Digging Ourselves Deeper: When Climate Action Mimics Extraction
Climate action is increasingly mimicking the logic of extraction, as seen in the Trump administration’s interest in Greenland—not for climate mitigation, but to seize resources exposed by environmental collapse. Without enforceable global limits and accountability mechanisms, the global scramble for minerals to power the green transition threatens to reproduce the same exploitation and ecological harm that climate solutions are meant to address.
"The Greenland ice sheet is melting from the bottom up, scientists say, which could have a significant impact on global sea level rise," Poul Christoffersen/ via CNN
President Trump’s desire to annex Greenland is not wholly a national security strategy. With the autonomous territory’s ice sheet losing approximately 234 billion tons of ice each year, revealing vast deposits of rare earth minerals and opening up new Arctic shipping lanes, Greenland has become an unexpected geopolitical goldmine. The irony is that this infamous climate change-sceptic administration was not drawn to Greenland because of environmental concern, but rather because of the very opportunities made possible by environmental collapse.
If the ice sheets were to retreat rapidly at this rate, then a theoretical US ownership of Greenland would provide the Trump administration with access to approximately 31.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The depleting ice would also yield an abundant amount of minerals—lithium, niobium, hafnium, zirconium, yttrium, scandium, neodymium, and dysprosium—used in the manufacturing of electronics, weapons, and perhaps most interestingly, renewable energy technology.
Climate change in and beyond Greenland is transforming once-inaccessible terrain into new frontiers for resource extraction. Thanks to our warming planet, we are now able to unearth and extract raw materials that will help enable the green transition. This shift suggests that climate adaptation is increasingly being pursued through extractive expansion, rather than structural reform.
The devastation that trails behind soaring global demand for cobalt and lithium—materials most notably used for electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines—is gravely overlooked. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the demand for such materials has fueled barbaric working conditions—notably child labor—in informal cobalt mines. In the Lithium Triangle of Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia, the rush to extract lithium is drying up freshwater sources and threatening Indigenous communities that depend on the land. The same pattern has unfolded even in environmentally progressive countries like Norway. Its government recently opened 108,000 square miles of national waters for deep-sea mining, which will, in turn, grant companies access to newly exposed seabeds rich in rare minerals. These minerals will be reaped and extracted to build green technology.
We must address climate change with urgency. In many instances, this urgency gives way to a global mania for rapid resource extraction—a response that risks replicating the very environmental destruction and inequality that created the crisis. Geopolitical leverage and economic opportunity are now regarded as normal responses to the wreckage of collapsing ecosystems. Urgency without accountability is not climate action. It is opportunism masquerading as progress.
This pattern will not change unless limits are defined with more conviction. International institutions and multilateral coalitions must enforce clear boundaries on extraction, where it is conducted, how it is carried out, and whether it should occur in the first place. These international legal entities must assess all environmental and social repercussions of extraction as well. The OECD’s 2023 Handbook on Environmental Due Diligence in Mineral Supply Chains remains one useful tool in this regard; it provides detailed guidance for companies to identify, prevent, and mitigate environmental harms linked to mineral sourcing, notably in conflict-prone or ecologically sensitive areas. However, its voluntary nature significantly undercuts its impact. Additional initiatives such as the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and Canada’s Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships demonstrate a growing awareness of the need for ethical and inclusive extraction, yet they remain fragmented efforts. What is urgently needed is a binding global treaty that sets enforceable standards for mineral extraction—one that compels compliance across borders, regardless of whether major actors like the United States choose to lead.
Trump’s ambition for a US-owned Greenland should be a bellwether. When climate change instead yields more readily available resources, the global response cannot allow historically extractive powers to capitalize without first ensuring accountability. Whatever unfolds in Greenland in the coming months and years will reveal whether the term “just transition” is truly being cast aside. Global actors should either engage with Greenland as a partner to shape an energy transition that will respect sovereignty and protect ecosystems, or continue rushing to dig.
Editors
Sara Radovic, Managing Editor
Julia Bails (she/her) is a dual-degree Master’s candidate at NYU, pursuing an MPA in Public and Nonprofit Management with a focus on International Development and an MA in International Relations. She previously worked as a strategic communications consultant at Penta Group, where she advised global clients in the environmental philanthropy, fintech, and sustainability sectors. During her undergraduate studies at NYU, she served as Editor-in-Chief of IR Insider, overseeing coverage of global political developments. Her current research interests center on renewable energy diplomacy and the geopolitical implications of energy transitions.
