[rob74]

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.

[kvgr]

The food needs to be produced somewhere. If denmark exports, then the food will be missing somewhere. So you do not fix "climate change". You only fix local effects of agriculture. I am not saying it is good or bad. But it def makes denmark poorer.

[pvaldes]

The idea that each country must culture every product to assure the supply chain is outdated by a generation in Europe.

A lot of those vegetables are produced yet in Almeria. A lot of milk that goes to Italy is produced in France. EU has this issue checked from the first minute and created a supranational agriculture system based on quotes.

[kvgr]

Yes, and then somene comes and says, we produce too much beef... well yeah, somebody else will have to do it.

[motohagiography]

not OP, but how about some technology innovation instead of governance and taxation? the effect of taxing farmers as though they were some kind of vanity industry will be similar to what nationalizing farms has done in prior schemes like this.

it creates a national dependency on imported food from countries that do not bankrupt their farmers, and suddenly (shocked!) the entire Danish food supply crosses the borders to arrive and is then subject to federal management. this latter case is of course the purpose, and climate change is merely a pretext. I hope european farmers are able to organize a revolt.

[ZeroGravitas]

> how about some technology innovation instead of governance and taxation

The history of solar, EVs, batteries etc. show these work hand in hand.

Why invent a way to capture methane from slurry, or form a business to sell that idea to farmers if they're allowed to pollute for free?

[motohagiography]

if methane were valuable, it would already exist, and there are a number of techs in development now: https://horsesport.com/magazine/farm-management/heating-with...

if you have a problem with farmers, maybe you should just eat less?

[spookie]

I think subsidies could help buying the technology, taking them out would be disastrous.

Farms, at least in Europe, are in the majority family owned. Same for those working in them, mostly those that are part of the family [1].

It's difficult being a farmer. You are much more at the will of nature than any other industry. Your effort takes a long time to bear fruit (think olives, for example, you do not have fruit for 4~years if you're lucky, and you don't want the oil from a younger tree (lesser phenols, etc...). You have to wait YEARS before you get anything to market. And, there have been many fires in southern Europe...).

All in all, it's indeed difficult to invest in machinery, new technology, etc...

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d...

[shakna]

What technological innovation do you think farming could adopt, that it hasn't already...? They don't operate with simple machinery. They regularly use some of the most complicated systems that mankind can build, such as satellite systems, chemical analyses, etc.

Governance is needed, where progress does not occur naturally.

[motohagiography]

invent, not adopt. that's the difference between government and industry, government doesn't invent anything except problems to manage.

reality is, governments want smallholding farmers out of the business and to replace them with agribusinesses because it's a process of de-kulakizing their subjects. it has nothing to do with science or environment at all. I think maybe a war over this stuff will give us the reset we need.

[shakna]

Governments invent things, endlessly. The infrastructure you are communicating with me was invented by a government research department. The encryption we are using to ensure we're actually communicating with HN, is a government research project.

Similarly, the solar systems on most farms, was a government research project. The satellite recon to analyse the farm - provided by the government to all farmers, including the tiniest hobby farm, is 100% government researched, deployed, and maintained.

Governments do a lot more science than you are giving them credit for.

[spookie]

My country went through a process similar of dekulakization. Our industries and farms haven't recovered ever since then.

This is similar in some ways, but not at all the same.

[themaninthedark]

Have they stopped oil production?

[roenxi]

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-cost coal based approach from the 90s and 00s.

[ZeroGravitas]

Land use is one of the big topics covered by the IPCC:

https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

[roenxi]

That isn't saying anything. Land use is a big topic covered by everyone.

[geysersam]

> 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 worlds emissions. The size of the fraction is proportional to the size of their emissions. Every country has a responsibility to reduce it's per capita emissions to sustainable levels. China has lower per capita emissions than most richer countries.

[addcommitpush]

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.

[roenxi]

Your logic is wrong - a Denmark sized group of Chinese people is probably all it takes to operate their solar panel producing factories.

The reason Denmark can't do anything isn't because there are few of them, it is because Denmark isn't a significant industrial cluster for energy technology and innovation. For example, India has more people than China and they aren't in a position to do much unless there is some sort of tech breakthrough that hasn't made it to my notice.

[ZeroGravitas]

Denmark basically invented modern wind power and still makes a big chunk of it (though China has caught up in that area recently).

[roenxi]

Fair enough, but the major point still stands - Denamrk's industrial policies that enable Vestas are the only way they can have a significant impact on climate change. Farmland conversion does nothing; it isn't moving the needle on what is economic and industrially scaleable. Everyone still needs to eat.

[oezi]

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.

[fifticon]

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

[addcommitpush]

> Everyone has the ability to impact global CO2 emmissions.

I'm afraid most people are smaller-than-Denmark groups, and thus unable whatsoever to impact global emissions. It's just math.

[geysersam]

1e-10 is reeeallly close to zero, therefore 1e10 * 1e-10 is also close to zero.

That's what your math sounds like to me.