Why Greenland Matters to the United States, and Why Some People Are Sceptical

8 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Greenland has become an increasingly prominent part of global geopolitical discussion, particularly in relation to the United States. On the surface, the interest can appear puzzling. Greenland has a small population, harsh conditions, and limited infrastructure. Yet for Washington, it represents one of the most strategically significant territories in the world.

Snow-covered mountains and rocky peaks rise above a deep blue sea, under a clear sky, creating a serene and majestic landscape.

At the same time, recent events elsewhere have led many observers to question whether security alone explains American interest in regions rich in natural resources. Greenland now sits at the intersection of strategic necessity and public scepticism.

Greenland’s strategic importance to US security

The primary and most consistently stated reason for US interest in Greenland is security.

Greenland occupies a crucial geographic position between North America and Europe. It sits along the shortest route for ballistic missiles travelling between Russia and the United States. This makes it essential for early warning systems and missile defence.

The US has maintained a military presence in Greenland since the Second World War. Today, Pituffik Space Base plays a key role in monitoring missile launches, tracking satellites, and supporting NATO defence architecture. These systems are designed to protect not only the United States but also its allies.

As Arctic ice continues to melt, the region is becoming more accessible to military and commercial activity. Russia has expanded its Arctic bases, and China has declared itself a near-Arctic state. From Washington’s perspective, maintaining influence in Greenland helps prevent rivals from gaining a foothold in a region that directly affects North Atlantic security.

The Arctic, climate change, and future competition

Climate change has transformed Greenland’s relevance. What was once largely inaccessible is now opening up.

New shipping routes could shorten trade paths between Asia, Europe, and North America. Scientific research, undersea cables, and surveillance infrastructure are all becoming more viable. Greenland’s location places it at the centre of these emerging routes.

For the United States, this makes Greenland less of a remote territory and more of a forward position in an increasingly contested region.

Red Mobil barrel secured with ropes on wood structure, against a cloudy sky. Blue pipes and rusty metal bar in background.

Oil and resource speculation as a secondary factor

While security dominates official policy discussions, resource speculation is often raised as an additional reason for interest in Greenland.

Greenland is believed to hold potential offshore oil and gas reserves, as well as deposits of rare earth elements, lithium, graphite, and other critical minerals. These materials are essential for electronics, renewable energy systems, and defence technologies.

It is important to note that Greenland currently restricts new oil and gas exploration licences, largely due to environmental concerns. Large-scale extraction remains difficult, expensive, and politically sensitive.

For the United States, oil is not a strategic necessity in Greenland. The country is already one of the world’s largest oil producers. However, critical minerals are a longer-term concern. The US remains heavily dependent on foreign supply chains, particularly from China, for many of these materials.

This makes Greenland attractive as a potential future partner rather than an immediate resource solution.

Why scepticism exists

Despite official explanations, scepticism persists, and not without reason.

In recent years, the United States has taken highly visible actions elsewhere that involved control over oil production and transport. These actions have reinforced a long-standing public perception that resource interests sometimes sit beneath security justifications.

The Iraq War remains a powerful reference point. Although the official rationale focused on weapons and security threats, the protection and control of oil fields became a defining feature of the conflict in the public imagination. That perception continues to shape how many people interpret US foreign policy today.

More recently, actions involving sanctions, tanker seizures, and control of oil revenues in other regions have revived these concerns. When military or economic pressure coincides with resource-rich territories, scepticism follows.

Against this backdrop, even legitimate security interests can be viewed through a lens of historical mistrust.

Greenland is not Iraq, but history shapes perception

Greenland differs significantly from past conflict zones. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. The United States does not dispute Danish sovereignty and has repeatedly stated that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people.

US engagement in Greenland has focused on diplomacy, scientific cooperation, and defence partnerships rather than intervention. There has been no military conflict, no occupation, and no attempt to forcibly extract resources.

However, history matters. Public opinion is shaped not only by current actions but by patterns over time. When people see strategic interest combined with resource potential, they naturally draw comparisons.

Denmark’s role as a stabilising factor

Denmark plays a crucial role in shaping how Greenland is engaged internationally. As the sovereign state responsible for defence and foreign policy, Denmark ensures that US involvement occurs within established legal and diplomatic frameworks.

This partnership reduces the likelihood of unilateral action and helps keep Greenland’s development aligned with environmental standards and local governance.

The broader reality

Greenland’s importance to the United States is real, and it is primarily rooted in geography and defence. Resource speculation exists, but it is not the driving force behind current policy.

At the same time, scepticism is understandable. History has taught many people to question official narratives when strategic interests and natural resources overlap.

The truth lies in the tension between these two realities. Greenland matters because of where it is, what it enables, and what it may one day provide. How it is treated will determine whether it becomes a model of cooperation or another chapter in a long story of mistrust.

Greenland is not a prize to be taken, but a partner to be engaged. Whether that distinction holds in the long term will depend not just on policy statements, but on actions.

In a world shaped by climate change, great power competition, and historical memory, even legitimate interests must contend with the weight of the past.

Current Most Read

Why Netflix Is Circling Warner Bros, and How a Century-Old Studio Reached This Point

What Christmas 2025 Revealed About the Future of Consoles

Designed to Be Replaced: How Planned Obsolescence Fuels Waste in the Digital Age

Paul Francis
Nov 12, 2025
4 min read

As the festive season approaches and millions prepare to give new phones as gifts, there is an uncomfortable truth beneath the shine of packaging and ribbon. Globally, smartphone sales continue to grow, and by late 2025, analysts expect more than 180 million new phones will be gifted worldwide over the Christmas and holiday period. The result is a surge of electronic waste, much of it tied to devices that still function perfectly well.

