Denmark Will Plant 1 Billion Trees, Convert 10% Farmland Into Forest (apnews.com) 89
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Danish lawmakers on Monday agreed on a deal to plant 1 billion trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest and natural habitats over the next two decades in an effort to reduce fertilizer usage. The government called the agreement "the biggest change to the Danish landscape in over 100 years." Under the agreement, 43 billion kroner ($6.1 billion) have been earmarked to acquire land from farmers over the next two decades, the government said.
Danish forests would grow on an additional 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres), and another 140,000 hectares (346,000 acres), which are currently cultivated on climate-damaging low-lying soils, must be converted to nature. Currently, 14.6% of land is covered by forests. [...] In June, the government said livestock farmers will be taxed for the greenhouse gases emitted by their cows, sheep and pigs from 2030, the first country to do so as it targets a major source of methane emissions, one of the most potent gases contributing to global warming.
Danish forests would grow on an additional 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres), and another 140,000 hectares (346,000 acres), which are currently cultivated on climate-damaging low-lying soils, must be converted to nature. Currently, 14.6% of land is covered by forests. [...] In June, the government said livestock farmers will be taxed for the greenhouse gases emitted by their cows, sheep and pigs from 2030, the first country to do so as it targets a major source of methane emissions, one of the most potent gases contributing to global warming.
Best bacon (Score:5, Insightful)
Danish bacon is the best. I guess we'll need to pay more, soon.
No, Danish bacon grows on trees (Score:4, Funny)
Everbody knows that, right.
Re: No, Danish bacon grows on trees (Score:2)
Well, that's all right then.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a bacon tree: it's a ham bush.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. As I said, 100% hallucination.
Re: (Score:1)
The hallucination is in the comment you replied to. Which prominent Republican politician said anything like that in, say, the last decade?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you learn of oil companies planting trees.
And by the way, does eating bacon damage the environment?
Re: (Score:1)
does eating bacon damage the environment?
Pork is better than beef but worse than chicken or tofu.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you learn of oil companies planting trees.
And by the way, does eating bacon damage the environment?
I know Americans tend to think of rainforest destruction in South America as related to beef production for export to large American companies like McDonald's, but that hasn't been the case for a long time. The current primary driver of Amazon rainforest deforestation and out-of-control fires is the production of soybeans to feed pigs in China that are then processed and consumed mostly both in China and in Northern Europe, so yes, bacon is terrible for the environment. There's a reason Brazil has been fast
Re: (Score:3)
It's net zero, i.e. you can have your bacon as long as you do something to offset those emissions with capture. Trees are capturing CO2, so it works out.
Re: (Score:1)
There's some kind of cognitive dissonance regarding eating bacon and planting trees
Not really. GHGs come from ruminants (cows and sheep), not pigs.
Re: Best bacon (Score:2)
This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:5, Interesting)
Denmark’s main annual agricultural imports from the United States are wood pellets (USD 156 million),... which would be addressed nicely by a billion tress I imagine.
Re:This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are completely missing the point. Their food surplus is not just being dumped. Someone consumes it, now this someone will have to source this food from some other, most likely, less efficient producer, so if the Danes think this is helping the environment, there are high chances it isn't, and worst-case scenario, it will make it worse.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about? Developed countries waste incredible amounts of food.
Re:This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, so does them having to buy from somewhere else going to somehow reduce the waste?
I mean, if they switch to Africa or such, the waste might go up due to longer distances and time.
Re: This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:2)
Reducing the glut in supply raises prices which just may convince fatass profligate first workers to not throw away food just because it doesn't conform to supermarket aesthetic standards.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing the glut in supply raises prices which just may convince fatass profligate first workers to not throw away food just because it doesn't conform to supermarket aesthetic standards.
While it is a great joy to be lectured to, and we even have services that will mail to people that contains the ugly non-perfect veggies to responsible citizens, there is one interesting thing about the non-perfect food. It so often gets cut up or otherwise processed and then canned or frozen. We have a cannery not far from here that cans huge amounts of food, much of it non-perfect stuff that interestingly enough, tastes the same as that work of art in the grocery store.
Re: (Score:1)
This insanity will lead to killer views (Score:3)
I don't think I've been anywhere in Denmark where I can just look out and see a big forest. I currently live in the Pacific Northwest. Out my window is an endless sea of 30m high trees.
