Denmark cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 36% between 1990 and 2019, largely thanks to renewable energy (including biomass), which now accounts for over 80% of electricity generation. It is now one of the least carbon-intensive countries.
Emissions have been cut without overall employment losses. Workers displaced by stringent environmental policies have been helped by Denmark’s reskilling programmes, which demonstrated their capacity to cushion much larger displacements in manufacturing during the 2008 financial crisis. Thanks to this, Denmark has preserved full employment, with 75% of the working-age population having a job, one of the highest employment rates in the OECD.
Denmark plans to halve its emissions over the next decade. The Climate Act sets the legally-binding objective of reducing emissions by 70% by 2030 from 1990. The target is one of the most ambitious among OECD countries and would put the country on track for carbon emissions neutrality by 2050 (Figure 3). However, this will require radical technological changes and vast resource reallocation. Greater certainty on how targets will be met is important to send strong signals to investors. Investment needs in the order of 1% to 2% of GDP will need to be funded, though could also carry long-term benefits if there is good project selection and incentives for private involvement.
Denmark’s well-functioning “flexicurity” facilitates reemployment of workers displaced by the energy transition. Jobs have already declined in fossil fuel generation, but new jobs were created in renewables. Projections of further abatement suggest that job losses in agriculture would be roughly matched by job creation elsewhere.
Uniform carbon pricing would effectively mitigate emissions but needs to be complemented by flanking measures that provide a clear and predictable regulatory environment and support green infrastructure and innovation. Pricing all greenhouse gas emissions at a uniform minimum rate reflecting the evolution of prices in the EU Emissions Trading System would contribute to cost-effective abatement, though on its own would be insufficient to meet targets. Public acceptability for increased pricing is crucial and can be enhanced by transparent use of government revenue to support to the green transition, reskilling of workers and offsetting distributional effects. If high carbon prices cannot be sustained, the government will need other incentives to attract private investment and innovation in clean energy, as well as public investment in green infrastructure.