Because Denmark has an extensive cradle-to-grave welfare state with an insane tax pressure and offering a (relatively) lavish lifestyle for most of its residents.

One of the more commonly arguments against fighting climate change is that doing so would ruin the economy. If Denmark can maintain its welfare system while cutting costs, then it means others can too.

But yeah, as someone else said, 70% is compared to 1990 levels and it's not really that dramatic since Denmark is considerable less dependant on fossil fuels today compared to 30 years ago.

I just want to point out how insane this tax pressure is based on a number I saw today for the first time. 2.2 million Danes are about to receive the equivalent of a 180USD stimulus check. To qualify, you have to have received public benefits within the last year. Denmark has 5.8 million people, and 5m over the age of 20, which I will assume is the age at which a person would become eligible for this type of assistance. That means 38% of all Danes, or 44% of eligible Danes, received government support.

Someone who earns $100k a year is going to pay a combined 55.5% tax rate, 40.6% income tax + 25% consumption tax. Someone making $1m is going to pay 66%, assuming they don't spend it all on cars which attracts an additional 160% excise plus all sorts of other green taxes.

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2020-10-01-nu-udbetales-der-1...

Disregarding that your numbers are slightly inaccurate, these tax rates need to be put in perspective, because you get a whole lot of service, insurance and infrastructure for it - whether you want it or not.

By comparison, in the "socialist" and "high tax" state California, taxes are nominally lower, but what you get for it is essentially a dumpster fire. Plus, you have to pay out of pocket for healthcare and retirement.

I didn't mean to critisize the Danish system, and I don't think the GP did either. It was simply an observation, and as said; if Denmark can manage to maintain their system during a time like this, then it's good news for the rest of us.

Of course "others" can too, if by that you mean other countries with a population that is affluent enough to demand green politics. The problem is that these countries only have a small share in global carbon emissions, so even setting lofty goals there will accomplish very little in the big picture.

On the other hand, all the emergent economies have no (internal) political pressure to do much about pollution, much less about CO2 emission. However, what they tend to have in common is that they export a lot products to these affluent countries.

What would happen in reality is that customers in said affluent countries would face the bill, leading to less economic flow, while China and Co continue to produce the way they do.

The customers in affluent countries could see they are paying €1 for the product and €2 for pollution (€1 for coal power and €1 for fuel used to ship across the globe), and realise they can buy a higher qualirlty €3 product made localy or. To higher environmental standard.

I love two things here.

If the maker of goods is not in good standing for offsetting their impact then the importing state introduces taxes for that deficiency and has it handled in the importing country.

The second is the idea of showing the actual cost of offsetting. Having honest conversations about that will promote local and incentivize R&D to reduce that cost. Fantastic stuff.