13 ms·

As a dane, I'm slightly offended by all the posts dismissing this as something that doesn't really matter. We were the first country to legalize porn, and homo

As a dane, I'm slightly offended by all the posts dismissing this as something that doesn't really matter. We were the first country to legalize porn, and homosexual civil unions, and although we're not the biggest country, I think it made an impact. Maybe the actual savings in terms of CO2 isn't the largest, and maybe the closing could've been more aggressive - but I still think it sends an important message to other countries who are larger producers of oil.

roenxi 6y ago
A rough guideline, being the first country to let people do something successfully is a lot more impressive than being the first to ban something. If Denmark manages to thrive after banning fossil fuels, then that will be the time to be impressed.
- perfunctory 6y ago
  > to let people do something let people do heroin for example. would be very impressive. much more impressive than banning slavery.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    If people just banned slaves for moral reasons, they'd have come back eventually for economic ones. Slavery started to fade away through the 1800s. This wasn't because people suddenly realised the slaves weren't having fun, or suddenly after millennia of religion someone decided to take the 'be nice to people' dogma seriously. Neither of those things take centuries to figure out. The change was the industrial revolution that let relatively ordinary people create enormous amounts of wealth if left with their freedom. Slavery is a great example of liberating people to do things being much more impressive than bans. Banning slavery was a big step that sped the whole process up by a few decades, but the writing was on the wall once it became obvious just how much wealth a motivated free person could create. > let people do heroin for example. would be very impressive. Yeah, it would. Countries should have some faith in their people to figure out what a mistake looks like without the police arresting people. I'd applaud any government that can get to that level of enlightenment.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      Slavery started to fade away around the 1800s. No, the modern day slave trade is flourishing. Sex trafficking all over the world is one example. There are open slave markets in Libya now just as there were for centuries or longer.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        > By 2017, 60% of the Libyan population were malnourished. Since then, 1.3 million people are waiting for emergency humanitarian aid, out of a total population of 6.4 million [0] I'll cheerfully point out I don't think that Libya is economically competitive, and the slave trade is a big symptom of that. Banning slavery won't make them wealthy - they'll still probably be starving. Make them wealthy and the slave markets probably go away. Them banning slavery will impress me less than a policy of general liberalisation to get some economic success happening. Economies don't grow big by banning stuff; banning stuff happens after the economy is strong enough to handle the damage bans do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy
        tremon 6y ago
        Banning slavery won't make them wealthy - they'll still probably be starving. Make them wealthy and the slave markets probably go away. That argument requires substantiation. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arguably some of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet slavery (or slave-like working conditions) are prevalent throughout society.
        roenxi 6y ago
        I can substantiate it with Libya - it had one of the highest GDP per capita in the world for a bit (same wiki page). But they couldn't sustain that because they have the sort of economy where slavery makes sense. The Saudis and Qatarians will be the same when the oil runs out. An economy with slaves does not, fundamentally, make sense. It isn't going to be the least bit competitive with a modern capitalist economy with wages without wealth literally bubbling up from the ground in the form of oil. Everyone in such an economy will be less wealthy than their peers in a free market.
  - grecy 6y ago
    > let people do heroin for example. would be very impressive. Both Canada and Australia have had legal injecting rooms for many, many years.
tpush 6y ago
> We were the first country to legalize porn [...] When was porn illegal in other countries?
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Many countries still have obscenity laws, and the US had stringent ones for a while. Google Larry Flynt. He spent time in jail. Canada has restrictive laws regarding some porn which is legal in other countries, they've arrested people over it.
- scottlocklin 6y ago
  It's still illegal in many[0]. And there are good arguments it should be illegal in more[1]. Picking "we made porn cummies more widely available" .... not the best example of your country being responsible for human progress. Great way to pacify your population though. [0] example: https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/southeast-asia/singapore/singapore-against-the-law https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/southeast-asia/sin... [1] https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >And there are good arguments it should be illegal in more[1]. While it's certainly worth debating and discussing, the liberal paradigm in law proscribes that we should only make laws in certain circumstances under specific notions of harm, and the mere risk of harm is not usually sufficient. In addition, it is neither clear that legislation is the route to take, and several feminist critics of porn have tempered their claims and goals. Before even discussing this matter, never mind mentioning legislation, you should be clear on how you define porn and the extent to which the research on porn is consonant with that definition. It's too easy to think that all porn fits in one bucket while today we have everything from hentai to fanfiction to online roleplay to audio recordings to OnlyFans. How much of your literature discusses these forms, and to what extent do the results converge? Porn is surprisingly similar to alcohol, even in terms of its effects, but private sexual autonomy is arguably more important (morally) than the autonomy to consume alcohol. Ana J. Bridges in a review of the scientific literature on the relationship between porn and sexual assault in the Handbook of Sexual Assault and Sexual Assault Prevention concluded that a ban is not warranted[0], but media literacy and other measures have been somewhat promising. [0] http://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-07/Bridges%2C%20Pornography%20and%20Sexual%20Assault%202019.pdf http://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-07/Bridges...
