Editorial News Uncategorized

Greenland: Trump and Tech Billionaires Are Fighting Over the Future of AI

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-20 23:23:45

Yesterday’s Black Gold, Today’s White Gold

Imagine a processor. That little square of silicon that powers your phone, your computer, and the data centers that run ChatGPT. Behind this technology lie elements you’ve probably never heard of: gallium, germanium, dysprosium, and terbium—names that sound like distant planets. Rare metals found in minuscule quantities in the Earth’s crust. Without them, no AI. No smartphones. No electric cars. No satellites. No guided missiles. Nothing. The modern world grinds to a halt.

The problem? China controls them. Almost all of them. Ninety-eight percent of global primary gallium production. Sixty percent of germanium refining. Seventy percent of rare earths by 2024. And when Trump imposed tariffs on Beijing in 2025, China struck where it hurts. It stopped exporting gallium and germanium. Why? Because those are exactly what America needs for its defense industry, for its advanced technologies, and for its digital future. Eldur Ólafsson, CEO of Amaroq, put it plainly: “You need them for AI, for defense, for tech. They’re absolutely critical.”

The Race for Heavy Rare Earths

That’s where Greenland comes in. Beneath its glaciers, beneath its frozen tundra, lie astronomical quantities of these critical minerals. Not just gallium or germanium. Heavy rare earths. Yttrium. Gadolinium. Dysprosium. Holmium. Erbium. Elements that make it possible to create ultra-powerful magnets for wind turbines, electric vehicles, and robots. To send rockets into space. To build nuclear submarines. To manufacture next-generation fighter jets. Tony Sage said it without hesitation: “We can’t launch rockets into space, build nuclear submarines, or build next-generation fighter jets without these materials.”

And that’s when I understand the urgency. I understand why Gates, Bezos, and Altman are investing. It’s not just greed. It’s survival. America is dependent on China for materials essential to its economy and security. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability. But does that justify seizing territory? To treat 57,000 human beings as minor obstacles? My stomach churns at the thought. There’s something deeply disturbing about the idea that the end justifies the means. That “national security” gives one the right to trample on the rights of others. Is that the price of progress?

Section 3: The Kingdom of Heaven and Those Who Live Beneath It

Silicon Valley’s New Conquistadors

Bill Gates invested in KoBold Metals in 2019. Jeff Bezos followed suit. Three years later, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, invested in the same company. KoBold uses artificial intelligence to detect mineral deposits. The irony is striking: AI searching for the materials that will enable AI to exist. A virtuous cycle? Or a vicious cycle? Meanwhile, Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, has an even bolder vision. He has invested in Praxis, a startup that aims to build “cities of freedom” on the island. Techno-libertarian microstates. Havens for billionaires who want to escape regulations. Who want to create their own world.

These men possess combined fortunes of several hundred billion dollars. They can buy companies. Fund political campaigns. Influence governments. And now, they have their eyes set on Greenland. Not for the beauty of its landscapes. Not for its millennia-old culture. For what lies beneath. For the resources they can extract. For the profit they can generate. Meanwhile, the Inuit, who have inhabited the island for millennia, watch as these new conquistadors arrive. Just as their ancestors watched the Danes arrive. Just as their ancestors watched the whalers arrive. Except this time, the conquest isn’t carried out with guns. It’s carried out with checks. With algorithms. With mining contracts.

The Silence of the Tundra

Close your eyes. Imagine Greenland. Glaciers stretching to infinity. Deep fjords where the water is so pure blue it hurts your eyes. The wind whistling through the ice. The absolute silence of the tundra, broken only by the cracking of the sea ice. It’s one of the last wild places on Earth. A place where humans haven’t yet destroyed everything. But all that is about to change. Mining companies are preparing their drill sites. Governments are preparing their negotiations. Investors are preparing their profitability calculations.

And I wonder: will we hear the noise of the drills in this silence? Will we see the pollution from the mines sullying this pristine snow? How many generations of Greenlanders have lived on this land while respecting its balance? And now, in a few decades, everything could be destroyed in the name of “progress.” In the name of artificial intelligence. Is it really smart to destroy what we can’t recreate? Is it worth it to sacrifice one of the last paradises on Earth for a few years of technological dominance? I’m scared. Really scared.

