The founder of the new party: Denmark needs a green course with financial responsibility - FFT Ecology News

The founder of the new party: Denmark needs a green course with financial responsibility

Jonas HolmFounder of the Party’s Green Course

debateDenmark: After 3-4 years of symbolic policy of not taking climate action, Denmark has a new government. The new government and supporting parties, the unified list, the Socialist People’s Party and the Radical Party have set a new green direction for Denmark. One of the first tasks is to pass a binding climate law. Its ambitious goal is to reduce greenhouse gases by 70% by 2030, preferably in the entire central region, so that it can be maintained after the next general election. Then concrete measures must be taken to achieve the ambitious goals, and these measures must be funded.

On the one hand, it’s exciting to see how fast parties are moving in a greener direction before elections and in relation to government negotiations. On the other hand, it is worrying that without realizing how to achieve the ambitious goals, how much to spend and how to raise funds, there is no understanding of how it happened. It seems to be just a number on a piece of paper. Since then, two months have passed, we are getting closer and closer to our goal, and there is no consensus on how we should raise funds.

Crucial plan

Therefore, it is crucial that the government now has a funding plan that will last until at least 2025. The requirement must be at least linearly reduced to 2030. In the first year before that, the carbon dioxide emission reduction must be at least the same as the previous years. As it becomes more and more difficult and therefore more expensive, we The closer to 70%. Ideally, measures should be taken and funded throughout the process to ensure that the measures are implemented even after a possible government change.

Transport Minister Benny Engelbrecht (Senny) reduced the investment in the infrastructure project to 112 billion Swedish kronor. Agree on the smallest possible multipleThere is no single analysis of how it affects Denmark’s carbon dioxide emissions. On the other hand, the Minister of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Mogens Jensen gave a bad opening statement, stating that Denmark must not reduce meat production, otherwise, if we are to achieve the goal of reducing 70%, this will be a fixed task.

“The requirement must be at least linearly reduced until 2030. In the first few years, the reduction of carbon dioxide must be at least the same as in previous years, because carbon dioxide emissions are getting less and less, so the price is getting higher and higher. The closer to 70%”

Jonas Holm, founder of the green curriculum

In addition to reducing and reorganizing meat production, we must also fully electrify the transportation sector and achieve a 100% green power supply. We must make buildings sustainable, we must reduce clothing consumption, reduce flying, and we must share resources with each other to a greater extent-such as our electric cars and (summer) houses.

Climate tax and investment

of
The most obvious and effective way to achieve the goal is to integrate
Climate tax on carbon dioxide, and in
R&D and access to poor agricultural land and
Convert to forest. A climate tax on CO2 emissions has advantages-
Violation of restrictions-what consumption did they reduce at the same time
Will emit carbon dioxide, thereby incentivizing the company to produce
More climate-friendly and provide
Subsidies for climate-friendly products, research and investment
Develop or requisition forest land.

When we implement a climate tax, it is crucial to do it with the support of the people. Part of the reason is that we do not use climate taxes to increase the overall tax burden. Part of the reason is that climate taxes will not hit society with inequality. Fortunately, high-income people are also those who fly the most, eat the most beef, and live in the largest houses. Therefore, taxation on air traffic or beef will not have an unequal impact on society. However, if this is done, people can use a portion of the tax to increase the green check or minimum deduction.

“The most obvious and effective way to achieve this goal is the widespread use of a climate tax on carbon dioxide, combined with a large investment in research and development, and the acquisition of poor agricultural land and conversion to forests.”

Jonas Holm, founder of the green curriculum

In order to achieve the goal of reducing emissions by 70% by 2030 and becoming a zero-net-emission country by 2040, it is not enough to create green growth. We also need to (re)shift the priority of resources from black growth to green growth. For example, this happens when you tax beef and spend money to buy land and plant forests. Or when taxing air traffic and spending money on developing electric planes, electric fuels or high-speed electric trains.

The bill should not be in the children’s room

It is best to buy 200,000 hectares of agricultural land and convert it into forest, such as science fiction Hint, But it is mainly through loans to raise funds, which is very unfortunate and problematic. When the interest rate is negative, it sounds tempting, but it does not change the fact that the money paid to the farmers must be repaid. Then, only our children need to pay this money, not ourselves, even though it is we who benefit from the massive consumption of resources and the accompanying massive carbon dioxide emissions. This also means that during prosperity, money is injected into the economy.

If a broad political majority agrees, part of the loan financing for the green transition can be reasonable as part of the overall plan, but it is absolutely important that we ourselves provide funding for the majority of the green transition so that we have the necessary priorities and ( From) instead of skipping the lowest position of the fence and leaving the bill in the nursery. To achieve this goal, we need to combine accelerated green conversion with financial responsibility.