reacharavindh 6y ago
Every little bit counts. There will always be people who say “it’s not enough” and it may be true. But, the key is to start acting in good faith. Things like this often have a snowball effect and lead up to other changes for good. Proud to be living in such a society here in DK that cares to make education free/affordable, healthcare free, and invests in social good. Yes, it’s not perfect, but has a lot more to be proud of than to complain. Now, one thing I wonder is why Denmark doesn’t pounce on the opportunity to set an example and build out electric charging infrastructure backed by its grid of renewable energy. That could boost the economy and save the world at the same time.
- skeeter2020 6y ago
  >> Every little bit counts Unfortunately, like "better safe than sorry", this just isn't true beyond feel-good virtue signalling. When you're dealing with nature and the environment it all comes down to assimilative capacity; under it and we're fine, over and we're screwed. No matter how many Denmarks make dramatic changes it means nothing without movement by the biggest emitters like China and the US.
  - pretty_bubbles 6y ago
    We don't exactly know where the catastrophic threshold for climate change is. So it's entirely possible that this little move might make the difference between 2C warming, 4C warming.
  - croon 6y ago
    Virtue signaling and local PoC:s might be specifically what gets larger countries on board though, albeit from secondary effects.
  - dtech 6y ago
    US points to China for why they shouldn't do anything. China doesn't care or points to historical overall emission where they are behind US/the west due to them starting earlier. If everyone only points to each other and a "bigger real problem" you can hand wave everything away.
jakehop 6y ago
As a Dane, I am slightly offended by the dishonesty of our politicians, especially concerning our energy policy, which makes no sense. Yes, this is a big deal, but only because of the publicity value of the decision, as the environmental impact will be negligible. But this is the root of the problem: Denmark's energy policy is almost solely about publicity! Since the end of the 1970s, our neighbours in Sweden have consistently followed an energy policy, that deliver cheap[0] and stable energy from hydro- and nuclear power, while emitting much less CO2 than us. Check at any time of day, and I can assure you that the emmissions from our electricity consumption will be higher than in Sweden[1]. While Denmark has almost phased out coal power, we've replaced it with "biofuel"; imported wood from Brazil, Estonia and the US. This is especially neat, as a technicality in the IPCC emmissions ratings views wood as a sustainable fuel, as the forest can be replanted and the emmissions will be stored in the wood until this is cut down and burned anew. Our strategy was described as "accounting fraud" by IPCC scientist William Moomaw and "climate fraud" by Daniel Kammen, professor at Berkeley and a former IPCC lead author and Obama advisor. Denmark's seemingly incredible track record has even fooled our population: 78% of Danes believe that our primary source of renewable energy was windpower, when this was actually just 22% of all renewable electricity generation (biomass being 68%), which accounts for 35% of total electricity consumption [2]. This is problematic to say the least: Not only are our energy prices among the highest in the world - how does 40 cents pr. kWh sound? - we aren't making any real difference. The Danish strategy has always been sold as "a job creator" and "an export adventure", but isn't that just the same type of corporate greed, now in sheeps clothing? Danish wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, was the primary recepient of billions of dollars in state aid, tax excemptions, etc., but every downturn resulted in layoffs, which always struck Denmark first.' As CO2-levels have risen to a record level, we Danes keep on burning wood, straw and trash, while calling ourselves a "green leader", while our strategy has also left us wholly dependent on electricity imports from Germany, Norway and Sweden. The inability to act sensibly is depressing and I hate how the entire issue of climate is being politized in such a way, that a civil discussion is close impossible, while lobbyists are having a field day. So please spare me the praise of Denmark's policies. If nothing else, our deceptions are making things worse. [0] Electricity prices in Copenhagen are ~ 50% higher in Denmark, than in Sweden. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics/da https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map [2] https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2019-09-06-danmarks-klimaregnskab-er-svindel-lyder-kritik-fra-internationale-forskere https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2019-09-06-danmarks-klimaregn... (Google Translate should be able to translate most of the article pretty accurately)
ed_balls 6y ago
Sending a message may have some impact, but what he says doesn't matter in practice. This industry is dead in 30 years due to economic reasons. Offshore petroleum drilling is too expensive.
