Why is uranium mining in Greenland so divisive?
When scientists first discovered uranium deposits in southern Greenland in 1955, few realized that this would eventually become one of the island’s most divisive political issues.
However, recent debates on whether Greenland should move ahead with uranium mining have led to an unusually heated political climate. In 2014, when the former leader of Inuit Ataqatigiit, Sara Olsvig, told a Danish newspaper that she wanted to vote against uranium mining in Narsaq, the newspaper Sermitsiaq accused her of “speaking with a forked tongue.”
More recently, some government ministers have received death threats over their positions on the mining issue. The previous government, led by the Siumut party, fell apart after its right-wing coalition partner, the Demokraatit Party, charged it with indecision concerning a proposed rare-earth metal and uranium mining project (called Kuannersuit).
Now, the recent electoral success of the social-democratic Inuit Ataqatigiit party is threatening to kill the project for good. This is only the second win for the left-wing party in 40 years.
Uranium is used mainly for nuclear power generation but also has military applications. The element has a complicated history in Greenland, but the debate is only now reaching its climax.
When it was first discovered, the Danish government saw an opportunity to make Greenland a world leader in uranium mining. But a slow administrative process and widespread opposition to nuclear power in Denmark and Greenland eventually led to a long-standing “zero tolerance” policy in 1988 that prohibited the mining of radioactive materials on the island.
Since Greenland obtained self-rule in 2009, however, the debate around uranium has become the focal point for larger discussions around political independence, environmental sustainability, and the self-governing region’s economic future.
Interest in uranium mining resurfaced following economic downturns in 2012 and 2013 as the Greenlandic government looked for new ways of generating economic growth. So, in 2013, the government lifted its zero-tolerance policy on uranium extraction. Investors soon followed. The Australian-owned company Greenland Minerals set up shop and has been trying to reach an agreement with the Greenlandic government ever since.
Proponents of uranium mining highlight the economic benefits that would accompany such a project. To them, uranium mining is a natural extension of the industry that already exists for non-radioactive minerals. Greenland historically hosted mines for gold, coal, cryolite, and other minerals. Now, Greenland has the potential to become a major supplier of uranium on the world market — and build on a mining industry that could be a significant part of its economy in years to come.
In addition, the debate around uranium is linked to the question of independence from Denmark. Supporters of uranium mining point out that it would help Greenland’s quest to achieve economic freedom, providing a valuable source of income for the sparsely-populated island.
Currently, Greenland continues to receive about a third of its budget from Denmark. A uranium mining industry could help lower this dependence and create many more well-paid jobs for Greenlanders.
Many remain unconvinced and questions remain: how would the government ensure Greenlanders get an equitable part of the mining profits? How would officials dispose of tailings safely (the waste product left over after separating a mineral from other non-valuable material)? Would worker safety be an issue? How can Greenland ensure other states would not use its uranium deposits to manufacture weapons?
Perhaps the most crucial question of all is the natural environment. Inuit in Greenland have a special relationship to the island’s environment, which they rely on for fishing, hunting, and other traditional practices. Thus, many are wary of any potential sources of pollution or disruption to local ecosystems.
Indeed, Greenlandic mines of other non-radioactive materials have contributed to local pollution in the past, and many do not want to see that repeated. It was these concerns that directly contributed to Inuit Ataqatigiit’s electoral victory.
But is there a possible third way? Innovation may be one potential solution to this issue. Increasingly, the mining industry is finding ways to reduce its impact on the environment, limit pollution, and reduce risk. Still, opponents of the mining project in Greenland seem to view any threats to the environment by the proposed project as too great to move forward.
Greenland is not alone in experiencing an impasse around resource extraction projects. This stalemate is similar to those faced by many resource extraction projects in Canada and other Western nations. However, as professor of geopolitics at the Paris Institute of Political Studies Mikaa Mered told EURACTIV, Greenland now risks becoming “ungovernable for big projects.”
Moreover, if Greenland does not provide access to its uranium deposits, other nations — including the leading producers Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia — will be content to continue dominating the marketplace.
Public consultations are continuing through June, though the current government continues to oppose the uranium mining project. Greenland Minerals is now saying that its focus is on rare earth minerals, not uranium. Ultimately, the future of the Kuannersuit project is not yet set in stone — though its outcome may be only a taste of the future mining debates set to take place in the Arctic as climate change makes other projects economically viable.
This blog was written by Connor Oke and Ayoe Kristiansen for Arctic360, Canada’s only think tank for Arctic policy issues. Learn more at Arctic360.org.
Learn more about mining in northern Canada and Greenland through our podcast:
