Denmark: We Can Slash CO2 By 70% In a Decade And Still Have Welfare (reuters.com) 94
Denmark said on Tuesday that it could reach its 2030 climate target of reducing emissions by 70%, one of the world's most ambitious, without compromising its generous welfare benefits. Reuters reports: Last year, parties across the aisle passed a law committing Denmark to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels, or around 20 million tons of CO2 equivalent, within 10 years. In a climate plan published on Tuesday, the government estimated that the annual cost of implementing the shift to greener technologies would rise to 16-24 billion Danish crowns ($2.5-$3.7 billion) by 2030 -- or 0.7%-1.0% of gross domestic product.
"Our ambitious climate goals are not without costs, but with a wise approach, the bill can be made smaller and managed so that we can afford both climate and welfare," Climate Minister Dan Joergensen said in a statement. Initiatives launched in the last year will cut around 5 million tons of CO2 equivalent, the government said. It said another 9-16.5 million tons could be cut by using new technologies such as carbon capture storage and 'power-to-X' - converting surplus electricity, usually from renewable sources such as wind, plentiful in Denmark, by using it to produce storable substances or fuels such as hydrogen or methane. The Danish Council on Climate Change, an independent adviser to the government, recommends sharply increasing the current carbon tax to get Denmark to meet its target.
"Our ambitious climate goals are not without costs, but with a wise approach, the bill can be made smaller and managed so that we can afford both climate and welfare," Climate Minister Dan Joergensen said in a statement. Initiatives launched in the last year will cut around 5 million tons of CO2 equivalent, the government said. It said another 9-16.5 million tons could be cut by using new technologies such as carbon capture storage and 'power-to-X' - converting surplus electricity, usually from renewable sources such as wind, plentiful in Denmark, by using it to produce storable substances or fuels such as hydrogen or methane. The Danish Council on Climate Change, an independent adviser to the government, recommends sharply increasing the current carbon tax to get Denmark to meet its target.
It's super simple. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They have to tax the financial markets instead of the labor market. There's more than enough money up there to cover UBI for the whole world
Re: (Score:3)
They have to tax the financial markets instead of the labor market. There's more than enough money up there to cover UBI for the whole world
Proposals like that won't work. People vote against them because they don't want their 401k to go down.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of Danes have retirement savings above their pensions. Also any pension thats not just a long term ponzi scheme needs to invest in the markets as well, or it's just hoping it can the rube down the road will pay out for promises being made now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They have to tax the financial markets instead of the labor market. There's more than enough money up there to cover UBI for the whole world
Taxation doesn't work like that, sorry.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, we have to work it that way. We have to shift the burden to those who can pay the easiest. Let's not care how loud they complain.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It's even simpler than that (Score:4, Insightful)
Respiration is carbon-neutral. Stay in school, kids!
Re: (Score:3)
Who knew America was such a world leader in sequestering carbon [healthdata.org]
They're greener than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Eating doesn't sequester carbon. Photosynthesis turns CO2 into solid carbon, which gets released back into the atmosphere as CO2 when the plant decomposes. No sequestration takes place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that some of that decomposition is long delayed though. Every bit of fossil fuel we have ever burned was carbon sequestered millions of years ago. One way to put things back the way we found them is to convert plant matter into charcoal and stuff it back into the coal mines.
Re: (Score:1)
Carbon neutral isn't enough. By not exhaling, you're moving into active carbon sequestration.
On another note - respiration itself is not carbon neutral. You're largely exhaling carbon which you've taken in via other means.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon neutral isn't enough. By not exhaling, you're moving into active carbon sequestration.
On another note - respiration itself is not carbon neutral. You're largely exhaling carbon which you've taken in via other means.
Most of that comes from food and that CO2 is consumed by crops. If exhaling was increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere life on earth would not have lasted long after its inception.
Nomenclature (Score:2)
On another note - respiration itself is not carbon neutral. You're largely exhaling carbon which you've taken in via other means.
Semantic nitpicking: in biochemistry cellulare respiration [wikipedia.org] includes glucose too. It *is* carbon neutral.
But yes the respiratory system isn't carbon neutral, it only outputs CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is ever simple.
In Europe, energy (electricity and gas) is already so heavily taxed, that is is much cheaper to heat your home with firewood. Most country homes have wood stoves for the purpose and there are huge commercial firewood forests all over.
If not for the noise and hassle, I could build a steam engine in my backyard to generate electrity from wood and it will be cheaper than the mains supply - thinking about that, it could make a fun project...
A small 2 to 3 kW solar and wind electric
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You didn't provide any references.
