Why Lynetteholm must be stopped!
The Danish Climate Movement wants to stop Lynetteholm. A battle we are fighting in court.
But why is this artificial peninsula off the coast of Copenhagen so problematic for the climate, the environment and for democracy?
And how can the Climate Movement’s legal action stop Lynetteholm?
You’ll find the answers in this article.
En dansk version af denne artikel findes her.
Christina Ihler Madsen and Frederik Roland Sandby. Translation Anne Kühne. 09. may 2023The Lynetteholm project is Denmark’s biggest ever building project. The politicians’ intention is to create a new district that will house thousands of people and create thousands of jobs in 50 years’ time. However, the project has been rushed through so quickly that overarching concerns regarding the climate, the environment and democratic accountability have been cast aside.
Instead of being built in a climatic and environmentally friendly manner, Project Lynetteholm is a classic example of how not to protect the climate and the environment.
The perimeter of phase 1 of Lynetteholm has been finished and is already partially blocking the flow of salt water.
Super solution or just an soil depot?
Lynetteholm was presented in 2018 for the first time by Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Copenhagen Mayor Frank Jensen, amongst others. The project was presented as a great solution to several existing problems with the new peninsula leading to eg.: 35,000 new homes, 35,000 jobs, great new transport infrastructure in Copenhagen as well as creating a coastal defence against rising sea levels. Subsequently, the project grew even bigger, from the 190 hectares mentioned at the press conference to 282 hectares, with the peninsula projecting significantly further into the Øresund Strait. The project is due to be completed in 50 years’ time, in 2070, and will be the biggest ever Danish building project. The new peninsula requires app. 80 million tons of soil which will require app. 2.5 million large truck loads to be driven through Copenhagen.
Project Lynetteholm is presented at a press conference by the former Prime Minister and Mayor.
The salami method
It’s logical to ask what impact the construction of such an enormous new district will have on the climate and on the environment. The answer is that we don’t know.
In 2020, two years after the project’s launch, the legally mandated report that is designed to assess the climatic and environmental consequences of the entire project was published. However, the report only covers a small portion of the project, as the Government has chosen not to assess the entire project but has instead chosen to cut the project into smaller pieces – the so-called ‘salami method’. Thus the climate and environmental report does not cover the large infrastructure project presented by the politicians in 2018 but just the construction of an empty peninsula.
When it is politically beneficial, the project is presented as a huge prestige project, replete with homes, a metro and jobs. However, when the climatic and environmental consequences are being considered, it is treated as an earth depot.
We believe that this is in breach of the Aarhus Convention, which requires the preparation of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments, otherwise known as EIA’s and SEA’s. This is the first major claim in our lawsuit filed against the Ministry of Transport and the company ‘City and Harbour’.
‘Climate lawsuit against the state’
Listen to the Climate Movement’s danish podcast to learn about the salami method and the environmental impact assessments.
The Climate Movement complains but the politicians continue.
On February 15, 2021, the Climate Movement complained to the EU Parliament’s Committee for Petitions. We wrote in the complaint that we believe the project to be illegal as the authorities have chosen to sub-divide the project in order to conceal the major climatic and environmental impact. A climate and environmental assessment of the entire project needs to be undertaken, as required by EU law. By this we mean an assessment that covers both the construction and operation of Lynetteholm itself but also of the planned metro project. It is only then that politicians and citizens can properly assess the project and take the final decision.
On June 4, 2021, a Parliamentary majority voted for the Lynetteholm construction law. The majority consisted of the Social Democrats, the Liberal Party, the Green Left, the Social Liberal Party, Liberal Alliance, the Danish People’s Party and the Conservative Party. The politicians claim that the preparatory work for the project has been thorough and comprehensive.
The Lynetteholm construction law was approved without the completion of the necessary reports covering the environmental consequences of the whole project.
Death of the Baltic Sea?
The countries surrounding the Baltic Sea are furious. There exists in Europe a high level of co-operation as regards reciprocal protection of neighbouring countries’ environment. Danish citizens are entitled to certainty that neighbouring countries don’t pollute our country nor alter our ecological systems unnecessarily. The same naturally applies the other way round. The Espoo Convention requires that states must consult impacted states where there is likely to be a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries.
The location of Lynetteholm is crucial in this respect. This is because the peninsula will block the ‘Kongedyb’, one of the few underwater channels that provides the Baltic Sea with fresh sea water. This effect will be permanent and may have far larger consequences than for example the dumping of sludge in Køge Bay. Experts talk of Lynetteholm becoming a cork in the Øresund Strait.
