Denmark is on its way to introducing a world-first tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in 2030.
Central to the proposals – announced by the Danish government on 24 June – is the plan to charge farmers for emissions from their livestock.
This carbon tax would cost around €100 (£85) annually per cow, according to the Financial Times.
The proposal is one part of a wider agreement between the government and different agriculture and environmental groups aimed at helping the country meet its climate goals for 2030 and beyond.
As a major producer of dairy and pork, one-quarter of Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture.
In this Q&A, Carbon Brief explains the agriculture tax plans, the possible impacts on farmers and the effect it could have on cutting Denmark’s emissions.
- How will the tax work?
- How will this tax help Denmark meet its climate targets?
- How was the agreement reached?
- What will the tax mean for Danish farmers?
- Are other countries planning to introduce a carbon tax on agriculture?
How will the tax work?
Under the proposed plans, Danish landowners will pay a levy based on their emissions from “livestock, fertiliser, forestry and the disturbance of carbon-rich agricultural soils”, the Copenhagen Post reported.
The effective cost of the tax paid by farmers will amount to 120 Danish kroner (£14/$18) per tonne of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emitted when the tax is implemented in 2030. It will rise to 300 kroner (£34/$44) per tonne of CO2e from 2035 onwards.
The true cost of these taxes is actually higher (300 kroner per tonne of CO2e in 2030 and 750 kroner per tonne from 2035 onwards), but the government will also implement a 60% deduction. The aim of this “basic tax break” is to “limit the impact of the measure on production costs”, says EurActiv. It adds that, in the long run, “the most climate-efficient farms could be close to paying no tax”.
The proceeds of the levy “are to be pooled in a fund to support the livestock industry’s green transition for at least two years after the tax comes into effect”, according to the Guardian.
The tax is just one element of a wider agreement on a “Green Denmark”. This was signed by a “green tripartite”, namely, a three-party agreement between the Danish government, conservation groups and the Danish industrial and agricultural sectors.
The agreement aims to “form the long-term basis for a historic reorganisation and transformation of Denmark’s land and of food and agricultural production”.
Under the deal, Denmark will relinquish some agricultural lands to provide more space for nature and biodiversity. Those lands will comprise heaths, meadows, river valleys and bogs that had historically been converted to agriculture.
The country will plant 250,000 hectares of new forests by 2045 and set aside 140,000 hectares of lowlands to protect their carbon-rich soils by 2030. It will also acquire strategic agricultural lands and distribute or sell them to private and public investments to “contribute to large nature areas” or “installation of renewable energy” and boost technologies and measures to cut emissions, the agreement says.
All these targets will be financed by a new Denmark’s Green Area Fund, which amounts to 40bn kroner (£4.6bn/$5.9bn). Denmark’s government will also use EU agricultural subsidies for the technology transition.
Finally, the agreement also aims to improve Denmark’s coastal waters and freshwater and reduce nitrogen fertiliser use.
The Danish parliament still needs to approve the plan, but Reuters noted that “political experts expect a bill to pass following the broad-based consensus”.
How will this tax help Denmark meet its climate targets?
According to Denmark’s most recent national inventory report, the agricultural sector is the country’s second-largest source of emissions, after the energy sector.
Agriculture contributes around 28% of Denmark’s total greenhouse gas emissions, the report says, and accounts for more than 80% of methane and nitrous oxide emissions specifically.
A “major part” of these emissions stem from livestock production, the report says. Denmark has more than 15,000 livestock farms containing millions of cows, pigs and other animals.
The country’s high agriculture emissions “cannot continue”, the climate minister Lars Aagaard said in a statement about the CO2-cutting proposals, adding that a “great deal of work awaits” to implement these plans.
By 2030, the country is aiming to cut overall greenhouse gas emissions by 70% and agriculture and forestry emissions by 55-65%.
The new proposals are estimated to cut 1.8m tonnes of CO2e emissions in 2030, according to the government.
This will help Denmark meet its 2030 climate goals and “take a big step closer to becoming climate neutral in 2045”, tax minister Jeppe Bruus said in a statement.
The agreement will also boost forests, large wetlands and nature protection, according to the president of the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, Maria Reumert Gjerding.
Prof Søren Petersen, a soil microbiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, agrees that the plan “could lead to substantial reductions in agricultural emissions” if implemented correctly. He tells Carbon Brief:
“It is my impression that there is a real interest in promoting climate-smart solutions and developing solutions that achieve real reductions in emissions.”
