzarsen, deputy director of the Brundtland Think Tank, Christian Ibsen, director of CONCITO, Brian Vad Mathiesen, professor at Aalborg University, Kim Mortensen, director of Danish District Heating, Henrik Garver, director of FRI – consulting engineers, and Britt Dam, climate and energy advisor to the Green Transition Denmark.

By |2026-05-04T08:26:53+01:002 May 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed The electricity grid must adapt to a new reality if we are to be independent of external energy.
READ MORE

An ambitious biodiversity law must be included in the government's framework

Negotiations for a new government are in full swing, and one of the topics that we look forward to being included in the government's foundation is a new biodiversity law.

The Biodiversity Act should be a law that, like the Climate Act, should set targets for how large a proportion of Denmark's land and sea area should be protected and strictly protected nature. A law that should stop the loss of species, ensure better protection of nature and give wild nature more space.

Around 1.900 species are currently threatened and at risk of disappearing from Denmark, and despite decades of efforts, the trend has not yet been reversed. The main reason for the poor state of nature on land is that nature lacks space, because we use too large a proportion of the land area for intensive agriculture, forestry and other human activities. In the sea, nature is threatened by, among other things, bottom-dragged fishing, nutrient discharge and many other activities that destroy marine ecosystems. There is a consensus among biodiversity researchers that the solution is to allocate space for nature, where it is effectively protected and managed.

The previous government failed to introduce a biodiversity law, despite the fact that it was both part of the government's foundation and was written into the Green Tripartite agreement. Therefore, it is incredibly important that the next government takes the task seriously. Because report after report shows that nature is getting worse and worse.

It is therefore also gratifying that several parties support a biodiversity law. In the election campaign, the SF, the Unity List, the Radical Left and the Alternative came out together with a clear demand that a future government adopt a nature and biodiversity law with a binding target of 30% protected nature on land and at sea, of which one third must be strictly protected nature. We hope that a broad circle of parties in the Folketing will support the ambition in the future, so that a broad and long-term agreement can be made - we owe that to nature.

During the election campaign, green organizations called for the upcoming biodiversity law to:

  • Secures 30 percent protected nature on land and at sea. Protected nature must be natural areas where nature is effectively protected from threats to biodiversity. In protected nature, for example, there cannot be intensive agriculture, forestry and fishing with bottom trawls.
  • Secures 10 percent strictly protected nature on land and at sea. This means that one third of the protected nature must be strictly protected. Strictly protected nature must be large, continuous natural areas where wild nature is restored. Here, nature has priority over other interests, but with new opportunities for fantastic nature experiences.
  • Secures Biodiversity Council in the Act. The Council's tasks shall be to continuously assess the government's efforts and goal achievement.

A biodiversity law is an opportunity to make a real difference for the endangered Danish nature – we urge the new Folketing to seize it!

This debate post was published in Naturmonitor on April 27, 2026, and was written by Maria Reumert Gjerding from the Danish Nature Conservation Society, Mikkel Aarø-Hansen from WWF, Jakob Chronicle from the Forests of the World, Egon Østergaard from the Danish Ornithological Society, Christian Fromberg from Greenpeace, Christian Ege Jørgensen from the Green Transition Denmark, Philip Hahn-Petersen from Wild With Will, Jens Fahrendorff from the Young Biodiversity Ambassadors. Johannes Skriver Elf from the Green Youth Movement, Stine Bardeleben Helles from the Climate Movement in Denmark, Anna Rask Larsen from FLOR, Danna Borg from Denmark's Wild Nature, June Rebekka Bresson from the Environmental Movement NOAH, Martin Køhl Søholm from the Danish Botanical Society, Anton Johnsen from Danish Natural Grazing, Thomas Bjørneboe Berg from the Danish Mammal Association, Niklas Hegnsted from Nature & Youth, Jonas Colling Larsen from the Danish Species Association, Emma Emilie Andersen from the Biology Association & Christian Videnkjær from the Lepidopterological Society.

By |2026-04-27T08:54:21+01:0027. April 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed An ambitious biodiversity law must be included in the government's framework
READ MORE

Electric ferries are within reach – but lack of regulation and the power grid may slow down development

Geopolitical tensions have made one thing clear once again: decarbonisation is not just about climate, but also about energy security. This also applies to shipping, although it is a sector that is still often considered difficult to transition.

