8 ms·
Greenland bans all oil exploration
- ytdytvhxgydvhh 5y agoDiscussed a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27859517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27859517
- earthscienceman 5y agoThis is great news, to me it's in the same category as drilling off the north slope of Alaska. There's just no reason to allow it. I did my PhD on Greenland. I'm not sure why their cover photo for this story is a photo of Polarstern in the sea ice north of Norway...
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> it's in the same category as drilling off the north slope of Alaska Politically it’s night and day. Alaska has proven, producing reserves. Greenland has suspected reserves. Banning future jobs and money is easier than banning ones in hand.
- smnrchrds 5y agoFor Alaska, it may be only about jobs. But for Greenland, it's about independence. And foregoing dreams of independence seems like a bigger sacrifice.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y agoPragmatically, what does Greenland have to gain from independence? And think about all the new responsibilities it would be burdened with, especially w.r.t. defence/security policy.
- Robotbeat 5y agoI actually think your point is a good one. There are a lot of places in the world where independence would be obviously preferable to the current situation but I don’t think Greenland is one of those places, at least it isn’t obvious. But I wouldn’t say that the dream of independence is gone from Greenland if they desire. Global warming will, after all, probably make the periphery of Greenland more habitable (like the Medieval Warm Period, before the cold Maunder Minimum, when it was farmed by Vikings), even as it ravages the glaciers.
- adolph 5y agoTypically people like self determination. To the extent that people living in Greenland have different interests than those of Denmark that are imposed upon them then effective self determination is more attractive. I’m sure modern Denmark is a relatively benevolent colonist so who knows?
- emptysongglass 5y agoDenmark is a relatively benevolent colonist, yes. The conflicts that have thus far surfaced have been around Greenland being able to make all its own trading decisions even when they become issues of national security (as when China attempted to build out rare-earth mines). I am sympathetic to Greenland's desire for total self-determination but so long as they continue to receive aid from "mother Denmark", and so long as they are unable to mount a proper defense of their lands with their own military funded from their own pockets, they will never be allowed. The danger of another nation sailing in with a fighting navy is just too great. You simply can't defend a country the size of four Californias when you are a nation of 56000 people. A bit of a tangent but as a Dane I'd like to see Denmark, the Faroes, and Greenland find a way to come closer together, given that the population of the Faroe Islands and Greenland together number little more than 100,000. Our relationship to the Faroe Islands is already "pretty good", it's our relationship to Greenland that could be much improved. I've long advocated that Danes have a duty to visit their friends in Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In Danish, the autonomous territories and Denmark together are called, "Rigsfællesskabet", the "Fellowship of the Kingdom". We understand each other by going to those places and hearing of the problems and difficulties they face: what they need.
- smnrchrds 5y agoFor reference, Iceland has a population of only 360k people and has no standing army. It has nevertheless not been militarily attacked and subjugated, because of its alliances, including its NATO membership. If Iceland with its small population and no military can be kept secure through NATO membership, so can Greenland.
- 5y ago
- silvestrov 5y agoGreenlands population is only 56000, so the additional responsibilities hits a lot harder than people might think. 56000 is just a big town and Greenlands area is 5 times that of California and a much harsher environment.
- dcolkitt 5y agoI see your point, but defense seems wholly unnecessary. In what possible scenario would Greenland be invaded and not be protected by the US, Canada, and/or the UK.
- mbroncano 5y agoIn the case where the US, Canada or UK are the invaders, regardless of how likely could that be.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y agoConsidering Brexit, there's precedent: The Cod Wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfD3gevx48Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfD3gevx48Y https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> In what possible scenario would Greenland be invaded and not be protected by the US, Canada, and/or the UK. If Russia put down a commercial landing and started drilling off Greenland, we’d throw around sanctions but I’d sure as hell want to see a military base before I’d advocate going to war with a superpower over fewer than 60,000 people. Especially if a decent fraction of the population could, reasonably, claim they were free riding on our blood and money.
- giantg2 5y agoNot just jobs, but also the permanent resident payments for the inhabitants of Alaska.
- stanrivers 5y ago>I did my PhD on Greenland? On what, specifically? That sounds interesting... history? culture? native populations? economy? Very curious as I have literally never heard anyone say "I did my PhD on Greenland" before
- Kye 5y agoGiven the user name and Greenland's unique geology, I'm going to guess geology.