Petersen says that the agreement highlights the “need to speed up” new climate technologies and measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. He adds:
“Perhaps the greatest barrier at the moment is that many technologies with potential for greenhouse gas mitigation have not yet been sufficiently documented, or that the source is highly variable and difficult to quantify.”
He notes that it is often “difficult to measure” agricultural emissions, adding:
“If we can arrive at a set of criteria for documenting emissions, and effects of mitigation measures, and if such criteria can also be accepted in the international review of the national inventory, then I do think there is potential for developing several technologies for use at farm level.
“But tangible impact will require land use changes, as well as mitigation technologies.”
Niklas Sjøbeck Jørgensen, senior advisor on food and bioresources at Green Transition Denmark, an environmental thinktank, says the agreement is “an important step in a greener direction”.
But, he says, it “fails by maintaining problematic animal production”, adding in a statement:
“Unfortunately, the CO2 tax is correspondingly lagging behind, as the floor deduction of 60% and large technology subsidies maintain the current intensive form of animal production.”
How was the agreement reached?
The Danish government and the other members of the green tripartite reached this “historic agreement” after almost five months of talks, Politico reported.
Agreeing the tax “has been a very difficult journey”, Martin Kristian Brauer, chief economist at the Danish Agriculture and Food Council, one of Denmark’s largest organisations representing farmers and part of the green tripartite, tells Carbon Brief.
Brauer says his organisation had been against the tax from the beginning of the negotiations since “the risk connected to such a tax is far too big for the sector”. But over the past two years, they have worked on identifying those risks, listening to farmers’ concerns and negotiating with the government. He tells Carbon Brief:
“Although we have many [farmers] in Denmark still oppos[ing] this tax, I think we reached a point where we can live with it.”
Brauer says that broad participation of the different sectors was fundamental to allowing this “very difficult issue” to turn “into real politics”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“That was an agreement among all the parties. It was not just closing a lot of agricultural farms and thereby reducing emissions. The goal was to make a new regulation, where Danish agriculture meets climate goals, but [also having] the possibility to develop…an economically sustainable sector.”
Members of the tripartite agreed that the country “must have a strong and competitive” agricultural sector “with attractive business potential and jobs”, according to a statement by the Danish Ministry of Economic Affairs.
The agreement also stated that the new Green Area Fund would attempt to “facilitate a land conversion that mitigates the economic consequences for Danish agriculture”.
Brauer points out that there will be subsidies to incentivise farmers to enrol in the programme. The Green Area Fund, according to the agreement, will support private afforestation, the conservation of aquatic ecosystems and drinking water and the conversion of other lands, including wetlands and lowlands.
What will the tax mean for Danish farmers?
Petersen tells Carbon Brief that the agricultural CO2 tax proposal is “quite flexible and lenient on farmers”.
He notes that the gradual increase in the cost farmers will pay from 2030 to 2035 will “buy time for farmers to adjust, and for researchers to deliver the documentation of the effects of potential mitigation measures”.
In fact, farmers that comply with proven climate solutions “can avoid the tax”, according to a statement by Søren Søndergaard, president of the Danish Agriculture and Food Council.
The agreement provides a number of climate measures already available for farms from fertiliser use to livestock feed management. It also states that Denmark’s government will document and look for new climate technologies and measures for the agricultural sector.
Feed additives may be used to reduce direct emissions from livestock, Brauer notes. He tells Carbon Brief:
“That is an additive put into the feed and when the cows eat [it], emissions are reduced by maybe 20 or 30%.”
Another part of the agreement is land conversion and management. The territorial reorganisation will be planned and implemented by local governments, with the participation of coastal water councils and river basin management groups, the agreement says.
Brauer, from the Danish Agriculture and Food Council, says that land conversion does not mean farmers will lose their lands, instead, they will receive a subsidy to “convert the land”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“The farmer in Denmark in the future will be not just an agricultural farmer, he will actually be a land manager and will have some areas which [are] going to be traditional agricultural farming, forests and maybe wetlands. So he will have a portfolio of different kinds of lands in his state that will all generate some income.”
The agreement points out that farmers’ participation in setting aside carbon-rich shallow soils and reducing nitrogen emissions is voluntary, but they can obtain financial incentives from the new fund for doing so.
Brauer adds that for those goals, each Danish region is mandated to reach certain targets. He says:
“If that area does not meet these goals together, then there will be a mandatory regulation set up for each farmer, pushed from the government.”
