
Melting Greenland Is Awash in Sand - onetimemanytime
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/01/climate/greenland-glacier-melting-sand.html
======
bakuninsbart
> A large sand-exporting industry could help reduce this subsidy, which would
> be critical to Greenland eventually becoming independent.

I think the situation in Greenland is very interesting - and quite sad.
Independence is a complete pipedream. Greenland can only be independent once
its large reserves of ressources open up. - At that point, it would suddenly
become interesting to imperialist states like the US, China and Russia - but
it would be in no position to defend itself.

The local population of Greenland for the most part does not want to be
associated with Denmark and the EU, but at the same time it is their best shot
at retaining autonomy and increasing their standards of living. I really hope
that in the future there will be some more forms of positive engagement.

~~~
chvid
Greenlandic politics is held captured by a small group of corrupt populists.
The population outside the city elites lives in dire poverty with massive
social problems such as violence, incest, alcoholism ... And the Danish
politicians are too coward to do anything about it.

Why do the Americans want to buy this place? We already let you do anything
you want with it military wise. And the stuff you can dig out of the ground,
you can dig it out other places much cheaper.

~~~
dba7dba
I believe it is Trump who wants to buy it, not US government.

~~~
rapind
Or he's just floating distractions to flip the news cycle.

------
wazoox
Lesson I take: even the worst catastrophes are a source of profit. Concrete
making is one of the worst CO2 emitting industries, and is killing us. Sand
was lacking, but despair not: we can go on thanks to melting ice! The Titanic
is sinking but, hey, look, a new crate of champagne! What's not to love?

Really, it's upsetting. I'm desperate.

~~~
devoply
Desperate for what? It's a fact that capitalism can accommodate any
catastrophe and help those who have capital profit from it. That's why the
rich are not worried about global warming. They know eventually millions,
maybe even billions will die, and the planet will be theirs for the taking.
Imagine all the profit to be made from the creative destruction. They even
know that no one will make them pay for it... all the capital that has been
privatized that caused all the environmental damage, no one is going to go to
them and say hey you have to pay for all this global warming and all these
people suffering because of it. That boat has already sailed.

Same goes for rich nation vs. poor nations, the rich nations which
industrialized and caused this mess will not have to pay for it, the poor
nations that can't afford it will. Environmental destruction favors those who
do the destruction as they have reaped the rewards by the time those who have
not have to pay for it.

And maybe the retort is that this is too conspiratorial and no one ever meant
for any of this to happen it just did out of self-interest. And if that's how
schizophrenic your civilization is, in that it has no consciousness to see
what it's doing and stuff just happens out of self-interest and good
intentions. Then maybe you need to reconsider how you are doing things... and
maybe you need a narrative to guide your decision making that paints the
various actors for what they are rather than machines acting in self-interest.

------
dmix
> Currently almost all sand is mined within 50 miles of where it is used, said
> Jason C. Willett, a minerals commodity specialist with the United States
> Geological Survey. “Once you move it any distance it then costs too much,”
> he said.

Basically this is mostly just an interesting talking point for climate change
and science, and possibly for Greenland which has been in the news, and not
yet a viable source for sand.

It's similar to all of the oil in the world that has been discovered and is
accessible but is too expensive to mine.

~~~
Sharlin
Still, Australia already exports a _lot_ of sand to places like Singapore and
the Arabian peninsula, so evidently it’s not too expensive in all cases.

~~~
dmix
Yeah, its going to matter who's running out nearby in the meantime and for
Greenland that could be northern Europe, east-coast Canada, and north east US.

------
zeristor
I take it this is the right kind of sand?

Desert sand being buffeted by the wind is rounded, whilst coastal sand has
sharper edges.

How often does desert sand end up on beaches? How can one check for the
sharpness of sand, are the sand piles higher? Is it more abrasive?

~~~
inflatableDodo
>How often does desert sand end up on beaches?

Well, it feeds the Amazon from the Sahara.
[https://www.wired.com/2015/02/sahara-keeps-amazon-
green/](https://www.wired.com/2015/02/sahara-keeps-amazon-green/)

~~~
WillPostForFood
We get dust from the Sahara in the southern US as well.

[https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/dust-
sahara/](https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/dust-sahara/)

------
inflatableDodo
> _The world makes a lot of concrete, more than 10 billion tons a year, and is
> poised to make much more for a population that is forecast to grow by more
> than 25 percent by 2050. That makes sand, which is about 40 percent of
> concrete by weight, one of the most-used commodities in the world, and one
> that is becoming harder to come by in some regions._

And the more concrete you make, the more sand you get. What's not to like?
Could this be why the US government is currently trying to buy Greenland,
perhaps?

~~~
onetimemanytime
USA would be very smart to buy land, problem is that there are no sellers.
History has proven that buying is worth it.

Example: USA is running almost a $1 TRILLION deficit. Make it two and "buy"
Greenland. No rational person one would complain and Denmark /Greenlanders
could set up a special fund ala Norway with the money
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway)

~~~
Tinfoilhat666
The better option is that Denmark buys USA. They could make it a great
country. Really, Danish are open for that:
[https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/denmark-
offe...](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/denmark-offers-to-
buy-us)

~~~
chr1
If they don't include anti-democratic clauses in the contract the result will
be exactly the same as if USA bought Denmark, that is Denmark will become a
small state in USA.

------
ksaj
It's also a rare source of fresh water that is virtually/completely lacking in
microplastics -- so long as we dig to it, or harvest its melt before it mixes
with a century's-worth of increasingly contaminated seasonal layering.

------
holstvoogd
jeez, what is up with all these bullshit video-js-scrolling nightmares of
website?

~~~
endorphone
The dominant site that does it is the NY Times, and generally their
presentations are absolutely fantastic. Sometimes a bit of interactive media
is more compelling than a wall of text.

~~~
MisterTea
> Sometimes a bit of interactive media is more compelling than a wall of text.

"Sometimes" means different things to different people. I'd prefer to read a
well written article that paints a picture in my mind so it sticks. These
scrolling js/video nightmares are a great way to allow for lower quality
writing covered up by glitzy media. It's the McDonalds equivalent of
information dissemination design. The fact that the NY Times does it is
irrelevant. No thank you.

~~~
felixledem
This seems like such a negative view of the NYT's effort to showcase some
wonderful photography along with a well researched article. It is in no way
low quality writing.

------
pdelgallego
What if we don't destroy Greenland ecosystem?

~~~
glerk
What ecosystem? It's mostly frozen.

