OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Rådet for Grøn Omstilling

RGO

Rådet for Grøn Omstilling is a Danish environmental NGO promoting a sustainable transition in energy and transport.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Anne Katherina Weidenbach (Cabinet of Commissioner Dan Jørgensen) and Aalborg Universitet and

24 Sept 2025 · Energy policy

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament) and Lunds universitet

24 Sept 2025 · Presentation for energy experts

Green Transition Denmark slams 'overstated' carbon removal certification rules

22 Sept 2025
Topic — New EU rules for certifying permanent carbon removals from atmosphere-cleansing technologies.
Message — The organization demands that methodologies reflect the time-lag between storage and actual carbon removal. They reject current drafts that credit avoided emissions from biowaste decay as immediate removals.1
Why — Stricter rules protect the credibility of the climate policies the organization supports.2
Impact — Technology developers would receive significantly fewer credits for immediate sale to finance operations.3
Read full response

Meeting with Christel Schaldemose (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Jul 2025 · sustainable energy

Green Transition Denmark demands strict priority hierarchy for biomass

17 Jun 2025
Topic — This initiative aims to create solutions for a circular and climate-neutral bioeconomy.
Message — The council demands a binding reduction in total EU material consumption. They want biomass prioritized for durable materials instead of being burned for energy.12
Why — Moving to a circular bioeconomy supports their goals of nature restoration and carbon storage.34
Impact — Biofuel and livestock industries would lose subsidies and face significantly reduced demand.56
Read full response

Meeting with Dan Jørgensen (Commissioner) and Greenpeace European Unit and

23 May 2025 · Energy Union

Meeting with Stine Bosse (Member of the European Parliament)

22 May 2025 · Global Methane Pledge

Meeting with Per Clausen (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Dec 2024 · Meeting on the upcoming REACH directive

Meeting with Per Clausen (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Dec 2024 · EU's kemikaliepolitik

Meeting with Stine Bosse (Member of the European Parliament) and World Wide Fund for Nature Belgium

20 Nov 2024 · European water policy

Meeting with Sigrid Friis (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Nov 2024 · EU agriculture policy

Meeting with Asger Christensen (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Nov 2024 · Agricultural regulation

Meeting with Rasmus Nordqvist (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Oct 2024 · Webinar med Rådet for Grøn omstilling om EU's vandramme direktiv

Meeting with Sigrid Friis (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Oct 2024 · Denmark's efforts to reduce methane emissions and the Global Methane Pledge

Meeting with Stine Bosse (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Sept 2024 · European transportation policy

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Jul 2024 · Green deal and transport policy in light of European Elections

Meeting with Florika Fink-Hooijer (Director-General Environment) and Danmarks Naturfredningsforening (The Danish Society for Nature Conservation)

6 Jun 2024 · Water issues and negative impact on agriculture (main topic) Nature Restoration Law Deforestation

Meeting with Nikolaj Villumsen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

13 Feb 2024 · Møde om F-gas

Meeting with Niels Fuglsang (Member of the European Parliament) and CONCITO, Denmarks Green Think Tank

15 Nov 2023 · Grøn omstilling

Response to Revision of the Toy Safety Directive

31 Oct 2023

Rådet for Grøn Omstilling bifalder, at EU-Kommissionen har fremlagt et gyldigt forslag til en ny forordning om legetøj, der har til formål at beskytte børn, som udgør en af de mest sårbare grupper i samfundet. Vi er meget enige i konklusionerne fra konsekvensanalysen, og anerkender, at mange af disse er indarbejdet i forslaget. Vi støtter desuden fuldt ud op om en revision af Legetøjsdirektivet, og at direktivet ændres til en forordning. Vi bekymrer os dog alligevel på særligt følgende områder: 1. Undtagelser (derogations) 2. Manglende mærkning 3. Online handel Vores synspunkter er uddybet i vedhæftede dokument.
Read full response

Meeting with Anders Vistisen (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Oct 2023 · CO2

Meeting with Ditte Juul-Joergensen (Director-General Energy) and Ørsted A/S and

6 Oct 2023 · Energy Transition

Green Transition Denmark seeks lower maritime emission reporting thresholds

30 Aug 2023
Topic — EU rules for verifying and accrediting greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport.
Message — The group supports the act but requests lowering the declaration threshold to 400 GT. This ensures consistency with upcoming requirements for smaller vessels.12
Why — The proposal would expand regulatory oversight to more ships, advancing their environmental objectives.3
Impact — Operators of smaller vessels would face increased administrative and reporting burdens.4
Read full response