Regarding how small producers would be impacted, the agreement mentions that it is being analysed how to determine when a producer or farm will be subject to taxation, through a threshold that aims “to exempt farms with relatively low greenhouse gas emissions to ensure that the total administrative and economic costs of the tax are commensurate with the potential CO2e reductions”.
Are other countries planning to introduce a carbon tax on agriculture?
Denmark is the first country to introduce this kind of legislation, although other countries have considered it and, until recently, New Zealand was pioneering similar moves.
Around half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, primarily livestock. To tackle this, in 2022 the previous government planned to include agriculture in the country’s emissions trading scheme from 2025 onwards.
Under this scheme, the government sets a limit for the amount of greenhouse gases companies in certain sectors can emit. Companies whose emissions fall under the limit can sell their extra allowances to other organisations. These limits reduce over time, in line with climate targets.
Some New Zealand farmers protested these plans and the government received pushback from farm lobby groups.
In June this year, the country’s relatively new centre-right government scrapped plans for the so-called “burp tax” – a reference to the methane produced by livestock. This fulfilled a “pre-election pledge by [New Zealand prime minister] Christopher Luxon’s National Party”, Al Jazeera said at the time.
The government said it would instead invest hundreds of millions of dollars on emissions-reduction technology and boost funding for an agricultural greenhouse gas research centre.
Agriculture minister Todd McClay said that the government is “committed to meeting our climate change obligations without shutting down Kiwi farms”.
The Green and Labour parties criticised the government’s decision, Radio New Zealand reported.
In the EU, there have been on-and-off discussions about bringing agriculture into the bloc’s emissions trading system.
In March, Carbon Pulse reported that the EU was “testing the waters” on either creating a new emissions trading system for agriculture or revising existing rules.
Since then, a new European parliament was elected and the next European Commission line-up will be finalised this summer.
The EU’s climate advisory board earlier this year recommended introducing emissions pricing for agriculture and land use.
Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, said she hopes Denmark’s planned agriculture carbon tax will “pave the way forward regionally and globally” for similar moves, the Financial Times reported.
Brauer says that farmers in Denmark are “quite concerned” about the tax as it may lead to Danish products being “a little bit more expensive than a product from Germany or from elsewhere”. He adds:
“If we get some kind of regulation in the whole EU, this difficulty would disappear.”
The post Q&A: How Denmark plans to tax agriculture emissions to meet climate goals appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: How Denmark plans to tax agriculture emissions to meet climate goals
The world’s largest producer of renewable fuel for planes, Neste, is sourcing key ingredients for its “green” fuel from an opaque supply chain that enables fresh palm oil to be passed off as waste, highlighting a global problem facing the aviation industry.
Many governments and airlines are pinning their hopes for more climate-friendly flying on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Finnish biofuels giant Neste says it makes SAF with 100% “renewable waste and residue raw material”, such as animal fat and used cooking oil (UCO).
But Climate Home News and Swedish broadcaster SVT found that Neste’s biggest Malaysian supplier of UCO accepted fresh palm oil during a public drive intended to collect waste oil, without asking questions or carrying out checks.
Our investigation did not uncover direct evidence that this or other virgin palm oil has been used by Neste to produce SAF. But industry experts say that, once oil supplies are mixed at source, it is hard for refiners to keep it out of their supply chain.
Neste indicated it would look into our findings, adding that it is currently not aware of any verified cases of fraud that are directly connected to its raw material sourcing.
Planet-heating palm oil
Mounting evidence of widespread fraud risks in the SAF supply chain raises doubts about the climate benefits of the aviation sector’s main green strategy for the years ahead, analysts say.
Palm oil that has not been used for cooking or frying is not permitted under rules on which raw materials can be made into SAF supplied in Europe, Neste’s largest market, because of its links to deforestation.
The clearing of forests for palm oil plantations in Southeast Asia and beyond has long been associated with the loss of carbon-storing jungle, posing a threat to efforts to tackle planet-heating emissions and protect endangered wildlife.
Analysis of Malaysian custom records indicates that Neste sourced around 250,000 tonnes of UCO from Malaysia in 2024. That is more than double the total amount collected in the country annually, according to estimates published by Brussels-based NGO Transport and Environment (T&E). Discrepancies like these have fuelled suspicions about what UCO shipments from Malaysia contain.
