A story by "Reuters staff" starts: "Denmark said". It's like an AI wrote it and doesn't know countries don't talk. Or just bad writing.
Strikes me as fairly normal, though I'm not motivated to go searching for examples.
Does read a bit as a holdover from the monarchical custom of referring to the sovereign by the name of the country.
Its publication has the endorsement of the chief executive, but they may not have read it or even know about it. It may have been done by a trusted assistant (cabinet member or other high-level functionary) entrusted with the power to speak on behalf of the executive. In this case, that's Climate Minister Dan Joergensen, quoted in the fourth paragraph, though he likely didn't have a hand in writing it.
The important part is that it's a plan that the plan is endorsed by the government as a whole, who will act on it. That's the info that needed to be in the lede. If you have concerns that would be taken up by the specific people, you need to read the whole article first.
They could have added "... according to a government plan" to the first paragraph, but that's adding several words to a lede that's supposed to be concise and up front. It's sometimes called the "inverted pyramid"[1], though I find that a little odd since the width of the triangle refers to the importance of the words rather than the brevity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)