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

271–280 of 481 posts

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

#271

Post by baq »

llm_trw wrote: post #150
chipdart wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Denmarks agricultural performance is not great at all. it's way too expensive to produce stuff. if it wasn't for EU subsidies the agricultural sector in Denmark would loose over 50% of their profits. Agriculture in the EU is renowned for not being financially unjustified. For decades it's been a finantial no-brainer to import the bulk of agricultural products from south America and Africa. This is not new or the re…

You'd think that people would have realized this after Europe avoided mass death from Russian gas being cut off only because the winter was mild.

We’re off to a not-great start this year: https://gas.kyos.com/gas/eu

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

#272

Post by blitzar »

perlgeek wrote: post #260
madmask wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what should not happen. Meat is great, especially when grass fed.

... unless the "meat" being grass-fed is actually cows, which produce lots of methane. Not so good for climate change, at least if done at scale. It's never that easy as "Meat is great".

We should slaughter everything that produces metheane to save the planet.

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

#273

Post by iagooar »

Let me get this right. Farmers, who are already struggling to meet ends, will have to pay CO2 tax in order to produce FOOD that we all need to SURVIVE and not starve to death? What diabolical plan is that?

I am the a huge fan of forests and spend a lot of time in the woods, but man, more trees will not feed us.

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

#274

Post by blitzar »

ksec wrote: post #16

Before I go into rage mode, I suppose I should ask, why Farmland? Both Denmark and Netherland are big in agriculture export and they are very good at it. I am not against planting trees but it on top of farm land doesn't make any sense to me.

Farmland is not some natural balanced healthy state for the land to exist in.

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

#275

Post by chgs »

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..

If I can make 1 unit of food for €50 and use 50 tons of carbon, or make it for €60 and use 10 tons of carbon, a carbon tax and food subsidy would allow me to sell that €60 low carbon food for €50 and force me to sell the high carbon food for €60

This gives an economic incentive to use the lower carbon method, funded by those who use more carbon, while not changing the end price or output.

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

#276

Post by edhelas »

iagooar wrote: post #273

Let me get this right. Farmers, who are already struggling to meet ends, will have to pay CO2 tax in order to produce FOOD that we all need to SURVIVE and not starve to death? What diabolical plan is that? I am the a huge fan of forests and spend a lot of time in the woods, but man, more trees will not feed us.

A big percentage of the land usage are to grow crops to feed animals to feed us.

If we bring back our meat consumption (especially beef) to something more balanced for our health we can free-up a massive amount of surface.

I'm not saying that everyone should be vegetarian or vegan. I'm following the notes of the IPCC and studies that says that we can, and should, reduce some of our meat consumption and get those proteines from all the many other sources (peas, tofu...).

Beef is the coal of food. Lets progress to something more efficient, dense and good for our environment and our health.

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

#277

Post by jacobgorm »

iagooar wrote: post #273

Let me get this right. Farmers, who are already struggling to meet ends, will have to pay CO2 tax in order to produce FOOD that we all need to SURVIVE and not starve to death? What diabolical plan is that? I am the a huge fan of forests and spend a lot of time in the woods, but man, more trees will not feed us.

They are already massively subsidized and this will only increase their subsidies. In Denmark farmers control government similarly to the way big oil abd gunmakers control government in the US.

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

#279

Post by jacobgorm »

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."

Because the pigs get transported alive to Germany and Poland to get slaughtered, as wages are lower there. Denmark, with a population under six million, still produces 32 million pigs per annum.

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

#280

Post by chgs »

mp05 wrote: post #214
mmooss wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently the public subsidizes the agriculture industry by paying for the consequences of the industry's carbon emissions. Also, that subsidy distorts industry choices in favor of carbon. The industry might be accustomed to profiting from the subsidy, but that doesn't make them entitled to it! And certainly the industry has had plenty of time to anticipate and adjust to the problems of carbon emissions.

We can debate the role of subsidies and carbon emissions, but framing agriculture as if it's uniquely nefarious misses the critical point that we all need to eat. The industry isn't "choosing carbon" but rather it's responding to the immense challenge of feeding billions affordably while dealing with slim margins and unpredictable conditions. Adjustments require viable, scalable alternatives, not just finger-wagging.…

If I can spend 100k on a tractor cause 100t of pollution or 200k on a tractor causing 50t of pollution I will obviously choose the firmer tractor as the rest of the world pays the price of the extra 50t of pollution.

If the externalities of that carbon generation are priced in I end up paying more for the polluting tractor so I choose the less polluting tractor and make more money.

Post reply on HN