Derek O’Brien
POL 120
Dr. Thomas
9/12/19
European Leaders in Battling Climate Change
As globalization continues to connect the world and industrialize countries through the spread of technology the concern of climate change becomes more and more prevalent. The main contributor to the warming of the planet is the high amount of C02 emissions being released into the atmosphere as a result of this hyper-industrialization from a world which is globalizing. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has never been higher and seems to be the cause for the rising water levels and shrinking ice caps of the artic. If this rise in carbon emission continues the world could see major flooding and natural disasters that humanity may be unable to recover from (Spratt). With this issue threatening the well-being of the planet, it is the responsibility for state actors to act before it is too late, and many valuable ports and lives are sieged by floods and natural disasters.
Of these actors within the world, it seems that Europe is leading the pack in actors that are willing to step up and battle the issue of climate change. To get a sense of hope as well as a direction in which other state actors should move towards in combatting this issue, we will take a look at the two leading countries in policy making towards climate change within Europe and how they are implementing solutions for climate change in their most populated cities. It is important to look for solutions within the cities as they account for 70 percent of the carbon

emissions being released into the atmosphere. So essentially big changes within cities can have a huge impact on the carbon footprint of the world. Europe as a whole is the most aggressive continent as a whole in battling climate change. The leaders within Europe in setting and implementing goals to reduce emissions through policy within Europe are Denmark and the
United Kingdom and a look at what they are doing in their most populated cities can give an idea for solutions for cities across the world (Upton).
When setting policies for climate change it is difficult for countries due to the dependency on fossil fuels as an energy source to drive many countries’ economies. Fossil fuels are cheaper and alternative forms of energy can be pricey and counterproductive for profit.
That’s why these policies take time to enact, but countries like Denmark are setting aggressive goals on their climate change policies over these gaps of time. A good way to get an idea of just how aggressive these goals are a look at how they are implementing change within their cities as well as their policies going forward can help. For example, within their most populated city,
Copenhagen the government has set a goal to be net carbon neutral by the year 2025(Danish
Energy Agency). That essentially means they will be producing more renewable energy than fossil fueled energy by that time. Copenhagen has also already cut its emissions by 42 percent from 2005 levels which is leaps and bounds above other populated cities across the world. They have been able to cut back on emissions so much just by depending less on those cheap fossil fuels. Ways to have less dependency on these fuels have been implemented within their city and should be noted by other countries. For instance, they have three-lane wide bicycle lanes that encourage the population to ride to school or work, and it works as a whopping 43 percent of the city’s population commutes via their bicycle (Sengupta). They also are continuing to

move forward with this green movement by making public transportation more accessible for citizens. This will help because it will cut back on emissions from transportation which accounts for a third of their carbon footprint (Sengupta). They are set to open a new metro line within the city that will leave a majority of its citizens only a half of a mile from a station ( Sengupta ).
The fact that Denmark is a rich country also helps tremendously as they are able to invest heavily on wind turbines as well as furnaces that turns waste into energy to warm homes. Though the burning of their waste doesn’t help with lowering their carbon footprint it is at least reducing the waste within their city and converting it to power. This forward thinking and planning will continue to benefit the climate and the worlds fight against rising emission levels within the atmosphere. With all these implementations Denmark has a chance at meeting these aggressive goals as well as setting even more ambitious ones as they get closer and closer to the original goal. The most ambitious of these goals include Denmark being fossil fuel independent by 2050. Whether or not Denmark meets these goals it is good to see a country aiming high as it will have more of an impact not only in lowering emission but in changing attitudes towards climate change as well as showing a path in how to achieve a greener planet.
A great country to compare to Denmark is the UK, not just because the UK also has high standards and goals for itself when addressing climate change, but it will show how difficult the challenge is when dealing with a larger population and industrial infrastructure. Though the UK has many more challenges to address than Denmark when it comes to climate change it doesn’t change the fact that the UK is still setting high goals when trying to lower their greenhouse emissions. Compared to Denmark it may seem that lowering the carbon emissions rate isn’t