But in one segment, the phasing out of fossil fuels is closer than ever. Electrification is already a viable solution for ferries, especially on short routes of less than 100 km, which make up the majority of traffic in the Baltic and North Seas.

According to a analysis from Transport & Environment 48 percent of European ferry routes can already be electrified with available technology today. By 2035, this share is expected to increase to 60 percent.

Technological advances in recent years have significantly improved both battery capacity and charging speed. At the same time, battery prices have fallen significantly, making electric solutions increasingly competitive with diesel. Today, China and Europe are leading the way in ordering and deploying battery-electric ships.

Denmark has both the opportunity and the responsibility to lead the way

For Denmark, with more than 60 ferry routes connecting islands and neighboring countries, electrification represents an obvious opportunity – not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also to improve local air quality.

Danish ferries are among the ten most CO₂-emitting in Europe. Here, three ferry routes stand out in particular among the 50 most climate-intensive in Europe: Aarhus–Sjællands Odde, Hirtshals–Larvik and Hirtshals–Kristiansand. With an average fleet age of 27 years, the time is ripe for modernization.

Electrification can provide immediate air quality benefits in port cities such as Rønne, Aarhus, Frederikshavn, Sjællands Odde and Spodsbjerg, where ferries operate frequently and often close to residential areas. Here, sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions from ferries can exceed those from road traffic.

There are already good examples. Molslinjen's upcoming electric catamarans is one of the world's largest electrification projects in the maritime sector. But a broad rollout requires collaboration with players outside the shipping industry itself.

The biggest bottleneck is not on board – but on land

Today, the crucial limitation is no longer technological feasibility, but access to charging infrastructure.

It is not a theoretical challenge. Lack of capacity in the electricity grid is already affecting concrete projects in Denmark. As recently reported, insufficient electricity supply threatens development plans in the Port of Hirtshals – one of the country’s most important ferry ports. Without upgrades to the electricity grid, even well-established routes risk being stuck in fossil fuel solutions for many years to come.

But the challenge goes beyond the individual port. Across Denmark, limited grid capacity is developing into a systemic bottleneck. In many areas, the electricity grid has already reached its capacity limit, and connection times for new projects can range from one to two years. For project developers, access to the electricity grid is increasingly as difficult such as securing financing.

At the same time, the demand for electricity is increasing significantly. Electrification of transport, heating and industry, together with the expansion of data centres and hydrogen production, is expected to more than double Denmark's electricity consumption towards 2035. Electrification of ferries therefore does not occur in a vacuum, but in competition with other sectors for limited network capacity.

From ambition to implementation

There are a number of policy tools that can promote the electrification of ferries, and public procurement is a key tool here. Many ferry routes are operated under public service contracts, which gives authorities a strong opportunity to accelerate the transition. Zero-emission requirements in procurement can make public funds a driver for industrial scale-up rather than incremental improvements.

At the same time, a future government must ensure that electricity is not disadvantaged compared to fossil fuels. Reducing taxes, tariffs and connection costs for shore-side power is one of the fastest ways to improve the business case for electrification. In addition, better coordination between ports, grid companies and shipping companies is essential to avoid the delays we are already seeing today.

Denmark has a unique opportunity to lead the way, which requires both the rollout of electric ferries where it is already possible, but also an active effort to shape the regulatory and infrastructural frameworks that can scale the solutions.

However, this does not absolve shipping companies of responsibility. On the contrary, early investments, long-term planning and active dialogue with ports and authorities are crucial to realizing the projects. But it also underlines a fundamental point: the pace of the green transition is determined as much by the surrounding systems as by the ships themselves.

When the members of the new Danish government sit down to set their priorities, the maritime sector should be high on the agenda. The electrification of ferries does not primarily depend on new technological breakthroughs, but on whether infrastructure, regulation and investments are brought into play in the coming years. Public funds are limited and must be used wisely. Investments in electric ferries and the necessary infrastructure are a solution that both strengthens the climate, the environment and Denmark's energy security.

This debate post was published in Ingeniøren – MobilityTech on April 14, 2026, and was written by Katerina Davidova.

By |2026-04-15T07:45:49+01:0015. April 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed Electric ferries are within reach – but lack of regulation and the power grid may slow down development
READ MORE

We must keep an eye on methane when examining the gaps in the 2030 target

No one can see into the future. Yet research shows it to us increasingly clearly. Globally, we are moving towards temperature increases that exceed the 1,5 degrees that the world's countries set as a goal in Paris. And here at home, the Climate Council's latest assessment indicates that it is no longer clear that Denmark will reach its 2030 goal. It's like going backwards into the future.