Pile of discarded cell phones and electronics in a landfill, under overcast skies. Scattered cables and tires create a sense of waste.

This phenomenon is closely linked to planned obsolescence, the practice of deliberately designing products to have limited lifespans so that they are replaced sooner than necessary. While technological progress drives convenience and innovation, the environmental cost of constant replacement is becoming impossible to ignore.

The Roots of Planned Obsolescence

The idea of designing for failure is not new. In the early twentieth century, companies sought ways to increase sales in an already saturated market. One of the earliest and most infamous examples came from the Phoebus Cartel, formed in the 1920s by major light bulb manufacturers such as General Electric, Osram and Philips. They agreed to limit the lifespan of light bulbs to around 1,000 hours, ensuring repeat purchases and steady demand.

In the automotive industry, General Motors took a more subtle approach. Under the leadership of Alfred P. Sloan Jr., GM introduced yearly styling updates to its vehicles, making older models look outdated even if they were mechanically sound. By the 1950s, this idea of “dynamic obsolescence” had become a core part of the car industry’s marketing strategy. Consumers were encouraged to buy a new car not because the old one had failed, but because it no longer looked fashionable.

This approach worked so well that the average ownership period of a new car in the United States fell from five years in the 1930s to around two years by the mid-1950s.

The Modern Battlefront: Electronics

Today, the same principles apply to consumer electronics. Phones, laptops, tablets and even smart appliances are updated annually with minor design or software changes. Marketing emphasises the new features while subtly implying that last year’s model is inferior.

Software updates also play a role. Older devices often stop receiving updates, making them less secure and incompatible with new apps. Hardware designs that prevent users from replacing batteries or repairing parts further shorten a product’s usable life.

The environmental impact is staggering. In 2024, the world produced around 62 million tonnes of electronic waste, a figure expected to reach 75 million tonnes by 2030, according to the United Nations Global E-waste Monitor. Only about 20 per cent of this waste is properly recycled.

When we consider that tens of millions of new phones will be purchased and gifted this Christmas, the scale of the problem becomes even clearer. Each device requires metals such as lithium, cobalt, gold and nickel, all of which come from resource-intensive mining processes that damage ecosystems and contribute to carbon emissions.

The Environmental Cost of Short-Lived Design

Planned obsolescence harms the environment at every stage of a product’s life cycle.

Manufacturing requires extraction of raw materials, water use and energy-intensive production.
Distribution and transport add carbon emissions and packaging waste.
Disposal leads to landfill waste and the release of toxic substances, including lead, mercury and cadmium.

Devices that could have been repaired or refurbished often end up discarded because it is cheaper to buy new than to fix the old. Repair restrictions and closed design systems make it even harder for consumers to extend product life.

The environmental consequences of this pattern go far beyond landfills. E-waste frequently ends up exported to developing countries, where informal recycling exposes workers to hazardous materials without proper safety equipment.

Is Planned Obsolescence a Design Flaw or a Business Strategy?

Manufacturers argue that regular product refreshes promote innovation and create jobs. They claim that shorter product cycles allow faster adoption of new technology, such as energy-efficient screens or improved processors.

However, critics point out that this cycle primarily benefits profit margins rather than the planet. Many of the annual “upgrades” in smartphones or consumer electronics are incremental rather than revolutionary. A new colour, camera mode or interface rarely justifies replacing a working device.

In effect, marketing has replaced mechanical failure as the main driver of obsolescence. Consumers are encouraged to buy the latest model not because they need it, but because they feel left behind if they do not.

The Global Response

Governments and regulators are beginning to take notice.

The European Union’s Circular Economy Action Plan now requires manufacturers to make products more durable, repairable and recyclable.
France has introduced a repairability index that scores electronics based on how easy they are to repair.
The United Kingdom has introduced Right to Repair legislation, forcing appliance manufacturers to supply spare parts for up to ten years.
In the United States, several states have passed or proposed similar laws to give consumers and independent technicians access to parts and repair manuals.

Public attitudes are also shifting. A growing number of consumers now consider environmental sustainability in purchasing decisions, especially during holiday periods. The second-hand and refurbished electronics market is thriving, and companies offering longer warranties are gaining favour.

A Sustainable Approach to the Festive Season

With Christmas around the corner, consumers can make choices that help reduce waste.

Repair instead of replace: A simple battery replacement or software refresh can extend a phone’s life by years.
Buy refurbished: Certified refurbished devices perform as well as new ones but come at a lower environmental cost.
Recycle responsibly: Use verified e-waste collection schemes rather than general waste disposal.
Support brands committed to sustainability: Some companies now design phones with modular parts that can be easily swapped or repaired.

Every small decision makes a difference when multiplied by millions of households.

Planned obsolescence may once have driven economic growth, but its environmental consequences are now undeniable. The constant cycle of buying, discarding and upgrading has created one of the fastest-growing waste streams on Earth.

As we enter another season of gifting and consumption, the challenge is clear: innovation must no longer mean replacement. It must mean resilience, repair and responsibility.

If consumers demand it and manufacturers respond, the devices under next year’s Christmas tree could tell a different story, one of sustainability instead of waste.