mempko 6y ago
Exactly , the message is "This can be done so don't make excuses "
deepstack 6y ago
yeah it is something DK is in the position to do. It will not work for Norway for example ;-) Each country ought to do what works for them atm.
bamboozled 6y ago
Lots of respect for such small country to set an example for the “bigger” countries to try follow, commendable and bravo !
blub 6y ago
Denkmark obviously messed up when legalizing porn: for about a decade, distributing child pornography was legal in Denmark and there was at least one company which produced such films where actual children (younger than teen-age minors) were abused [1]. Holland has a similar history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Climax_Corporation#Child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Climax_Corporation#Child...
- goto11 6y ago
  To be clear, abusing children was always illegal.
vaylian 6y ago
It doesn't really matter, because 30 years means: - He will be 75 years old and he won't be accountable for that decision - We will lose the battle against climate change. We simply do not have 30 years to become free from fossil fuels
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  > We will lose the battle against climate change. We simply do not have 30 years to become free from fossil fuels My understanding is that despite +2C being an important limit we should not cross, that every bit of warming we stop above that provides increasing benefit because every bit above +2C is increasingly harmful (i.e. the increase from +3C to +4C is much worse than the increase from +2C to +3C).
- grecy 6y ago
  > - We will lose the battle against climate change. We simply do not have 30 years to become free from fossil fuels So are you saying we should do what every other country is doing to end their reliance and production of fossil fuels - namely nothing ? Currently, Denmark are the world leader, and we should acknowledge that as a HUGE win.
  - vaylian 6y ago
    This is not what I am saying. I am saying we don't have 30 years. Waiting 30 years is like saying that lifeboats will be delivered next week, while the Titanic is already sinking. I do appreciate every step in the right direction. I really do. But this is not even an attempt to make a step. The climate minister will be in retirement in 2050 and take no political responsibility.
m12k 6y ago
As a Dane, I've always felt that we should accept, maybe even appreciate, that our lot in the world is to be the Shire, while other countries get to be Gondor and Rohan. As LOTR so beautifully showed, if we have the courage to orient ourselves toward the world, and lead by example, we can inspire others, punch way above our weight, and sometimes maybe even make a difference by our own actions too.
- zwaps 6y ago
  On the other hand, imprisoning refugees on an island strikes me as less hobbitlike https://time.com/5504331/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island/ https://time.com/5504331/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island/
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - veeti 6y ago
    A rejected asylum seeker is not a refugee.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - rossng 6y ago
      That rather depends on how honestly your government is applying the rules.
    - FpUser 6y ago
      Have a fucking heart. Imprisoning people for trying to survive is no good.
      - Lev1a 6y ago
        From TFA: > The Lindholm Island project, which is intended to house 100 or so rejected asylum seekers who have been convicted of crimes and served their sentences but cannot be deported for various reasons, is explicitly designed to create a less welcoming atmosphere than the facility that currently holds those with a similar “tolerated stay” status. Emphasis: > 100 or so rejected asylum seekers who have been convicted of crimes and served their sentences but cannot be deported for various reasons Going to European States because they have social welfare systems and then committing crimes knowing the punishments are most likely not as severe as in their home countries is unacceptable and should lead to them being automatically thrown out of the country. Unfortunately their home countries in most cases don't want to accept them back or the migrants have "lost" their passports/documentation before coming to the EU thus there's no country to deport convicted criminals back to. For the record, I as a Western/Central European have nothing against immigrants, as long as they come here to work/study/lead law-abiding lives like it's been done for decades. However coming here for no other reason than to be an eternal drag on the social benefit system and then on top of that committing crimes? IMHO that minority (from TFA ~100 out of thousands for Denmark) of immigrants is not and should not be welcome in any country.
zhengiszen 6y ago
Swine production is a biggest environment hazard.
dustymcp 6y ago
I think its important to point out that noone actually bid on those contracts and that is more likely to be the reason why it was shutdown rather than it being an environmental thing, it sounds great in the foreign press tho :)
fredoliveira 6y ago
It absolutely matters, and this is the type of leadership we need. I do think it could potentially be even more aggressive a timeline, but it is a starting point.
godelski 6y ago
As an American I actually think it is extremely helpful for small countries to set examples. Smaller countries can serve as experiments that we can look to and use as driving forces for larger bodies to adopt, like the US or EU. Similar to how in the US we've seen states make things legal before the federal (e.g. same sex marriage, marijuana reform, etc), it is much cheaper and easier to do the experiment on a smaller scale first than convince a wide background of politically diverse forces to unite. I think the small groups doing things first is extremely helpful. So for that I say thank you, because your example will help my country take steps forward.