If a future government is to reverse the trend and ensure that Denmark reaches its statutory reduction target of 70 percent by 2030, it will require more than adjustments to current policy.

It requires a plan that reduces uncertainties and delivers rapid, measurable reductions. And that requires us to spot the methane.

Methane, the overlooked challenge

Because methane is not a marginal issue. It is one of the most overlooked challenges in Danish climate policy – ​​and at the same time the climate's overlooked emergency brake.

Methane is a potent but short-lived greenhouse gas. When one ton of methane is released into the atmosphere, it warms the climate more than 80 times as much as one ton of CO2 over a 20-year period. This means that even relatively limited emissions can have a large effect on the warming we experience in the coming decades. But also that reductions can have rapid climate effects.

At the same time, methane accounts for a much larger share of Denmark's climate footprint than we usually talk about. Measured over a 20-year perspective, methane currently accounts for around two-thirds of total Danish emissions. This means that uncertainties in methane emissions can have a decisive impact on whether we achieve our climate goals.

A large and rapid reduction potential

When the Climate Council assesses that the 2030 target is not secured, this is due, among other things, to significant uncertainties in key instruments and projections – including methane emissions from biogas production, manure management, livestock farming and the energy sector. This implies a real risk that actual emissions are higher or decrease more slowly than expected.

Every day, methane leaks into the atmosphere from sources that can be largely reduced with existing technology. From leaking biogas plants and manure handling across the country. From oil and gas production in the North Sea and fossil fuel infrastructure. And the large emissions from livestock farming, which require structural changes.

At the same time, the potential cannot be overlooked: Methane is a powerful and short-lived greenhouse gas, so action here and now can lead to rapid and effective reductions.

When our climate goals are within the next few decades, it is not useful to only focus on what will happen in 100 years, which is the way emissions are normally calculated.

We need to focus on what has the biggest impact in the short term. But we still need to see the full picture of the extent of methane emissions, and we lack a comprehensive plan that ensures effective reductions.

If the climate goals are to be achieved with a high degree of certainty, it therefore requires fewer uncertainties and more reductions that can deliver impact in this decade.

Methane reductions are among the most effective measures to achieve rapid and measurable climate impacts, and many are cost-effective. However, several of these emissions remain associated with significant uncertainty and are not fully covered by current regulation.

A lifeline without a plan

We need to close the methane gaps in climate policy. This requires a national effort that strengthens measurement and monitoring, and that targets measures against the largest and most uncertain emission sources, especially the biogas value chain, manure management and livestock farming.

At the same time, we must ensure that methane does not leak out of the energy system, and accelerate the phasing out of fossil gas through electrification.

Denmark is already well advanced in implementing EU regulation for methane in the energy sector, but a comprehensive plan is lacking that ensures rapid reductions where the potential is greatest.

The benefits extend beyond the climate. Reducing methane reduces gas waste, which can strengthen both energy security and competitiveness. At the same time, lower methane emissions contribute to less air pollution, fewer health problems and fewer crop losses.

Methane reductions could thus become the lifeline of climate policy. But this requires that we make methane visible in climate policy and utilize one of the most effective tools to reduce warming in the short term.

This requires, first and foremost, that Denmark adopts a comprehensive national methane reduction plan in line with our international obligations and translates it into concrete reductions so that we can bring Denmark closer to the 2030 target.

This debate post was published in klimamonitor on April 10, 2026 and was written by Britt Dam.

Read the Green Transition Denmark's recommendations here: Close the methane holes in climate policy

By |2026-04-10T07:52:20+01:0010. April 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed We must keep an eye on methane when we examine the gaps in the 2030 target
READ MORE

While everyone is talking about clean drinking water in Denmark, the EU wants to weaken pesticide regulations

Spraying pesticides can harm both biodiversity and human health. For example, we have seen a decline of over 75 percent in insects in nature conservation areas in recent decades, and here the use of pesticides plays a significant role, as they move significantly with the wind away from the fields.

Human health is also affected. Pesticide residues are already found in over half of Denmark's drilling. A new study from Cambridge University in England shows simultaneouslythat consuming food sprayed with pesticides can harm our beneficial gut bacteria.

