THE SET-UP: The term “resource curse” refers to “a paradoxical situation in which a country underperforms economically, despite being home to valuable natural resources.” Venezuela’s oil is a good textbook example of the resource curse. Their economy’s dependence on oil makes it vulnerable to a sudden collapse should the price of oil drop precipitously or their revenue be cut off by sanctions. They should diversify, but they have so much oil it is hard to invest in anything but more oil production. When the money’s good, it’s really good and money usually chases more money.
But I think there’s another resource curse … it’s the curse of being a smaller, less developed nation with valuable resources—particularly strategic resources—in the middle of a cutthroat geopolitical scrum. I’m thinking Nigeria’s oil and the Congo’s mineral wealth and Indonesia’s rubber back in the 20th Century, among others.
In these cases, the curse is the neo-colonialism and corruption that comes when major powers intervene to gain control of or access to a militarily weaker nation’s resources. Throughout the Cold War that meant meddling (or worse) in countries like Guatemala and Iran. Neo-colonialists often created their allies by installing clients in positions of power through less-than-democratic means.
And that’s the type of resource curse Greenland might suffer should Donald Trump refuse to take “no” for an answer:
“I also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland. We strongly support your right to determine your own future. And if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security. And we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it really for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it — one way or the other, we’re going to get it.”
It started out okay … but “one way or the other”? That’s awfully ominous.
Greenland's Prime Minister Mute Egede responded to Trump by stating simply:
We do not want to be Americans, nor Danes, we are Kalaallit (Greenlanders). The Americans and their leader must understand that. We are not for sale and cannot be taken. Our future is determined by us in Greenland.
Unfortunately for the Kalaallit, they are sitting on a strategically valuable resource in the middle of a cutthroat geopolitical scrum. But their rare earth minerals might be the least of their curses if the changing climate that’s opening them up to the world also “blesses” them with a bounty of potable water in a parched, belligerent world. - jp
TITLE: Fearing toxic waste, Greenland ended uranium mining. Now, they could be forced to restart - or pay $11bn
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/05/greenland-mining-energy-transition-minerals-environmental-laws-uranium-rare-earth-toxic-waste-investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds-aoe
EXCERPT: [T]he mountains above the town of Narsaq, in south-west Greenland, [are] home to one of the largest undeveloped deposits of rare-earth minerals and uranium in the world: the Kvanefjeld site, or Kuannersuit in Greenlandic. It contains high concentrations of metals such as terbium and neodymium, which are used to manufacture permanent magnets in wind turbines and electric cars. Every major power in the world is scrambling to get access to these minerals for carbon-free energy and transport.
A proposed open-pit mine would be worth about $7.5bn (£6bn) if it went ahead, according to the site operator, generating income for the island’s economy.
But when the mining company acquired the site in 2007, the impact of potentially radioactive waste contaminating drinking water and nearby sheep farms alarmed local people. They feared that the “tailings” – a slurry of ground-up waste from mining – would be laced with radioactive waste and could contaminate waterways or spread as dust in the air.
Greenland has a troubled history with mining pollution: the sites of lead and zinc mines developed in the 1970s remain polluted more than 50 years later, with fish, mussels and seaweed still testing positive for toxins. The ecosystem surrounding Narsaq is rich with seals, whales and other marine life, which Inuit hunter-gatherers rely on for their livelihoods.
In 2021, Greenland went to the polls, in a contest to which uranium was so central, international media dubbed it “the mining election”. The people voted in a green, leftwing government, led by the Inuit Ataqatigiit party, which campaigned against uranium mining due to the potential pollution.
When it took power, the new government kept its campaign promise, passing legislation to ban uranium mining. While not primarily a uranium mine, the Kvanefjeld project would require unearthing the radioactive substance to extract its rare earth oxides, putting it in violation of the law.
Many Greenlanders celebrated the vote as a victory for health and the environment. But three years later, the company is suing Greenland for stopping its plans, demanding the right to exploit the deposit or receive compensation of up to $11.5bn: nearly 10 times the country’s 8.5bn krone (£950m) annual budget.
Kvanefjeld’s operator, Energy Transition Minerals (ETM), the Australian-listed company formerly known as Greenland Minerals, argues that the decision to ban mining amounts to expropriation by Greenland’s government and any environmental concerns would be addressed with the “best environmental practice, where this was technically, practically and financially possible”.
Often, companies in such cases sue for vast sums – claiming not only the costs of planning or exploration, but also for all the future profits they expected to make from a cancelled project. In the Greenland case, ETM, which is partly owned by the Chinese government-backed Shenghe Resources, said it had spent more than $100m developing the site in the expectation it would be allowed to operate it as a mine. Its $11.5bn claim is based on the $7.5bn value of the mine plus $4bn in interest.
After the 2021 general election, the value of the mining company collapsed. But now, investor optimism is changing. After Trump’s comments about Greenland, the company’s share price has surged – more than quadrupling since November. Greenlanders go to the polls again this month, and a new government could allow mining to go ahead. The company has raised more capital, following the bounce in its share price.
Greenland’s government is keen to develop a mining industry that will sustain its future independence without critically damaging its environment. Currently, the country relies on Denmark for about half of its annual budget.