It's non-trivial to find the data, and maybe I misread it, but here are some tax rates for households on electricity in northern Europe:
- Germany 2019: 5 EUR/GJ
- Norway 2020: 4 EUR/GJ
- Denmark 2019: 34 EUR/GJ
- Sweden 2019: 7 EUR/GJ (North), 9 EUR/GJ (South)
So Denmark is definitely an outlier compared to Germany, Norway and Sweden.
For the latter countries, let's assume 7 EUR/GJ as an average value. Let's further assume a typical household's (house) yearly consumption of elec
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How much do you pay for 1kWh of electricity in the US? Let us start with that and we can compare.
I'll play... Where I live in Texas, we can choose our own power provider. On my current contract, I'm paying $0.04544 per kWh.
Re: (Score:1)
Even simpler (Score:1)
It's even simpler.
Reduce fossil fuel production + import by 10% each year.
No tax needed, just monitoring. Done.
Re: (Score:1)
Replace a tax? They can't do that. Policies like that aren't cost neutral. They cost A LOT of money. For example electricity in Denmark already costs more than double of what it costs in the US. The only countries where it costs more are Germany and Bermuda.
Here's how these CO2 and welfare policies work in Germany: we are getting a completely new CO2 tax next year on top of all the other existing eco taxes and they're also going to raise health insurance premiums. Our governments are ravenous money holes. T
Re: (Score:2)
I thought pretty much ALL of Europe had "free" socialized medicine?
Re: (Score:1)
Making Use Of Methane (Score:1)
Methane should be a big target, making use of what is a worse green house gas, burning it to produce energy or converting it into butane with surplus renewable energy, as a better liquid energy store. Capturing sewer gases from all those towns and cities and their sewerage treatment works and making use of it or turning it into butane and selling it, instead of venting it to atmosphere. Methane is made from carbon dioxide so apart from the stuff stored in the wild, buried or frozen, it is a wash, just good
Re: (Score:3)
" Methane is made from carbon dioxide "
Someone failed chemistry class at school.
Re: (Score:1)
"If we simply bury the dead, we eventually get oil, which is evil. So our plan it to bury them near a volcano in hopes that we'll get diamonds."
Re: Easy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure is easy to have nice things when you let the US taxpayers pay for all of your defense.
So why are the US voters not doing something about it?
Ahh wedge issues, carry on.
What does welfare have to do with CO2 reduction? (Score:2)
Why was it assumed reducing CO2 emissions would hurt welfare benefits? Is there no other spending in Denmark which can be cut to play for it? Or are welfare costs such a large line item that the remainder of the budget is less than the CO2 reduction plan would cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Simple enough (Score:3)
Setup vast arrays of bicycle generators, pay the poor by the Kwh
Win, win, win
Re: (Score:3)
We can leverage the demand for immigration on this. We can call it Americas Foreign Legion. Wave this filter in the air while peddling this bike every day for 5 years and you make citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that sounds like slavery with extra steps!
Re: (Score:2)
Well that sounds like slavery with extra steps!
How silly, slaves don't get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Setup vast arrays of bicycle generators, pay the poor by the Kwh
Win, win, win
Ayn Rand? ... Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Welfare (Score:1)
But they still can't/won't pay their NATO contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
But they still can't/won't pay their NATO contributions.
Are we talking about corporate welfare, and the United States?
Re: (Score:2)
But they still can't/won't pay their NATO contributions.
Do you have any references to Denmark not paying their NATO contributions? I think a lot of Americans are misunderstanding how NATO works, probably because Trump has miscommunicated it in the past... probably due to general lack of knowledge.
Re:55% income tax + 25% VAT! (Score:5, Informative)
And yet, the average person in Denmark is doing SO much better than the average American. Here's a top ten list of countries with the best quality of life provided by US News & World Report. In order:
Canada Denmark Sweden Norway Australia Switzerland Finland Netherlands New Zealand Germany
I expected to see America's name there somewhere, but apparently the US isn't in the top ten anymore.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/us-news-world-report-10-countries-with-the-best-quality-of-life.html
One thing's for sure: if an average Dane wants to leave his country in order to find somewhere better to live, unless he's a masochist, he sure won't be moving to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if all the above average people leave?
Re: 55% income tax + 25% VAT! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
GDP per capita equivalence (Score:2)
>> what is the incentive for anyone there to work hard to gain wealth, if the govt is going to just take it all away
> That doesn't hold water as a theory about typical behavior, since per capita GDP in Denmark vs US are almost the same
GDP sameness isn't relevant here.
GDP = C (consumption) + I (investment) + G (gov. spending) + X (net exports)
The previous poster was talking the Danish government taking earnings as taxes, effectively moving what would have been in C or I, to G. The previous poster's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
King Alfred has a lot to answer for. We could have been Danish and enjoyed a much higher quality of life if he hadn't held out Wessex against them!