Now there is much evidence that we are weakening the protection that is supposed to prevent pollution from growing.. The European Commission has issued its so-called food and feed safety omnibus. It is being sold as a technical simplification. The initiative promises less bureaucracy, faster processes and a better framework for innovation. But it is a significant deregulation that risks weakening the protection of both the environment and human health. The proposal significantly weakens EU pesticide legislation and undermines the protection of human health, the environment and drinking water from harmful pesticides.

Today, pesticides must be continuously re-evaluated based on new knowledge. It is through this that a number of harmful substances have been discovered and banned. Substances that were previously considered safe. The omnibus proposal turns this logic on its head.

This proposes that pesticides should be approved without a time limit. This shifts the burden of proof: Instead of producers having to document safety on an ongoing basis, it will be the responsibility of the authorities to detect problems. In practice, this will often happen long after the damage has occurred. The consequence is obvious: Dangerous substances risk remaining on the market for decades.

The proposal also involves longer transitional phases, during which already banned pesticides may still be used. In some cases up to three years, even when there is a documented risk to health and the environment. This is a fundamental departure from the precautionary principle that has been the cornerstone of EU pesticide legislation since the adoption of the Pesticides Regulation in 2011.

A Trojan horse for pesticides

The debate about PFAS substances, also known as eternal chemicals, has already revealed how bad things can go when regulation lags behind reality.

In Denmark, PFAS have been found in soil, water and humans. The consequences are long-term, as the substances remain in the environment for a very long time and can cause irreparable damage. At the same time, most PFAS pesticides break down into the harmful substance TFA, which has been detected in many Danish drinking water wells. This is precisely why it is problematic that the EU is now proposing a model where pesticides are less likely to be re-evaluated on an ongoing basis, and where new knowledge has a harder time making its way through approval processes.

The experience with PFAS speaks for itself. We often recognize the problems too late, so the challenges in terms of cleanup and environmental and health impacts become insurmountable. Therefore, ongoing reassessment is not bureaucracy – it is protection. The Commission claims that the reform should promote access to biological control agents as a sustainable alternative to synthetic pesticides and push agriculture towards more environmentally friendly plant protection.

This may be positive, but a broad and unclear definition of what biological control agents actually are can open a backdoor where safety standards are weakened rather than strengthened.

In practice, this means that synthetically produced substances can potentially be classified as a biological control agent if they are simply assessed as 'functionally identical' to natural substances. As these substances are considered to be less risky, the existing requirements for registration and documentation of the use of biological control agents will be removed. In other words: If a laboratory product behaves as if it were a natural product, the requirements for it are relaxed.

The goal of the EU's green policy is to strengthen the transition to a less pesticide-dependent agriculture. However, this proposal risks acting as a Trojan horse for the deregulation of conventional pesticides, thereby contributing to maintaining and reinforcing chemical dependence in agriculture.

Denmark risks losing the opportunity to act on new knowledge

In the election campaign here, many parties have advocated for better protection of groundwater and less pesticide pollution – and with good reason. Clean drinking water is one of the most fundamental political tasks in Denmark, where we are almost 100 percent dependent on our groundwater.

The proposal to simplify feed and food safety rules is based on a very restrictive interpretation of what constitutes the latest scientific and technical knowledge for product authorisations. Member States would be obliged to base their national authorisations on the latest assessment of the active substance carried out at EU level, rather than taking into account all the latest scientific evidence.

For example has The Environmental Protection Agency In 2025, six active substances and thus 33 pesticides will be subject to reassessment based on research projects and other professional knowledge, including from ongoing EU assessments. If the omnibus proposal is adopted, Denmark will not be able to ban substances such as PFAS pesticides on this basis.

It directly contradicts newer decisions from the European Court of Justice, which has just stated that the latest knowledge must be included. We are increasingly learning about the effects of pesticides on biodiversity and human health. This is therefore a step in the completely wrong direction.

Denmark should actively oppose the omnibus proposal

If we in Denmark want strict pesticide legislation, it may become more difficult if the Omnibus proposal is adopted. Denmark should therefore reject the EU's omnibus proposal for feed and food safety. Groundwater protection must be taken seriously. The government, the Danish Parliament and members of the European Parliament must engage much more aggressively in the negotiations.

A future Danish government should actively oppose any weakening of the requirements for risk assessment and approval of pesticides and insist that the precautionary principle remains the foundation of pesticide legislation.

