On Tuesday afternoon, the Danish Parliament seconded the bill to preserve the element factory in Rødbyhavn. Without comments or the question, the proposal was sent straight on to third reading without having to go around the transport committee again.
Since the proposal was first considered, a report has been submitted and three amendments proposed. All three close to being irrelevant. For example, the law must be changed so that it no longer reads “Sund og Bælt Holding A/S”, but “Sund & Bælt Holding A/S” – that is, with an & sign instead of “and”. The devil lives in the detail, and there is always room for the devil in mega-infrastructure facilities.
Only Enhedslisten and Alternativet are against
From the report on the bill, it appears that the changes have been accepted by all parties with the exception of New Citizens. There is, however, a logical explanation for the latter, says transport spokesperson Kim Edberg Andersen.
– I was not present in the committee on the day they made it, he explains and emphasizes that Nye Borgerlige continues to support the bill.
The only opponents are Enhedslisten and Alternativet, who are recommending rejection of the proposal, just as the independent, Lars Boye Mathiesen, is expected to be against it.
Reservations from SF and Radikale
However, a closer study of the report also reveals a form of reservation from SF and the Radical Left. They emphasize that “future construction projects are the reason for the preservation of the factory and not the other way around. SF and RV emphasize that the adoption of this law must not become an argument for the implementation of new projects. The factory must contribute to easier and greener plants – not to more plants.”
Against this background, FemernReport has asked Radical Left’s transport spokesman, Stinus Lindgren, to elaborate:
Must not become a kitchen machine
– It shouldn’t end up like a kitchen machine, where you do all sorts of things because you have it. The element factory must not become an excuse for making projects. But if we have projects where it can be used, then it makes sense. It is there, and it is well located, says Stinus Lindgren.
Which specific facilities do you immediately see the factory being able to deliver to?
– It doesn’t have to be infrastructure projects. There are other projects on the way. It could be foundations for wind turbines or energy islands. You could convert the factory to things other than tunnels, says the radical transport spokesperson.
– Then we take it back down
But what if we find ourselves in 2028 with an element factory that has no customers?
– Then we take it back down. After all, we shouldn’t have it just for the sake of having it. I could vote for that, says Stinus Lindgren.
You are also a prominent voice in the climate debate, and everyone agrees that concrete and cement production is a major emitter of CO2. The construction industry accounts for 1/5 of Denmark’s CO2 emissions. Shouldn’t we just stop building?
– I am skeptical about whether it is the right thing to do. We can’t stop building. We can make requirements for future projects to use “green cement” and CCS (CO2 capture and storage, ed.). And we can look at our mobility and transport and try to move it onto rails. All in all, we need to look more at collectivity in new projects, says Stinus Lindgren.
The bill on the preservation of the element factory will be read for the third time on Thursday. There is already a large majority in favor of the proposal, so if it is not adopted, FemernReport will provide Christmas beer and soda.