Section 4: The Illusion of Independence

The Time Dimension of Mining

There’s one detail everyone seems to forget in all this frenzy: time. Tony Sage, Eldur Ólafsson—all the CEOs of mining companies know this. But no one really talks about it. From the discovery of a deposit to the first extraction of ore, it takes an average of sixteen years. Sixteen years. During that time, China continues to dominate the market. During that time, AI continues to advance. During that time, geopolitical tensions continue to escalate. Tracy Hughes, executive director of the Critical Minerals Institute, is categorical: “Greenland’s rare earths won’t significantly impact the markets over the next decade.”

So why the rush? Why the threats of annexation? Why is money pouring into Greenland’s mining companies? Because it’s a bet on the future. A bet that in sixteen or twenty years, Greenland will be essential. That China’s reserves will run out. That geopolitical tensions will make current supply chains too risky. Investors are betting on the long term. But in the long term, sixteen years is an eternity. An entire generation of Greenlandic children will grow up while the mining companies prepare their operations. And when the first machines arrive, those children will be adults. They’ll see their land change before their very eyes. Will they be able to oppose it? Will they have a say in the matter?

The Impossible Equation of Refining

And even when Greenland extracts these minerals, that’s only half the problem. The real challenge is refining—the process of transforming raw ore into usable materials. And here again, China reigns supreme. Ninety percent of rare-earth refining takes place in China. The United States has only three copper smelters. Its capacity to process critical minerals is minimal. So even if Greenland mines gallium, germanium, and rare earths, these minerals will likely have to be shipped to China for processing. Or the United States will have to build domestic refining infrastructure—which will take years and cost billions of dollars.

You know what I see in this story? An illusion. A pipe dream. The idea that we can break free from China simply by taking over Greenland. But the reality is more complex. Chinese dominance isn’t just a matter of resources. It’s a matter of industrial capacity. Of infrastructure. Of expertise. Things that take decades to build. And while America dreams of independence, the years go by. Children grow up. Glaciers melt. The world keeps turning. And I wonder: are we making the wrong bet? Shouldn’t we be investing in recycling, in alternatives, in reducing our dependence on critical minerals, rather than seeking to conquer new resources?

Section 5: China and the Mirror

The Middle Kingdom and Its Shadows

China controls the supply chain for critical minerals. That is an undeniable fact. But how did we get here? Why does Beijing dominate this strategic sector? The answer lies in history—in decades of massive investment, in government subsidies, and in the political will to build a domestic critical minerals industry. China’s aluminum industry increased its production tenfold between 2000 and 2022, thereby cementing its global control over gallium, which is extracted as a byproduct of aluminum.

But this dominance comes at a price. Investigations have documented more than 100 allegations of human rights and labor rights violations in Chinese critical minerals projects. In 2024, the United States banned copper imports from a Chinese company due to forced labor of Uyghurs. Gallium mining in China generates chemical waste that can pollute water and soil. The processing of germanium from coal ash poses risks to air quality and waste management. Workers at germanium processing facilities are exposed to inorganic compounds that can cause respiratory, kidney, and liver problems. China’s dominance has been built on exploitation. On environmental negligence. On disregard for human rights.

The Responsibility of Western Consumers

And what about us? Western consumers? We who take offense at these practices? We who champion human rights and environmental protection? We are complicit. Every time we buy a smartphone, every time we use an AI app, every time we enjoy modern technology, we contribute to this economy. We create the demand. And that demand is met by supply chains that destroy lives and environments on the other side of the world. It’s uncomfortable to admit. But it’s the truth.

And right now, I feel guilty. I feel complicit. I’m writing these words on a computer that likely contains minerals mined under terrible conditions. I’m publishing this article online, thanks to servers that consume astronomical amounts of copper, palladium, and rare earth elements. I’m part of the problem. We all are. So what’s the solution? Carry on as if nothing’s wrong? Or look for an alternative? An alternative that doesn’t come at the expense of other people or other environments? I don’t know. But I do know that I can no longer pretend to be unaware.

Section 6: Greenland in Arctic Geopolitics

A Strategic Crossroads Between East and West

Greenland is not just a source of minerals. It occupies a unique strategic position in the Arctic. The island controls the straits between the Atlantic and the Arctic. It is home to crucial U.S. military bases. It offers direct access to the Arctic’s natural resources. And now that melting ice is opening up new trade routes, Greenland is becoming even more important. Russia is strengthening its military presence in the Arctic. China is investing heavily in Arctic infrastructure. The United States cannot afford to lose this position.

