Just to add, removal is close to useless without deep cuts.
I feel the article needs to be more precise on that aspect, to not risk beeing a bit misleading.

The rocks can be mined on land as I understand.
Every farm causes harm to eco-systems, but we need to eat. We can consider least damaging way, same goes here, we need removal. I am i undecided on which method, but obviously curious.

I agree that bias should not be overly involved in these considerations. That said, mining seems less important than a liveable planet, and I choose to accept that bias.

We do need some kind of large scale removal as I understand stuff, and the natural sinks seems under pressure. At some point, we have to choose the least disruptive tools.
I had some hope for this grinding & spreading thing, but potential eco-downsides, do raise concern.

Det kan du have ret i, og det er svært at finde den rette, en universel måde at kommunikere det her på.
I sidste ende, handler det måske også mere om mængden af misinformation, der er ødelæggende for en seriøs debat, og reelle reduktioner. Tusind tak for svar. 😀

Jeg er enig, men ordet reducere, burde måske have været eliminere, da vi vel er et sted, hvor negative emissioner er påkrævet, og ordet eliminere repræsenterer størrelsen af problemet bedre. Det er dog også væsentligt med samtidig tilpasning, deri er jeg helt enig.

5/5
So yes, the idea sounds good on paper. But in practice, it’s more of a business model than a climate plan. Denmark’s green transition remains stuck in old habits.

4/5
Meanwhile, our coastal waters are dying from nitrogen runoff, 60 % of land is farmed, and 66 % of “renewable” energy still comes from biomass.

3/5
The plan assumes continued — even higher — livestock production, with no real solution for methane emissions. It’s climate arithmetic that doesn’t add up.

2/5
Real restoration is delayed until 2045, far beyond the point where ecosystems can recover without massive effort. Delay has become the default policy.

1/5
I like the idea of restoring nature, but Denmark’s new tripartite deal is mostly symbolic. It relies on voluntary action — and that’s never worked in Danish agriculture.

We do, but unfortunately one that prefers CCS and biomass as the main – and basically only – reduction routes. Wording matters, but real reductions beat cheap talk