roenxi 6y ago

A rough guideline, being the first country to let people do something successfully is a lot more impressive than being the first to ban something. If Denmark manages to thrive after banning fossil fuels, then that will be the time to be impressed.

perfunctory 6y ago
> to let people do something let people do heroin for example. would be very impressive. much more impressive than banning slavery.
- roenxi 6y ago
  If people just banned slaves for moral reasons, they'd have come back eventually for economic ones. Slavery started to fade away through the 1800s. This wasn't because people suddenly realised the slaves weren't having fun, or suddenly after millennia of religion someone decided to take the 'be nice to people' dogma seriously. Neither of those things take centuries to figure out. The change was the industrial revolution that let relatively ordinary people create enormous amounts of wealth if left with their freedom. Slavery is a great example of liberating people to do things being much more impressive than bans. Banning slavery was a big step that sped the whole process up by a few decades, but the writing was on the wall once it became obvious just how much wealth a motivated free person could create. > let people do heroin for example. would be very impressive. Yeah, it would. Countries should have some faith in their people to figure out what a mistake looks like without the police arresting people. I'd applaud any government that can get to that level of enlightenment.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    Slavery started to fade away around the 1800s. No, the modern day slave trade is flourishing. Sex trafficking all over the world is one example. There are open slave markets in Libya now just as there were for centuries or longer.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > By 2017, 60% of the Libyan population were malnourished. Since then, 1.3 million people are waiting for emergency humanitarian aid, out of a total population of 6.4 million [0] I'll cheerfully point out I don't think that Libya is economically competitive, and the slave trade is a big symptom of that. Banning slavery won't make them wealthy - they'll still probably be starving. Make them wealthy and the slave markets probably go away. Them banning slavery will impress me less than a policy of general liberalisation to get some economic success happening. Economies don't grow big by banning stuff; banning stuff happens after the economy is strong enough to handle the damage bans do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy
      - tremon 6y ago
        Banning slavery won't make them wealthy - they'll still probably be starving. Make them wealthy and the slave markets probably go away. That argument requires substantiation. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arguably some of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet slavery (or slave-like working conditions) are prevalent throughout society.
        roenxi 6y ago
        I can substantiate it with Libya - it had one of the highest GDP per capita in the world for a bit (same wiki page). But they couldn't sustain that because they have the sort of economy where slavery makes sense. The Saudis and Qatarians will be the same when the oil runs out. An economy with slaves does not, fundamentally, make sense. It isn't going to be the least bit competitive with a modern capitalist economy with wages without wealth literally bubbling up from the ground in the form of oil. Everyone in such an economy will be less wealthy than their peers in a free market.
- grecy 6y ago
  > let people do heroin for example. would be very impressive. Both Canada and Australia have had legal injecting rooms for many, many years.

