Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 481 posts

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#261

Post by doommius »

kawsper wrote: post #144
ggernov wrote: post #139

This is ghoulish - farmland should directly be benefit the endemic population as much as possible! That's what it's there for! I love green tech like solar etc, made my home even more efficient etc but we need fresh food to LIVE!

Denmark exports a lot of the produced food, and we are one of the most intensely farmed countries in the world, 60.4% of Denmark consists of fields, and 48% of Denmark's land area is used to grow food for animals, animals which are primarily pigs. We also yearly import 1.8 million tons of soy from South America to feed said pigs, because we can't grow enough food for them ourselves. It would be nice to have some natu…

Yup, and to add to this, the large majority of this meat is produced for export, and it's sold super cheap, I personally believe a good way of solving this is only giving EU support to non export farming, eg if you receive EU subsidy the good shouldn't be allowed to be exported, or those taxes would have to be repaid.

As currently we're destroying the nature, and waters due to this extremely intensive farming and as others have mentioned Denmark is producing 200-300 % of our domestic need + it requires significant import from south America where it wouldn't surprise me if this import lead to significant deforestation.

I know China is also working on increasing their domestic production[1] which is one of the primary markets that Denmark is exporting a lot to , It was 85000 tons last year[2]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/business/china-pork-farms... [2]https://effektivtlandbrug.landbrugnet.dk/artikler/marked/103...

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#262

Post by CaptainFever »

torlok wrote: post #213
CaptainFever wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just conjecture without proof, followed by a lazy shot at capitalism. https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/ugh-capitalism At the very least, provide some citation that a 20 cent increase in production price would cause a 2 euro increase in consumer price, as you claimed.

It's an obvious hyperbole, don't get your khakis in a bunch. You have to have spent the pandemic under a rock if you didn't notice corporations significantly boosting their margins under the excuse of rising costs, especially in the food industry.

This doesn't seem to be a global phenomenon. I've not noticed such things in my country.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#263

Post by addcommitpush »

jdenning wrote: post #250
Ma8ee wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you point out, there are several valid reasons to subsidise farming. But then subsidise farming, not carbon emissions! And while you are at it, use those subsidies to encourage farming that is sustainable, both for the climate as well as biodiversity.

What's the point of a carbon tax if it's balanced by a government subsidy? Edit: Genuinely curious what I'm missing..

Low carbon farms balance would be: "low carbon" profit + subsidy - small carbon tax

High carbon farms balance would be: "high carbon" profit + subsidy - high carbon tax

If ["low carbon" profit - small carbon tax] > ["high carbon" profit - high carbon tax] (e.g. if the carbon tax is high enough), farms have an incentive to lower their carbon emissions.

The subsidy is here to make sure ["low carbon" profit + subsidy - small carbon tax] > 0

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#264

Post by jamil7 »

shiroiushi wrote: post #216
lovemenot wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be fine, I believe. Just in terms of land-use, livestock is several times less efficient than other kinds of agriculture for the same food output. So a shift from meat to other food crops would be a net win, even as it frees up land for other purposes. Many farmers will receive a one-time payment on land sales and some will use this windfall to subsidise their transition from growing livestock to more envir…

>Just in terms of land-use, livestock is several times less efficient than other kinds of agriculture for the same food output. This assumes that the land is equally usable for both activities. Many times, it isn't: a lot of land that's good enough for grazing cows doesn't have enough water available for growing plants that people want to (or can) eat. People can't eat grass. This probably isn't an issue in Denmark,…

Cows still need water from somewhere in those areas you’re talking about. If the land is particularly poor it also won’t produce enough feed and will have to be supplemented with feed that requires water and energy to grow somewhere else.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#265

Post by jamil7 »

9front wrote: post #229

From https://cphpost.dk/2024-11-22/news/round-up/we-are-in-crisis... "Danish Crown, one of Denmark’s largest Danish meat producer, is facing significant financial challenges as pig deliveries to its processing plants have dropped in the 2023/24 financial year."

Good.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#266

Post by mrweasel »

9front wrote: post #229

From https://cphpost.dk/2024-11-22/news/round-up/we-are-in-crisis... "Danish Crown, one of Denmark’s largest Danish meat producer, is facing significant financial challenges as pig deliveries to its processing plants have dropped in the 2023/24 financial year."

On the other hand Tican is doing pretty well and are hiring, while Danish Crown is firing. So at least some of the pigs which would normally go to Danish Crown, is being sent to Tican instead. Tican is also giving farmers a better price per pig. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/seneste/mens-danish-crown-lider-lo...