As the Øresund Strait is one of the few places where fresh sea water flows into the Baltic Sea, a cork in the Øresund Strait will naturally have a major effect on the Baltic Sea. In fact, the consequences may be catastrophic for the Baltic Sea’s existing plant and animal life. If everything from eelgrass to cod dies out, this will inevitably lead to increased levels of CO2 emissions and seriously weaken the ability of the Baltic Sea to absorb CO2 over the coming critical decades. The UN’s Climate Panel says that there is a need to increase the absorption of CO2 in the earth’s ecosystems, including the seas, if the goals of the Paris Agreement are to be met.
The politicians believe that the blockage effect will be as little as 0.25%. However, several experts have raised severe doubts about these calculations and the blockage effect may be much greater. In addition, 0.25% less salt year by year is likely to create a large cumulative effect.
As there will be a significant impact on the Baltic Sea countries, they were therefore entitled to be consulted early on in the planning of the project.
This leads to the second major claim in our lawsuit, namely that such a consultation has not taken place and that the blockage impact is being ignored. We believe this to be in breach of the Espoo Convention.
‘Death of the Baltic Sea’
A Climate Movement podcast explains Lynetteholm’s impact on the Baltic Sea
To be decided in Denmark
On July 19, 2021, the Climate Movement received a letter from the Chairman of European Parliament’s Committee for Petitions, Dolors Montserrat. She asked the Commission to undertake an initial investigation into whether EU law had been breached. At the same time, she forwarded the complaint to the EU Parliament’s Committee for the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. The complaint was later rejected by the Commission, as it concluded that a decision about a potential legal breach was a matter for the Danish judicial system.
The Climate Movement sues the Danish state
On October 22, 2021, it was decided that the state would pay the legal fees that the Climate Movement would incur as a result of the lawsuit. Subsequently, the Climate Movement has sued the Ministry of Transport and ‘City and Harbour’. Our lawsuit against the state is based on the fact that the government has not undertaken a thorough climatic and environmental assessment of the project and has consulted neither the Danish citizens nor the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea when planning the project. In other words, our claim is that the state is in breach of both the Aarhus and Espoo Conventions.
Despite major resistance from the ‘City and Harbour’ company, the Climate Movement won the first battle in this case when the District Court on June 23, 2022, decided that: ‘The case has undeniably significant societal implications and is therefore a question of principle.’ The case was therefore referred directly to the High Court. The company had argued that this was not a question of principle, as it only related to the ‘creation of an soil depot’.
Frederik Sandby general secretary of the Danish Climate Movement and our lawyer Eskil Nielsen at Lynetteholm
Massive local resistance
The local resistance to the project has grown ever stronger. As many as 73% of the citizens of Copenhagen are concerned about the consequences of Lynetteholm. In particular, citizens are concerned about the consequences for the marine environment and pollution levels as well as the climatic impact. This is shown by the city’s own research of citizens’ views.
The project does not solve the citizens’ existing problems but will create major new ones. Citizens are protesting against the planned 720 extra trucks that will be driving daily through their streets for the next 30 years. The dumping of sludge around their coasts. Grey sea foam that suddenly fills the harbours. However, the citizens’ possibilities of raising their concerns have been stymied by the controversial decision to remove the right to complain.
The lack of housing could be solved in a less resource and climate intensive way by eg. converting loftrooms into habitable accommodation and by building in the districts surrounding Copenhagen.
The so-called coastal defence will not secure the citizens of Copenhagen. A coastal defence will only be created at some point in the distant future. The storm surge barrier has not even yet been decided upon and the peninsula will not in and of itself protect against storm surges. The best solution would be to quickly build flood barriers and storm surge gates. This work could be undertaken for a fraction of the price and resource requirements with far less environmental damage and far lower CO2 emissions. This was the plan that was swept aside when the Lynetteholm project was proposed. In addition, experts have pointed out that there is no flood protection from the south and that the risk of storm surges may actually increase with the chosen solution.
Demonstration against Lynetteholm
Dumping in Køge Bay stops
There is also great resistance against the project outside Copenhagen, in particular in the districts surrounding Køge Bay.
In March 2022, the Climate Movement and our lawyers invited a team of photo journalists from Danish Radio and journalists from the Politiken newspaper out to the perimeter of project Lynetteholm. We had hired a boat in order to get really close to see the project with our own eyes and in order to make it easier for the media to document the dumping of sludge in Køge Bay. It’s really shocking to see how large Lynetteholm will be. You only realise it when you sail out there and see it with your own eyes. The day was a success and with the help of drones we filmed a very revealing video of the sludge dumping in Køge Bay. Shortly thereafter, Danish Radio began extensive coverage of the dumping and it was stopped. Temporarily.