tpush 6y ago

> We were the first country to legalize porn [...] When was porn illegal in other countries?

kevingadd 6y ago
Many countries still have obscenity laws, and the US had stringent ones for a while. Google Larry Flynt. He spent time in jail. Canada has restrictive laws regarding some porn which is legal in other countries, they've arrested people over it.
scottlocklin 6y ago
It's still illegal in many[0]. And there are good arguments it should be illegal in more[1]. Picking "we made porn cummies more widely available" .... not the best example of your country being responsible for human progress. Great way to pacify your population though. [0] example: https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/southeast-asia/singapore/singapore-against-the-law https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/southeast-asia/sin... [1] https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >And there are good arguments it should be illegal in more[1]. While it's certainly worth debating and discussing, the liberal paradigm in law proscribes that we should only make laws in certain circumstances under specific notions of harm, and the mere risk of harm is not usually sufficient. In addition, it is neither clear that legislation is the route to take, and several feminist critics of porn have tempered their claims and goals. Before even discussing this matter, never mind mentioning legislation, you should be clear on how you define porn and the extent to which the research on porn is consonant with that definition. It's too easy to think that all porn fits in one bucket while today we have everything from hentai to fanfiction to online roleplay to audio recordings to OnlyFans. How much of your literature discusses these forms, and to what extent do the results converge? Porn is surprisingly similar to alcohol, even in terms of its effects, but private sexual autonomy is arguably more important (morally) than the autonomy to consume alcohol. Ana J. Bridges in a review of the scientific literature on the relationship between porn and sexual assault in the Handbook of Sexual Assault and Sexual Assault Prevention concluded that a ban is not warranted[0], but media literacy and other measures have been somewhat promising. [0] http://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-07/Bridges%2C%20Pornography%20and%20Sexual%20Assault%202019.pdf http://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-07/Bridges...

reacharavindh 6y ago

Every little bit counts. There will always be people who say “it’s not enough” and it may be true. But, the key is to start acting in good faith. Things like this often have a snowball effect and lead up to other changes for good. Proud to be living in such a society here in DK that cares to make education free/affordable, healthcare free, and invests in social good. Yes, it’s not perfect, but has a lot more to be proud of than to complain. Now, one thing I wonder is why Denmark doesn’t pounce on the opportunity to set an example and build out electric charging infrastructure backed by its grid of renewable energy. That could boost the economy and save the world at the same time.