Danish Crowns problems aren't entirely due to external factors, part of it is also that Danish Crowns is struggling to run its business properly.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#267

Post by mrweasel »

cpursley wrote: post #31
mdorazio wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where else would you like them to plant trees? Tearing up residential areas to convert to forest would be massively expensive and likely unpopular.

Places that used to be forested and are not productive farmland. There’s lots of places like this, just maybe not in Denmark.

Quick history lesson: After the war, with Prussia in 1864, Denmark lost about 33% of it's area. That part was some of the most suited to agriculture. To compensate for those loses Denmark started a process of turning previously unusable land in to farmland. So lakes where drained, the the moors were drained, areas with sandy soil, good for nothing but growing common heather, was heavily fertilised and forests where cut down. There where even suggestion to drain parts of the sea between Denmark and Sweden.

In some sense it was good, and basically help shape modern Denmark, but it's just not needed anymore, and has come at the cost of wildlife, native plants and sea creatures. It didn't start out like that, but when you add modern intensive farming on top of killing of most of your nature areas, then things starts to go very wrong. Denmark has almost nothing of it's original nature left.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#268

Post by addcommitpush »

geysersam wrote: post #245
roenxi wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will converting farmland to forests help with climate change? It seems like it would have no particular impact or make the situation worse w.r.t. climate change for Denmark. If it is a good idea I'd imagine it would also be a good idea if the climate was not changing. Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions at all. In fact nobody does except ironically the Chinese and their industrial-growth-at-any-…

> how will converting farmland to forest Farming is very carbon emission intensive if the farmland is reclaimed wetland. Converting the farmland to forest and stopping draining (making it more wet again) can definitely reduce carbon emissions significantly. > Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions This is such a tiresome and logically hollow argument. Denmark has the ability to reduce a fraction of the…

Note that China has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either.

Let’s split China population in k Denmark-sized groups, plus one smaller-than-Denmark reminder.

None of the k groups has any ability to impact global CO2 emissions (same as Denmark).

We can reasonably assume that a smaller group has even less ability to impact global CO2 emissions than a bigger group. Hence the smaller-than-Denmark reminder has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either.

Thus China is made of groups that have no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. And therefore China as a whole has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions. (Otherwise at least one group within China would have to impact global emissions and we just saw that it isn’t possible).

This is known as the CO2 impossibility theorem, loosely based on Arrow’s concept of “(in)decisive” set.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#269

Post by oezi »

addcommitpush wrote: post #268
geysersam wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how will converting farmland to forest Farming is very carbon emission intensive if the farmland is reclaimed wetland. Converting the farmland to forest and stopping draining (making it more wet again) can definitely reduce carbon emissions significantly. > Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions This is such a tiresome and logically hollow argument. Denmark has the ability to reduce a fraction of the…

Note that China has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. Let’s split China population in k Denmark-sized groups, plus one smaller-than-Denmark reminder. None of the k groups has any ability to impact global CO2 emissions (same as Denmark). We can reasonably assume that a smaller group has even less ability to impact global CO2 emissions than a bigger group. Hence the smaller-than-Denmark reminder has no…

Certainly you are just demonstrating the opposite. Everyone has the ability to impact global CO2 emmissions.

We certainly need international coordination or actors with a minimal set of morals to achieve it.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#270

Post by Aromasin »

chickenbig wrote: post #47
timc3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just having farmland be fields is not very good for the land or the eco system. Breaking up farmland with hedges, woods, wetlands or whatever nature decides it should be is often a good idea. Next best thing is to manually plant trees. Edit: add planting trees

> Breaking up farmland One thing I have wondered was the relative benefits of a concentrated wilderness versus distributed habitat. The common agricultural policy set-aside distributes payments for the wilderness across many farms (for equity, one supposes), whereas a concentrated wilderness would benefit few (and probably only the landowners).

I do a lot of volunteering work with the Woodland Trust in the UK, negotiating with people who want to donate their land to restoration purposes. Britain is a land of fields and hedgerows (distributed). Many people fail to understand that most "wilderness" that we want to bring back is reliant on density (or concentration). I know many land owners who want to rewild parts of theirs, but are expecting temperate rainforest on a plot of land a couple acres across. It doesn't work like that.

The only way to bring back these lost or dying ecosystems is across large stretches of land, hundreds if not thousands of acres across. We have tiny pockets left in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, but for the most part the country is ecologically baren in comparison to that a couple of thousand years ago.

Vast and continuous National Parks are one of the few viable ways to maintain or bring back our species rich ecosystems. Distributed "wilderness" between city blocks or cattle grazing land is duct tape on a leaky bucket.

Post reply on HN