- stanrivers 5y agoExtra points for intelligence - thank you sir or madam, sounds like you are right
- loonster 5y agoThis will work for as long as the world has enough oil to meet demand. Eventually as oil becomes a more scarce resource, someone will explore for oil there.
- akudha 5y agoIt would be a long time before we run out of oil. Given that solar is becoming super cheap, our reliance on oil will keep reducing. What is likely to happen is change in political will to keep the ban - you know, the usual bribery and the talk of “jobs” etc. That is a bigger threat than oil shortage
- smolder 5y agoIsn't political will just a function of external motivators such as the profitability of extracting oil? (Which will go up as supplies dwindle?) I don't think people will just decide differently with no change in circumstances.
- ianai 5y agoTapping oil reserves has a history of wrecking governments and economies. The economics of it quickly push out other forms of industry. Politicians quickly seize on the opportunity to claim they personally own the reserves - and become dictators. Then there's the horrible ecological costs. The best option is to develop means of providing energy which disrupt the economics of even oil extraction/refinement. Nuclear could do this - uranium occurs at a pretty constant rate across the earth's crust. Nuclear could also be built out at a rate of choice to meet and pass the energy provided by fossil fuels. One thing that typified the industrial expansion to modernity is ever increasing utilization of greater amounts of energy. Energy storage even has suitable options to disrupt fossil fuels - vis a vi hydrogen fuel cells, lithium batteries, and plenty of other options. (Personally, I like that fuel cells output water since desert areas are seeing greater population characteristics.) In short, the best option is to leave oil and fossil fuels in the ground and grow the world off its use through appropriate investments in tech and infrastructure.
- Goety 5y agoThis gives Russia excellent cover in overextending their territory with their arctic oil exploration and infrastructure development. Next Greenland will say "What arctic land claims?"
- trainsplanes 5y agoWould that even be possible since Greenland is just part of Denmark? It'd be like Hawaii saying "Go on, Botswana. Our ocean is all yours."
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Goety 5y agoIf I were Russia I would be much less worried of conflict if competing oil companies were not bankrolling opposition to my land grab.
- fogihujy 5y agoGreenland isn't allowed to do that; their foreign relations are mostly controlled by Denmark.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- thefounder 5y agoNow it's time for the whole world to ban oil exploration or at least oil/oil derived imports. The tech is here to make it happen.
- spodek 5y agoRole models help tremendously. So far we've had them almost uniquely in the other direction, but the motivation to follow will become overwhelming. Soon even Americans will choose not to run a/c 24/7 May to September and fly at a whim. Incidentally, less tech usually reduces pollution and increases health, longevity, stability, and resilience more, though it doesn't make the headlines.
- refurb 5y agoPipe dream. You’re looking at 50-100 years to wean the world off of oil.
- thefounder 5y agoThey said the same about electric cars and here we are.
- refurb 5y agoWhere is here? A few percent market share? The average age of vehicles is 12 years. Even if all gasoline vehicles are banned in 2030 you’d be looking close to 2050 to eliminate gas. And that’s in rich nations. You think India or China has the money to buy all new vehicles?
- thefounder 5y agoThe rich countries make the cars. All brand new cars will be electric very soon. China is into EV big time as well, especially since they don't have oil reserves and this is one in 100 years chance to disrupt the auto industry owned by foreign countries.
- lumost 5y ago
- timonoko 5y agoDid anybody mention that imported oil is their one and only source of energy. No solar or steady winds for 8 winter months. Fishing fleet, their only source of all-year-round income, runs on oil, of course.
- neverminder 5y agoYeah well, if Denmark stopped giving them cash they would unban it the next day.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- underseacables 5y agoGreenland gets a lot of money from Denmark, so stopping oil exploration will only have a very insignificant impact on their budget. I’m sure they figured out other ways for the country to earn money.
- teslaberry 5y agothe bottom line is the u.s. needs to destroy internaitnoal oil production, as well as domestic civilian oil consumption in the leedup to engineering the next major petroleum crisis, otherwise, there will be a dollar crisis. without 500 $ a barrel oil prices for a few years, and lot of u.s. exports, as well, the u..s cannot avoid dollar collapse. bitcoin be damned.