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

391–400 of 481 posts

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

#391

Post by brodouevencode »

fifticon wrote: post #282

another point is: since WW2, denmark has one of the highest, if not THE highest, percentages of area under agriculture. During WW2, we temporarily allowed agriculture on very poor farmland. It was meant to cease after the war, but our strong farmer lobbyists kept extending the permission.. So it is not about giving up 'good farm land', it is about stopping abusive agriculture which is only possible with extreme chemi…

What percentage of output is accounted for in the lower tier (not good) farmland? If the land is truly suboptimal the additional costs will not scale with the reduction of output.

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

#392

Post by themaninthedark »

rob74 wrote: post #209
manvillej wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments pay to keep food at the cheapest point possible to ensure stability. a fed population doesn't kill their governments. Agriculture is not a regular industry; its a national security issue Farming is not a profitable endeavor. There would be a lot less financial advisors in the world otherwise. A carbon tax will either drive up prices or reduce suppliers, increasing prices. Reducing farmland will require mo…

So, what are you proposing? Just do nothing about climate change, as we have done before, and have worse social consequences in the near future rather than now? Denmark is more at risk from rising sea levels than other countries ( https://cphpost.dk/2023-02-17/news/rising-sea-levels-threate... ), so they want to do something about it.

Have they stopped oil production?

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

#393

Post by dwallin »

Spivak wrote: post #388
danlitt wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure how this responds to the comment you are actually responding to. You say, > Governments pay to keep food cheap > A carbon tax will either drive up prices or [drive up prices] So, this is just number rearranging. The public pays either way. Ok. The comment you replied to says > Currently the public subsidizes the agriculture industry by paying for the consequences of the industry's carbon emissions. So t…

We should simply ignore the externality all together because we're all paying for it anyway. Either the subsidies take into account the carbon tax or they don't. If they do then it's number rearranging. Government gives dollars and then immediately takes some of them back, it's a convoluted appropriations bill. If they don't then food prices go up which is contrary to the government's goal of keeping food cheap at th…

Trying to reduce a negative by pumping resources into a positive rarely works out as expected and often has surprisingly distortionary effects. (see ethanol and corn production in the USA)

I’m personally of the opinion we should be doing far more tying together of revenue neutral taxes and subsidies within an industry. When you want to reduce a negative externality you tax that and then redistribute the proceeds equitably back across relevant actors. When you want to increase a positive externality, you equally tax actors and then distribute it asymmetrically according to the behavior you want to encourage. Or combine the two approaches to address both negative and positive externalities in one go.

These approaches allow you to be more targeted, while minimizing overall market distortions.

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

#394

Post by celestialcheese »

chgs wrote: post #280
mp05 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For farmers today, the choice is more stark.

I can only speak to small and medium farms, but if we're talking large horsepower cultivators / row farming, It's really a choice between keep my old pre-emissions diesel/buy a pre-2006 used tractor from auctions/marketplace for 50k, or double down and lease a 250k-400k new mid-size tractor.

You make it seem like many farmers have choices, but old "dirty" tractors are the only financial options for many without signing up for indentured servitude to JD/Case/etc

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

#396

Post by fifticon »

oezi wrote: post #269
addcommitpush wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think he was trying to demonstratea point with sarcasm and a group of one with him in it

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

#397

Post by fifticon »

mmooss wrote: post #252
mp05 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Who vilified it?

I do :-) Farming 2024 is so consolidated on few big operations, that a very small number of people have an inordinate amount of influence on how the major part of our total land area is managed and used. Most people who work in the danish farming industry are reduced to wage slaves who have zero influence on how things are run. In some ways, we are back to feudalism, in terms of lack of influence from the people who do most of the work.

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

#398

Post by cynicalsecurity »

JacobJeppesen wrote: post #162

I've seen a bit of confusion regarding this. First, it's 10% of Denmark's total land area, which is roughly equivalent to 15% of farmland area. Second, the conversion of farmland area into nature and forests is mainly for improving water quality, as excess nitrogen from agriculture has essentially killed the rivers and coastal waters through oxygen depletion from algae. Regarding global warming and CO2, the area conv…

> introduction of a carbon tax for the entire agricultural industry

Polish farmers are going to eat you alive for this.

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

#399

Post by sinuhe69 »

JacobJeppesen wrote: post #162

I've seen a bit of confusion regarding this. First, it's 10% of Denmark's total land area, which is roughly equivalent to 15% of farmland area. Second, the conversion of farmland area into nature and forests is mainly for improving water quality, as excess nitrogen from agriculture has essentially killed the rivers and coastal waters through oxygen depletion from algae. Regarding global warming and CO2, the area conv…

"They're in Danish, but upload them to Claude or ChatGPT, and you'll have a much better source"

Eh, people don't know that Google Translate can translate documents (PDF, Doc etc.) as well?!

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

#400

Post by hyeonwho4 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #384
manvillej wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very conflicted on a carbon tax for the agriculture industry. It is going to sidle a cost to an industry of razor thin margins. The transition from regenerative agriculture is expensive & rising food costs has a destabilizing effect. There need to be changes, but I am not convinced that this will have the desired effects. Its quite possible this leads to a net conversion of farmland to residential or commercial…

Carbon taxes are by far the most effective way to get down CO₂ emissions. But I'm doubtful that implementing them only for one industry in one small country is very helpful.

Right. Why not carbon tax all industries (and imports), then subsidize select essentials like pumping water and growing agricultural goods?
Post reply on HN