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

What Could Be Causing the Surge in Illegal Dumping Across the UK?

Paul Francis
Nov 25, 2025
4 min read

Only days after the shocking discovery of a ten metre high waste pile in Oxfordshire, questions are intensifying about why the UK is seeing such a significant rise in illegal dumping. Although budget pressures, organised waste crime and limited enforcement play major roles, another factor is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Local councils, struggling under financial strain, have made a series of decisions about household waste services that may be unintentionally fuelling the surge.

A large pile of mixed trash, mainly plastic cartons and bags, on the ground near a concrete wall. Trees and cloudy sky in the background.

This follow up examines the policy changes, new charges and reduced services that experts believe are creating ideal conditions for fly tipping to flourish.

A Crisis of Waste and the Councils Under Pressure

The UK recorded more than one point one million fly tipping incidents in 2023 to 2024, an increase of six percent from the year before. The Oxfordshire waste mountain, which may cost more than a council’s annual budget to remove, has become a striking symbol of a wider national problem.

While criminal groups are undoubtedly responsible for the largest illegal dumps, a growing number of smaller incidents appear to stem from household decisions. These decisions are often shaped by changes in local authority waste services. When legal disposal becomes more expensive, more confusing or more difficult, some residents turn to cheaper and riskier alternatives.

Less Frequent Bin Collections and Overflowing Rubbish

One of the most widely reported issues is the reduction in general waste collection frequency. Due to budget cuts, many councils that once collected household rubbish weekly have switched to fortnightly, three weekly or even four weekly schedules.

For families with limited space, the result is simple. Overflow. Bags of rubbish begin to accumulate between collections. If a household cannot take their excess waste to a recycling centre or if they face restrictions once they get there, this overflow may end up dumped in alleyways, parks or nearby countryside.

Studies show that fly tipping rates often spike in the months following changes to collection frequency. Residents who feel they have been left without viable disposal options sometimes resort to illegal methods, either directly or through unlicensed waste collectors.

Garden Waste Charges Creating New Dumping Patterns

Garden waste collections were once free across most of the UK. Today more than half of all councils charge for the service, with fees rising each year. In Scotland some households now pay forty five pounds for a single annual permit.

When faced with paying extra for a service that used to be free, many households opt out. Unfortunately garden waste is bulky, heavy and awkward to transport. Without a permit or a vehicle, some people simply dispose of it elsewhere. Council officers have reported an increase in hedge trimmings, soil and branches found in parks, lay bys and nature reserves.

Although garden waste may seem harmless, dumped vegetation can block waterways, introduce invasive species or smother local habitats.

Recycling Centre Restrictions Creating Barriers for Households

Another major factor is the growing number of restrictions placed on recycling centre access. Over recent years councils have introduced permits, limits on the number of monthly visits, charges for DIY rubble, reduced opening hours and, in some cases, the closure of smaller local centres.

View from inside a recycling bin as a hand tosses a can lid. Various bottles and containers surround the green backdrop, creating a busy scene.

When recycling centres are harder to reach or cost more to use, residents face extra barriers to legal disposal. This is especially true for bulky items such as carpets, broken furniture, plasterboard or home renovation waste. Many households simply do not have the means to transport these items across long distances.

As a result, fly tipped DIY waste is becoming increasingly common. From bags of rubble dumped in car parks to kitchen units abandoned in lay bys, the impact is visible across both rural and urban areas.

Rogue Waste Collectors Filling the Gap

As waste services become more complex, some households turn to low cost private waste collectors found on social media or through local advertisements. The problem is that many of these collectors are unlicensed. Their business model is simple. They charge low prices because they do not pay disposal fees. Instead, they dump the waste illegally.

This has created a chain reaction. Residents believe they are making a legitimate disposal choice. Instead, they unintentionally contribute to organised waste crime. Councils then spend millions clearing these illegal sites, while enforcement struggles to keep pace.

The Environment Agency estimates that roughly one third of large scale fly tipping incidents involve unlicensed commercial operators.

Reduced Enforcement and the Decline in Waste Crime Prosecution

Enforcement teams within councils have faced the same budget pressures as waste departments. Many local authorities now have fewer officers available to monitor known dumping sites, pursue offenders or review CCTV evidence.

Prosecutions have dropped, even as incidents have risen. When offenders, including organised groups, believe the chance of being caught is low, the problem grows. Illegal dumping becomes a low risk, high reward crime.

This lack of enforcement does not only affect large scale waste crime. Smaller, repeated fly tips also proliferate when communities feel that reporting makes little difference.

The Connection to the National Surge in Illegal Dumping

The combination of these council decisions creates what experts describe as a permissive environment for waste crime. Higher fees, reduced services and limited enforcement encourage the behaviour that leads to illegal dumping.

For example:

A household with overflowing bins due to less frequent collections may leave waste beside a communal bin.
A resident renovating a kitchen may hire a cheap, unlicensed waste collector who later dumps the material in a field.
A family without access to a car may leave garden waste on public land rather than pay for the new permit.

Each action may seem minor, but collectively they contribute to a nationwide surge that is putting enormous strain on local authorities.

What Needs to Happen Next

To prevent further deterioration, councils and the government need to address the root causes. Clearer household guidance, improved services, fairer charging systems and investment in enforcement will be essential. Technology such as digital waste tracking may help target rogue operators, but without accessible legal disposal routes for households, the problem will persist.

Illegal dumping is a symptom of a larger issue. When waste management becomes more difficult, more complicated and more expensive, the path of least resistance becomes increasingly appealing. The Oxfordshire waste mountain is an extreme example, but it highlights a national system under pressure.

Until councils can provide waste services that households can use without financial or practical barriers, fly tipping incidents are likely to rise further.