A new one scientific study shows that a collapse of the Gulf Stream could happen as early as 10 to 20 years as a result of global warming. This would mean a significantly changed and colder climate in Denmark, while the southern hemisphere would experience far more and more intense heat waves and droughts. If this happens, it would have major consequences for Danish agriculture and require us to think about food production in a completely new way. Therefore, climate action that has a significant effect on global warming in the short term is more important than ever.

Methane makes the biggest difference here and now

Everyone knows that we need to reduce emissions of climate-damaging greenhouse gases, but few know that reductions in the greenhouse gas methane have a much greater effect on global warming than CO.₂ – especially in the short term.

In 20 years, one ton of methane warms the planet over 80 times more than one ton of CO₂. Over 100 years, it is about 30 times more. The difference is because methane only stays in the atmosphere for 12-15 years. This means that methane reductions today will be felt already this decade.

At a time when global temperatures have already risen by 1,1 degrees since industrialisation, and 2024 was the warmest year on record with a global temperature rise of 1,6 degrees, we cannot afford to wait for long-term results. In the EU alone, climate change is already estimated to have cost over 300 billion kroner this year – an amount expected to triple by 2029.

Focus must be on the next decades

When Denmark calculates its climate footprint and the effect of climate policy decisions, the different warming effects of greenhouse gases are converted to the common standard CO₂-equivalents (CO₂e) – so how many tons of CO₂ one ton of a given greenhouse gas, such as methane, corresponds to.

Since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1992, has the vast majority of climate models — including those used as the scientific basis for international agreements such as the Paris Agreement — converted methane to CO₂e based on the global warming potential over 100 years (GWP100)The 100-year perspective as a standard is today in many ways outdated, because today we are faced with imminent climate goals that must be met, and not least temperature increases that can cause irreversible climate change.

If we instead used figures for the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming over a 20-year period (GWP20), it would become quite clear what a significant effect methane has on global warming in the coming decades.

GWP100, on which all political decisions and calculations are based, therefore underplays the significant role that methane reductions have in limiting temperature increases in this decade. Decision-makers should therefore also include the short-term perspective (GWP20) in the future to clarify which decisions will have a faster effect on global warming.

Agriculture is the primary emitter

The primary sources of methane emissions globally are the energy, waste and agricultural sectors. In Denmark, around 80 percent of emissions come from agriculture, of which approximately 57 percent of emissions come from the digestive process in ruminants (especially cows), and 43 percent come from livestock manure.

The Green Tripartite can with CO₂The tax and land set-aside will be an important step towards greener agriculture, which can also inspire other countries to transform their food production. But if Denmark is to truly be the green pioneer that we pride ourselves on being, it will require that the transformation of agriculture towards a more plant-based agriculture be accelerated. This will require further initiatives that affect both the production and consumption sides.

There are many steps on the way to ensuring the necessary methane reductions to reduce global warming, avoid major climate damage and reduce climate effects on Danish agriculture.

The first step is simple: Put methane on the agenda, calculate the effect on global warming in the short term, and include it in the basis of our climate policy. The next step requires more – but it is both necessary and possible. To act consistently on it with a clear plan that shows how Denmark will significantly reduce its methane emissions.

Methane reductions are not the whole solution, but they are one of the fastest ways to slow warming. That is why methane needs to be brought to light and not hidden in calculation models.

This debate post was written by Lærke Kjærbye-Thygesen, advisor to the Green Transition Denmark, and Martin Benny Pedersen, junior consultant to the Green Transition Denmark, and has been brought into Climate monitor on October 29, 2025.

Photo: Frederik Sørensen, pexels.com

On October 8, the European Parliament voted in favor of a ban on using so-called “meat words” for plant products.

The argument is that consumers are confused by terms like “plant sausage” or “vegan burger.” But is it less confusing if a soy sausage is to be called a soy cylinder, soy bar or soy roll in the future? Or if a vegetable steak is to be called a plant plate or grill disc?

If you really fear that language will confuse people, it's hard to see how far we should take that logic. Then we should probably also ban words like hotdog that don't have dog in it, or ham salad that doesn't contain lettuce. I don't think consumers will be confused by those products.