While there is just one active mine, the island is being prospected by many of the world’s largest companies, including one linked to Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. Southern Greenland has become a new frontier of global mining, with at least 124 projects at various stages of development across the island. It has also become the latest site of the growing economic confrontation between the US and China, with Donald Trump repeatedly threatening to annex Greenland.
There is a range of opinion about the mine in Narsaq, says Kitdlak Lynge, a production management assistant at the slaughterhouse, as we wait.
“People are divided into two different groups because of the uranium,” he says. “I am not worried about whether the mine happens, I am worried about how. The plans I have seen are not acceptable. It’s going to destroy the water.”
“The chemicals and the tailings that they’re going to use, I do not want them to be left here,” says Lynge. “If they could ship them outside of Greenland, I wouldn’t mind. [But] it will affect the whole area if mining starts – the chemicals, the industry and the changes in the environment will affect the whole area.”
TITLE: Climate Change Makes Greenland A More Attractive Destination For Tourists
https://www.tourism-review.com/climate-change-threatens-greenland-news14822
EXCERPTS: Climate change is significantly impacting Greenland. Summers on the island, located at the edge of the Arctic, are becoming grayer and rainier, while winters are milder. However, rising temperatures also alter fish behavior, which presents significant challenges for Greenland's fishing industry, which is traditionally its most important economic sector. Currently, 95 percent of Greenland's export revenues come from fishing.
Climate change also presents opportunities for Greenland. The thick ice sheet in the interior is melting, and the receding sea ice may open up new trade and shipping routes along Greenland's coast in the future, particularly along the Northeast Passage. This development positions Greenland centrally in global shipping routes rather than at the periphery.
These changes could also benefit tourism in Greenland. Greenlandic politicians are focusing on the fishing and tourism sectors, though they are implementing severe restrictions to manage these developments responsibly.
According to official statistics, Greenland welcomed 92,637 tourists in 2022. In the following year, the number increased to 131,767. Many locals have expressed concern that Nuuk becomes overcrowded, especially when two cruise ships anchor in the fjord simultaneously during the summer. Tourism needs to maintain a respectful balance with the island's small population.
Various ideas have long been floated about how Greenland could leverage climate change to generate revenue for building its state structures. One proposal involves harnessing the vast amounts of meltwater from the gigantic ice sheet to produce significant quantities of clean electricity in the future. This energy, generated through hydropower, could then be used to produce hydrogen or ammonia for export.
Ammonia is crucial in fertilizer production and can also be used as fuel for combustion engines. However, only a tiny fraction of the ammonia needed globally is produced using renewable energy sources.
Additionally, the green electricity generated on the island could enhance the efficiency of mining activities. It could also be utilized by power-intensive data centers, which would benefit from the naturally cooler Arctic environment, reducing the energy needed for server cooling. However, establishing such data centers remains a conceptual idea at this stage.
[T]here has [also] been discussion about whether shipping meltwater as drinking water to other parts of the world is viable. This potential business model is based on the understanding that access to clean water will likely become a significant issue for humanity in the future; indeed, conflicts may arise over this precious resource.
Researchers estimate that the meltwater from Greenland's ice sheet, the second largest in the world after the Antarctic ice reserves, could contribute to a sea level rise of approximately seven meters.
TITLE: Distorted maps have misled you: Greenland isn't as big as you think.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/03/05/how-big-is-greenland/81597696007/
EXCERPTS: For strategic and resource reasons, Greenland looms large in the imagination of President Donald Trump.
But geographically, the island doesn't loom quite as large as you might think. Centuries of flawed maps have led to a misconception about Greenland's size, which is nowhere near as big as it looks on the familiar flat world map.
It's certainly not a small island: It's about three times the size of Texas. But on most maps, Greenland looks almost as big as the entire continent of Africa.
In fact, it's 14 times smaller than Africa, something that is apparent when you look at its actual size to scale on a globe.
The problem is creating flat maps to depict a round planet – something's got to give. In the case of the most common map projections used today, what gives is the size of places near the poles.
The only way to accurately represent a round Earth on a flat piece of paper is to distort some part of it. Think of covering a ballon in pieces of wet newspaper to make a planet in grade school – you have to scrunch up the paper at the top and bottom.
The map problem is that in reverse - to get the middle of the globe to fit smoothly, the edges have to be flattened out.
Many of the maps we use today are based on a solution created by Gerardus Mercator, a Flemish geographer. In 1569 he drew a world map, what's become known as the Mercator projection.
It did a good job of showing countries' shapes and was excellent at showing ocean sailing courses, very important to merchants of the day. And it was reasonably good at depicting Europe.
But it did that at the expense of places further north and south such as Antarctica, Greenland, Russia, which look far larger in this projection than they actually are.
There are other projections that fix this problem, but they look odd and convoluted if you grew up with Mercator maps.
Greenland is still pretty big. Depending on how you define its political status, it's around the 12th largest nation in the world.
Though it's actually not a separate country but a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. It first became a Danish colony in 1721 and was granted self governance in 2009.
Greenland's 56,000 residents have their own government and parliament, which manage internal affairs. Denmark controls the island's foreign policy and defense. Greenlanders are Danish citizens.
Their island is roughly 20 times the size of Denmark proper.