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.
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.
US interest in purchasing Greenland goes back a hundred years. It’s an important strategic location even without global warming - but yes, will become even more important as the world warms.
The Chinese were trying to get in on it too and Trump is reflexively anti-Chinese.
I can imagine the person/group pitching it stroking his ego and convincing him to buy "trumpland" though.
Really, it's upsetting. I'm desperate.
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.
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.
Seems the world is running out of local sand, and not just sand in general. I imagine there is plenty of sand in inaccessible places (Greenland being one of them) that would just cost too much to move to the location where it is needed.
The oil analogy is good. At some point you spend more energy getting it out of the ground than burning it.
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?
Well, it feeds the Amazon from the Sahara. https://www.wired.com/2015/02/sahara-keeps-amazon-green/
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?
Ample economical uranium supplies are relevant if there is large demand for uranium for power production (weapons programs can get more expensive uranium from wherever). But that's not where the world is going.
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...
Hong Kong on ice?
Buying is a loaded word. How about joining USA ? Then USA can duke it with Russia in the Artic game.
Or USA can crunch some numbers...might be cheaper to invade Canada. Fifth time is the charm as they say. Joking OK...maybe ;)
One does not simply sell a nation and a people. The colonial days are over.
"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.