Response to Templates for monitoring plans, emissions reports and documents of compliance in relation to GHG emissions from shipping

30 Aug 2023

Green Transition Denmark suggests to get rid of sub-options in the drop down menu: this creates confusion for shipping companies and often leads to the incorrect ship type or information being reporting, complicating analysis of the data (Annex I Table B1.1; Annex II Part A (5))
Read full response

Green Transition Denmark Urges Stricter Shipping Emission Rules

30 Aug 2023
Topic — The consultation addresses rules for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from shipping.
Message — The organization demands updated default values to reflect real-world methane leakage. They want all gas leaks reported and global warming potential measured over twenty years.12
Why — Tighter rules would validate their advocacy by forcing industry transparency on climate impact.3
Impact — Shipping companies and engine manufacturers lose the ability to hide significant methane leaks.4
Read full response

Meeting with Christel Schaldemose (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Volvo AB

22 Jun 2023 · heavy durty vehicles and CO2

Meeting with Christel Schaldemose (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

30 May 2023 · heavy durty vehicles and CO2

Meeting with Margrete Auken (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Apr 2023 · Sustainability and food systems

Green Transition Denmark urges stricter chemical hazard classification rules

30 Mar 2023
Topic — Revision of EU rules for classifying, labelling, and packaging hazardous chemical substances.
Message — The organization supports new hazard classes for endocrine disruptors and persistent substances. They call for missing criteria regarding immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity to be included.12
Why — Stronger chemical regulations help the group achieve its environmental and health goals.3
Impact — Chemical manufacturers face more complex classification requirements for many more substances.4
Read full response

Green Transition Denmark warns against carbon farming and offsetting

23 Mar 2023
Topic — Creating a regulatory framework to monitor and certify the authenticity of carbon removals.
Message — The organization insists that emission reductions are not removals and should not be certified. They call for separate targets to prevent greenwashing through offsetting.12
Why — This would ensure their environmental standards are adopted while preventing policy integrity failures.3
Impact — Agricultural and industrial sectors would lose revenue from temporary or non-permanent storage methods.45
Read full response

Meeting with Marianne Vind (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Dec 2022 · Green Transport

Green Transition Denmark Backs New EU Chemical Hazard Rules

17 Oct 2022
Topic — The EU is updating rules for identifying and labeling hazardous chemicals like endocrine disruptors.
Message — The organization supports the new hazard classes but demands a dedicated consumer pictogram for endocrine disruptors. They also want hazard statements to explicitly mention risks to future generations.123
Why — This proposal would achieve a higher level of protection for human health and the environment.4
Impact — Chemical producers face stricter labeling requirements and increased public scrutiny of their products.5
Read full response

Meeting with Karen Melchior (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Jun 2022 · Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSDR)

Meeting with Nikolaj Villumsen (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Apr 2022 · Fit for 55

Meeting with Morten Petersen (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Apr 2022 · Fit for 55 Package

Response to Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU

31 Mar 2022

Please find attached our comments for the commission's proposal for a revision of the EPBD. Kind regards, Signe Sand Green Transition Denmark
Read full response