Re: (Score:1)
And yet, the average person in Denmark is doing SO much better than the average American. Here's a top ten list of countries with the best quality of life provided by US News & World Report.
you'll need a better source; you linked a survey where 21,000 people were asked to rank 80 countries -- meaning most people didnt even live in the countries they were rating.
In order to help people understand how nations are perceived on a global scale, over 21,000 respondents were asked to evaluate 80 countries by ranking them according to 65 attributes.
and from your source, canada is #1.
not to insult canada, but... you really think canada is the best of the best?
One thing's for sure
no. *taps on nose with rolled up newspaper*
Re:55% income tax + 25% VAT! (Score:5, Informative)
What do you get for your tax? Well the public transit system is awesome and cheap and integrated. We lived in the suburbs of Copenhagen. We didn't need to buy a car, although we hired one 3 times. The rest of the time, cycling and PT. Safe cycling paths to everywhere. Nearly free health care. Subsidised dental and opticians. Nice schools, although we home schooled for language reasons.
I lived in the US too. Sure, we had more money left at the end of the month in the US. But I still preferred Denmark as a place to live. There were plenty of wealthy people in DK too, it's not like everyone was up and leaving because of the tax rate - in fact there were a lot of skilled immigrants where I worked.
More generally I think you have the wrong idea about how tax and the money you're left with works. People just scale their spending to their money, and the economy scales to that money as well. It's only painful if tax rates suddenly change.
I live in NZ now. While it may be my favourite place to be, I would quite like to be paying more tax in return for some of the benefits it brings.
Re: (Score:1)
Well the public transit system is awesome and cheap and integrated. We lived in the suburbs of Copenhagen. We didn't need to buy a car, although we hired one 3 times. The rest of the time, cycling and PT. Safe cycling paths to everywhere.
That description does only fit in Copenhagen and other of the largest cities in Denmark. It is quite different in the rest of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there isn't going to be public transportation between farms where only a handful of people live. 88% of Danes live in cities [statista.com] so what he describes is typical for the vast majority of Danes.
Re:55% income tax + 25% VAT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, we had more money left at the end of the month in the US.
Oooh lucky you. A friend and I left Australia at the same time to take the same job in the same company, one in the US, and me over here. She earns about 35% more take home money than I do. Somehow at the end of the year I ended up with more money. We get a lot of tax dollars over here, you can actually see them being spent on things which benefit you. We both trained for a marathon and both injured outselves in equally stupid ways. After 12 physio sessions and an MRI later I'm out of pocket $0. After 8 physio sessions and an ultrasound later she was out of pocket $2000 before her medical insurance even took an interest, and another $500 since.
The same applies to everything. Want to go into daycare, a good school, or good university, better have a shitton of money in the USA. Want to eat out, oh that's going to cost you, don't forget to tip. Oh meat is cheap in the USA, and it's a great way of getting your daily dose of chlorine and steroids. But man if you want to eat healthy in the USA it's going to cost you. It's like sugar and processed shit reduces the cost of produce.
Looking just at income and tax dollars is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your friend actually has pretty good insurance for the US.
Yes she does, and that's the real kicker. We often hear about how in the USA you're fine if you're insured. Yet I still hear stories of how even with insurance injuries cost thousands. I know a guy through work who was t-boned at an intersection, entirely not his fault. Ended up with a slight brain injury which needed among other things therapy to resolve. Well the other person wasn't insured, or underinsured or something, his own insurance bailed on him after spending a little money, and then since it was
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in Denmark for awhile. Yes, top rate income tax is high. But it is top rate, the average earner won't be paying 55%, and top earners aren't paying 55% on their whole salary.
Calculating effective tax rates is too much hard work. When politicians want to sound convincing and "passionate about issues" all they use is short soundbites. Using the maximum tax rate by itself here got modded down as troll as it should, but it works just fine with the rest of the sheeple.
Re: (Score:1)
As as expat who has been living in Denmark for the last 5 years, here is my take on it:
The Danish system is designed for people to be born, live, and die in the country. Yes, taxes are high, but salaries are good from the time you leave school. So you will easily be able to accumulate enough to live a middling life with your 1 holiday and a year, 1.7 kids, and picket fence. You will then retire and have a good state pension. There will be very little stress in your life, and you will be happy enough.
This mi
What is the goal? (Score:2)
If the goal to reduce CO2 emissions? Or is the goal to mitigate climate change? Because the latter can be achieved (more cheaply) than the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Re: (Score:2)
There are none. People claim that reducing CO2 emissions will solve global warming in the most optimal way without any scientific and economic basis. They are not following the science and economics, because there are none. For all we know, geoengineering, or doing nothing, may be a better alternative.