A former director at Neste, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Climate Home News that, while the Finnish firm is a highly professional operator, no fuel producer can claim with 100% certainty that its supply chain does not include virgin palm oil or mislabelled raw materials due to the complexity of the sector and weak enforcement by regulators.
The findings add to questions about the integrity of green jet fuel after an investigation by Climate Home News and The Straits Times last year uncovered similar flaws in the supply chain. With more countries mandating the use of small but growing amounts of SAF, and fuel producers scrambling for limited raw materials, barely used and virgin palm oil is being passed off as UCO to traders, industry sources told us.
‘Very high’ fraud incidence
Demand for SAF has surged as governments and airlines promise to cut emissions from a sector with few low-carbon alternatives. Its backers say SAF can reduce planet-heating emissions by up to 80% over kerosene jet fuel when made with waste materials like used cooking oil that do not take up land for food crops or drive deforestation.
But the growing gap between what the world’s kitchens and food factories can realistically provide and what the aviation industry requires has created a clear incentive for fraud.
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
That holds true in Malaysia, a key sourcing country for SAF suppliers like Neste, where government-subsidised palm oil for cooking can be bought cheaply and then sold on for a higher price as UCO. For that reason, there are additional requirements that the oil should not be deliberately contaminated or manipulated for profit.
“The opportunity, or incidents, of fraud is very high,” Vasu R Vasuthewan, former Malaysia head for the ISCC, a global biofuels certification body, told The Straits Times last year.
No questions asked
On a Saturday in mid-January, dozens of people arrive at the central square in the historic city of Melaka carrying plastic bottles of all shapes and sizes filled with cooking oil.
A banner above a stall advertises a public collection drive organised by Evergreen Oil & Feed, Malaysia’s largest supplier of UCO to Neste and a provider to other multinational fuel companies, including Repsol and Shell.
The idea is simple: individuals bring used cooking oil from home and receive 3 Malaysian ringgit per litre, the equivalent of about $0.65.
Among those bringing greasy containers that morning is an undercover reporter sent by SVT to put the system to the test. She carries a transparent plastic jerry can. Inside it is not waste oil from a kitchen, but fresh palm oil she had poured into the container earlier that day.
The journalist steps forward and hands the jerry can to a volunteer. Without asking any questions about the oil’s origin or contents, the volunteer places it on a scale and notes the weight. He then unscrews the cap and pours the liquid into a large plastic drum, mixing it with oil brought in by other members of the public.
Afterwards, the reporter walks to a nearby table where another volunteer asks her to fill out a simple form before receiving payment for the oil. She writes down a fake name and phone number. No verification is requested, and the cash changes hands.
The blue plastic drum is sealed and loaded onto the back of a truck, which will transport the batch to Evergreen Oil & Feed’s processing facility on the outskirts of Melaka. There, the oil will enter the industrial supply chain that feeds the global market for “waste-based” biofuels, including SAF.
Checks intended to catch fraud
Evergreen Oil & Feed did not reply to a request for comment on what happened at its UCO collection in January. In May 2025, the company’s owner CK Lau told The Straits Times that the firm follows the “proper processes” in its collection based on requirements established by International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), the leading certification scheme recognised by the European Commission.
Carl Nyberg, senior vice president for renewable products at Neste, said in an interview with SVT that ensuring the traceability and integrity of the raw materials used in the production of green fuels is of utmost importance for the Finnish firm.
“If we receive concerns or hints that there are anomalies or suspicions around the raw materials we receive, we go in and investigate and then we stop the supplies from such suppliers,” he added.
After watching the footage of the oil collection in Melaka, Nyberg said Neste would “take this on board and dig a bit deeper” to understand the background. “Our objective is, of course, to ensure that we have suppliers that are behaving correctly, delivering the feedstocks that they have promised to deliver us, as we have in the contract,” he added.
A Neste spokesperson later added in a statement that each raw material shipment may undergo additional checks, including “advanced laboratory testing” performed at the company’s own facilities. “Based on the results of analyses on the raw materials we have received, we have not received raw material cargoes with typical profiles of crude palm oil,” they added.
Neste exports outweigh collection
As Neste’s largest provider of UCO in Malaysia, Evergreen Oil & Feed supplied the Finnish giant with more than 50,000 tonnes of the raw material – enough to fill 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools – in the first half of 2025, according to customs data obtained by SVT.
In total, Neste sourced around 250,000 tonnes of UCO from all the Malaysian traders it dealt with in 2024, the data showed.