Response to Land use, land use change and forestry – review of EU rules

8 Nov 2021

Vi takker for muligheden for at indgive bemærkninger til forslaget til revision af LULUCF forordningen. RGO noterer sig med tilfredshed, at revisionen indebærer et fremtidigt mål for dræn i LULUCF sektoren på EU-niveau, som byrdefordeles til medlemslandene. Ligeledes at opfyldelsen af dette mål baseres på opgørelse af reelle emissioner og dræn i sektoren, fremfor et bogføringsresultat på baggrund af historisk reference. Vi mener dog at målet på -310 Mt CO2e i 2030 er alt for uambitiøst. Dels fordi LULUCF sektoren er kritisk for opfyldelse af Paris målsætningen, og det pågældende mål ikke sætter EU på sporet af denne målopfyldelse, og dels fordi dette mål kun matcher kulstofdrænet som niveauet var ved årtusindeskiftet. Studier viser at netto-drænet kan øges til op imod 600 Mt CO2e frem imod 2050. I de seneste år er drænet mindsket betydeligt. Det er vigtigt at medlemslandene retter fokus mod denne sektor og øger indsatsen for at sikre reelle dræn betydeligt, samt at dette sker i løbet af få år, så indsatser og metoder bliver forberedt og reguleringens nye, opstrammede mål træder i kraft i 2024 og ikke som foreslået af Kom. i 2026. Det er positivt, at der lægges 8% rente på et uopfyldt mål, som en straf, hvis ikke medlemslande lever op til de satte mål, men dette burde ske allerede for 2026-målet, således at straffen for manglende målopfyldelse implementeres når denne er konstateret. Vi ønsker ikke den foreslåede fleksibilitet mellem LULUCF og ESR sektoren. Vi mener, at der bør være ambitiøse mål for at reducere landbrugets klimapåvirkning, og at muligheden for at anvende dele af overskydende dræn i forhold til målsætningen i LULUCF sektoren til at dække manglende målopfyldelse i ESR sektoren på nuværende tidspunkt vil dæmpe disse incitamenter. Vi er kritiske overfor de øvrige fleksibiliteter der vedrører LULUCF sektoren, da drænene i denne sektor er behæftet med en ustabilitet som hidrører fra naturkatastrofer – skovbrande, stormfald, skadedyr mv. – en ustabilitet som endda må forventes at øges med den globale temperaturstigning. Det bør derfor ikke være muligt at ombytte/handle med LULUCF kreditter i den fossile sektor – heller ikke ved handel mellem lande. Ved at sammenlægge landbrug med LULUCF sektoren til en AFOLU-sektor åbner man for muligheden for at “skjule” landbrugets non-CO2-udledning i skovenes optag og fritager dermed landbruget fra at skabe reelle reduktioner. Der bør være et separat reduktionsmål for landbruget, og beslutningen om en AFOLU-sektor bør udskydes til det bliver tydeligere hvordan tiltag i henholdsvis LULUCF- og landbrugssektoren udvikler sig på baggrund af eksisterende og opkommende politikker – herunder Carbon Farming Initiative, og relaterede certificeringsmekanismer. Vi finder at den i Impact Assessment refererede analyse af den optimale fordeling mellem reduktioner i LULUCF og i landbruget, der når frem til en 80/20 fordeling, virker skæv (med forbehold for at vi ikke har haft mulighed for at være dybt nede i de tilgrundliggende beregninger). En stor del af landbrugets udledninger stammer fra husdyrbrug og en stor del heraf udgøres af metan. Vi går ud fra at analysen bygger på den gængse forudsætning om et 100-års perspektiv. Men med den akutte klimakrise er et 20-års perspektiv mere relevant. I dette perspektiv øges metans GWP til 84-86 CO2e mod ca. 28-34 CO2e i 100-års perspektivet. Samtidig opjusterede IPCC metans GWP i 2013. Hermed bliver klimaeffekten af metanudledning væsentligt større, hvis udledningen fra landbruget reduceres mindre, mens CO2-bindingen i LULUCF-sektoren øges tilsvarende. Bl.a. derfor bør landbrugets udslip af ikke-CO2 drivhusgasser reduceres forholdsmæssigt ift. EU's samlede mål, frem for at kunne erstattes med reduktioner i LULUCF-sektoren. Endelig ønsker vi, at der i reglerne for LULUCF tilføjes betingelser om at tilgodese biodiversitet, f.eks. ifm. rejsning og drift af skove. Det er dog positivt, at der inkluderes afrapportering på biodiversitet i LULUCF afrapport
Read full response

Meeting with Morten Petersen (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Nov 2021 · REDIII

Response to Revision of EU legislation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals

1 Jun 2021

Green Transition Denmark (GTD) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Commission’s discussions of the revision of EU’s REACH chemicals regulation. GTD is a Danish NGO working to promote a green and sustainable transition of society. We have many years of experience with the chemicals area and have especially focus on endocrine disrupters and other areas that are not covered by the REACH legislation. Many years of evidence has showed that REACH is not providing enough protection to people and environment, mostly due to the combination of a lack of safety data (incomplete dossiers) and an unwillingness to act on this limited data (no possibility to directly revoke registration numbers). This means that an exposure to a hazardous chemical can continue for many years even after the chemical has been recognized problematic in relation to REACH. GTD backed up the commitments made in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) for the strengthening of EU chemicals regulation. However, many of the commitments in that strategy are not found in this Inception Impact Assessment (e.g., ‘including additional independent SVHC categories for EDC, PMT, vPvM’). Instead, more seems to be made policy options, which will not strengthen the chemicals legislation and others are not even mentioned. This is a crucial opportunity to strengthen REACH legislation. We especially emphasize the importance of: - Improve protection of people and the environment against hazardous chemicals (improve hazard identification through amendment of SVHC categories: EDC, PMT/vPvM; include mixture toxicity -> introduction of a Mixtures Assessment Factor) - Increase transparency for public (reform Article 33 and make the information readily available -> remove the 45 days deadline) - Increase regulatory control (revocation of registration numbers; introduce maximum validity of registrations – e.g., re-register every 5 years) - Registration of polymers (all types of polymers should be included – priority should be given to the polymers to whom people and the environment are most exposed to due to their uses (plastics, textiles, paints, ect.)) We furthermore highly support the consultation responses from EEB and CHEMTrust, where extended comments and arguments can be found.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU legislation on hazard classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals

