Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/24/2026 4:21:59 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
A useful rule of thumb is that when a problem persists for decades despite serious effort, the failure is usually not one of effort or intelligence, but of framing. Climate change sits squarely in this category. We have poured talent, capital, policy, and good intentions into solving it, and yet the core dynamics continue to worsen. This suggests that something foundational is off in how we are thinking about the problem.
One of the clearest illustrations of that deeper issue sits far from financial centers and climate summits, in the Arctic.
About 50 years ago, Denmark made a decision that looks increasingly unusual by modern economic standards. It removed around 40 percent of Greenland — nearly one million square kilometers — from economic use. This was not a marginal conservation effort. It was the largest protected land designation on earth, an area over 100 times the size of Yellowstone. The land remains a functioning Arctic ecosystem, supporting polar bears, seals, walruses, musk oxen, Arctic foxes, wolves, and vast seabird populations.
From a narrow economic lens, this choice appears irrational. Greenland contains valuable mineral resources. It also holds growing geopolitical importance as Arctic shipping routes open and strategic competition intensifies. By standard economic logic, leaving that much land “unused” looks like a forfeited opportunity.
But Denmark’s decision reveals something important: Not everything that can be monetized must be. And, more important, not everything should be exposed to economic optimization.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at inc.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Denmark turned Greenland into an economic burden on themselves in what basically amounted to a virtue signal.
You’re-all-peons do that all the time, whether on immigration, rape gangs, or putting the mental in environ-mental.
This is what the Danes think of Greenlanders....Greenland would be in far better hands if attached to America.
Hundreds of Greenlandic women and girls were forcibly given contraception between 1960 and 1991, report says
-
Every government reservation of land from development is just keeping it for interested parties at an inopportune time.
They weren't just forcibly (and deceptively) given contraception. If the young women had complications due to the intrauterine devices, they were sterilized.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/16/world-news/greenlanders-speak-out-against-danish-rule-they-stole-our-future/
This article is complete hogwash. The tired old argument of “land is better without humans”…
This is the perspective of rich aesthetes, and the decision was made in the imperial capital, Copenhagen, not Greenland.
How many Greenlanders would have liked a $100K/year job on oil rigs or mines? How much could that revenue have aided Greenland's independence by weaning it off the Danish welfare teat?
Guess we'll never know.
The fundamental problem is rich and upper middle class people who have "made it" thinking it's possible to have a wealthy industrialized economy while keeping a pre-industrial environment. So what we really get is local land turned into a country club for rich aesthetes to admire and jeunnesse dore to backpack and hike, while working class wages are depressed or they are left unemployed. This situation gives smug satisfaction to both the upper classes' sense of moral superiority and their material interests as their portfolios expand, fattened by importing goods made by nasty heavy industry and resource extraction elsewhere.
“Every government reservation of land from development is just keeping it for interested parties at an inopportune time.”
Agreed-
Very clear and honest thinking in that reply.
Global warming is the future! Embrace it, dammit. A polar bear will thank you.
.
Even if we mined and drilled every worthwhile place on the planet it wouldn’t amount to a gnat on an elephant’s back.
Don’t tell the polar bears that. They’d like some warm weather, but they won’t go south on account of they’re scared of the grizzlies.
It's not a choice or tradeoff. An "environment" can be optimized only by people possessing prospective knowledge of system behaviors.
The system described in the article, errantly assumed to be "Natural" only without people, ends up as predator mediated competition. It's bad for wildlife, the tundra, and leads to a massive release of methane gas due to melting permafrost. Sergey Zimov's project in Siberia has shown that the resulting growth of late seral vegetation results in a thicker snow blanket which acts as an insulator retaining geothermal heat. PEOPLE hunt wolves, which kill the young of herbivores that would otherwise sustain that tundra with periodic disturbance. PEOPLE eat those herbivores and use their products to keep them from overgrazing.
I call the principle involved Periodic Disturbance: Feed Forward Stability.
Well said.
Did Denmark ask the Greenlanders if they consented to being economically crippled?
Got to keep folks away from those Nazi "weather stations".
“This was not a marginal conservation effort. It was the largest protected land designation on earth, an area over 100 times the size of Yellowstone.”
Wow!
Larger than Antarctica?
This suggests that something foundational is off in how we are thinking about the problem.
—
This bit of nonsense assumes there is a problem in the first place. Looking for solutions by search of non-existent problems
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.