However, only 100,000 tonnes of UCO are estimated to be collected annually in Malaysia, according to a 2024 analysis by consultancy Stratas Advisors for T&E. “Our suspicion is that not all of these volumes are legit waste oils, suggesting that some of them could be [virgin] palm oil,” said Simon Suzan, a data analyst at T&E.
Under the current system, the entire SAF supply chain largely relies on a long paper trail rooted in self-declarations submitted by restaurants, factories and households providing the UCO, alongside sporadic inspections at the points where the raw material is collected.
In Europe, the verification of green fuel supply chains largely rests on certification systems like ISCC, which is led by the biofuels industry and, according to one source, enjoys “a kind of monopoly” in the sector. The body issues sustainability certificates to commodities traders and fuel suppliers.
ISCC says its certification process supports “sustainable, fully traceable, deforestation-free and climate-friendly supply chains”. But the certifier has come under frequent criticism from campaigners and researchers, who argue that its auditing system relies heavily on company-provided data and can struggle to detect fraud in complex global supply chains.
Watch the full Swedish documentary, “When can I fly green?”, on SVT Play
The problems in Malaysia are not isolated. A separate investigation by AFP and SourceMaterial recently found that Indonesian companies targeted in a palm oil fraud probe had supplied European firms including Neste and Eni.
In February, Indonesian police detained 11 people over suspicions that local companies had conspired with government officials to pass off palm oil as a waste byproduct called palm oil mill effluent (POME), including by offering bribes.
Neste said it had instructed its supplier to exclude the implicated Indonesian companies from its supply chain after the investigation became public. Analysis of periodic samples from shipments between 2023 and 2025 were “consistent with palm-derived waste”, not palm oil, it added. There is no suggestion that Neste had any knowledge of, or involvement in, the alleged Indonesian fraud.
EU ‘not happy’ about fraud risks
Neste turns the raw materials it buys from Southeast Asia and other regions into renewable fuels at its refineries in Singapore, the Netherlands and Finland.
Last year, the company sold nearly three-quarters of its renewable fuels, including SAF, in Europe, where green fuels are central to efforts to reduce the climate impact of aviation. The European Union, alongside the UK, introduced the world’s first SAF mandates in January 2025, requiring fuel suppliers to blend at least 2% SAF with conventional kerosene.
Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, EU spokesperson for climate and energy, said the European Commission is “of course not happy” about the risk of virgin palm oil contaminating the SAF supply chain.
“This was not the purpose when we started the policy and when we wanted to create this global wake-up call of greening aviation,” she added in an interview with SVT. “It undermines the policy because it is basically [de]frauding those who are complying with the rules.”
-
Will the EU finally make waste pay for its growing carbon footprint?
A decision by Brussels to bring refuse incineration into the EU Emissions Trading System would restore a basic principle: the polluter pays -
Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn
Transport officials in Brussels and the UK seek to reassure the sustainable aviation fuel industry that blending mandates at airports are here to stay
Itkonen said the European Commission is doing the best it can within its remit, but enforcement is up to individual member states. “We also have the possibility to make these rules more stringent and look into them and revise them,” she added.
Even if regulation is tightened, ensuring fraud-free SAF supplies will not be an easy task, industry insiders warn.
The former Neste director told Climate Home News that, with poor enforcement of the rules especially in source countries, complete control of the supply chain is practically impossible for companies handling enormous volumes of raw materials, like the Finnish firm.
“I don’t think anyone can say 100% putting their hand on a Bible,” the ex-employee added when asked whether Neste could confidently claim no virgin palm oil enters its SAF supply chain.
“The market needs a level playing field. If Neste rejects questionable supply, competitors will accept it. It’s a market-wide problem of fraudulent feedstocks.”
The post Top green jet fuel producer linked to suspect waste-oil supply chain appeared first on Climate Home News.
Top green jet fuel producer linked to suspect waste-oil supply chain
Kathy Hochul wants to set a new timeline for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. State lawmakers and environmental advocates are pushing back.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced plans to roll back parts of the state’s Climate Act, which established aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
New York’s Governor Pushes to Delay a Key Portion of the State’s Climate Law
Seeking a sixth term, the Maine senator’s passivity in the face of executive branch power grabs undermines her greatest electoral strength, as much as it does climate action.
Last August, when reports emerged that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to cancel $7 billion in grants for solar panels for low-income households, including an estimated 20,000 households in Maine, Sen. Susan Collins seemed to defend the move.
Susan Collins and Climate Change: ‘The Silence is Deafening’
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?