The Government’s Green Agreement Faces Criticism: Taxpayers Could End Up With the Bill
The recently presented green agreement, also known as the ‘green tripartite’, is facing significant criticism as it could potentially burden Danish taxpayers financially. According to the agreement, the agricultural sector will pay a significantly lower climate tax than other industries, which raises concerns for the Conservative Party’s (Konservative) environmental spokesperson, Rasmus Jarlov.
The government has initiated the first dialogue meetings with the parties in the Folketing (Danish Parliament) to discuss the agreement. However, there have been no clear answers on where the necessary 40 billion Danish kroner will come from. Rasmus Jarlov emphasizes that it is problematic that the government has not yet presented a concrete financing plan.
“We are several days after the government’s presentation of big promises and proposals and have no idea where the money will come from. It seems as if the government itself is unsure. We cannot just blindly support that,” says Jarlov.
During a meeting with the Tax Minister Jeppe Bruus, it was mentioned that the government could consider taking money from the economic leeway. In practice, this would mean that taxpayers would have to cover the bill. Additionally, there is talk of using funds from ‘the green fund’, but this would mean that other climate initiatives cannot be financed.
“These are funds that are already allocated for new climate initiatives. If we use them here, we cannot pay for other projects. Additionally, the fund will quickly run dry if all the money is spent in one year,” warns Jarlov.
The agreement stipulates that the agricultural sector will only have to pay for CO₂ emissions in 2030, and a large portion of the collected funds will be returned to the agriculture sector through various support schemes. This contrasts with other industries that will have to pay significantly higher taxes. Many companies will have to pay 750 Danish kroner per ton of CO₂ in 2030, which is more than double what the agricultural sector will pay in 2035.
“Without clear proposals for financing, we risk that taxpayers will have to pay the entire bill for agricultural emissions, while other companies will have to pay for their CO₂ emissions,” says Jarlov.
The Conservative Party’s leader, Mona Juul, has emphasized the party’s goal of being the greenest party in the blue bloc. However, Jarlov points out that even though the Conservative Party supports a transition of agriculture to a more climate-friendly production, agriculture should not pay higher taxes than other industries.
“All sectors should have a clear economic incentive to reduce their CO₂ footprint. It is difficult to understand why agriculture is treated more leniently than other industries with this agreement,” says Jarlov.
Although Jarlov does not directly call the agreement unfair, he believes it is more lenient towards agriculture compared to other sectors. He expresses doubts about whether the agreement will provide enough climate benefits for the funds used.
“We still hope for real political negotiations on how the agreement should end, as we believe it is possible to make an agreement that is better for both the climate and agriculture,” Jarlov concludes.
Meetings with the Folketing parties regarding the agreement are expected to continue after the summer holidays.