We must prevent the erosion of the hard-won safeguards in the EU Regulation on the placing of pesticides on the market, which are designed to address the inherent toxic properties of pesticides. And we must ensure a high level of protection for the environment and human and animal health. At the same time, the government should promote sustainable alternatives to chemical agriculture and support farmers in the transition to practices that protect both groundwater, biodiversity and public health.

This opinion piece was published in Dagbladet Information on March 30, 2026, and was written by Emilie Ellesøe and Christian Ege.

By |2026-04-30T13:12:30+01:0031. March 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed While everyone is talking about clean drinking water in Denmark, the EU wants to weaken pesticide regulations
READ MORE

Climate appeal: Denmark and the climate need higher ambitions

Although there are several major crises at the moment, we must not forget the climate. Right now, the world is heading towards approximately 3 degrees of global warming by the year 2100. Such a temperature increase will change our planet fundamentally. Losses from the ice masses, especially in the polar regions, will lead to greater sea level rise and more frequent flooding. We must make a major effort for coastal adaptation and climate adaptation, but this will not solve the problem in the long term and must not overshadow initiatives to reduce emissions. Long before 3 degrees of warming, there is a great risk that we will exceed so-called tipping points, i.e. irreversible processes that will continue regardless of whether we subsequently stop greenhouse gas emissions.

Denmark will also be indirectly affected when the rest of the world is hit by extreme weather such as droughts, heat waves and floods. Billions of people live in climate-vulnerable areas today, and the worse climate change gets, the more people will be forced to leave. If we do not curb climate change, countries and supply chains will be destabilized. Therefore, climate policy is also security policy. At the same time, an offensive climate policy is crucial to ensuring the long-term competitiveness of Denmark and Europe and thus the further development of our welfare society.

It is crucial that the global temperature increase is kept as close as possible to the 1,5 degrees, which is the international target. Unfortunately, it is too late to avoid exceeding 1,5. But the increase must peak as soon as possible and then be reduced by means of negative emissions, i.e. a stop to fossil fuels followed by carbon storage.

It must be ensured that Denmark reaches the 70 percent target by 2030. Although there is a plan to achieve the target, it is based too heavily on uncertain technologies. The Climate Council has said in its latest report that we do not appear to be able to achieve the 2030 target. Safe instruments must be stepped up more. The good news is that today we know very well the solutions needed to achieve the targets, for example:

  • Fossil fuels are being replaced by renewable energy – natural gas for heating can be quickly phased out, and the transition to electricity in transportation can be accelerated.
  • Investments in electricity and heat storage so that security of supply will continue to be top notch.
  • Increased electrification of heavy industry, transport and heat supply
  • The electricity grid in Denmark and Europe is being expanded so that energy can be more easily transported over greater distances.
  • Energy savings are promoted, for example with financial incentives to energy-renovate and convert existing buildings and thus avoid new construction.
  • Support for the European emissions trading system and the use of taxes to make it cost more to pollute the climate. Increased taxes on air travel, especially long and frequent trips, while making alternatives more attractive.
  • Dietary change to less animal-based and more plant-based, including through tax restructuring and conversion of public kitchens – and at the same time conversion of Danish agriculture to produce more plant-based food.
  • A circular economy is built by investing more in design for sustainability, durable goods and by making it attractive to repair rather than throw away and buy new.
  • Much more investment must be made in retraining personnel in all sectors for the green transition.

A number of initiatives extend beyond 2030. These include a halt to investments in new oil and gas fields, as well as a phasing out of the vast majority of wood-based biomass in the energy sector. Here too, we must move quickly.

We must work to ensure that the EU sets targets for regulating the climate impact outside the EU's borders, which is caused by the import of goods. Finally, we must live up to our international obligations to provide climate assistance to developing countries. Denmark is today a pioneer in some areas such as wind power. But in other areas we are lagging behind. Denmark, for example, has a European record in waste production and is calculated to be 4% circular, where the EU average is 12%. Therefore, the idea that we can stop and wait for the others has no relevance.

Denmark's economy is booming, and there are many Danish jobs in an ambitious international climate policy. To ensure support for the green transition, it must be fair. Low-income families must be compensated. Local communities must be involved and have concrete benefits from wind and solar parks.

