Tuesday’s New York Times ran an op-ed by sociology professor Monica Prasad, “On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend,” which singled out Denmark as a model for how the U.S. should proceed on carbon-dioxide regulation. I have watched Denmark’s policies with particular interest since marrying a Dane, and now having two little half-Danes here and a host of family there.

Denmark’s domestic press hangs its head quite a bit over the fact that the proudly “green” country (home to the European Environment Agency) is among Europe’s biggest Kyoto violators — a failure facilitated by the absurd promise made by Socialist minister Sven Aukend to match whatever reductions Germany promised (-21% below 1990, averaged over 2008-2012), despite the fact that Denmark did not have Germany’s post-reunification luxury of shutting down filthy Soviet-era industrial capacity in, say, Jutland.

Therefore some of the piece’s cheerleading struck me as a bit fishy — for example: “The one country in which carbon taxes have led to a large decrease in emissions is Denmark”; and “Denmark accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record and without relying on nuclear power.”

I know full well that the Danes benefit from Swedish nuclear power, despite also regularly banging on about how the Swedes need to shut down the reactor just across the Strait. Then again, who are we to begrudge them such hypocrisy, with California being so bossy while relying on atoms smashed and coal burned in other states?

So I turned to the World Nuclear Association. Suddenly the bloom falls off the morally superior rose.

“The 7.64 billion kWh [NB: that equals > 16% of how much electricity DK produces on its own, domestically] imported from Sweden in 2005 is almost half nuclear and half hydro, the power (5 billion kWh in 2003, 0.6 billion kWh in 2005) imported from Germany is largely generated by brown coal and nuclear power (Germany itself imports 15 to 20 billion kWh/yr from France, which is 80% nuclear)…
Conclusion:
Nuclear power provides an essential part of Denmark’s electricity…Using 2005 data, with production of 36.3 TWh, consumption of 34 TWh, exports of 12.9 and imports of 10.4 from Germany and 0.7 from Sweden, it would seem that 3 TWh used is nuclear, about 9% of total.”

So much for not relying on nuclear. What about this notion that a carbon tax caused Denmark’s emissions to drop? I turned to the European Environment Agency for a little straight talk — and you won’t hear me say that very often. According to their submission to the EEA, Denmark’s main emissions-reduction strategy is to import electricity rather than create it.

About its “Past emissions: Denmark’s GHG emissions were 6.3% below those of 2004 and 7.8% below base-year levels in 2005. The main factor for decreasing emissions with regard to 2004 was a decrease of fossil fuel combustion in electricity and heat production partly due to higher electricity imports.”

About their projected 2010 emission total of 20.6 MMT: “*The Danish Energy Authority estimates that approximately 5.0 of the 20.6 million tones CO2 annually will be offset by increased electricity exports based on the calculation assumptions of the climate strategy.”

Therefore it turns out that Ms. Prasad’s other claim is also false: a carbon tax didn’t cause the Danes’ emissions to drop; almost the entire reduction came in one year and as a result of importing electricity, i.e., paying someone else to emit CO2 and smash atoms.

Further perspective is found in Denmark’s boasting that the carbon tax Ms. Prasad praises is just one of many taxes cited as its GHG “measures”: mineral oil tax, gas tax, coal tax, electricity tax, CO2 tax, a GHG tax on HFCs, a weight- and volume-packaging tax, and a waste tax, all on top of the Emissions Trading Scheme regulatory tax, and the wealth transfer of buying JI and CDM credits. These come on top of a vehicle-registration tax touted as a GHG-reduction scheme that doubles the price of cars — the joke in Denmark is that it’s a good thing that they don’t have all the cars they’ve paid for, because they’d have nowhere to put them.

Meanwhile, of course, the European Parliament and Commission are busy trying to find ways around their lack of taxing authority to impose EU-wide taxation to install a “Kyoto tax” on top of all the other taxes that have, as we know, failed to reduce EU member-state emissions.

In truth, cap-and-trade means cap, trade, and tax. Answering the NYT’s false claims only confirms that.