In a new projection from the University of Copenhagen, which will be released on Thursday, it is expected that Danish forests in 2030 will absorb over a million tons more CO2 than previously thought. This new estimate comes at a critical time, as the government, along with the agricultural sector and green organizations, are negotiating a controversial CO2 tax on agriculture. The projection, prepared by senior researcher Thomas Nord-Larsen from the University of Copenhagen, indicates that the trees in Danish forests are growing faster and being felled later than previously expected, increasing the forests’ capacity to absorb CO2. Although Nord-Larsen does not confirm the information directly, he emphasizes that “there are indications that the forests’ contribution to the climate may be greater than previously predicted.” This development could have significant implications for the ongoing negotiations on the CO2 tax. According to Michael Svarer, chairman of the expert group that has proposed models for the CO2 tax, “it reduces the need for how much needs to be done before 2030 to meet the target.” This could potentially lead to adjustments in the proposed tax models.
The discussions surrounding the CO2 tax are taking place in a so-called green tripartite, where the government, agriculture, and green organizations are involved. The results of these negotiations will determine the final proposal put forward by the government. Erik Tang, senior consultant at the Council for Green Transition, points out that the way trees are used after being felled also plays a critical role in the climate effect. “The best would be to use the trees to construct new buildings, so that CO2 is not released,” he says. Today, the majority of trees are used for energy production, which means that the CO2 is simply emitted later. Despite the new projection, Maria Reumert Gjerding, president of the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, maintains that there is still a need for a CO2 tax on agriculture. She emphasizes that “the new projection does not change anything in relation to the fact that agriculture should have a CO2 tax,” and that climate efforts after 2030 should also be taken into account.