Denmark: We can slash CO2 by 70% in a decade and still have welfare
reuters.com
reuters.com
Denmark 9.8 -> 5.8 tons/person
But then so has the UK: 9.7 -> 5.6
Sweden only reduced emissions about 27%, but they had a much lower base: 6.1 -> 4.5
Of course some other nearby countries are going the wrong direction...
Norway 7.4 -> 9.4, Iceland 7.7 -> 12.1
Strikes me as fairly normal, though I'm not motivated to go searching for examples.
Does read a bit as a holdover from the monarchical custom of referring to the sovereign by the name of the country.
Its publication has the endorsement of the chief executive, but they may not have read it or even know about it. It may have been done by a trusted assistant (cabinet member or other high-level functionary) entrusted with the power to speak on behalf of the executive. In this case, that's Climate Minister Dan Joergensen, quoted in the fourth paragraph, though he likely didn't have a hand in writing it.
The important part is that it's a plan that the plan is endorsed by the government as a whole, who will act on it. That's the info that needed to be in the lede. If you have concerns that would be taken up by the specific people, you need to read the whole article first.
They could have added "... according to a government plan" to the first paragraph, but that's adding several words to a lede that's supposed to be concise and up front. It's sometimes called the "inverted pyramid"[1], though I find that a little odd since the width of the triangle refers to the importance of the words rather than the brevity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
It would probably be more effective if affluent countries levied import taxes on countries that emit too much CO2. That way it feels like "someone else is paying for it", and there would be a real economic incentive for emerging economies to do something about their infrastructure.
One of the more commonly arguments against fighting climate change is that doing so would ruin the economy. If Denmark can maintain its welfare system while cutting costs, then it means others can too.
But yeah, as someone else said, 70% is compared to 1990 levels and it's not really that dramatic since Denmark is considerable less dependant on fossil fuels today compared to 30 years ago.
On the other hand, all the emergent economies have no (internal) political pressure to do much about pollution, much less about CO2 emission. However, what they tend to have in common is that they export a lot products to these affluent countries.
Someone who earns $100k a year is going to pay a combined 55.5% tax rate, 40.6% income tax + 25% consumption tax. Someone making $1m is going to pay 66%, assuming they don't spend it all on cars which attracts an additional 160% excise plus all sorts of other green taxes.
https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2020-10-01-nu-udbetales-der-1...
By comparison, in the "socialist" and "high tax" state California, taxes are nominally lower, but what you get for it is essentially a dumpster fire. Plus, you have to pay out of pocket for healthcare and retirement.
If the maker of goods is not in good standing for offsetting their impact then the importing state introduces taxes for that deficiency and has it handled in the importing country.
The second is the idea of showing the actual cost of offsetting. Having honest conversations about that will promote local and incentivize R&D to reduce that cost. Fantastic stuff.
Simply open up trade while driving up the cost to manufacture anything. All the industry moves to other countries, to produce the same CO2 plus a bit more for the container ships, but that doesn't count.
The grumbling about jobs doesn't count until the foreign factories realize that they can also do the product design, with engineers right next to the factories.