Although Denmark is a small country, we have an important role to play in pulling the EU and the rest of the world in that direction. And by freeing ourselves from fossil fuels and supplying renewable energy to neighboring countries, we are also helping to free Europe from dependence on oil and gas from Russia and other unreliable regimes, which is crucial for our security. We are also promoting public health, as, for example, electrification removes air pollution. And today, green energy equals cheap energy. That is also why we must sharpen our climate ambitions. And that will not prevent us from pursuing other important agendas.

This opinion piece was published in Politiken on March 20, 2026, and was written by: Connie Hedegaard, former Climate Commissioner, Jesper Theilgaard, meteorologist, Professor Kathrine Richardson, University of Copenhagen, Professor Sebastian Mernild, SDU, Professor Eigil Kaas, University of Copenhagen, Professor Jens Friis Lund, University of Copenhagen, Professor Harpa Birgisdottir, AAU, Tommy Ahlers, entrepreneur, Lars Bonderup Bjørn, EWII, Mathias Aarup Berg, European Energy, Asbjørn Haugstrup, Innargi, Jacob Jelsing, Gubra, Sylvester Rishøj, Arkaia Foundation, Ulrik Kern-Hansen, Organic Plant protein, Jan Ove Petersen, FAOD (Architects and designers), Laura Klitgaard, IDA (Engineers), Gordon Ørskov Madsen, Danish Teachers' Association, Anders Frigge, GL (High School Teachers), Niels Bertelsen, Prosa (IT employees), Maria Gjerding, Danish Nature Conservation Association, Tim Whyte, Inter-Agency Cooperation, Lars Kock, Oxfam Denmark, Jeppe Juul, Green Transition Denmark, Stine Bardeleben Helles, Climate Movement, Knud Vilby, author, Henrik Stubkjær, bishop of the Ribe diocese, Jonas Nøddekær, Danish Church Aid, Christian Balslev-Olesen, former head of Danish Church Aid.

By |2026-03-20T14:50:15+01:0020. March 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed to Climate Appeal: Denmark and the climate need higher ambitions
READ MORE

Construction should have its own minister

Denmark has given the construction sector the responsibility to deliver on some of our biggest political objectives: the climate goals, the housing challenge, climate adaptation and critical infrastructure.

Construction and civil engineering employs more than 200.000 people and annual turnover of 350 billionThis is also why the sector plays a central and strategic role in Danish society.

But we have not given the construction sector a unified political leadership.

Today, responsibility is spread across eight ministries. This means that no minister has overall responsibility for whether the rules are coherent, whether the priorities support each other, or whether we do things in the most appropriate and efficient way.

The result is all too often conflicting demands, slow decision-making processes, lack of integrated thinking and inefficient use of billions in public and private investments.

We cannot ignore the construction industry.

The main task of the construction industry is to be responsible for Denmark's physical framework and is not only an economic engine, but also a crucial tool for the realization of our common ambitions within green transition, urban and housing development, and critical infrastructure.

For example, this means tackling rising housing prices in large cities, where the construction of more housing is necessary if urbanization and social mobility are to be a real possibility for everyone.

The construction sector accounts for a very significant part of Denmark's climate impact and resource consumption. According to analyses, construction accounts for around 30 percent of Denmark's total CO2 emissions and around 35 percent of all waste production. If Denmark's ambitious climate goals are to be achieved, the industry plays a crucial role.

It is also companies and employees from the construction industry who must ensure that our coastlines are climate-proof, expand sewers, and secure our everyday lives and homes in a world where extreme climate events are becoming more frequent and more frequent.

In addition, the industry builds critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railways and hospitals and carries out the necessary renovation, transformation and energy efficiency improvements of schools, kindergartens, nursing homes, factory buildings, office spaces and so on.

In other words, the construction industry cannot be ignored in terms of solving a wide range of major challenges facing our society: green and sustainable transition, housing shortage, land scarcity, water management, mobility problems, congestion, and so on.

Too important to be spread out

This requires coordination, training and upgrading of employee skills to a completely different extent than we are used to.

It is therefore a major challenge that the sector is currently regulated across eight ministries without clear overall coordination.

The Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Urban Affairs, Agriculture and Church Affairs, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Business and Industry and the Ministry of Taxation are responsible for matters relating to the construction industry.

Lack of coordination risks preventing the construction sector from realizing its full potential as a driving force for the implementation of Denmark's climate goals, our sustainability ambitions and long-term economic growth.

