On March 3rd 2026, Aarhus University hosted the second online Webinar from the series “CDR and Society”, this time dedicated to “CDR in Denmark: Societal pathways, actors and public priorities”. Lucilla Losi, Postdoctoral researcher at Aarhus University and member of UPTAKE, kicked off the session with a brief introduction to the UPTAKE project. Her presentation was followed by two contributions from invited speakers: Tobias Sørensen, Senior Analyst at CONCITO a green think tank based in Copenhagen, and Karl Sperling, Associate Professor at the Department of Sustainability and Planning of Aalborg University. The presentations were followed by a discussion moderated by Livia Fritz, Assistant Professor at the University of Geneva, and Benjamin Sovacool, Professor at Aarhus University.
Tobias Sørensen outlined Denmark’s climate targets, focusing on the limited but growing role of carbon capture and storage. He explained how political commitments since 2019 led to subsidy schemes, tax reforms, and a major CCS tender that ultimately saw few applicants due to strict timelines and market immaturity. He highlighted challenges such as uncertain storage potential, rising biomass costs, and the need to scale diverse CDR technologies.
Karl Sperling presented local pathway analyses, focusing on biogas plants, costs, and development impacts. His findings identified local mineralization as the cheapest option, emphasized the potential to create jobs and local revenue, and highlighted the importance of engaging the local population for successful deployment.
Key takeaways from the discussion:
- Societal responses to CDR in Denmark vary, with concerns about limited and late public engagement.
- National political support for CCS appears broad, though often accompained by overly optimistic expectations and industry-driven interests.
- Local opposition to onshore storage remains relatively low.
- Politicians currently have a limited understanding of novel CDR methods, though ministries are gradually building knowledge.
- Normative considerations center on legitimacy and trust for uncertain technologies, as well as issues of justice—particularly regarding who bears the costs.
- Overall, early engagement, clearer regulation, and realistic expectations were identified as essential.