Re: (Score:2)
I think with your point you're missing another. The most efficient generation of food is by far the most environmentally destructive too. High intensity farming isn't just an issue for CO2 emissions (a cow farts regardless of where it is), it's also a massive nitrogen load on the environment, higher ground contamination, and significant force on depletion of groundwater sources.
The world would be better off (not worse) locally growing and providing food. It may not be the most efficient way to maximise agri
Re: (Score:2)
To get this this straight. Their food surplus is being dumped. Therefore they give up production of this lot of food. Let's say that food is "low-efficiency" food. Either way, the lot is not exported anymore. Another importer of Danish food, maybe this low efficiency stuff, maybe cheese, now longer can import so much Danish food. Can this country now source it's food from a closer place? Or perhaps it can grow a crop that more efficiently grows in the biome local to the consumer? No, the only option is it i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And el Bunko, the Thief, from the U.S., come Jan. 20.
Re:This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:4, Interesting)
Reality penalizes people unfairly all the time. So that part of the argument doesn't seem very convincing.
Growing food somewhere else then transporting it seems likely if Denmark typically imports more food than they export. But they export more food, especially pork, than they import or consume. Not raising food AND not transporting it for export is obviously more efficient.
And who says that during a famine that the people can't go out with axes and clear the forest and raise pigs again. Plus if they harvest timber they wouldn't have to import so much in wood pellets from the Americans. (yes, Denmark imports a significant amount of wood pellets from the USA and Canada)
Re: (Score:3)
And who says that during a famine that the people can't go out with axes and clear the forest and raise pigs again.
What do you think those pigs are going to eat? Raising animals for food uses about 10x the farmland compared to growing plants for direct human consumption. (A lot of that energy is used by the animals to keep themselves warm, which is why insect farming is much more efficient.) This is obviously a problem even if you ignore the ethics of animal farming and their effect on global warming.
Growing food somewhere else then transporting it seems likely if Denmark typically imports more food than they export. But they export more food, especially pork, than they import or consume.
(yes, Denmark imports a significant amount of wood pellets from the USA and Canada)
Given the note on wood pellets, I wonder if they have to import food for the pigs. You can sometimes hear meat-eaters
Re: (Score:2)
Who actually needs to import soy beans? They're easy to grow. Australia imports some soy-based foods (like some kinds of tofu) because it's cheaper, but plenty of soy beans are grown locally.
Re: (Score:2)
Who actually needs to import soy beans? They're easy to grow. Australia imports some soy-based foods (like some kinds of tofu) because it's cheaper, but plenty of soy beans are grown locally.
They're easy to grow, yes, but an international economy powered by cheap petroleum means that it's often cheaper to import soy than to grow it domestically, at great cost to the environment - conveniently in other countries - to increase profits in the production of meat. Waste = profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps you might like to look on a map.
Denmark has no good rail connections to the EU.
Re: (Score:1)
> "Reality penalizes people unfairly all the time."
Sounds like an excuse for anything. Go ahead and steal, rape, and murder; no need to feel guilty, life is unfair.
Re: (Score:2)
Your assumption is that all food takes exactly the same amount of space to produce. A marginal decrease in the amount of meat consumed and equivalent increase in the amount of veggies would mean that you could reduce the amount of space to farming for food without issues.
Re: (Score:3)
but Denmark will have fulfilled much of its COP obligations. And the starvation will not happen in Denmark.
Re: (Score:2)
A tax on externalities does not penalize efficient farmers. It penalizes inefficient farmers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:2)
Missed the point - Political realignment goal (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
These types of limit the rural economy legal and regulatory pushes are to shift the political power further towards the urban centers and reduce political power from the rural areas.
The question I'd ask is: OK, now that farm animals are no longer raised in the country, what is the next agricultural product you want to ban?
Speculation: Turn the country from a self-sufficiency in food to a net food importer so to restructure large parts of the economy and get the "money in motion" started so that private equity can profit.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
and that's the lie. Much of this "agricultural pollution" is pure bullshit if you took the time to talk to big cattle ranchers and farmers. They're often tied by insane bureaucracy and red-tape that clearly hurts their land and the environment; legislation written by people who have never been on a farm. They're treated as dumb hillbillies by people who do not understand the large amounts of engineering they have to deal with when managing millions of dollar
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't waste your keystrokes waving around two-cent whataboutisms and straw men like a fuckwit.
