[ed25519FUUU]

> A case against the development of Lynetteholm has been brought before the European Court of Justice by environmental groups.

I’m always a little surprised that the most wild and natural parts of world (the flyover country) is populated by anti environmentalists (or rather, libertarians typically), and the most densely populated cities devoid of most green things tend to have clusters of environmentalists.

Don’t they know they can come out to the country, buy 50 acres of woods and streams and meadows and wildlife, and not worry about how many cars are on the streets of Copenhagen?

They’d love it in these areas. People ride horses and graze animals. They hunt and go bird watching and identify all of the local trees.

[rvense]

> Don’t they know they can come out to the country, buy 50 acres of woods and streams and meadows and wildlife, and not worry about how many cars are on the streets of Copenhagen?

In Denmark? Hardly. If you buy 50 acres here, you'll get fields or pastures, and the legal obligation to keep it as such. Actually, as far as I remember anything over 30 hectares will come with requirements that you have some sort of certification as a farmer.

0,5% of Denmark's 40,000 square kilometers is wild. The largest forests are all state-owned. 60% is farmed land - 80% of which, ie., 50% of the country, is used just to grow pig feed.

[boublepop]

There’s no requirement to get a “certificate as a farmer” and you can get European subsidies to fund converting fields to forrests. The only thing you can’t do is build more housing on the fields, because everyone in power in Denmark is doing everything they can to fight affordable housing.

[rvense]

A few years ago when I was looking at houses in the country there was definitely some requirement for buying more than 30 or 35 hectares of farmland. And while you might be able to get permission to convert some areas into forests, it is explicitly stated in the planning laws that the character of the countryside is to be preserved. I can assure you that there are lots of things you can't do.

And before that, of course, there's the price. 50 acres way out in the sticks in America might be quite affordable. Arable land in Denmark, less so. There's no easy escape here like the post I reacted made it sound.

[henrikeh]

This case has nothing to do with urbanism but has to do with how the environmental impact of the project is measured.

Put simply, despite planning and projecting the entire project, the environmental impact is done piece by piece. This vastly understated the environmental impact in the harbor and Øresund. This approach is what is being challenged, since it obviously disregards big picture thinking.

[fogihujy]

Also, many people are fed up with construction noise due to the metro being expanded.

[monocasa]

I've heard some environmentalists make an argument for dense human cities. If you're going to have all those people and their infrastructure either way, compress it down and maybe you can leave more room for nature? They tend to be very anti suburbs along the same thinking.

[vidarh]

I ended up in an argument with local "environmentalists" exactly over this (in quotes, because I think being opposed to high density is not very environmentalist at all):

They complained about new highrises near my local train station. I pointed out to them that those highrises would take up ~2,000 m^2 but provide housing for as many as one of the nearest local roads, that with the sidewalks, houses and gardens, many of which are paved over or mostly decking, takes up ~40,000 m^2.

As such, if they wanted more green spaces the better stance would be to argue for replacement rather than denying planning: E.g. make developers commit to buying up more low density housing and demolish a proportion of it and replace it with parkland or rewild it. The overall societal effect of not increasing housing supply as much would be a negative (and so there may well be needs for government incentives), but increased green spaces would be a positive. And if it reduced overall resistance to more high density construction to explicitly link density to replacement, I think it'd be worth it. E.g. award construction proposals with "points" in favour for whatever amount of existing construction they replace with parkland or nature that causes planning rules to strongly favour projects that increase density.

But said "environmentalists" seemed dead set on seeing bigger buildings as inherently bad without engaging with the point that absent getting rid of people, creating more space for nature means making people take up less space, and that means higher density.

To me arguing for high density is an essential part of environmentalism.

[a0-prw]

The absolutely worst thing a human being can do to nature is move into it XD

[gpm]

This has not been my experience, the most environmentalist people I know were generally born in small towns... Most also spent at least some time working in some form of "outdoor entertainment" that included long periods of time spent in the complete wilderness. Canoe/Hiking trips and the like. This includes people who at least publicly admired people who stuck spikes in trees to damage logging equipment (acts that people on the other side classify as terrorism).

I get the impression that the least environmentalist people are also generally in small towns, but I can't say I've ended up associating with them as much. My impression is that they're generally this way because they're the people that environmental laws impact the most.

City people seem to typically fall into a middle ground, not rabid in either direction.

(Europe may be different, I'm Canadian, but broad generalities about environmentalists seem likely to carry over?)

[pjc50]

If only it was possible to have the kind of job and money that's only available in big cities while living there. Maybe the remote revolution will finally let this happen. Oh, and the social and cultural life as well.

[rsj_hn]

It makes sense if you view all these *-isms as a form of crafting a personal identity to distinguish yourself from others and find a peer group. You would need to do that to stand apart in a crowded city much more than out in the country. People who truly love nature, rather than the politics of nature, do spend a lot of time in it.

[jaza]

Most of those environmentalists, strong though their convictions may be, wouldn't give up almond milk lattes, organic fusion sushi, constant social media, fast reliable internet, and all the other trappings of cosmopolitan hipster life, at least not for more than a few days.

[ilyu]

Some of them are just nimbys who doesn't want to see new residents in their neighborood especially if they esteem that theirs propertys could be valued less.

[vidarh]

This "neighbourhood" is currently water. I very much doubt that is the issue here.

[jamil7]

Same tired angle over and over huh? Environmentalists are city-dwelling hipster hypocrites. It’s been used by various politicians over the years.

[Tijdreiziger]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/259/257/342...