1 Jun 2021

Green Transition Denmark (GTD) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Commission’s discussions of the revision of EU’s CLP Regulation. GTD is a Danish NGO working to promote a green and sustainable transition of society. CLP is an essential tool to regulate hazardous chemicals. However, it needs to be updated to sufficiently support the implementation of the new Chemicals Strategy of Sustainability. For many years GTD have been urging for criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). To provide enough protection to people and environment it is necessary to identify and restrict EDCs across EU law. There is a need to introduce a hazard class for EDCs. Also, PBTs, vPvBs, PMTs and vPvMs should be included and we urge that these chemical groups are included in future discussions. Furthermore, sub categories for suspected EDCs and endocrine active substances will make it possible to reflect the current state of scientific knowledge with transparency and a precautionary approach which is highly needed. We highly welcome the European Commission’s intent to address the lack of global harmonized standards (GHS). It is especially needed for terrestrial toxicity through the development of specific criteria for non-aquatic organisms. This very needed action should be coupled with the development of criteria for terrestrial persistence. Also there is a need to lower the level of evidence required to classify hazardous chemicals per category, in particular for the most concerning endpoints such as PBTs. One specific example of a problematic hazardous and highly used chemical that are not covered by the PBT criteria is 6PPD (used in e.g., tires) and its break down product. It is very harmful to the aquatic environment but falls under the threshold criteria for bioaccumulation. This is also shown in scientific literature. Ensure that CLP remains purely hazard based and focused on the substance’s intrinsic properties. No risk or socio-economic considerations are valid in the CLP process of identification, classification labelling and packaging of hazards. We furthermore highly support the consultation responses from EEB and BEUC, where extended comments and arguments can be found.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU rules on food contact materials

29 Jan 2021

Green Transition Denmark welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the European Commission Roadmap on the revision of EU rules on Food Contact Materials (FCMs). We have four overall points we consider essential: 1) The EU needs to ban all hazardous chemicals in all FCM to honour the commitments of the Green Deal and the new Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (and not partial regulations, such as BPA). 2) Substantial changes are needed, and it is important that the possibility of creating better rules is not constrained by the limits of the current framework. Thus, Option 2 (‘Develop a new regulatory framework, replacing the current Regulation’) is the best choice. 3) Increased focus on the safety of the final article (FCMs), including Non-Intentionally Added Substances. Furthermore, to regulate 4) An overall advice to follow the five key principles (https://chemtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/KP-sign-on-document-word-sept-19.pdf), which should govern the future legislation on food contact materials (Green Transition Denmark, former The Danish Ecological Council, are co-signatories on this initiative). Three positive points in the roadmap: ➢ It is good that the Commission will have a higher focus on the final food packaging or food contact article in the future. Non-Intentionally Added Substances (the so-called NIAS), which constitute the biggest share of the chemical pollution that migrates into our food from food contact materials, is more or less uncontrolled today. But it is well known, that these NIAS accounts for a large proportion of the chemicals we are exposed to through our food and beverages. In essence, food contact materials should be sufficiently inert in order to prevent any hazardous chemicals from migrating into our food or leaking into the environment during its life cycle. ➢ It is very important that new FCM legislation applies the precautionary principle and therefore implements a generic approach to managing risks. This would prevent the most hazardous chemicals (called tier 1 substances in the roadmap), such as endocrine disruptors and chemicals that are carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction, from being allowed in FCM. ➢ The roadmap commits for better protection of sensitive populations, such as pregnant women and children. It also promises to consider the combination effects of chemicals. On the other hand, in order to really protect sensitive populations (e.g. small children), it is essential that all harmful chemicals are banned in all food contact materials, and not only food contact materials containing food intended for infants and children of 0-3 years, since smaller children also will have food intended for any age group. Concerns related to the Commissions plans: ➢ The IIA suggests devolving not only the work of providing information, but also a substantial element of defining safety and monitoring compliance to industry bodies, rather than public authorities. This is a worrying approach. ➢ The document does not say anything about the consumer’s right to know about hazardous chemicals in the products they buy. That many consumers want to know about the chemical content in food contact materials is shown be the high number of scans on food items in the Danish app “Tjek Kemien” (now also EU-based; “LIFE AskREACH”).
Read full response