Posted on 01/01/2025 2:10:39 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
To imagine the kind of future a hotter, dryer climate may bring, and the geopolitical challenges it will create, look no farther than two parts of the world that Donald Trump wants America to control: Greenland and the Panama Canal.
The president-elect in recent days has insisted that both places are critical to United States national security. He’s called to reclaim control the Panama Canal from Panama and acquire Greenland from Denmark, both sovereign territories with their own governments.
They have something else in common as well: Both are significantly affected by climate change in ways that present looming challenges to global shipping and trade.
Because of warming temperatures, an estimated 11,000 square miles of Greenland’s ice sheets and glaciers have melted over the past three decades, an area roughly equivalent to the size of Massachusetts. That has huge implications for the entire world. If the ice melts completely, Greenland could cause sea levels to rise as much as 23 feet, according to NASA.
Greenland’s retreating ice could open up areas to drill for oil and gas and places to mine critical minerals, a fact that has already attracted international interest and raised concerns about environmental harms. And, ship traffic in the Arctic has surged 37 percent over the past decade, according to a recent Arctic Council report, as sea ice has declined. More melting could open up even more trade routes.
Amanda Lynch, a professor at Brown University who has studied climate change in the Arctic for nearly 30 years, said the new trade routes created by ice melt could also heighten the risk of environmental disasters. Ships from some countries, she said, are not designed to withstand Arctic conditions.
“An oil spill or some other toxic accident on that route is inevitable and could already have happened and we...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Still trying to compare apples and oranges for the attempted validation of the leftist Trump-Putin paradigm? never mind denying the fact about Denmark not being a sovereign nation for the second time. On top of that, there’s the implication that Trump would somehow force Greenland to be sold to the US, which he would not do either way.
Opus?
What’s your beef against the USA? Maybe you should go to DU.
So if I oppose Neocon imperialist expansion, it means I have a “beef” against the US?
I see you’re calling Trump a “neocon imperialist expansionist”. Laughable, since “imperialist” is a favorite buzzword of the left.
Opus?
Actually, libertarians and paleocons have also long used the term "imperialist."
But ... so what? As Rush used to say, words have meaning. If a big country pressures a small country to "sell" their land, that's imperialism.
And Denmark has made it clear that it does not want to sell Greenland.
So unless you're an imperialist, that should be the end of the matter.
When you use leftist terms like “imperialism” you do.
Neither libertarian nor “paleocon” (a misnomer) are conservative. Leave the argument from authority (a logical fallacy) out of this.
Not to mention Trump has thus far been more libertarian in practice than libertarians fancy themselves to be, although he is more socially conservative in many areas.
The opinion of Denmark’s current prime minister (who is a social democrat) has no bearing on what the people might want. Not to mention the fact that the head of state of Denmark is King Frederick X, who might be amenable to selling Greenland if Trump presents attractive terms. Of course, the European Union, a highly imperialistic entity in and of itself, would have its own opinion and since they generally are Trump haters, they would oppose such a purchase. (Are you still trying to equate purchase with invasion, seriously? by altering the meaning of “pressure”? lol)
You’re up too late. You have a nice evening.
You're the one who dragged "argument from pedigree" into this.
You stated that "imperialist" was a leftist term, as if that were enough to discredit the concept. I merely observed that non-leftists also use the term.
If you don't want to discuss a word's pedigree, don't raise the subject in the first place.
And of course paleocons are conservative.
Are you still trying to put words in my mouth?
Yes, imperialism has many forms, including economic and political pressure. Such pressure hardly constitutes an arms-length "purchase."
Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan also use the term “imperialist.”
Two other whackadoodles. So buying Greenland and taking the Panama Canal back are “Neo-con Imperialist” ideas? We are not imperialists, thru our history we are expansionist, way different.
Ah yes. It's interesting how you can put different spins on the same thing merely by a choice of words.
I'm passionate. You're hysterical.
I'm principled. You're fanatical.
I'm steady. You're stubborn.
I'm sober. You're stuffy.
I'm daring. You're reckless.
I’m repeating your own words back at you, lol.
I hope you get over your never-Trumpism.
As I did to you.
And there are few things on the internet more lame than a fake “lol”.
It's what they read to find out what to believe this week.
And has a long history of spurious doomsday prophesy.
Greenland is not without pluses
You have to act in national interests
At some point the mineral and fossil fuel wealth there will need to be tapped more
It’s too close to us to let a true rival get it
China would love it
They need the oil exponentially more than Putin does
The climate argument I’m skeptical
Paywall
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.