Also, what's the point in loading and unloading in Iceland, when you're already fairly close to ports like Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg? I get that you could in theory ship around the pole, split your containers in Iceland and ship to the US and EU from there. It's just that unloading a container ship isn't that fast, and we're already shipping so much that the load could just be distributed across multiple ships with separate destinations.
If most of the population has district heating, there isn’t much of a load per residence.
But we can dream that it's free, right?
This site says 90% of the population is covered by the system.
https://www.greencitytimes.com/geothermal-district-heating-i...
Geothermal here is used for heating homes, electricity production comes from Hydropower generation (dams).
Source, an Icelander.
Source: the actual data.
The aluminum smelters are paying something like $0.02/kWh.
Foreign buyers who setup real industry will pay about $0.05/kWh.
Bitcoin miners will pay $0.10/kWh.
The real cost to produce from volcanic sources is under $0.01/kWh.
Denmark's 35¢/kWh for households is only 9¢/kWh for industrial users, and (from another site) even less for "very large industrial" users.
Iceland's figure isn't given.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
In case your electricity is run by the government you might also have Freedom of Information laws like Austria, Slovenia or Sweden that would grant you access to such public-sector contracts, if requested.
Though I don’t see much of an issue as that is just a contract between two private parties. What is the ownership structure like in Iceland?
Also in the case of some of the most electricity consuming industries they are mostly buying from themselves (Pohjolan Voima which is a owned by a group of heavy industry companies)
Electricity cost will always be higher during winter where it is needed for heating. And this is where households will also use more.
This is why you don’t see upm kymmene, stora enso, kemira, etc profits go down when electricity prices are high (they go up as they can sell what they don’t need for massive profits). This mainly applies during "normal" times (when olkiluoto nuclear plants go down which they own a big chunk of or something like that the situation might change)
> one of the biggest producers of refined aluminum
> Alcoa arrived in 2007 after Iceland built a giant power plant on the other side of the island, near a sparsely populated region where the fishing industry was in decline.
Iceland’s electric utility built five highland dams that capture glacial meltwater. The largest of the resulting reservoirs is roughly the size of Manhattan. The water is piped 25 miles to an underground power plant, then dropped a quarter-mile down another pipe to make the turbines spin. Finally, the resulting electricity is transmitted 47 miles on high-voltage lines to the ocean’s edge.
Electricity in Iceland costs about 30 percent less than what Alcoa might pay in the United States.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rahnj%C3%BAkar_Hydropow...
I would say that Norway has an advantage because Iceland's remoteness makes it more expensive to ship the bauxite there (there is no bauxite mining in Iceland itself) and the aluminum back. Still, it's apparently the second largest aluminum producer in Europe.
Thousands of jobs left the town and now a several billion dollar plant sits idle. The idea recently floated they sell the land, power and water rights to MSFT for their new water cooled data center’s nearby, but MSFT didn’t want to own all that infra.
But yet that's still where the lion's share of revenue for their Government comes from.
However, like many network efforts it's a winner-takes-almost-all market. Tanjung Pelepas is just across the border in Malaysia but it was too little, too late.
A lot of Singapore’s thing is also manufacturing from raw imports and then shipping out processed goods.
Hawaii isn't a hub because it's the only land for thousands of miles. You want the hub to be on the way to wherever you're going, not a quarter of the way across the world from there.
A lot of Australia's resources are bought and sold via Singapore precisely for the tax advantages of funneling things through there without the actual resources going through their ports.
In fact, there are. If you look at ports by tonnage, Port Klang in Malaysia is bigger than Rotterdam, and Tanjung Priok in Indonesia is bigger than New York.
So you can fill up a ship in LA with containers going to 10 different Asian ports, and drop them all off in Singapore.
This works best if everyone does that at one central location.
You're right other Asian ports are very big, but I think they more serve as origin or destination.
For everyone else, Singapore is important because it sits right at the end of the historical trade route of the Straits of Malacca. There is a whole wikipedia entry about it.
