Skip to main content

View Diary: Green diary rescue: Will tiny Denmark show the way? (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Interestingly, while doing all that, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, boatsie, hmi, HeyMikey

    Denmark exports more oil on a per capita basis than we import . . .

    So in essence, they are huge hypocrites, or at least they sure do bring to mind those Amish drug dealers . . .

    •  Think you've got the wrong Nordic country (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2, Lefty Coaster, Miggles

      It's Norway with oil, not Denmark.

      "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

      by ActivistGuy on Sat May 21, 2011 at 03:19:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And that's why they MUST go back (5+ / 0-)

      to using oil themselves, and why nobody else should dare to try going for renewables. The bastards!

      What?


      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sat May 21, 2011 at 03:35:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suppose they made the choice to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueyedace2, sara seattle

        export the oil for cash, as compared to using it domestically.  clearly  if they want to do that, it's up to them . . .

        In any event, this seems to be a similar discussion as we had about Colorado a couple days ago, where they are at least make some effort to go to renewables, all the while exporting substantial amounts of fossil fuels elsewhere.   At the end of the day it's pretty much a wash, it would seem.

        •  No wash if you think it through. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueyedace2

          Unless you want to assume the importers are braindead and will choose to be that way forever, they'd likely start seeing the sense, and the ultimate savings, of going renewable themselves.

          In any case, when you do the Denmark impact on the global balance sheet: Renewables Up, Fossil Down. (the fossil buyers would be getting it elsewhere anyway, not having renewables to depend upon.)


          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Sat May 21, 2011 at 03:52:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You're sitting on a resource of value (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P

          Do you just sit around and not make money from it?

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sat May 21, 2011 at 03:54:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hardly hypocrites (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2, Sparhawk, 714day, Miggles

      They are trying to be energy independent, to wean themselves off of fossil fuels.  It's not going to happen instantly, nor do they have a responsibility to stop others from using fossil fuels.

      I refuse to represent my political beliefs using numbers. It isn't accurate, nor is it helpful. But I'm around a -10 on both scales.

      by AoT on Sat May 21, 2011 at 03:43:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Total BS. Denmark happens to be a joint owner (0+ / 0-)

      of the North Sea oil beds.  Who gives a fuck if the little trickle of oil and natural gas profit they get from that is used elsewhere?  The fact remains that Denmark is probably the greenest country on earth now.  Have you stayed at a Dane's house or lived in the country?  I have.  Hypocrite is the last word I would choose.  

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Sat May 21, 2011 at 09:15:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes I have . . . (0+ / 0-)
        Have you stayed at a Dane's house or lived in the country?  I have.

        It was only for about 3 weeks, but definitely long enough to come to that conclusion, very firmly.

      •  Not so sure about that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel

        The Danes seem to figure very prominently in the big "land grab" to carve up the Arctic for their own oil exploration, as the BBC video in this comment of FishOutOfWater's diary regarding the melting of 78% of the volume of Arctic Sea ice points out.

        "A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future." – Leonard Bernstein

        by frisco on Sun May 22, 2011 at 07:53:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Danes do not have low carbon output (0+ / 0-)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          They have HIGHER CO2 output above the UK (due to their mass transit and nuclear, no doubt), well above France (nuclear, bad on CO from cars, however),  Greece, Austria, Norway (almost 100% hydro, lucky bastards) and few others. So...there nothing in reality that gives Denmark a particularly good CO2 output compared other other European countries.

          There are a lot of good socialist things about Denmark that should be applauded: medical coverage, free university education, etc. Energy is not one them. I"ll take "socialist" France over Denmark any day.

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Sun May 22, 2011 at 12:04:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  correct, but... (0+ / 0-)

            ... DK is currently the best example of trying to find a way out of the fossil fuel trap without nuclear power. And allthough coming from a high level (coal instead of nuclear or hydro power) CO2 emissions have started to fall.

            Germany is latching on too, but has not gotten as far in developing or rolling out as many sides of the multi string solutions, that are needed if this is to succeed.