Surveys shows that the majority of consumers are not confused by the use of words like sausage or burger for plant products when the products are clearly labeled. Words like sausage and burger describe not only what something is made of, but also how it is used. For example, that a soy sausage is good to put in bread, or that plant mince can be fried into plant steaks.

It feels stupid to have to waste time on this debate. Honestly, it sounds more like a convenient excuse to give the meat and dairy industry a competitive advantage. Animal producers already have a wide range of advantages in the support they can receive, for example, slaughter premiums and support for advertising their products. There is therefore no need to widen the gap between plant and animal products even further with this ban.

There is also a duality in the fact that the EU is in the process of simplifying legislation so that regulation becomes easier for industry and companies. This obviously does not apply to producers of plant products, where they instead choose to make additional regulation. The consequence is that it becomes more expensive for companies, who have to rebrand their products and come up with new names.

I hope that some sense will come into the negotiation process with the Member States, and that the Danish Presidency will stand firm on the right to healthy food in a greener direction. Denmark has already shown the way with the National Plant Action Plan, a concrete example of how to promote innovation, health and sustainability instead of slowing it down.

Because if the EU really wants to take climate, health and consumers' free choice seriously, then we must make it easier, not harder, to choose green.

This debate post was published in klimamonitor on October 10th and was written by Trine Langhede.

Today, the majority of EU agricultural support still goes to direct income support – regardless of how or what is produced. In practice, these tax euros support intensive production, which burdens the climate, environment, animal welfare, drinking water and nature – and which, through high consumption of antibiotics in livestock farms, contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance. That money could be spent much more wisely.

It is not about taking support away from farmers. They are on the front lines of both the climate and biodiversity crises and depend on stable frameworks. For some, EU support schemes can be the difference between whether the accounts are consistent or not. The task for European agriculture ministers is to give them that security, but in a way where farmers, unlike today, are rewarded for the solutions that society needs.

When a farmer secures habitats and food for insects, birds, amphibians and other life on the cultivated land, takes land back to nature, avoids the use of pesticides and provides better conditions for animals, this not only benefits production – it also constitutes a significant good for society as a whole. This also applies when the farmer grows food for humans rather than animal feed and reduces the negative impacts on animal welfare and the environmental and climate impacts associated with animal production.

The problem is that today it is rarely worthwhile for the farmer to participate in the necessary transition – and there is much evidence that it is only going in the wrong direction.

Our recommendation is clear: Direct income support must be gradually phased out over the coming CAP periods and replaced by payment for documented green and animal-friendly results that benefit society.

The majority of the hectare support in Denmark goes to the largest farms – approx. 5-6000 farmers. We therefore also propose to provide the possibility for small farms to be taken into account through a so-called multiplication factor, so that they receive a higher support rate. This will create more life in the countryside with new farmers who invest in plant production for people and provide better conditions for animals.

New, more sustainable food value chains – including plant-based products – must have the same political support that animal production has had for decades. And if direct support continues to be linked to livestock or livestock products, demands for significantly better conditions for animals must be made in the future.

If the ministers want, the EU's agricultural support can become a driver for green transition and an investment in more robust food production. If they do not act, we risk that yet another billion-dollar support scheme will end up undermining the goals that the EU itself has set for climate, nature and animal welfare. Denmark has a unique opportunity with its EU presidency to show the way. That chance should not be wasted.

This opinion piece was published in Avisen Danmark on September 10, 2025 and was written by: Britta Riis, director, Animal Protection. Hanne Lyng Winter, EU policy manager, Danish Vegetarian Association. Trine Langhede, advisor, Bioresources and Food, Green Transition Denmark. Egon Østergaard, chairman, Danish Ornithological Association. Michael Kjerkegaard, chairman, Organic National Association. Christian Fromberg, campaign manager for agriculture, forests and nature, Greenpeace. Mette Gervin Damsgaard, political head, World Animal Protection Denmark. Lars Midtiby, director, Danish Nature Conservation Association. Frederik Madsen, acting secretary, Plantebranchen. Torben Strømgaard Hansen, chairman, Danish Beekeepers Association.