Next tax scam will be (Score:1)
--
Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?
Re: (Score:2)
Next will be the pink invisible colorless dotted Unicorn tax.
I think the church in its numerous manifestations has about 2000 years worth or prior art on that one.
Re: (Score:1)
1. Put fear in the mind of the people.
2. Wait for the people to cry for help.
3. Give them the costly solution.
Just make shi* up, like anything - hell, aliens, meteor, failing sun, too hot sun, CO2, MF3, just let your imagination run free.
Back when burning people, because of witchcraft and what not. They simply, as today, used the experts at that time.
Economic stimulous (Score:2)
oh, great. we're saved then. (Score:1)
denmark. wow. then we're done here.
It's not realistic even if they have the will (Score:2)
Sweden also claimed they'd be rid of all fossil fuels by 2020, in 2005:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, not even close. Your own link says:
- It was a proposal, never implemented in any law or policy
- 2020 was just a milestone, and not "rid of all fossil fuels" by any measure
- The target for 2020 was to cut oil usage by 25-50% depending on industry
Re: (Score:2)
The current proposal by Denmark is no different. Here's an original article by the national broadcasting / news organization of Sweden, and it's not any different from the one proposed by Denmark now. They could reach a target, but definitely will not. It's all a publicitiy stunt.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inr... [www.svt.se]
Re: (Score:2)
There appear to be a number of differences [bbc.com] with the Danish law:
- It's an actual law, not a proposal
- It has broad support from nearly all political parties, as well as the people
- All ongoing policies are required to support emissions goals
- The government can be held to account (even made to step down) if it doesn't achieve annual climate targets
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, for a true perspective on this discussion vs what it was here on Slashdot, see here: https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not really sure how a different Slashdot discussion will be any more true - particularly when its headline was completely wrong to start out - but OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> And in transport they they are ahead of most
They have one of the oldest pools of cars in Europe, along with Finland and Greece due to extreme car taxation, unlike Norway and Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
Need to cut at the source (Score:1)
Unless Denmark commits to reducing fossil fuel production / import by 10% next year, 20% in 2022 etc., this is, unfortunately, hot air.
It's a pity. The Danes are really advanced in the transition to renewables. They *could* do it.
Velfaerd != Welfare checks (Score:3)
There is something missing in the article. It relies too much on a direct quote (or direct translation of a quote), without providing an interpretation of what it actually means.
In Scandinavian countries such as Denmark, the term "Velfaerd" is a much wider concept than what "Welfare benefits" means in American English.
The word refers to the citizens' general well-being, and includes pretty much everything that the state can do to maintain a minimum quality of life for its citizens: It includes the school system, kindergartens, health care, pension system, public housing, etc.
The welfare system is funded by taxes, and the funding of welfare is therefore dependent on a functioning national economy -- which is the real issue here.
It is not just about paying out checks to people with low financial means.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to make a snarky comment about being glad DK had their priorities in line, but thanks for clarifying that. That's a huge difference.
Here in the US- although it sounds like you may already know this- our ROI on social programs is abysmal. I'd *love* for my taxes to go towards cool projects that you see in Europe. However, in addition to being far more sparsely populated, our government manages tax spending pathetically and places no real demands on metrics showing results. Couple that with th
A perspective from Denmark (Score:2)
I live in Denmark and I can tell you that very few people outside the extreme left believes that the 70% will be achieved (this includes Dan Jørgensen).
The 70% figure was the price that the social democrats had to pay to the left in order to form a government. The way that the government are purposing to meet the 70% goal is through technical innovation sometime in the future - they have shown a, totally not made up, hockey stick figure where everything is fixed in the laste couple of years - long afte
Re: (Score:2)
handing out money to potential voters. They do not care about the environment or economy.
I know those feels Danish-Bro
Absolutely. It is possible without to much hassle. (Score:2)
It does take a change.
But it doesn't take much.
Unless you think gving up your 2.7 metric ton SUV with 15 liters per 100km of fuel usage and a laughable lifetime of 10 years or so is much.
We can go CO2-negative within a few years. Globally. It just takes the political will and fuel and meat and electricity to go up by 250% to 400%, depending on the eco-balance. Everyone can offset that by changing most of their consumption habits. Low-income drivers dependent on mobility can get a tax-break or tax-reduction
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see the direct benefit to ME for all of this sacrifice in the quality and comfort of my life and lifestyle.
I like meat, a lot.
I like using electric gadgets.
I like to drive fast cars.
So, I give up things that I have worked hard for and REALLY enjoy for life...what do I get in return that will make me equ
Re: (Score:2)
15 liters per 100km
wut?
Welfare (Score:2)