Therefore, after the next election, a clear decision should be made to consolidate responsibility. Fewer ministries. Clearer political anchoring.

Ideally, Denmark should have a proper ministry for construction, civil engineering and housing under the leadership of a Minister of Construction and Housing.

The construction sector is too important to be spread across the desks of eight ministries.

This debate post was published in Altinget City and Housing on March 17, 2026, and was written by Christian Jarby from Green Transition Denmark, Lars Storr-Hansen from Danish Ark, Linda Nordstrøm The Santa Claus from Technique, Katrine Bjerre Milling Eriksen from Danish Business, Palle Thomsen from Danish Construction Centers, Soren Sand Kirk from Danish Construction Trades, Oda Hustad from The Council for Sustainable Construction, Mikael Koch from Tree information, Lennart Ostergaard from VELTEK and Jette Leth Fejerskov Djælund from The Danish Designers' Association.

By |2026-03-17T13:34:26+01:0017. March 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed to Construction should have its own minister
READ MORE

We need to do more research into pesticides and move away from them.

Denmark is an intensively cultivated agricultural country. Agriculture occupies 61 percent of the land area, cities and infrastructure 13 percent, production forests 13 percent. Only 12,5 percent is left for nature, and this nature is today strongly influenced by human activities.

Even after the implementation of the Green Tripartite, 50 percent of the country's land area will be occupied by agriculture. 88 percent of the agricultural area is conventional, using pesticides and artificial fertilizers.

It affects biodiversity on land and, via discharges into watercourses and via these into lakes and the sea, also deteriorates biodiversity in water. There is a lack of recent Danish research into how pesticides affect biodiversity, including the extent to which they also penetrate natural areas.

We know:

  • that pesticides and their breakdown products can be measured not only in soil - but also in rainwater,
  • that the biomass of flying insects – many of which also function as effective pollinators for agriculture – has declined by 75 percent over 27 years even deep within protected German nature areas, in all likelihood as a result of the effects of pesticides from the surrounding farmland.
  • that the number of birds associated with Danish agricultural landscapes has decreased by 60 percent over the last almost 50 years,
  • that the number of yellow sparrows and partridges, which feed on a cocktail of weed seeds as well as insects and other invertebrates, and vipers, which mainly eat invertebrates, has decreased by 70 – 80 percent and is now falling by 5-9 percent per year,
  • that resistance to the pesticides used is increasing in the target species they are directed against, and agents developed in response have often had serious environmental consequences, for example neonicotinoids, which destroy bees' ability to navigate, and the newer pesticides that break down into the eternal chemical TFA – one of the infamous PFAS compounds.
  • that drift from herbicides used on fields can affect wild plants in surrounding areas.
  • There are many reasons to conduct more research into alternatives to pesticides and into prevention and thus reduction of pesticide consumption. This includes the development of integrated pest management (so-called 'IPM'), where help is obtained from nature itself.
Use nature's little helpers instead of pesticides

One of the most obvious approaches that we have neglected is to use nature's own little helpers. This has shown promising results in the international scientific literature and is seen as one of the primary paths to more sustainable agriculture.

This requires the development and maintenance of ecological infrastructures in the agricultural landscape, which, combined with increased soil health, support ecosystem services, and where the ecological infrastructures function as breeding oases and dispersal routes for predatory beetles, pollinators and parasitic wasps, etc.

The intensification of Danish agriculture, where natural elements, windbreaks, field boundaries and field roads are disappearing, while fields are becoming larger, has removed many of the natural habitats for beneficial animals and pollinators in agricultural land.

Pollination is the way forward

Good pollination generally leads to increased yields, but also faster and more uniform ripening, which can mean reduced disease attack. French trials show that good pollination can lead to reduced pesticide use.

The Danish IPM effort to date has been characterized by isolated, short-term funded projects within, for example, crop rotation, monitoring of pests combined with spot spraying, and the use of non-chemical agents.

But it is questionable to what extent the principles have been integrated into general agricultural practice. The introduction of a tax return form for agriculture does not provide the answer, as the tax return is not checked, nor are the results collected anywhere.

More funds are needed

In addition, an approach such as ecological infrastructure cannot even be reported in the tax return, and the continued development of resistance combined with the failure to meet the pesticide strategy's reduction targets indicates that IPM principles are far from widespread.