Not a given, but an okay speculation fodder.
Iceland not all. You can easily get around them. The Azores were the trading and fruit manifactoring hub there instead. They could deliver all the fruits for all of Europe. What can Iceland deliver to Europe? They are also in the center, not the north route.
In either case, Europe and the US have such efficient rail/road freight that I can't see economics of putting a hub in Iceland making sense. You may as well have ships travel direct to the respective continental mainlands.
Plus your crew may need some downtime sometimes.
Costs of carrying fuel are negligible.
Most cargo shipping saves fuel by just running slower.
Perhaps a sky high dream but wouldn’t this effectively given ships unlimited fuel?
A more realistic option would be to build more large reactors on land, then use the heat and power to manufacture synthetic liquid fuel to burn in ship engines. Or to charge batteries for short range vessels.
For example, I saw a demonstration of a nuclear powered device (don’t want to say reactor per say) that was taped for a documentary I saw on PBS, it was the size of a water heater or so and had a self protection system in case of something like a rupture, that at least during the demonstration stopped it cold in its tracks preventing meltdown and made any recovered materials from tampering worthless. It was in the testing phase though, and this was at least 5 years ago. My understanding is they wanted it to power critical infrastructure onsite like hospitals but feasibly it could power a home if I recall correctly or possibly a couple homes.
Another thing I read about was using some form of partially enriched uranium as energy source for heating homes and water heating. It won’t power one but it’s not (and can’t possibly be if I recall correctly) weapons grade by any stretch of the imagination
Maybe we should as a society look a little closer at smaller reactors. Hard to say, I’m no expert
Crew requirements to operate a navy reactor are also probably pretty high. A cargo ship usually has a shockingly small crew.
There's proliferation concerns and you likely wouldn't be able to operate on some routes.
Limiting range also lets you use smaller craft with things like smaller fuel tanks.
Iceland does quite a business on this sitting between euro and American destinations. Greenland might get into this too.
Also probably gets some crews at home each night flying the leg back instead of needing to stay on the mainland for a day/night before doing a later return leg.
A bit of science fiction maybe, but they could use geothermal and wind energy to produce hydrogen.
Interestingly, cars have similar economics. Details vary quite a bit, but every 100lb (nearly two full tanks of gas for me) makes you 1% less efficient. It only really matters if you have driving habits that tend to burn that excess energy somewhere, like rolling in hot to a stop light and hitting your brakes rather than anticipating the light cycle and coasting in.
The value is cross-loading delivers greater network effects. You have many possible paths to get to your destination, and can pick the most optimal for your particular needs at each step.
Most container ships are on a sailing schedule - they visit a set number of ports, and generally stick to it (absent other issues).
So you can get out of your origin country quicker by just picking the next ship with the cheapest rates going to approximately the right location.
For the shipping lines it's more efficient to just pick up a lot of containers at once and visit multiple ports than try and get a full load to just one destination.
It also means that each port they visit they're also getting paid for new cargo for onward destinations, not running empty (or waiting for another full load) to do another trip.
Maersk list ship schedules here: https://www.maersk.com/schedules/portCalls and with a few clicks, it's obvious that most ships call at many ports.
...between SEO spam and AI generated nonsense proliferating like wildfire, that's becoming less and less tenable by the day.
I always wonder how realistic is this? I assume we dont need special vessel for this shipping lane and we can somehow always clear all the ice before us.
With climate change there are longer and longer times of the year when there is no ice. And when it does reform it is often not as thick as before, so less robust ships may be needed.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
The Arctic is expected to be ice free by 2027. That is what matters when it comes to shipping.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/12/04/an-ice-free-arctic...
> the earliest ice-free conditions (the first single occurrence of an ice-free Arctic) *could* occur in 2020–2030s under all emission trajectories and are *likely* to occur by 2050
good one!
also, i was thinking about UK joining EFTA, though so far they didnt...
It belongs to the few thousands people that live there and want to be part of Denmark and Europe.
There's really no claim to Greenland other than "it's close".