Denmark can use the EU presidency to push for a plant action plan for the EU that ensures greater diversity in the proteins on the plate, provides greater security of supply, health and growth potential for the EU.

On 1 July, Denmark took over the role of EU Council of Ministers, and with that comes the opportunity to set the agenda for EU negotiations in the autumn. The Danish presidency has already highlighted an EU action plan for plant-based foods and a general EU protein strategy as areas of focus to work on. forAnd it makes good sense that, as part of the EU's protein strategy, an action plan for plant-based foods is being developed.

According to a study published in nature food In 2024, an average European will eat 82 grams of protein per day, of which 49 grams come from animal sources and 33 grams come from plants. This means that we are eating too much protein compared to the recommendations of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which recommends an average protein intake of 46 grams per person per day. But it also means that there is potential in ensuring greater variation in where we get our protein from.

Today, the production of meat and dairy products is dependent on a large import of feed from, among other things, rainforest areas in Brazil. This places Europe in a vulnerable position in terms of supply security when we look into a future with trade wars and conflicts that could limit the possibility of large imports of feed and could affect the prices of feed. If instead the focus is on developing an agricultural system within planetary boundaries that is self-sufficient in feed in Europe, it will benefit both security of supply, the climate and the environmental impact of animal food production. However, as part of the EU's protein strategy, an action plan for plant-based foods should also be drawn up. There are many opportunities in increasing the diversity of the EU's production of proteins for humans. This is about using more plant proteins, e.g. legumes, in our food and developing new types of plant products with improved taste and consistency, e.g. through fermentation with fungal spores.

There may also be opportunities in being able to produce proteins in completely new ways, for example milk protein produced by bacteria in a tank, or beef grown in a laboratory without ever having seen a cow. However, none of these innovations can stand alone. It is necessary to bring a wide range of solutions into play to benefit security of supply, animal welfare, climate and health.

It is not an easy political environment for the Danish Presidency to navigate, as plant proteins and alternative ways of producing proteins repeatedly meet resistance from EU member states. But that does not make it any less important to stand firm on the opportunities that may arise by opening up the possibilities of proteins from many different sources, and ensuring a greater degree of protein self-sufficiency in the EU.

Plant-based products and alternative proteins also do not have the same competitive conditions as animal products, which have received support for most parts of the process for a number of years. The problem is that animal production is still favoured in the support schemes for agriculture, for example with coupled support for livestock under agricultural support and the EU's sales promotion scheme, which still finances meat advertising. This distortion must be addressed in an action plan for plant-based foods.

But what could this look like in practice? Shortly before the summer holidays, around 70 organisations jointly published a bid for, what the EU action plan for plant-based foods should look like. If we are to future-proof Europe's food system, we need to invest in the production, processing and market development of plant-based food proteins and expand the range of proteins on our plates. This requires:

• Farmers are rewarded for healthy crop rotations with good environmental results, including, for example, organic and agro-ecological production
• Investments are being made in building value chains for the plant-based sector, including processing, product innovation, research and export potential.
• The demand for plant-based foods is increased by, among other things, using public procurement muscle to ensure healthy and green food in public procurement.

Denmark now has a historic opportunity to drive a food transition across Europe. We hope the Danish Presidency will use its voice to ensure that EU food policy reflects the needs of the future and not the habits of the past.

This debate was published in the Althing on August 25, 2025 and was written by:

Trine Langhede, Advisor for Food and Bioresources at the Green Transition Denmark, Louise Johansen, Program Manager at the Danish Vegetarian Association, Sophie Hastrup Christensen, Chief Agricultural Policy Consultant at the Danish Animal Protection Association, Frederik Madsen, Chief Consultant in the Plant Industry, Christian Fromberg, Campaign Manager for Agriculture, Forestry and Nature in Greenpeace, Mette Gervin Damsgaard, Political Manager in World Animal Protection, Anna Bak Jäpelt, Agricultural Policy Advisor in the Danish Nature Conservation Association and Sybille Kyed, Agricultural and Food Policy Manager in the Organic National Association and Christina Ihler, Communications Manager in the Climate Movement