From The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017 [copernicus.org] (with some formatting corrected):
Re: Missed the point - Political realignment goal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't waste your keystrokes waving around two-cent whataboutisms and straw men like a fuckwit.
Love it! Bravo, that's an awesome one sentence curbstomping! I think you win the internet for the month. 8^)
Agriculture is not natural. The planet cannot sustain it at this scale, not with our present inefficient methods. Your value system is meaningless in the face of the hard reality that our budget is unbalanced.
Now we come to this part. Yes, agriculture is not natural. You are spot on that we are on an unsustainable path. But the most un-natural part of the whole thing is just how many of us we are trying to support on this globe.
The problem isn't moocows. It's too many humans. And if we are to deem the cows as something that needs taxed, what about the other ruminants? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Much of this "agricultural pollution" is pure bullshit if you took the time to talk to big cattle ranchers and farmers.
It's really not. One cow produces 220 pounds of methane per year. https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/n... [ucdavis.edu]
The USA has 87.2 million cattle as of 2024. This is basic chemistry and math at work here.
Re: (Score:1)
And the US have the most and biggest nat gas leaks.
They leak more methane in a day, then the cows fartvor blurb in a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of this "agricultural pollution" is pure bullshit if you took the time to talk to big cattle ranchers and farmers.
It's really not. One cow produces 220 pounds of methane per year. https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/n... [ucdavis.edu]
The USA has 87.2 million cattle as of 2024. This is basic chemistry and math at work here.
Speaking of basic chemistry and math, the evilz moocows do not create carbon, nor do they destroy it. The carbon contained in the grass they eat gets returned. and used over. And forestation - always a really good idea is only temporary use of Carbon sinking - it is carbon neutral - unless we harvest the trees and other vegetable matter and figure some way to permanently sequester it.
The issue at heart is two things. Way too many people. I've gone over that, and some disagree.
The other part - and it is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That is why most imports of american meat into the EU and Japan: are forbidden.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It starts with reducing agricultural production of one type, then reducing it more and more until there's nearly none produced.
Then the agitators will focus on reducing another agricultural product.
A question is when, where and how much reshaping the agricultural sector before it ends?
It's unlikely that a bunch of activist nonprofits and activist politicians will quit having a job as an activist once their current main objective is achieved.
Re: (Score:2)
It starts with reducing agricultural production of one type, then reducing it more and more until there's nearly none produced.
What would be the point of that? Who is behind it? Is it a cabal of globalists who don't eat food?
Then the agitators will focus on reducing another agricultural product.
By "agitators" do you mean scientists who keep coming to the same conclusion?
A question is when, where and how much reshaping the agricultural sector before it ends?
It's unlikely that a bunch of activist nonprofits and activist politicians will quit having a job as an activist once their current main objective is achieved.
Again, who wants to end the agriculture sector and why?
Re: (Score:1)
The guys who want to hunt seals and whales and Elephants, off.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong lowlands, https://nordictimes.com/the-no... [nordictimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The question I'd ask is: OK, now that farm animals are no longer raised in the country, what is the next agricultural product you want to ban?
Your logical fallacy is: Slippery Slope. No one is banning farm animals. That fantasy is only in your head. But one question being asked is if it makes sense for a tiny country to concentrate industrial scale farming to the point where they export 66% of all farming produce all the while not accounting for the externalities on the environment.
High intensity farming is hugely damaging. The world needs to spread farming out a bit more and stop relying on Denmark and The Netherlands to feed them all the while
Re: (Score:2)
Actually internalities. If the Netherlands collapses into a failed state from demographics, politics and this economic strangulation there will be externalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
Reducing farmland domestically in a nation. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Almost as crazy as the government paying farmers not to grow crops. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/e... [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Probably nothing since most farm land in Denmark is not used for domestic production. Now some other countries may complain... but domestically they'll be just fine.
And one more political decision (Score:2)
Trying to fix the symptoms and not the core of the issue.
Re: And one more political decision (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a serious question?
Re: (Score:2)
We release more pollution than the biosphere can recycle naturally, and we don't make up the difference with artificial methods because we do not want to expend the effort.