    •  Seems to be even more damning evidence, here... (0+ / 0-)

      The Danes, with Greenland, figure prominently in the big "land grab" to carve up the Arctic for their own oil exploration. Check out the BBC video in Edger's comment on FishOutOfWater's diary regarding the melting of 78% of the volume of Arctic Sea ice for more details.

      And, but of course, there's the USA, represented by SecState Hillary Clinton speaking out of both sides of its mouth - saving the pristine nature of the Arctic and exploiting it for shipping, fishing, tourism and (wait for it...) ...oil.

      "A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future." – Leonard Bernstein

      by frisco on Sun May 22, 2011 at 07:57:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually if you read the quote... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      ... Østergaard says just that. That domestic drilling has been part of the strategy, but it's role is diminishing.  

      Being in DK here, I can supplement his somewhat salespitchy speech a bit.

      The energy strategy has evolved in a number of stages. Initially after the 1973 shock, all the focus was on supply security and energy independence. The strategy was to start domestic drilling (no the reserves in the Danish part of the North sea are nowhere near Norwegian levels, but has covered the country's own consumption and then some), a massive push for energy savings (fuel taxes and high energy standard building code) and shifting electricity production from oil to coal.

      The environmental movement of the 1970's was able to kill all plans of a nuclear buildout. Simultaneously especilly the acid rain problem from coal fired power stations led to a gradual shift in focus from energy security to environmental issues. This led to first a focus on cleaner and more efficient burning of coal including merging it with the heating system, and during the 1980's the then conservative government also started the first favorable subsidy and tax break programs for wind farms. Gradually a wind turbine industry started to build up.

      When the Social Democrats took over in 1991 they greatly boosted the push for renewable sources. During the same period green tech became a really important factor in the domestic economy.

      The right wing government of the last 10 years initially almost dropped the ball in an antiregulation campaign and a flirt with climate change scepticism. But as global warming got to be a still more pressing issue, they gradually picked it up again around mid decade. From the run-up to (the failed) COP 15 in Copenhagen it went all in (at least rethorically, but things have also changed somewhat on the ground)

      So the situation right now:

      As for oil the domestic resources are dwindling in about the same tact as oil consuption is falling, and as stated the current strategy is pretty long term. Especially for transport the alternative to oil has not been found yet, even though consumption is falling, mostly due to more efficient cars. Public transport and other alternatives are getting boosted, but so is highway construction and anyway for a large chunk of transportation only cars/trucks will work. It remains to be seen if electric cars or second generation bioethanol will be enough of an alternative.

      For electricity and heating, coal and natural gas needs to be phased out, and here wind is the big one. But waste incinerators, geothermal heating, solar cells and other technologies are on varying stages of development and build out too. Crucial is also a strong enough international grid to alleviate fluctuations in wind power production.

      And actually the biggest success have probably been on the energy efficency level, doubling the economic output relative to energy consumption, and there's a pretty constant push to get further on that way. Often quite small and unglamourous initiatives, but a myriad of them.

      So for almost 40 years the policy has been pretty consistent, but also developing as environment got to be the main goal instead of energy independence - and the green tech industry got economically important. The attitude has also been decidedly pragmatic and practical. Coal power and waste incinerators have been accepted but with a lot of focus on making them cleaner and more efficient. There has been very little all or nothing, even when consensus was lacking. The discussion has been more about how fast and by what means the overall goal should be pursued.

      Another important difference to the US is that the ideological resistance to quite heavy handed state action is much smaller. From targeted taxes and compulsory hook ups to district heating systems to planning restrictions that limits larger office developments to areas close to train stations.

    •  Well ... (0+ / 0-)

      I am not sure that I agree with the "huge hypocrites" line ... even while it is important to note that they are oil producers and exporters as part of the discussion. One could argue, with some basis, that their oil revenues are helping to finance a transition to a clean energy future.  And, this could link it back to MB's comment that this is something that the US could / should do:  use oil revenue to finance energy efficiency and clean energy investments.  An import fee on oil and appropriately increased royalties and we could robustly fund clean-energy research and deployment.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:46:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (71)
  • Baltimore (68)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Elections (27)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Science (16)
  • Politics (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Barack Obama (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site