The population of Greenland, per Wikipedia, is 56,583. The US could offer $50,000 to each man, woman, and child in Greenland. That's just over $2.8bn, which is pocket change for the US. The domestic (Greenlandic) politics around this could shift dramatically with such an offer. Throw in a few billion for Denmark (or a promise to continue to engage in NATO, or some other core interest of Denmark's) and you've probably got a sealed deal.
I'm not saying that the Greenlanders should do this, but it's not nearly as unrealistic as some people seem to think. I'd be surprised if Trump actually followed up on any of this though.
Re subsidies, the US federal government subsidised local and state governments to the tune of $1.1 trillion in 2023 alone, with funding disproportionately directed to poorer regions (such as Greenland, were it to join). That's not including direct spending on Native Americans, for which most Greenlanders would also be eligible. With no special arrangements whatsoever, Greenland would likely see a comparable amount of subsidy in the US as it does today (and very likely much greater economic growth). In reality, some level of subsidy guarantee for a period of some years could easily be part of the accession negotiations.
The real question isn't whether the US can afford Greenland - they can, many times over - the real question is the value of sovereignty (and I don't have the answer to that).
That's a laughable offer.
Believe it or not, Europeans are not on sale and they do not have that much sympathy or willingness to leave in the US. The few that do, do so for money they would not make in Europe. And money is not an issue for Greenlanders or Danes. They both do much better than people in many US states.
But where in the world did you get the idea people in Denmark do “much better” than people in even the poorest US state?
Median income in the poorest US state (Mississippi) is slightly higher than median income in Denmark, with much lower taxes even if you consider private health insurance a tax.
A similar analysis of people in the poorest decile, after famously stingy US transfer payments, has disposable income for the poor in Mississippi coming out ahead of being poor in Denmark.
I keep seeing folks make this argument. I would love to live in Denmark, but the reason to live there is not because of higher income. The US is just much, much richer than almost all of Europe (Switzerland and Luxembourg are the exceptions, not Denmark).
It’s totally fine to value things like social cohesion, terrific bike infrastructure, and low income inequality. Those are areas Denmark beats the US.
But income? It’s not even close.
Cost of living is much higher in Denmark, so making that adjustment isn't going to help your argument.
If you assume Danish university education is comparable to paying full freight at Harvard (which no one with a median Mississippi income would have to do) or some other heavy weighting on things that are private in the US, you might get close.
Certainly one can argue there's a large intangible benefit to not having to think about health insurance, and I for one place a large premium on having the opportunity to bike everywhere. I'm not arguing life in Denmark is bad.
No doubt there are many public services in Denmark that make transfer payments to the bottom quintile difficult to measure, but I just have never seen a credible argument that in terms of disposable consumer surplus, the median adult does better in Denmark than Mississippi, accounting for all reasonable costs.
And, of course, most Americans are richer than the median Mississippian.
It seems great to argue about the value of things Denmark is good at, but having a large consumer surplus just doesn't strike me as being one of those things. It's also not a value I think the median Dane agrees should be weighted that high, which is fine.
I’m from Iceland, who also suffered (though much much less; so much less it is not comparable) under danish colonization. And I’m of the opinion that the biggest help Iceland can offer, is cooperate in cultural events and institutions, such as sport competitions (especially football and handball), theater (a collaboration between the two national theaters would be lovely), music (there artists from each country should be constantly performing in the other), etc.
As I've noted elsewhere, you're conflating actual honest colonialism (Denmark's) with a hypothetical free choice to join the United States.
By what logic are the people of Iceland free to decide whether or not to join the European Union, but the people of Greenland are not free to decide whether to join the United States?
> And I’m of the opinion that the biggest help Iceland can offer, is cooperate in cultural events and institutions, such as sport competitions (especially football and handball), theater (a collaboration between the two national theaters would be lovely), music (there artists from each country should be constantly performing in the other), etc.
Sounds beautiful. I'm a big fan of this idea. I'd include the inhabitants of the Arctic regions of Canada and the US too.