working as effectively as we compare Denmark’s most populated city of Copenhagen to the
UK’s of London, London lowered their rates from 1990 to 2005 by 25 percent compared to
Copenhagen’s 42 percent (Brown 6). That isn’t really the case though if you compare the population and take it in consideration with the task at hand with Copenhagen’s population only being 777 thousand compared to London’s 8.9 million. Even with the challenge of population and size London still intends to be carbon net zero by the year of 2050 (Climate
Change act 2008). Much of the lowering of emissions for the UK and many other countries that manufacture large quantities of goods isn’t from actions the government took. Instead a lot of the lowering of emission was simply just a side effect of the 2008 economic recession (Brown
6). Less things were being manufactured so less fuel was being used to power the factories making them. A shift to manufacturing outside of the country for cheaper labor can also attribute to these lowered emission rates, but this is only moving the problem somewhere else instead of solving it. When it comes to making plans within the city of London to lower emissions the mayor of London does have some ambitious plans that are worth a look at especially for countries with much larger cities. For instance, in the London Environment
Strategy Implementation Plan the governor laid out a plan to create cleaner air and lower emissions.
Instead of using infrastructure like Denmark’s Copenhagen London instead is taking the route of policy making as they intend to introduce the world’s first ultra-low emissions zone in
April 2019(Greater London Authority 6). The plan also states it will introduce five low emissions neighborhoods and 12 low emission bus zones by 2020. The plan also states it will deliver an expansion of electric vehicle infrastructure with 300 rapid charge points by 2020 which will

influence a change from fuel to electric for its citizens. They also state in this plan to ensure that all new cars and vans should be zero emissions by 2030. These policies are very realistic policies that can really impact large cities like London. Sure, they aren’t able to invest large quantities of money toward wind turbines and metro stations that are a half mile from most residents but this push for low emission zones and vehicles can make an impact without drastically influencing the lives of the millions that live in London. Change is much harder to implement when the scale is much larger, but it looks like London’s plan could really help with the fight against rising emissions in the atmosphere.
Size and population are large reasons why the U.K produces so much more carbon emissions, but its also important to look at how reliant each economy is on fossil fuels for the industries manufacturing goods. When taking a look at just how much the U.K exports in goods can give you an idea of just how much more fuel is needed to produce so many products and transport them. The U.K exports $395 billion in goods compared to Denmark’s $83.2 billion, showing a very noticeable difference between them. It is also important to keep note of what each country exports, because certain industries need a high demand of fossil fuels to create their product. The top exports of the U.K include, Cars, packaged medicine, and crude petroleum. Their biggest exports are extremely reliant on fossil fuels not only to keep up with the high levels of production, but these products are inherently reliant on the use of fossil fuels excluding medicine. As for Denmark their largest exports are mostly agricultural with pigs being the main source of their income. Their top exports include packaged medicine, pig meat, and refined petroleum (OEC). Not only does Denmark produce on a much lower scale but their top exports are mostly agricultural with their number one export being medicine, which is mostly

insulin that was produced from their pigs. Their number two export which is pig meat is entirely agricultural and though it takes fuel to package and ship the meat, none is being used to make the product. These differences in industry can help to show why Denmark is able to be so aggressive compared to the U.K with its policies towards climate change.
When dealing with any type of policy it is important to look at the government that is in place and if it allows these countries to continue to lead the pack in climate change policy. Both the U.K and Denmark are parliamentary systems. The major difference between the two is that
Denmark is a unicameral parliament while the U.K is bicameral. This doesn’t change much between the two systems except that it is more difficult for the U.K to pass legislation. This is because the bill has to obtain a majority vote in both the house of commons and the house of lords whereas Denmark only has to pass it through its single parliament. Other than that, the governmental systems are rather similar, they both possess a head of state and a prime minister which is elected by the party that holds the most seats. Both systems require a majority to win an election, and since both systems contain so many parties, a coalition of parties is needed to win the majority of the seats in parliament.
Though the governmental systems are similar the parties that are currently in power couldn’t be more different. The Social Democrats of Denmark are currently in power and it is extremely productive for climate change policy. The Social Democrats current political agenda is to place climate change as its number one priority (Farand). This left party also seeks to increase welfare, equality, and education, placing the regard for everyday people highly. With the Social Democrats in power it is very likely to see Denmark continue to be number one in lowering their emissions and bringing the earth’s temperature back down. The party that holds

power in the U.K currently is the Conservative party which is known for being a party aligned to the right. The Conservative parties main concern is leaving the European union which has been formally known as Brexit. Not only can leaving the EU effect the climate policies in place, but the fixation on the issue has made the U.K politically stagnant (Grose). This seems to be the only issue debated at the moment leaving other issues like climate change on the back burner.
This not only has an effect on how aggressive the U.K can be combatting climate change, but it will also have an effect on the current regulations in place if Brexit is indeed successful. If the
U.K leaves the EU, then they will no longer be forced to follow the climate change agenda signed by the EU in the Paris agreement. The current political parties in power are having very real effects on climate change policy, one for the better and one for worse.
Though the political parties have a great influence on policies within the states being compared, but as democracies politicians aren’t the only ones who can influence change.
Democracies are designed to always value the ideas of the people within the country and shape the political agenda around those ideas. This doesn’t necessarily make the individual person within these democracies influential in policy change but when enough people come together for the same cause it then gives these groups some power to really influence change. For instance, Denmark has a coalition of NGO’s that focuses and advocate for issues related to the environment and development (92grp.dk). This group sets goals of its own and advocates for stronger action within climate change, which in turn keeps the pressure on politicians to adopt some of these goals or at least move towards them. NGO’s and groups like the 92 Gruppen will continue to influence policy for as long as they remain strong in numbers and legitimacy.