This article is only an expression of the author’s own position. All materials submitted to KLIMANYT must comply with journalistic ethics. Debate entries can be sent to redaktion@klimanyt.dk

Jonas HolmFounder of the Party’s Green Course

debateDenmark: After 3-4 years of symbolic policy of not taking climate action, Denmark has a new government. The new government and supporting parties, the unified list, the Socialist People’s Party and the Radical Party have set a new green direction for Denmark. One of the first tasks is to pass a binding climate law. Its ambitious goal is to reduce greenhouse gases by 70% by 2030, preferably in the entire central region, so that it can be maintained after the next general election. Then concrete measures must be taken to achieve the ambitious goals, and these measures must be funded.

On the one hand, it’s exciting to see how fast parties are moving in a greener direction before elections and in relation to government negotiations. On the other hand, it is worrying that without realizing how to achieve the ambitious goals, how much to spend and how to raise funds, there is no understanding of how it happened. It seems to be just a number on a piece of paper. Since then, two months have passed, we are getting closer and closer to our goal, and there is no consensus on how we should raise funds.

Crucial plan

Therefore, it is crucial that the government now has a funding plan that will last until at least 2025. The requirement must be at least linearly reduced to 2030. In the first year before that, the carbon dioxide emission reduction must be at least the same as the previous years. As it becomes more and more difficult and therefore more expensive, we The closer to 70%. Ideally, measures should be taken and funded throughout the process to ensure that the measures are implemented even after a possible government change.

Transport Minister Benny Engelbrecht (Senny) reduced the investment in the infrastructure project to 112 billion Swedish kronor. Agree on the smallest possible multipleThere is no single analysis of how it affects Denmark’s carbon dioxide emissions. On the other hand, the Minister of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Mogens Jensen gave a bad opening statement, stating that Denmark must not reduce meat production, otherwise, if we are to achieve the goal of reducing 70%, this will be a fixed task.

“The requirement must be at least linearly reduced until 2030. In the first few years, the reduction of carbon dioxide must be at least the same as in previous years, because carbon dioxide emissions are getting less and less, so the price is getting higher and higher. The closer to 70%”

Jonas Holm, founder of the green curriculum

In addition to reducing and reorganizing meat production, we must also fully electrify the transportation sector and achieve a 100% green power supply. We must make buildings sustainable, we must reduce clothing consumption, reduce flying, and we must share resources with each other to a greater extent-such as our electric cars and (summer) houses.

Climate tax and investment

of
The most obvious and effective way to achieve the goal is to integrate
Climate tax on carbon dioxide, and in
R&D and access to poor agricultural land and
Convert to forest. A climate tax on CO2 emissions has advantages-
Violation of restrictions-what consumption did they reduce at the same time
Will emit carbon dioxide, thereby incentivizing the company to produce
More climate-friendly and provide
Subsidies for climate-friendly products, research and investment
Develop or requisition forest land.

When we implement a climate tax, it is crucial to do it with the support of the people. Part of the reason is that we do not use climate taxes to increase the overall tax burden. Part of the reason is that climate taxes will not hit society with inequality. Fortunately, high-income people are also those who fly the most, eat the most beef, and live in the largest houses. Therefore, taxation on air traffic or beef will not have an unequal impact on society. However, if this is done, people can use a portion of the tax to increase the green check or minimum deduction.

“The most obvious and effective way to achieve this goal is the widespread use of a climate tax on carbon dioxide, combined with a large investment in research and development, and the acquisition of poor agricultural land and conversion to forests.”

Jonas Holm, founder of the green curriculum

In order to achieve the goal of reducing emissions by 70% by 2030 and becoming a zero-net-emission country by 2040, it is not enough to create green growth. We also need to (re)shift the priority of resources from black growth to green growth. For example, this happens when you tax beef and spend money to buy land and plant forests. Or when taxing air traffic and spending money on developing electric planes, electric fuels or high-speed electric trains.

The bill should not be in the children’s room

It is best to buy 200,000 hectares of agricultural land and convert it into forest, such as science fiction Hint, But it is mainly through loans to raise funds, which is very unfortunate and problematic. When the interest rate is negative, it sounds tempting, but it does not change the fact that the money paid to the farmers must be repaid. Then, only our children need to pay this money, not ourselves, even though it is we who benefit from the massive consumption of resources and the accompanying massive carbon dioxide emissions. This also means that during prosperity, money is injected into the economy.

If a broad political majority agrees, part of the loan financing for the green transition can be reasonable as part of the overall plan, but it is absolutely important that we ourselves provide funding for the majority of the green transition so that we have the necessary priorities and ( From) instead of skipping the lowest position of the fence and leaving the bill in the nursery. To achieve this goal, we need to combine accelerated green conversion with financial responsibility.

This article is only an expression of the author’s own position. All materials submitted to KLIMANYT must comply with journalistic ethics. Debate entries can be sent to redaktion@klimanyt.dk