5 ms·

This 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

• 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 ago
    For 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 ago
      Pragmatically, 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        Typically 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 ago
          Denmark 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 ago
            For 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 ago
        Greenlands 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 ago
        I 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 ago
          In the case where the US, Canada or UK are the invaders, regardless of how likely could that be.
          • DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
            Considering 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 ago
      Not 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 ago
    Given the user name and Greenland's unique geology, I'm going to guess geology.
    • stanrivers 5y ago
      Extra points for intelligence - thank you sir or madam, sounds like you are right