But Greenland is not an empty territory. It is a nation with its own history, culture, and aspirations. In 2009, the Greenlanders voted for greater autonomy from Denmark. They aspire to full independence. But that independence will depend on their ability to develop economically. And the critical minerals beneath their ice could be their ticket to that independence—or their prison. If they exploit these resources themselves, with strict environmental and social standards, they could create a prosperous and sustainable economy. If they let foreign companies come and plunder their lands, they could end up even more dependent than before.

The Development Dilemma

Maliina Abelsen, a Greenlandic activist, expressed this dilemma with poignant simplicity: “We want independence. But we don’t want to become yet another example of a country that sold its resources only to remain poor.” Greenland faces an impossible choice: develop its resources and risk destroying its environment and way of life, Or forgo this economic opportunity and remain dependent on Danish aid. It’s a choice that defines nations. A choice that will determine Greenland’s future for generations to come.

And as I sit here reading these stories, I feel the weight of that choice. I feel the magnitude of this dilemma. Because it’s not just Greenland’s choice. It’s all of our choices. Every time we demand more technology, more comfort, more power, we put pressure on places like Greenland. We create the demand that drives them to extract their resources. We are complicit. Inevitably. I don’t know what the right answer is. I just know that we can no longer ignore the consequences of our choices. We can no longer turn a blind eye to what our way of life really means.

Section 7: AI and Its Insatiable Appetite for Energy

The Hunger for Silicon

Artificial intelligence consumes resources. It consumes electricity, of course. The data centers that run AI models consume as much electricity as entire cities. But AI also consumes minerals. A lot of minerals. Training a single large language model requires thousands of high-performance processors containing gallium arsenide semiconductors. The supporting infrastructure requires fiber-optic cables made with germanium. These overlapping dependencies create compound supply risks, particularly as export control regimes evolve and geopolitical tensions intensify.

And this is just the beginning. Demand for critical minerals is projected to quadruple by 2040. The infrastructure required for AI technology, including data centers and advanced microprocessors, is driving substantial additional demand. The International Energy Agency projects that the expansion of data centers could increase global demand for copper by about 2% by 2030, for rare earths by 3%, and for gallium by up to 11%. This represents an additional 512,000 metric tons of copper needed by 2030 for data centers. Meanwhile, the global copper supply is expected to face a shortage by 2035.

The Paradox of Intelligence

There is something ironic about this story. AI—the technology meant to make us smarter—relies on the primitive extraction of natural resources. It depends on the destruction of fragile environments. It requires the exploitation of workers under terrible conditions. This is the paradox of artificial intelligence: the more sophisticated it becomes, the more it depends on rudimentary and destructive processes. And this dependence will only increase as AI continues to develop.

Silence. Just a moment of silence to reflect on this absurdity. We are building machines capable of thinking, creating, and solving complex problems. But these machines are fueled by the destruction of the natural world. By the exploitation of the most vulnerable. It’s a paradox that haunts me. How can we claim to be intelligent when we are destroying the very foundations of our existence? How can we call this progress? I feel as though we are building an intellectual cathedral on the ruins of our own home.

Section 8: The Future Is Already Here

The Technology Cascade

Imagine the year 2040. AI data centers are everywhere. They power systems that drive our cars, manage our cities, create our art, and make our decisions. These data centers consume astronomical amounts of copper for wiring and cooling. Rare-earth magnets for fans and robotic systems. Palladium for the electrical contacts in advanced processors. And where does all this come from? Some of it comes from recycling—let’s hope so. But most of it still comes from mines. Mines that destroy forests, pollute rivers, and displace communities.

And as this technological cascade unfolds, the climate continues to change. Temperatures are rising. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. Ecosystems are collapsing. And ironically, it’s this very same AI technology that we hope to use to solve these climate crises. It’s a vicious cycle. We’re destroying the environment to build the technology that might just save us. Or that might drag us even further toward the abyss.

The Race Against Time

Trump wants Greenland now. Tech investors want the minerals now. Western governments want independence now. But the reality is that all of this takes time. Sixteen years for a mine to become operational. Decades to build refining capacity. Generations to change global infrastructure. Meanwhile, China continues to dominate. Meanwhile, the climate continues to deteriorate. Meanwhile, inequality continues to worsen.

And that’s when I feel the urgency. Not the urgency of billionaires who want to secure their supplies. Not the urgency of politicians who want quick diplomatic victories. But the urgency of the real world. The urgency of communities watching their land being destroyed. The urgency of workers being exploited under inhumane conditions. The urgency of a planet dying under the relentless exploitation of its resources. Do we truly understand what’s at stake? It’s not just a question of who will control critical minerals. It’s a question of what kind of world we want to leave for our children. And I’m not talking about high-tech gadgets. I’m talking about a world where it’s possible to live. To breathe. To exist.