Finally, practical trials have been conducted on four demonstration farms, where several of the IPM principles are being tested – but none of the four farms include the development of organic infrastructure or biological methods for reducing harmful organisms. And since 2022, only one of the farms has met the reduction targets in the current pesticide strategy each year.

We therefore propose that research funds be allocated to:

  • Much more thorough studies of the effects on non-target species on and outside agricultural areas of both approved pesticides and new ones that are being sought for approval. This applies – in addition to non-target species in, for example, watercourses and lakes and adjacent natural areas – to a particular extent to effects on organisms that:
    • performs pollination,
    • performs biological control of the very organisms being sprayed against,
    • benefits plant nutrient uptake and soil health in general
  • through full-scale trials under Danish conditions to understand and develop the use of ecological infrastructures in agricultural landscapes in efforts to partly increase the functional biodiversity in the open countryside in general, and partly to specifically promote the populations of pollinators and organisms that can provide biological control of pests.
  • to develop methods to limit the use of pesticides specifically to those places where pests can be detected, and generally to minimize the spread of pesticides and their degradation products to the surrounding environment.
  • to improve and optimize warning systems for the emergence of pests, including also including forecasts for the development of biological control agents, which could otherwise limit the emergence, but which are eradicated by premature spraying.

Such research could be used both to reduce pesticide consumption in conventional agriculture and to prevent pests in organic agriculture.

This debate post was published on February 24, 2026 in Sustain Report, and was written by Christian Ege from the Green Transition Denmark, Henrik Wejdling from the Danish Ornithological Association and Rune Havgaard Sørensen from the Danish Beekeepers' Association.

By |2026-02-25T11:53:27+01:0025. February 2026|OP-ED|Comments closed We need to do more research into pesticides and move away from them.
READ MORE

Stopping Bovaer leaves a gap in agriculture's climate accounts

In just a few weeks, Bovaer has gone from being one of agriculture's most important climate measures to a substance that milk producers are now opting out of. The chairman of the National Association of Danish Milk Producers, Kjartan Poulsen, estimates that "almost 100 percent will stop using the substance" after the new clarification from the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, which gives farmers ample opportunities to exempt their cows from the legal requirement.

But when dairy farmers stop using Bovaer, the expected climate impact will also disappear from agriculture's climate accounts. A full 400.000 tons of CO₂ reduction in the green tripartite agreement comes from methane-reducing feed additives, and that figure will now apparently have to be waved goodbye.

The editor-in-chief of Maskinbladet, Rasmus Dalsgaard, calls it in a leader a “scandal” and “… one-eyed haste in the holy name of the climate”.

Agricultural organizations have put Bovaer in the spotlight as a technological fix with a quick and measurable effect on methane emissions. But the reality in the barns tells a different story. Many farmers have experienced dairy cows with reduced appetite, falling milk yield, metabolic-like problems and in some cases collapse. This was exactly what experts – and the Danish Animal Welfare Association – had already warned about before the legal requirement was passed.

Now green organizations stand side by side with milk producers to raise awareness about the legal requirement.

When farmers are now stopping Bova on a large scale, it is not because they are reluctant to take action on climate change. It is because the animals are paying the price. But the question is how the government is now going to find the big CO2-reductions?

Fortunately, it's not so bad that it's not good for anything. With Bovaer, agriculture was given the opportunity to do more. business as usual, because it could supposedly reduce the cow's methane emissions by up to 27 percent. On the other hand, it would also be moving down a path that does not lead to climate neutrality. Simply because there is no incentive to reduce the number of animals.

The industry is quick to say that the number of cows is decreasing year by year. And it is true that we have had slightly fewer cows, but the decrease is nowhere near enough. We need a significant decrease if it is to make a real difference in methane emissions.

Denmark needs climate measures that are both responsible and sustainable, and that do not compromise animal welfare. Bovaer was not the miracle cure that people had hoped for, so let's use measures that work. We must let the cow be a cow that eats grass and chews cud.

We don't need to change the cow, but change the entire system around it. To a system where the animals contribute to a positive eco- and food system.

This opinion piece was published in Jyllandsposten on December 13, 2025, and was written by Britta Riis, Animal Protection, Maria Reumert Gjerding, Danish Nature Conservation Society, Jeppe Juul, Green Transition Denmark & Christian Fromberg, Greenpeace.

By |2025-12-15T08:54:29+01:0015. December 2025|OP-ED|Comments closed Stop for Bovaer leaves a gap in agriculture's climate accounts
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