I think you may be misunderstanding where my argument stems from.
It is off course for the people of Greenland to decide whether or not they will sell their country to the USA. However both their legislator and their people have made it abundantly clear that they are not for sale[1], so the argument here is kind of moot. What I‘m arguing in the other thread is that USA‘s prospects of buying Greenland are of colonialist nature. Those are colonial dreams and nothing else. Expending your territorial control is colonialism, even when you pay to convince your future subjects to fall willingly under your colonial rule, it is still colonialism.
My biggest fear in all of this is actually that Denmark will sell parts of Greenland from under the Greenlandic people in illegal deals with the USA similar to how the UK carved out the Chagos islands from their Mauritius colony just before independence and handed Diego Garcia to USA so they could build their military base there, expelling all the Chagosians that lived there in the meantime. USA and Denmark have already done so in North Greenland. A deal which in 50 years time will be found to be illegal but at that time it is too late to do anything about it. Such a deal would also be colonial behavior, both on the USA, and on Denmark.
Over here I‘m just pointing out that Greenland is lacking in some areas of their economy, and there are prices persuade some Greenlanders (I know some members of the Greenlandic home rule who would love a good old fashioned business deals with USA, both for mining and for their military operation [probably looking at how the martial assistance gave Iceland a bunch of infrastructure in return {wink, wink} for a couple of military bases and joining NATO]).
1: https://www.democracynow.org/2024/12/27/greenland_trump_colo...
The EU has many people and offices working on promoting and facilitating 'EU enlargement'. The EU offers tangible economic benefits to countries that join, including direct monetary payments, which it refuses to offer to non-members (as the UK found out the hard way). Is the EU therefore a colonialist power?
I think you're stretching the word colonialism well past its breaking point, and in so doing trying to erase the massive difference between real colonialism - such as Denmark's invasion and annexation of Greenland - and voluntary membership in a democratic union with economic benefits (such as the US, or the EU).
> My biggest fear in all of this is actually that Denmark will sell parts of Greenland from under the Greenlandic people
I agree that would be bad, but your fear is misplaced. The only people with the power to decide on Greenland's future are the Greenlanders. There's nothing wrong - despite your consistent use of words like 'sell' - with the US explaining or promoting the economic benefits of joining the Union (the EU does exactly the same), provided the final decision is made by the Greenlanders.
I think you are being naive if you think the USA is only talking about a bilateral agreement with Greenland which Greenland is free to enter or leave at anytime. The USA has in recent history purchased (or more commonly borrowed) territories with total disregards to the people that live there. They have on numerous occasions broken local laws (or more commonly gotten another colonial power to break their laws) to undermine the sovereignty of other countries. The most recent example is the military bases they keep in Iraq, despite Iraq telling them to leave (military bases the USA got by illegally invading and illegally occupying Iraq). I think it is a mistake to not take the USA at their words when they say they wont to annex new territory, and I think it is a good idea to assume their intentions are just as bad as they sound.
You can 'but Iraq!' all you want, but you're attempting to make the absolutely absurd argument that the US would somehow be more colonialist than literal, actual, historical colonialism. On the one hand is the US - a country whose greatest crime you can name is that they waged a war you didn't like once - and on the other is Denmark's centuries-long annexation and colonial occupation of the very country you claim to care about, including strenuous attempts to eradicate the local culture / customs and forced sterilisation of the indigenous people.
At the end of the day, the only distinction here is that you like one political union, and you do not like the other, so you blind yourself to the downsides of one and shamelessly slander the other. Unless the US spends two centuries ruthlessly attempting to wipe the Greenlanders out, I'll take 'proven historical fact' over vague aspersions around future hypotheticals vis-à-vis who is more of a 'colonialist'.
I reiterate my overall position: it falls to the people of Greenland to decide on their future, and they are fully capable of making their own decision, despite imperialist tut-tutting from Europe. The economic and security possibilities of joining the US are great, but independence is worthy too. The only horrible outcome here is continued subjugation to colonial European rule.
