Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#71

Post by xchaotic » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:29 AM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #21

madaxe_again wrote: post #10

I think, in hindsight, it will turn out to have been an exceptionally good call to retain Greenland. They have an interesting setup - there is no land ownership other than by the state, and you can only get permission to build by winning a lottery. There are minor exceptions for building small hunting cabins in the fjords, but this is negligible. The reason is to prevent private ownership from hindering possible oppo…

One interesting thing about Greenland is that climate change is making it increasingly rich in a resource that’s rapidly getting scarce elsewhere on the planet: sand . To be precise, the sort of sand that’s useful for making concrete and asphalt.

quality sand is incredibly abundant and cheap everywhere I lived. It wouldn't be economically feasible to export sand from Greenland.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#72

Post by wolco » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:29 AM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #6

thefounder wrote: post #5

Why doesn't US sell Flint to the europeans or even the russians? Preferably in euros or rubles.

The Europeans would absolutely love to buy a piece of the USA if they could.

they can.. in fact most citizens of most countries can be foreign land holders.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#73

Post by hdfbdtbcdg » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:29 AM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #65

Moru wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Greenland is believed by some geologists to have some of the world’s largest remaining oil resources. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_exploration_in_the...

Good thing Denmark owns it then. Less likely to exploit it

The Greenlandics decide not the Danish.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#74

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:32 AM UTC

m3at wrote: post #63

anbop wrote: post #11

National territory has a psychological and strategic value that cannot be bought and sold. Countries have gone to war over infinitesimally tiny pieces of land (Gaza, Falklands, Northern Ireland)... we do not need to look to a crystal ball to see why Denmark holds onto a gigantic landmass like Greenland.

Landmass is sometimes valued much lower than we might expect. In the eighteen century, France perceived Guadeloupe (an island in the carribean) as more valuable than Canada [1] and chose to keep the former over the later. Voltaire is often quoted to have dismissed Canada as "Quelques arpents de neige" (a few acres of snow). Granted, France lost a war and had limited saying in what to keep, but the difference in perce…

I'd honestly agree with that assessment given the situation at the time. Canada is more valuable than Guadeloupe in a vacuum, sure, but in the context of geographic and naval concerns Guadeloupe was likely more of a net positive to France. The primary output of sugar was much more economically important, and the relative size just adds defense costs for Canada. Also, while the main port in Guadeloupe is relatively unsheltered and poor, it is well-situated strategically in the Carribean against their main rivals (English and Dutch).

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#75

Post by fulafel » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

scythe wrote: post #29

BurningFrog wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far Greenland is a relatively poor and miserable place, with a population of only 56,674. Comparatively, Alaska offers a much better role model for arctic governance.

Alaska is much warmer. Only a few sheltered coastal bays on Greenland can sustain any trees at all. Meanwhile, Sitka and Ketchikan often enjoy snowless winters. This is due, I believe, to the Aleutian ridge blocking the transport of cold water from the Arctic (contrast with the Labrador current).

Indeed. Also consider that vikings managed to colonise Iceland but not Greenland.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#76

Post by adjkant » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:42 AM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #34

The author compares Greenland to Puerto Rico, seeming to make the assumption that if somebody made a good offer, America would happily sell Puerto Rico. Can any other Americans speak to the truth of this? It seems absurd to me that a country would happily sell off a territory and make a whole bunch of citizens non-citizens just for the financial benefit. Are Puerto Ricans not Americans? Do americans really view Puert…

> Are Puerto Ricans not Americans?

They really aren't treated as such, particularly of late. I doubt many would be against it, though this is 100% an outside perspective and I agree with others that it should be self determination via vote if it was ever to occur.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#77

Post by Sharlin » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:59 AM UTC

xchaotic wrote: post #71

Sharlin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One interesting thing about Greenland is that climate change is making it increasingly rich in a resource that’s rapidly getting scarce elsewhere on the planet: sand . To be precise, the sort of sand that’s useful for making concrete and asphalt.

quality sand is incredibly abundant and cheap everywhere I lived. It wouldn't be economically feasible to export sand from Greenland.

Maybe everywhere you have lived. Meanwhile, they're already exporting sand from Australia to places like Saudi Arabia.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/01/climate/green...

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#78

Post by ec109685 » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 6:00 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #59

elliotec wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Greenland is 836,300 mi², while Denmark is 16,577 mi². Imagine the effects of climate change in 200+ years - Greenland could be VERY valuable and important then.

The issue is that if Greenland was valuable, Denmark wouldn't be able to hold it.

Some country would invade it? That seems unlikely these days…

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#79

Post by Sharlin » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 6:00 AM UTC

brighter2morrow wrote: post #51

jopsen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially following WWII, in which Denmark offered no resistance.

Why should Danes have resisted in WW2?

Because they were occupied by Nazi Germany?

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#80

Post by jmaa » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

Having lived in Denmark for 20 years, I find this in many ways reprehensible. Cooking down the complex geopolitical problem of whether to sell a large piece of territory (with people!) to exclusively monetary concerns.

This is as culturally daft as asking "why is Ireland such a problem for Brexit? Just build a wall!"