Denmark is not alone in its ability to influence policy through the use of NGO’s as the UK possesses a group rather similar to the 92 Gruppen. The Climate Coalition is the group within the UK that uses its populations numbers to advocate for action against climate change. This group is also a combination of NGO’s with a member count over 19 million
(www.theclimatecoalition.org). With so many people within the group they are a hard one for politicians to ignore if re-election is their objective. This group helps to keep climate change a very relevant issue as it encourages members and newcomers to write to their member of parliament to influence the pace and ways that this battle against climate change will continue.
Groups like the 92 Gruppen and the Climate Coalition are an important part of politics within democracies as it uses the freedoms within the system to advocate for what the individual people truly want.
When comparing both Denmark and the U.K a difference can clearly be seen when comparing their agendas and support for solving the problem of climate change. The countries cannot solely be compared by the rate of emissions they emit because of the drastic differences between the two countries. Though once the countries are compared on aspects like size, exports, and policies the perspective of how well they are doing in terms of battling climate change becomes much clearer. As stated previously the U.K is much bigger and is much more dependent on fossil fuel to produce its exports making the goals much harder for them when trying to deal with climate change. While the U.K possesses these disadvantages, Denmark has advantages in the form of a small population that is less reliable on fossil fuels for exports.
These countries may be profoundly different but when it comes to policies the agendas, they both put forward are extremely progressive and the implementation of these goals could really

help with the cause. At the end of the day it comes down to the ability to find major support for these agendas as well as actually implementing them. Just like most policies, it all starts with the people. If the people want something bad enough then a politician will step up and attempt to get the votes of those people by enacting or promising to put in place policies catered to those wants. Denmark seems to have much more support on battling climate change, and it shows not only from the party voted in power but also the implementation of environmentally friendly transportation and energy. As for the U.K the support doesn’t seem to be there as most of their goals are simply just written on paper and implementation seems to be minimal at best.
Who their people voted in power also says a lot about their political agendas and they are currently completely fixated on Brexit and it is slowing the progress of other political issues.
When comparing the two leading countries in Europe on the issue of climate change it becomes clear what challenges come with this issue. The people of the world cannot allow these challenges to stop progress or support for action against climate change if there is any hope for keeping the oceans on the beach front instead of on our neighborhoods.

Work Cited
“c/o WWF.” CAN International, www.climatenetwork.org/profile/member/92-gruppen-danish-
92-group.
“The Climate Coalition.” The Climate Coalition, www.theclimatecoalition.org/.
“Danish Climate Policies.” Energistyrelsen, 24 Sept. 2018, ens.dk/en/ourresponsibilities/energy-climate-politics/danish-climate-policies.
Farand, Chloé. “Denmark's New Government Raises Climate Change to Highest Priority.”
Climate Home News, Climate Home, 27 June 2019, www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/26/denmarks-new-government-raises-climate-changehighest-priority/.
Grose, Thomas K. “Brexit Has Created a Permanent Political Limbo in the U.K.” Yahoo! News,
Yahoo!, 24 Oct. 2019, news.yahoo.com/brexit-created-permanent-political-limbo-u-k-
164906619.html.
LDN_gov. “London Environment Strategy.” London City Hall, 17 Oct. 2019, www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/london-environment-strategy. magnetismus, Photo by. “Denmark.” OEC, oec.world/en/profile/country/dnk/.
Moscato, Giuseppe. “United Kingdom.” OEC, oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/.
Participation, Expert. “Climate Change Act 2008.” Legislation.gov.uk, Statute Law Database, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents.

Sengupta, Somini, and Charlotte De La Fuente. “Copenhagen Wants to Show How Cities Can
Fight Climate Change.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Mar. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/climate/copenhagen-climate-change.html.
“United Kingdom - Climate-ADAPT.” Climate, climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countriesregions/countries/united-kingdom.
“What Would 3 Degrees Mean?” Climate Code Red, www.climatecodered.org/2010/09/whatwould-3-degrees-mean.html. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Sweden%20First/EU%20First%
20NDC.pdf http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PP_climate-changepolicy-uk.pdf