They can be exploited for the benefit of the residents, why on earth would they sell that for the undefined "benefits" of being an exploited territory of either the US or China?
Y'all can fear-monger about 'neo-colonialism', but the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark, what with its actual colonialism.
While Denmark is by far the biggest colonial exploiter of Greenland (including genocidal ethnodemographic policies as late as the 1970s), it is by no means the only one. Other exploiters include Norway, who tried to annex East Greenland, Faroe Islands, who set up a failed factory in South Greenland, Iceland, who has been exploiting the fisheries around Greenland, and—the second worse offender—USA who set up an illegal military base in Pituffik, North Greenland, including forcefully relocating its residents to Qaanaaq, crash landing a bomber armed with a nuclear bomb, illegally using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs, polluting their surroundings, etc.
PS. what you are describing as neo-colonialism, is just plain old fashion colonialism. Neo-colonialism is already a defined term which does not involve annexing territories. In fact its defining feature is exploitation without direct territorial control. In my opinion I wish it wasn’t called neo-colonialism, as it sort of diminishes the true horrors of European colonialism, and is not offering any meaningful distinction from the standard exploitation of global capitalism and neo-liberalism.
PPS. It can be argued that Iceland’s and the Faroes’ exploitation of Greenland are neo-colonial in nature, as opposed to pure colonial, like Denmark’s, Norway’s and the USA’s.
"Illegally" using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs? Illegal under whose law? The illegitimate dictates of the occupying Danish government?
You can point fingers and "what about?" all day long, but there's only state that colonised Greenland, and that is Denmark. Whereas the United States - while far from perfect - played a pivotal role in pressuring Europe to dismantle its rapacious colonial empires.
Ultimately, the only people who have the right to decide the future and laws of Greenland are the people of Greenland. Whether that is independence, joining the Union as an equal, or continued colony status under Denmark is a matter for them and them alone. Unlike Denmark, the US isn't going to invade and annex Greenland.
> In a Danish Supreme Court judgment of 28 November 2003 the move [forceful relocation from Pituffik to Qaanaaq to make way for the Thule airbase] was considered an expropriative intervention. During the proceedings it was recognized by the Danish government that the movement was a serious interference and an unlawful act against the local population.[1]
> In 1995, a political scandal arose in Denmark after a report revealed the government had given tacit permission for nuclear weapons to be located in Greenland, in contravention of Denmark's 1957 nuclear-free zone policy.[2]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qaanaaq
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
Both of these cases were Denmark breaking their own laws to fulfill American requests of US imperialism on their territory. This is very similar to how the UK broke their own laws to hand over Diego Garzia illegally from the Chagocean Islanders to build a USA military base.
The colonialism in those instances, even though the responsibility is ultimately on their colonizers (Denmark), the USA very much participates, and is the main perpetrator of these events.
Greenland, were it to choose to enter the US, would do so freely and in full understanding and acceptance of existing US law, with equal rights and representation in the Congress that makes said law.
There is no comparison between a free and informed entry into a union of equals, and the imposed legal regime of an occupying state (where the rule of law is apparently so weak that the metropolitan colonial government itself readily breaks its own laws).
The damages from these illegal activities remain to this day, they were done by the USA for USA benefits. USA is very much the exploiter here, there is no spinning it otherwise.
Greenland has more exploiters than just Denmark. USA is very much Greenland’s second worst exploiter in history.
Also a note here, this is all before the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (which the USA hasn’t signed), and before the establishment of the Inatsisartut. So Danish laws ware the only way in which Greenlanders were able to affect their own affairs. Denmark has since then granted Greenland autonomy and signed and ratified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
From a purely legal perspective, the US is not bound by domestic Danish law under any circumstances (and vice versa: cf the doctrine of state immunity).
