Greenland's Resources Come with a Hidden Cost

Dear Editor,

The bizarre shared delusion of the Trump administration that the United States just has to 'have' Greenland is nonsensical on numerous grounds. The sovereignty of its peoples and land have been covered extensively already, but I'd put forth yet another detrimental consequence that invading Greenland would have: exacerbating global heating.

The Arctic has been warming 4x faster than the global average since the 1970's; sea- and land-ice is disappearing. This may open up new economic opportunities to exploit shipping routes and mineral/fossil fuel resources, which is precisely what the Trump administration is focusing on, but the costs of this approach will outweigh the benefits.

Ice-covered Arctic land and waters reflect solar radiation back into space via the albedo effect, rather than trapping it here and further warming. The Arctic influences ocean currents that sustain fisheries. Permafrost locks carbon and methane in the ground. Ice sheets store massive amounts of water that, if melted, could raise global waters 7.4 meters (for us Yanks, that's over 24 feet).

A 2019 review in Nature Communications estimated that if we allow warming to continue to 3° Celsius by 2100, Arctic ice loss could trigger 70$ trillion in economic impacts; impacts on human productivity and disease, disruptions to agriculture, extreme weather impacts - it all adds up.

Let's take a step back and ask ourselves - is the forcible seizure and exploitation of Greenland's resources a net economic gain, or does it simply add weight to the argument that we should leave Greenland alone?

Sincerely,

Nathan Dombeck

Janesville, WI