Government Eyes Opportunities as Greenland Melts
Life is difficult in a country that is 80 percent ice.
That's why 58,000-person Greenland has a different stake in climate change than the rest of us: warming could lead to economic growth.
The ice cap covering most of the country has begun to melt, uncovering oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean. The Economist reports that the Arctic could hold 90 billion barrels of oil and 47 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, most near Greenland.
The government's interest in thawing areas has increased since June, when Greenland was promised gradual autonomy from Denmark, its colonial overseer since 1721. Greenland's government now controls the destiny of its resources, a situation recently profiled in The Economist.
Greenland's lack of economic opportunities fuels social problems. Unemployment is high and educational levels are low. Most export revenues come from fishing, but the government relies on aid from Denmark amounting to about $11,000 per Greenlander per year. Widespread depression, alcoholism, suicide and domestic violence help place Greenland's life expectancy below that of many other developing countries.
Digg
Facebook
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Printer-friendly version
Comments
A Complicated Situation
This article highlights the unfortunate fact that much of society is only concerned with economics and profit instead of justice and protecting the already depredated environment. It seems that we truly live in an upside down world when global warming and the melting of polar ice caps can be viewed as a fortuitous occurrence. While it may be true that melting glaciers will uncover more oil and increase the economic development for Greenland and the Inuit communities, we would be ignoring the reason that these new oil reserves can now be retrieved, which is ironically largely due to the burning of fossil fuels such as oil. Economic progress has superseded the protection of the Earth.
Most of the positive economic ramifications for melting ice caps in Greenland that were highlighted in The Economist all would perpetuate the degradation of the environment. For example, warmer weather and less ice in the Arctic region increases tourism and facilitates the transportation of goods by ships, but more traveling in the region will engender more negative environmental effects.
One intriguing debate that arises in this story is deciding which country has ownership over the water containing the oil. Canada, Russia, the U.S., and the people of Greenland all believe they should have access to these areas. This appears to be a classic bureaucratic struggle in which the most powerful and wealthy will likely be granted access to these reserves while the true owners of the water/land, the citizens of the Inuit community, will be left with nothing. This, of course, would not be just. It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.
Thanks for providing a link to this article. I enjoyed reading it.
Post new comment