From the perspective of legal philosophy, the US cannot break Danish law in Greenland, because Danish law is not legitimate law in Greenland, any more than Israeli law is legitimate law in the West Bank. You'll certainly find other perspectives on this within legal philosophy, but any philosophical argument that attempts to reconcile the premise that (a) colonialism is illegitimate, and that (b) colonised or occupied people are nonetheless bound to obey the legal order instituted by an occupier is necessarily going to be quite contorted.
From the perspective of Western liberal-democratic political philosophy, government without the consent of the governed is illegitimate, its laws lack authority, and it is the right (and duty) of the people so governed to overthrow and disestablish that government, which they have no obligation to do peacefully or within the bounds of the existing political order (e.g. many wars of independence, American Revolution, etc).
Ergo, the US cannot violate domestic Danish law in Greenland, both because that's legally speaking nonsense (state immunity), and because domestic Danish law is not simply not legitimate in Greenland. Were Denmark not occupying Greenland at the time, the US government would be able to negotiate with Greenland about the possibility of placing a base there, and the Greenlanders themselves could decide whether this is something they want and what benefit they are able to secure from such a deal (Iceland, for example, has greatly benefited from such an arrangement, being able to secure its freedom from Danish colonialism with US assistance). Denmark's domestic laws, and the extent to which Denmark does or does not enforce its laws, is a domestic matter for Denmark. In as far as it purports to legislate for other countries, and then not even obey those laws itself, that's - again - a domestic matter for Denmark.
I hope this clarifies my argument.
You're watching the reflections on the wall of Plato's cave and think you have any understanding of the society that cast them.
Edit: I also see in your other comments that you praise Xi Jinping's China. Enough said.
Over a century ago is not recently, even relatively.
If an undiscovered, uninhabited island forms in international water, and some country claims it, if they want it in their permanent lands, they will annex it. There's not necessarily conflict or appropriation there.
The issue with annexation of Crimea or the Golan Heights is that the holding of the territory is by force, and annexation is an expression of intent to keep it, rather than simply occupy it on an indefinite but assumed temporary basis.
Fun fact, though, you can walk from Canada to Greenland. When the winter sea ice freezes. I think it's about 20 or 30 km. This has cross-pollinated people, language, culture for thousands of years in the north.
Previous to this, the Danish military would occasionally visit the island, leaving a flag, and a "Welcome to Denmark" sign and a bottle of Danish schnapps. Then the Canadian military would visit, plant their flag and a "Welcome to Canada" sign, and leave a bottle of Canadian whisky. Repeat. <3
Just because the US can take it off them if they really want? What would Denmark do about it realistically?
Why would he need a legal basis? It's clear he says stuff and then later we'll see.
The US doesn't need to annex Greenland, just set up a few bases there which can be more easily done. But even that has less benefits now than it had during the Cold War. If one wants to intercept hypersonic ICBMs they need satellites equipped with powerful lasers to zap'em. Kintetic interceptors in Greenland or space won't do.
Are lasers the way to go? ICBMs appear to weigh several dozen tons. (e.g. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1044... )
You have to shine a lot of light on a 40-ton missile before you're going to interfere with the flight path. Would this approach work?
The Panama Canal belongs to Panama, Greenland belongs to its residents via Denmark, Canada is a sovereign nation.
Trump is just strutting, which is his standard position, pushing nonsense to his cult.
“The US used this justification during WWII to prevent Nazi control of Greenland.”
I’m not saying this is valid reasoning. But if I needed to build a movement to reclaim Greenland from the perfidious Danes, it’s how I would do it.
> want to be part of Denmark and Europe
Plus it'd be fairly odd to have independence then say "hey, let's let America buy us as a state"
But that is not what the US is in any way offering.
Trump wants a colony that can be exploited.
Politically getting independent wouldn’t be that difficult, they would just need to pass some laws, finish drafting a constitution, and have national referendum. If they can make the economic case for it, I think there would probably be an overwhelming majority in favor.
It's just another part of his shlock-and-awe campaign, like all these appointments of obviously unqualifed people to important positions. He does stuff like this to get people riled up, and ready to believe he's capable of anything. And always talking about him, non-stop.