A senior Danish sustainability consultant is calling for a fundamental rethink of rural development policy, arguing that billions spent on motorways won’t save Denmark’s villages and that green energy projects could be the answer if done right.
Living in Copenhagen for 35 years hasn’t made me forget my first 19 years in a village on Norddjursland. My family still lives on the land. I still care about those communities. And I’m increasingly convinced we’re asking the wrong questions about their future.
The debate has gotten stuck in a false choice. Either you support rural Denmark or you support climate action. Either you want jobs and services in small towns or you want wind turbines and solar farms. This framing is not just wrong. It’s dangerous.
The Motorway Myth
Søren Have, a senior consultant at Concito, made this argument in a recent opinion piece in Jyllands-Posten. He pointed out that the full Hærvej motorway will likely cost over 20 billion kroner. For that money, Denmark could fund countless initiatives in central Jutland: better public transport, local jobs, education, and support for existing town centers.
Yet successive governments have sold motorways as the magic bullet for rural decline. Build more asphalt and life will return to the villages. Have is not buying it. Neither am I.
I’ve watched this pattern for years. State institutions get relocated to smaller cities. Billions flow into highway projects with questionable traffic justification and clear climate costs. Meanwhile, the real problems persist: aging populations, young people leaving after university, shops closing, bus routes cut.
When Green Energy Feels Like a Threat
Here’s the painful irony. One reason locals oppose new wind or solar installations is fear that they’ll accelerate depopulation. Will anyone want to live here with industrial turbines on the horizon?
I understand that concern. A wind farm or solar park changes a landscape. For someone already worried about their village dying, it can feel like one more insult.
But that assumes renewable energy can only be a burden, never a benefit. Have challenges that assumption head on. What if locals actually gained from these projects through ownership stakes, local funds, or cheaper electricity? What if green transition created jobs instead of just taking farmland?
The Real Questions About Rural Life
Have asks what I think are the right questions. What services must a village have to remain viable? How far can you live from decent public transport? Which barriers stop young graduates from returning home after university?
These aren’t abstract policy puzzles. They’re about whether my cousins’ kids will be able to raise families in the same towns where they grew up.
He also asks how renewable energy near villages could actively contribute to local development. That question gets at the heart of it. Denmark needs massive green energy expansion to meet climate targets. Much of it will happen in rural areas because that’s where the space is.
Ideas Worth Testing
Have throws out several unorthodox ideas. Let central government employees choose to work from 10 to 15 locations nationwide instead of forcing everyone to Copenhagen. Use automation for flexible rural bus services. Support citizen-run village shops combining local retail with e-commerce delivery. Create hybrid schools with local teachers for core subjects and remote instruction for specialized courses.
None of these are finished solutions. All deserve serious discussion. The point is that Denmark has options beyond pouring concrete and hoping for the best.
I’ve seen how EU agricultural policy and the Green Deal are reshaping rural economics in practice. The new Common Agricultural Policy includes eco-schemes that reward farmers for climate and nature measures. Land is being converted from intensive farming to wetlands to cut emissions from drained peat soils. The Nature Restoration Regulation will require significant habitat recovery.
These aren’t abstractions. They mean specific fields in specific villages change use. They mean compensation negotiations, local conflicts, uncertainty about property values.
Who Benefits, Who Pays
The fundamental tension is about fairness. Are rural communities bearing the cost of urban Denmark’s climate goals? Or could they actually prosper from the transition with proper support?
Agricultural organizations warn that carbon taxes on farming will kill jobs and shift production abroad. Environmental groups counter that Danish agriculture must transform radically to survive climate change and meet legal obligations. Both have a point.
What’s missing is a genuine strategy that sees villages as part of the climate solution, not just sacrifice zones. Have argues for exactly that shift. He wants rural areas recognized for what they can offer: renewable energy, carbon storage, nature restoration, sustainable food production.
Beyond Nostalgia
Have admits his vision of rural life may be somewhat nostalgic. Fair enough. I feel that pull too when I visit family. But nostalgia alone won’t keep villages alive.
What might work is acknowledging that sustainability in rural Denmark is not some abstract environmental goal. It’s about livelihoods, heating bills, whether the school stays open, if there’s a bus to the hospital.
It’s about whether the wind farm pays into a local fund or just enriches distant investors. Whether young people can find work in renewable energy, nature management, or regenerative agriculture close to home. Whether billions in public investment flow to projects that actually strengthen communities.
Denmark is quite good at policy making. We’re less good at asking whether all those policies add up to something coherent. Do the infrastructure investments, energy planning, and rural development programs actually support each other?
A Conversation Long Overdue
Have calls for an open, concrete conversation about how to ensure villages don’t just survive but thrive through green transition. That conversation needs to include people who actually live there, not just consultants like him
