Denmark Will Plant 1 Billion Trees, Convert 10% Farmland Into Forest (apnews.com) 61
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:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Especially right-wing politics is all about cognitive dissonance these days. These people have given up on understanding reality and are now going for 100% hallucination.
Re: (Score:2)
Right-wing politics in the US these days seems to be like: Planetary problems are of no concern to righteous people; if we lead pious lives and don't anger God Almighty, then He will move a finger and the problems will be solved, and His flock will be saved.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. As I said, 100% hallucination.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you learn of oil companies planting trees.
And by the way, does eating bacon damage the environment?
Re: (Score:2)
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: Best bacon (Score:2)
This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:4, 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: (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.
Re: This insanity will lead to starvation (Score:1)
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.
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:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And el Bunko, the Thief, from the U.S., come Jan. 20.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Bullshit. You do not understand numbers, like at all. At the same time you are aggressive in your ignorance. Pathetic.
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.
Missed the point - Political realignment goal (Score:3)
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: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, 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:2)
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.
Yay! (Score:4)
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]
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?
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 extens
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.
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.