With over 8 billion people on the planet and the technology we are using to provide comfortable living to ourselves, this is fouling the entire planet in ways that will make our future worse.
So I would say two fundamental issues: greed and short-sightedness.
Let's see how this fails (Score:2)
So far, most bright-eyed "Let's plant trees!" efforts have mostly or completely failed. Turns out, trees are particular where and how and with which other stuff they get planted and creating a forest is very tricky.
Well, maybe they will do better. They certainly have the expertise. But having the expertise and then ignoring it has been the overriding topic in climate-change so far.
Re:Let's see how this fails (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't the first time we have tried to create forests. The UK did it after world war II to increase self-sufficiency in that case, as we were short of wood. It worked fine and we still have the forests that we created then now.
If they choose to do this and keep a political focus on doing it, the forestry will work fine.
Re: (Score:2)
These aren't fighting desertification, this is prime pasture land with a good ground water table.
Re:Let's see how this fails (Score:5, Informative)
It's true you have to do your homework, but creating a forest isn't that hard if you pay attention to what you're doing. I've been involved for nearly 30 years with a non-profit that does tree planting and environmental education for kids. Part of the terms of the tree grants we've been given include monitoring survival rates, so we go back year after year to see how things are going. The trick is to integrate the "instant forest" into the existing ecosystem. You choose species to make make it an extension of what's already there and flourishing, and you don't just plant the trees and walk away.
We just finished being part of a project that turned about 50 acres of farm field into forest, natural grass prairie and two wetlands. For reference, that's a bit more than 35 football fields. Wildlife started moving in almost immediately (including species at risk), and the site has already become a stopping point for migratory birds. By including the right shrubs in the mix, you ensure that seeds and berries are produced almost immediately. This attracts animals that feed on them, and predators follow along. In just a few years, you've got a thriving ecosystem. As the trees grow to the point where they form an actual canopy, the newly-expanded ecosystem changes and adapts. You just leave it alone and hope there's not too many extreme weather events.
I'd have to say the main reason for doing this (and for our success so far) is exactly what you mentioned: Global Warming. Natural ecosystems have trouble adapting to the rapid pace of climate change. We plant ONLY native species, but we've been putting a thumb on the scales by including a higher percentage of species that are at the ragged edge of their range. They fit in with the existing trees and don't take over, then get hammered when the inevitable return to one or two brutal winters occurs. People forget that climate change doesn't just mean warming. It means increased instability, and that includes the occasional really cold winter. By mixing species when we plant, we ensure that the death of a few trees won't create big, gaping holes in the canopy.
Sorry...didn't mean to rattle on. That's still a really simplified version of what we've been trying to do. All I can say is that it looks good so far, and our survival rates are 'way above average.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds great, and I mean it. Can I ask what country? If it's part of a bigger program, do you have any links?
Re: (Score:2)
Your reason for doing this is probably not the same as the land owner.
Subsidies/taxes and agricultural income dropping or wanting something prettier to look at, more likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, this can be done competently. There are just a lot of examples where that was not the case.
Re: Let's see how this fails (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that tricky. Go to the library and check out this book for a quick overview of what happened during the previous rapid climate change.
https://www.amazon.com/After-I... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So far, most bright-eyed "Let's plant trees!" efforts have mostly or completely failed. Turns out, trees are particular where and how and with which other stuff they get planted and creating a forest is very tricky.
Well, maybe they will do better. They certainly have the expertise. But having the expertise and then ignoring it has been the overriding topic in climate-change so far.
There have been huge successes in reforestation all over the world. We're actually very good at doing this, so long as there are government supports to both properly do it and then to manage it. Japan's history of government-managed reforestation goes back to the 14th century. It's not hard to do, or to do well.
It would be better to grow hemp (Score:1)
Well... (Score:3)
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. (W. Shakespeare)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems unlikely that this practice will stay limited to Denmark.
Greenhouse gases? (Score:2)
NOx emissions are greenhouse gasses in theory I guess, but that's not what this is about.
This about EU limits on NOx carry over to nature reserves, but I guess for PR reasons it's cast as a GHG issue.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about both. Agriculture generates a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions as well (farming is 30% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions).
NOx is another issue, but not the only one being addressed here. This article and the tax is specifically on methane and CO2, not NOx.