Section 9: Toward an Uncertain Future

Existing Alternatives

Mining isn’t the only option. There are other avenues. Recycling, for example. The International Energy Agency estimates that increased recycling could reduce the growth in mining for critical minerals by 25 to 40% by 2050. Currently, only 22% of global electronic waste is formally recycled. There is enormous potential there—opportunities to create a circular economy that reduces the demand for new mines.

There’s also substitution—the development of alternatives to critical minerals. Magnets without rare earth elements. Semiconductors without gallium. Cables without germanium. It’s difficult, it’s costly, and it takes time. But it’s possible. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington State is working on advanced methods to recover valuable minerals like neodymium from electronic waste. They’re even exploring the extraction of rare earth elements from fast-growing marine algae—a “biomineral” that could offer a sustainable alternative to traditional mining.

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

But these alternatives require a paradigm shift—a change in the way we think about technology, the economy, and progress. Instead of constantly searching for new resources to exploit, we should seek to use the ones we already have more efficiently. Instead of building systems that require ever-increasing amounts of critical minerals, we should design systems that require less. Instead of aiming for infinite growth, we should aim for sustainability.

I know this sounds utopian. I know it goes against everything our economy values. But when I look at what’s happening in Greenland, I can’t help but think that utopia might be the only realistic alternative. Because the path we’re on—the path of endless extraction, perpetual growth, and ceaseless exploitation—is leading us somewhere. But it’s not a place I want to go. And it’s not a place I want my children to live. So what is the real utopia? Is it believing that we can carry on as if nothing were wrong? Or is it believing that we can change course before it’s too late?

Conclusion: The Price of Progress

The Earth and Its Children

Tony Sage saw tech investors coming. He saw opportunities multiplying. He saw his company’s stock soar by 116% in just a few weeks. Eldur Ólafsson saw governments take an interest in his company. He saw the economic potential for Greenland. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, and Peter Thiel saw the future of AI, which depends on these critical minerals. They all saw opportunities.

But what did Greenland’s 57,000 residents see? They saw their land become the object of international covetousness. They saw their future being negotiated without them. They saw billionaires deciding their fate. They saw heavy machinery preparing to disrupt their environment. They saw their cultures under threat. They saw their ways of life compromised. They saw children who will grow up in a world that bears no resemblance to that of their ancestors.

The Final Question

And what about us? What do we see? Do we see technological progress? Do we see national security? Do we see investment opportunities? Or do we see what is truly at stake? Do we see glaring inequalities? Do we see environmental destruction? Do we see the ongoing exploitation of the most vulnerable?

Tony Sage is getting calls from investors. Trump is threatening to annex Greenland. Gates, Bezos, Altman, and Thiel are investing billions. Everyone is scrambling for critical minerals. Everyone is scrambling for the future of AI. But no one seems to be asking how much it will cost. Not in dollars. In lives. In destroyed environments. In eradicated cultures. In terms of a sacrificed future. 57,000 residents of Greenland. Thousands of workers in Chinese mines. Displaced indigenous communities around the world. Ravaged ecosystems. Future generations who will inherit a devastated planet. All of this for what? So we can have faster smartphones? So we can talk to more sophisticated AIs? So we can automate even more of our lives? I’m not against progress. I’m not against technology. But I am against the idea that progress must always come at the expense of others. I’m against the idea that our comfort justifies the suffering of others. I’m against the idea that our future requires the destruction of their present. And I wonder: when will we stop paying this price? When will we understand that true progress is progress that benefits everyone, not just a few? When will we realize that true intelligence is the kind that allows us to live in harmony with our planet, not against it? 57,000 people in Greenland are waiting to see what will happen to their land. We’re all waiting to see what will happen to our world. We’re writing the answer right now. Every day. With every choice we make. With every dollar we spend. With every technology we use. The question is: what story do we want to tell?

Sources

Primary sources

The Indian Express – “Beyond oil: Why Trump and tech billionaires are racing to secure Greenland’s ‘vast riches’ for the future of AI” – January 14, 2026

CNBC – “Tech investors assess mineral mining as talk of a U.S. takeover of Greenland grows, CEO tells CNBC” – January 12, 2026

FP Analytics – “Artificial Intelligence and the Critical Minerals Crunch” – October 2025