Denmark Will Plant 1 Billion Trees, Convert 10% Farmland Into Forest (apnews.com) 28
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:4, 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:3)
This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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:2)
What are you talking about? Developed countries waste incredible amounts of food.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
This insanity will lead to killer views (Score:2)
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)
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 harve
Missed the point - Political realignment goal (Score:2)
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 mot
Re: (Score:3)
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: (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:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Yay! (Score:3)
Reducing farmland domestically in a nation. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Almost as crazy as the government paying farmers not to grow crops. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/e... [pbs.org]
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?
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.