Dumping of sludge from Lynetteholm in Køge Bay
A flurry of scandals
The Lynetteholm project is linked to numerous scandals but we have restricted ourselves to covering a few of them here.
Several legal experts criticized the use of the salami method in the environmental assessments.
The idea that the project is self-financing has already been disproven on a number of occasions. The financial aspects of the project have formed the basis of many critical media reports.
A letter from the Swedish authorities raising concerns about the dumping of sludge in Køge Bay was illegally withheld from the Danish Parliament.
There is a chorus of experts criticising the validity of the environmental impact assessments. For example, the assessment of the impact of the sludge dumping is based on a 40 year old US scientific article. The models used to calculate the effect of blocking the salt water flow have also been subject to sustained criticism. Lately serious concerns have been raised regarding the so-called ‘objective assessment’ of the models.
A number of experts also warn against building in the ‘Kongedyb’ channel. Interestingly, this also includes the expert group of the Danish Transport, Building and Housing Authority. Building there could potentially tip the balance of the Baltic Sea’s ecosystem, so that plants and animals can no longer survive. Such a catastrophe would lead to large CO2 emissions as well as lowering the sea’s CO2 absorption rates during these crucial years.
The Climate Movement seeks a ‘cease and desist’ order for Lynetteholm
The blockage of the ‘Kongedybet’ channel is such a severe risk to the Baltic Sea that we don’t believe that work on project Lynetteholm should continue. The court case may take several years. By the time a judgement has been handed down, the damage may be irreversible.
This is why the Climate Movement on March 22, 2023 applied to the High Court to stop the work. We have sought a ‘cease and desist’ order, so that the project is halted until the problems have been resolved. We hope to have a High Court decision before work on the second perimeter starts in six months’ time.
Both the IPCC and UNEP have concluded that the seas are of great importance in stopping catastrophic levels of global warming. We cannot risk destroying the ecosystems in the Baltic Sea to such an extent that major additional amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted.
Project Lynetteholm will in and of itself challenge our climate goals. There is no doubt about this when one studies the environmental impact assessments for the project. The Danish CO2 budget is very limited and we believe that Lynetteholm constitutes overconsumption that risks breaking both the climate law as well as the Paris Agreement’s goals.
The size of the peninsula as well as its position in the ‘Kongedyb’ channel is an error. The politicians need to resolve this enormous climatic and environmental challenge before it is too late.
Climate Movement lawyer Jonas Christoffersen with Frederik Sandby, Head of Secretariat
En retssag med omfattende konsekvenser - for hele Europa.
This court case is David versus Goliath. It is a battle seeking to ensure that infrastructure supports the climate and the environment and is democratically accountable, instead of causing damage.
Project Lynetteholm must be stopped whilst a fundamental battle is fought as regards how infrastructure projects are planned and carried out in Denmark. The consequences of this court case are therefore profound and will influence politicians when they plan future new infrastructure projects.
This way of undertaking infrastructure projects has become increasingly common across many projects country-wide. However, the scale of project Lynetteholm renders this project especially egregious and it must be stopped. Instead of building in a climatic and environmentally friendly fashion, project Lynetteholm is an example of the opposite.
The court case is of far greater significance than we originally thought. We are fighting not only for the rights of the citizens of Copenhagen, but also for all other Danes as well as Europeans. We have sued the state for breach of EU law and our case may therefore set a precedent across the Continent.
We know that there are many other important Danish projects. Just to mention a few: Aarhus Harbour, the Kattegat bridge and the Egholm motorway. We are now engaged in a major battle to finally stop the neglect and destruction of the climate and the environment and ensure democratic accountability for all such projects.
Together we are creating political pressure.
The politicians can at any time call a halt to this project. That’s why it’s necessary to constantly remind them of the issues and the citizens’ resistance. Whilst our lawyers apply legal pressure, you can be one of those applying political pressure.
How you can help:
Become an ambassador. Support the lawsuit by becoming a local ambassador. You will become part of an ambassador group, which will inform the public and create political pressure on decision-makers.
Become a Climate Movement member. As more people become members, we can demonstrate to the politicians that there are many supporters of the lawsuit. In addition, we can expand our communication efforts. You can also donate to our work.
Join Telegram. Using the Telegram app we can easily start conversations and tell you how you can take part.
Spread the word. Share this article with your friends. If you live in a county by the baltic sea, share this information with your local climate and/or environmental groups/NGOs. If you have danish speaking friends on your social media, share our content from Facebook, Instagram, twitter or our podcast with them. If you live near Copenhagen, come join us with handing out flyers or come to demonstrations.
Join the battle at Rettensvej.dk