skeeter2020 6y ago
>> Every little bit counts Unfortunately, like "better safe than sorry", this just isn't true beyond feel-good virtue signalling. When you're dealing with nature and the environment it all comes down to assimilative capacity; under it and we're fine, over and we're screwed. No matter how many Denmarks make dramatic changes it means nothing without movement by the biggest emitters like China and the US.
- pretty_bubbles 6y ago
  We don't exactly know where the catastrophic threshold for climate change is. So it's entirely possible that this little move might make the difference between 2C warming, 4C warming.
- croon 6y ago
  Virtue signaling and local PoC:s might be specifically what gets larger countries on board though, albeit from secondary effects.
- dtech 6y ago
  US points to China for why they shouldn't do anything. China doesn't care or points to historical overall emission where they are behind US/the west due to them starting earlier. If everyone only points to each other and a "bigger real problem" you can hand wave everything away.

jakehop 6y ago

As a Dane, I am slightly offended by the dishonesty of our politicians, especially concerning our energy policy, which makes no sense. Yes, this is a big deal, but only because of the publicity value of the decision, as the environmental impact will be negligible. But this is the root of the problem: Denmark's energy policy is almost solely about publicity! Since the end of the 1970s, our neighbours in Sweden have consistently followed an energy policy, that deliver cheap[0] and stable energy from hydro- and nuclear power, while emitting much less CO2 than us. Check at any time of day, and I can assure you that the emmissions from our electricity consumption will be higher than in Sweden[1]. While Denmark has almost phased out coal power, we've replaced it with "biofuel"; imported wood from Brazil, Estonia and the US. This is especially neat, as a technicality in the IPCC emmissions ratings views wood as a sustainable fuel, as the forest can be replanted and the emmissions will be stored in the wood until this is cut down and burned anew. Our strategy was described as "accounting fraud" by IPCC scientist William Moomaw and "climate fraud" by Daniel Kammen, professor at Berkeley and a former IPCC lead author and Obama advisor. Denmark's seemingly incredible track record has even fooled our population: 78% of Danes believe that our primary source of renewable energy was windpower, when this was actually just 22% of all renewable electricity generation (biomass being 68%), which accounts for 35% of total electricity consumption [2]. This is problematic to say the least: Not only are our energy prices among the highest in the world - how does 40 cents pr. kWh sound? - we aren't making any real difference. The Danish strategy has always been sold as "a job creator" and "an export adventure", but isn't that just the same type of corporate greed, now in sheeps clothing? Danish wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, was the primary recepient of billions of dollars in state aid, tax excemptions, etc., but every downturn resulted in layoffs, which always struck Denmark first.' As CO2-levels have risen to a record level, we Danes keep on burning wood, straw and trash, while calling ourselves a "green leader", while our strategy has also left us wholly dependent on electricity imports from Germany, Norway and Sweden. The inability to act sensibly is depressing and I hate how the entire issue of climate is being politized in such a way, that a civil discussion is close impossible, while lobbyists are having a field day. So please spare me the praise of Denmark's policies. If nothing else, our deceptions are making things worse. [0] Electricity prices in Copenhagen are ~ 50% higher in Denmark, than in Sweden. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics/da https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map [2] https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2019-09-06-danmarks-klimaregnskab-er-svindel-lyder-kritik-fra-internationale-forskere https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2019-09-06-danmarks-klimaregn... (Google Translate should be able to translate most of the article pretty accurately)

ed_balls 6y ago

Sending a message may have some impact, but what he says doesn't matter in practice. This industry is dead in 30 years due to economic reasons. Offshore petroleum drilling is too expensive.

mempko 6y ago

Exactly , the message is "This can be done so don't make excuses "

deepstack 6y ago

yeah it is something DK is in the position to do. It will not work for Norway for example ;-) Each country ought to do what works for them atm.

bamboozled 6y ago

Lots of respect for such small country to set an example for the “bigger” countries to try follow, commendable and bravo !

blub 6y ago

Denkmark obviously messed up when legalizing porn: for about a decade, distributing child pornography was legal in Denmark and there was at least one company which produced such films where actual children (younger than teen-age minors) were abused [1]. Holland has a similar history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Climax_Corporation#Child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Climax_Corporation#Child...

goto11 6y ago
To be clear, abusing children was always illegal.

