A Danish climate think tank is pushing five sharp transport proposals that challenge the government’s green credentials—and expose the gap between what experts say Denmark needs to do and what politicians dare to deliver.
CONCITO, one of Denmark’s leading climate organizations, has laid out a transport policy roadmap that reads like a checklist of everything the current government would rather avoid. Keep truck tolls and fuel taxes high. Tax aviation properly. Cut the bloated infrastructure plan. Stop throwing money at green fuels that don’t work. It’s a package grounded in economics and climate science, and it’s going absolutely nowhere in Christiansborg.
I’ve watched this play out for years. Denmark loves to call itself a climate frontrunner, but when it comes to transport, we’re stuck in first gear. The proposals CONCITO put forward aren’t radical. They’re the same recommendations Klimarådet, the government’s own climate council, has been making since 2020. The difference is CONCITO says the quiet part out loud: Danish transport policy is shaped more by fear of voter backlash than by what the numbers actually demand.
Why trucks and fuel taxes matter
Start with the basics. CONCITO wants to keep the existing truck toll and current fuel taxes in place. Why? Because heavy freight is still undertaxed by roughly three kroner per kilometer when you account for road wear, pollution, and climate damage. Yet transport lobby groups and the right-wing parties are constantly pushing to lower these costs, arguing competitiveness and rural fairness.
The truth is messier. Denmark already struggles with truck congestion on key highways, and every tax break for diesel simply shifts the cost burden onto everyone else. Meanwhile, the new kilometerbaseret vejafgift for heavy vehicles, set to roll out in phases through 2027, was watered down before it even launched. As reported by CONCITO, if we’re serious about external costs, we should be raising the toll to German levels, not holding the line.
Aviation’s free ride
CONCITO’s second demand is blunt: tax flying according to its actual climate impact. Denmark introduced a so-called green aviation tax in 2023, but the design is a compromise that undermines itself. Part of the revenue goes to a fund for sustainable aviation fuel, SAF. Another chunk subsidizes cheaper tickets on domestic routes to places like Bornholm and northern Jutland.
Klimaeksperter have called this incoherent, and they’re right. You can’t reduce emissions by making it cheaper to fly. The argument from the aviation industry is that moderate taxes paired with SAF subsidies will green the sector without losing passengers to foreign hubs. But SAF is expensive, scarce, and at current prices not remotely scalable without massive subsidies. CONCITO points out that frequent flyers are overwhelmingly high earners in Copenhagen and Aarhus. A real aviation tax would be both climate effective and socially progressive. It’s also political poison, which is why new domestic flight routes still get cheered as infrastructure wins.
The infrastructure plan nobody wants to touch
The third proposal may be the most explosive: slash Infrastrukturplan 2035. CONCITO calculates that cutting just seven projects would save the state 29 billion kroner, deliver over six billion in net socioeconomic gain, and avoid more than a million tons of CO2. Those projects were approved before the war in Ukraine, before construction costs spiked, and in some cases on incomplete analyses.
But infrastructure spending is sacred in Danish politics. It signals regional investment, job creation, and political seriousness. Questioning a highway extension or a tunnel is immediately framed as abandoning rural Denmark. CONCITO argues we’d be better off spending those resources on maintaining what we have, climate proofing existing roads and rail, and expanding the electricity grid. That makes economic sense. It also requires politicians to admit that past promises were bad bets. Don’t hold your breath.
Bikes beat cars, economically
If you must build something, CONCITO says, build bike lanes. Society gains roughly eight kroner for every kilometer someone cycles instead of drives. That’s not sentiment. It’s health savings, reduced pollution, less road wear, and lower congestion. Yet Denmark still prioritizes car-centric planning in much of the country, especially outside the big cities.
Getting more from what we have
The fourth point is structural. CONCITO wants Denmark to squeeze more value from the transport system we already own. That means congestion pricing, simpler and cheaper public transit fares, more frequent departures, and integrating land use with transport planning so people don’t need to travel as far in the first place.
This is where the real friction lies. Road pricing for passenger cars remains a political third rail. Klimarådet has recommended it repeatedly. Economists support it. The EU is moving toward broader user fees. But Danish voters, especially outside Copenhagen, hear “roadpricing” and think punishment. The SVM government has promised to study models but ruled out action this term.
Meanwhile, public transit is financially fragile. Passenger numbers since corona haven’t fully recovered, operating costs have climbed, and regional bus routes are being cut in rural areas. The political class talks about strengthening public transport, then underfunds it and wonders why ridership stays flat.
Stop subsidizing the wrong fuels
CONCITO’s final demand: end support for green fuels that aren’t really green. Rapes
