A senior Danish sustainability consultant is challenging the political narrative that pits green transition against rural prosperity, arguing that billions spent on new highways could instead fund local jobs, transport, and renewable energy that actually benefits countryside communities.
Søren Have does not mince words. As a senior consultant at Concito, Denmark’s green think tank, he sees the recent election campaign rhetoric as a dangerous detour. Politicians sold highway expansions and wind turbine moratoriums as remedies for rural decline. He calls it strawman argumentation that ignores the real causes of depopulation while blocking opportunities the green transition could bring to Denmark’s countryside.
Have grew up in a village in Norddjursland. He spent his first 19 years there. Now he lives and works in Copenhagen, but family and friends still call the countryside home. That personal connection drives his frustration with a political class that he believes is offering asphalt instead of answers.
The Hærvej Highway and the 20 Billion Krone Question
As reported by Concito, the full Hærvej highway project will likely cost over 20 billion kroner. Have asks what else that money could buy. He lists public transport, local jobs, education, and green transition investments. He argues that strengthening existing towns and villages would do more for rural Denmark than another strip of asphalt.
The pitch for new highways always sounds the same. They promise growth and development. Traffic studies often do not support the claims. Climate and nature take the hit regardless. Yet the projects keep getting sold as essential for balance between city and country.
I have watched this pattern repeat itself since moving to Denmark. Every election cycle brings new promises to rural voters. Infrastructure spending gets framed as a lifeline. But the statistics from Danmarks Statistik tell a different story. Urbanization has pulled people and jobs toward cities for more than a century. A highway does not reverse that tide.
When Solar Panels Become a Symbol of Abandonment
Have notes that opposition to new solar and wind projects often stems from fear of further depopulation. Residents worry that renewable energy installations will make their towns less attractive. They see turbines and panels as symbols of decline rather than investment.
He acknowledges that the concern is real. A new energy facility changes the landscape. Some people will find it more disruptive than a nearby pig farm. But he questions whether the response should be a blanket rejection of renewable energy in rural areas.
Research from Landbrug & Fødevarer shows that countryside residents feel more uncertain about future job and education prospects than city dwellers. That insecurity colors how they perceive any new development. When you already fear your community is fading, another outside imposition feels like a threat.
Have suggests the problem is not the energy projects themselves but how they are imposed. If local communities saw direct benefits from nearby solar or wind installations, the calculation might change. Cheaper electricity, local jobs, or shared ownership could shift perception from burden to opportunity.
Ideas That Deserve a Test Run
Have offers a list of unconventional proposals. Let state employees choose to work from 10 to 15 regional offices instead of requiring Copenhagen presence. Launch hybrid schools where local teachers handle core subjects while specialists teach smaller subjects remotely. Expand automated buses and shared grocery delivery to cut costs while maintaining access.
None of these ideas are ready for rollout. But they represent the kind of creative thinking that seems absent from the highway and halt approach. Have argues that Denmark needs a broader toolkit for rural sustainability. The current playbook treats roads as development and green energy as a sacrifice.
I find his argument compelling because it refuses the false choice. You can care about climate and nature without writing off the countryside. You can support rural communities without demanding they stay frozen in an imagined past. The tension comes from policy that treats these goals as opposites.
What Rural Denmark Actually Needs
Have poses specific questions. How far can people live from public transport if they need reliable access? What services must a village have to remain viable? How can renewable energy become an asset instead of an eyesore?
He admits he does not have all the answers. He lives in Frederiksberg now. His ideas might carry a tinge of nostalgia. But the questions themselves are concrete. They demand engagement from both residents and policymakers.
A 2021 survey cited by Landbrug & Fødevarer found broad agreement that Denmark should remain a production country. The divide is not about whether to produce but about who bears the cost of transition. That distinction matters. It suggests room for solutions that do not pit city against country or economy against environment.
Have’s commentary appeared in Jyllands-Posten in April 2026. It stands out because he refuses to play the usual blame game. He does not romanticize rural life or dismiss urban concerns. He simply insists that sustainability is not abstract when it shapes where people can live and work.
Denmark talks constantly about balance between land and city. But balance requires more than moving a few government offices west or building another stretch of highway. It requires asking whether the billions being spent actually address the problems rural communities face. Have thinks the answer is no. I am inclined to agree.
Sources and References
Concito: Bæredygtighed er ikke noget abstrakt, når det handler om livet på landet