vaylian 6y ago

It doesn't really matter, because 30 years means: - He will be 75 years old and he won't be accountable for that decision - We will lose the battle against climate change. We simply do not have 30 years to become free from fossil fuels

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
DubiousPusher 6y ago
> We will lose the battle against climate change. We simply do not have 30 years to become free from fossil fuels My understanding is that despite +2C being an important limit we should not cross, that every bit of warming we stop above that provides increasing benefit because every bit above +2C is increasingly harmful (i.e. the increase from +3C to +4C is much worse than the increase from +2C to +3C).
grecy 6y ago
> - We will lose the battle against climate change. We simply do not have 30 years to become free from fossil fuels So are you saying we should do what every other country is doing to end their reliance and production of fossil fuels - namely nothing ? Currently, Denmark are the world leader, and we should acknowledge that as a HUGE win.
- vaylian 6y ago
  This is not what I am saying. I am saying we don't have 30 years. Waiting 30 years is like saying that lifeboats will be delivered next week, while the Titanic is already sinking. I do appreciate every step in the right direction. I really do. But this is not even an attempt to make a step. The climate minister will be in retirement in 2050 and take no political responsibility.

m12k 6y ago

As a Dane, I've always felt that we should accept, maybe even appreciate, that our lot in the world is to be the Shire, while other countries get to be Gondor and Rohan. As LOTR so beautifully showed, if we have the courage to orient ourselves toward the world, and lead by example, we can inspire others, punch way above our weight, and sometimes maybe even make a difference by our own actions too.

zwaps 6y ago
On the other hand, imprisoning refugees on an island strikes me as less hobbitlike https://time.com/5504331/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island/ https://time.com/5504331/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island/
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- veeti 6y ago
  A rejected asylum seeker is not a refugee.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rossng 6y ago
    That rather depends on how honestly your government is applying the rules.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    Have a fucking heart. Imprisoning people for trying to survive is no good.
    - Lev1a 6y ago
      From TFA: > The Lindholm Island project, which is intended to house 100 or so rejected asylum seekers who have been convicted of crimes and served their sentences but cannot be deported for various reasons, is explicitly designed to create a less welcoming atmosphere than the facility that currently holds those with a similar “tolerated stay” status. Emphasis: > 100 or so rejected asylum seekers who have been convicted of crimes and served their sentences but cannot be deported for various reasons Going to European States because they have social welfare systems and then committing crimes knowing the punishments are most likely not as severe as in their home countries is unacceptable and should lead to them being automatically thrown out of the country. Unfortunately their home countries in most cases don't want to accept them back or the migrants have "lost" their passports/documentation before coming to the EU thus there's no country to deport convicted criminals back to. For the record, I as a Western/Central European have nothing against immigrants, as long as they come here to work/study/lead law-abiding lives like it's been done for decades. However coming here for no other reason than to be an eternal drag on the social benefit system and then on top of that committing crimes? IMHO that minority (from TFA ~100 out of thousands for Denmark) of immigrants is not and should not be welcome in any country.

zhengiszen 6y ago

Swine production is a biggest environment hazard.

dustymcp 6y ago

I think its important to point out that noone actually bid on those contracts and that is more likely to be the reason why it was shutdown rather than it being an environmental thing, it sounds great in the foreign press tho :)

fredoliveira 6y ago

It absolutely matters, and this is the type of leadership we need. I do think it could potentially be even more aggressive a timeline, but it is a starting point.

godelski 6y ago

As an American I actually think it is extremely helpful for small countries to set examples. Smaller countries can serve as experiments that we can look to and use as driving forces for larger bodies to adopt, like the US or EU. Similar to how in the US we've seen states make things legal before the federal (e.g. same sex marriage, marijuana reform, etc), it is much cheaper and easier to do the experiment on a smaller scale first than convince a wide background of politically diverse forces to unite. I think the small groups doing things first is extremely helpful. So for that I say thank you, because your example will help my country take steps forward.