When climate activists march through city streets demanding action, their signs typically call for one thing: government intervention, in the form of carbon taxes, renewable energy mandates, and regulations on fossil fuels. In the modern discourse, a single, deafening narrative dominates: the problem is too big for you.
But what if that assumption is wrong? What if voluntary, citizen-driven initiatives could solve climate change more effectively than bureaucrats?
To find the answer, we must look to Denmark. While the people often view the Scandinavian nation as a socialist utopia, its success in wind energy is actually a triumph of something far more libertarian. Denmark presents a compelling case study that challenges traditional approaches to transitioning to clean energy.
The Danish Wind Revolution
Denmark now generates almost 60% of its electricity from wind power, one of the highest percentages in the world. The country is well on track to achieve 100% renewable electricity generation by 2030. What makes this achievement remarkable isn’t just the scale, but how it was accomplished. As of the last decade, citizens directly owned 52% of Denmark’s installed wind infrastructure. Ordinary Danes, not the government agencies, managed the country’s renewable energy transition through direct investment.
The story begins in the 1970s. At the time, Denmark was arguably the most oil-dependent country in the world, relying on imported oil for over 90% of its energy. The state’s immediate instinct was to centralize. The government proposed a massive rollout of nuclear power plants to secure energy independence.
The Danish people, however, had a different idea. They were skeptical of nuclear power because it represented the ultimate centralization of power: massive facilities owned by the state. Danish communities started forming citizen-led initiatives. In these initiatives, families pooled their resources to purchase shares in community wind turbines. The model was simple: citizens could voluntarily invest in renewable energy and share its profits.
The Middelgrunden offshore wind farm exemplifies this approach. Established in 2001, just 3.5 kilometers from Copenhagen’s coastline, the project involved over 50,000 residents in the planning and consultation process. 8,650 Danes raised €23 million, half of the project’s total cost, by purchasing shares priced at €570, each representing 1,000 kWh of annual production. Today, those shareholders receive annual returns of 7.5%, having recovered their initial investment in eight years. Everything since has been profit, demonstrating that individual financial interest and environmental consciousness can align perfectly.
The “Real” Principles of Energy
Denmark’s case was a success precisely because it embodies principles that work with, rather than against, human nature.
No one was forced to join these initiatives. Citizens chose to invest because they saw both environmental and economic value. If you bought shares in the local turbine, you received a portion of the electricity revenue.
When people own a stake in wind turbines, those turbines transform from just another infrastructure into assets. They are “unnecessary” until they have real owners who make a profit out of them. The profit motive doesn’t stop the care for the environment. It just makes it even more valuable.
Citizens live near the turbines they own. They understand the local economy, community concerns, and geographical constraints better than any distant bureaucrat. This local knowledge leads to better decisions and solves the “Not In My Backyard” problem that plagues most renewable projects. When the people in your “backyard” own the project, there is no need to trample on property rights to build green energy – they are used to accelerate it.
The Danish model emerged organically, not from a government blueprint. Early pioneers experimented with different structures, financing mechanisms, and organizational models. Successful approaches spread through voluntary adoption, while failures provided valuable lessons without requiring taxpayer bailouts or regulations to protect the projects.
The Statist Counter-Revolution
However, no good deed goes unpunished by the state. In recent years, the narrative shifted, and not for the better. Critics might point to Denmark’s 2009 Renewable Energy Act, which requires new wind projects to offer at least 20% local ownership, as the hard evidence that government intervention was necessary. But this gets the causation backwards. By 2008, the vast majority of Denmark’s wind capacity was citizen-owned, which proves the model’s viability. The law didn’t create the movement, it codified an already successful initiative.
As wind technology progressed, small “start-ups” couldn’t easily afford massive capital investments. The Danish government, with large state-owned corporations like Ørsted (formerly DONG Energy), took over.
The “popular legitimacy” of wind energy has begun to erode. As ownership has concentrated back into the hands of government-backed companies, local resistance has risen. This is a beautiful demonstration of individual rights. When the state imposes green energy, it is tyranny. When people build a wind farm, it is freedom.
The decline of citizen-owned turbines in the last decade serves as a warning. As the EU and the Danish government introduce more complex regulations and tender processes that favor large political players, they are crowding out the very civil society that built the industry. They are replacing the agility of the market with the weight of the state.
Why This Matters Beyond Denmark
The Danish experience offers crucial lessons for climate policy globally.
First, it demonstrates that individual action can be enormous. The narrative that climate change is too big for voluntary solutions simply doesn’t hold up against the evidence. When properly motivated through ownership rather than guilt, individuals will invest millions in renewable infrastructure without coercion.
Second, it shows that environmental goals and economic prosperity aren’t zero-sum. Denmark’s renewable energy sector employs 2% of the labor force and generates billions in export revenue from wind technology. Nobody had to sacrifice prosperity for the planet – they achieved both simultaneously through voluntary market participation.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it reveals a path forward that doesn’t require surrendering individual liberty to achieve collective goals. The false choice between environmental catastrophe and authoritarian climate policy dissolves when we recognize that property rights and market incentives can align individual interests with environmental outcomes.
Conclusion
So can individuals solve climate change? Based on Denmark’s experience, the answer is a resounding yes, but only if we let them.
The real question isn’t whether citizens can address climate change. They already have. The question is whether governments will allow these bottom-up solutions to flourish, or whether they’ll impose regulations and mandates that crowd out the very voluntary initiatives that work best.
For those who value both environmentalism and individual liberty, Denmark offers a helpful model: proof that free people can tackle even the most horrifying collective challenges.
Good reporting is cheaper than heavy-handed regulation. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
This piece reflects the author’s views, not necessarily the entire magazine. We welcome a range of pro-liberty perspectives. Send us your pitch or draft.
