Greenland, or Kalaallit Nunaat as it is known to its people, has a unique population in comparison to its North American neighbors. An overwhelming 88% of its population is Indigenous, compared to 2% in the U.S. and 5% in Canada. The Indigenous Peoples of Greenland are also facing the brut of climate change. They have a unique yet climate-sensitive diet: polar bear, walrus, beluga, and seal, each of which rely on an arctic that is quickly melting away. As exports, these harvests aren’t favorable either. While conservation groups and climate-conscious from people around the world want to “save the arctic”, this often comes at the expense of the people who live there.

 Arctic animals central to hunting practices have been disappearing. Caribou have not been seen since the 1980’s and whales and narwhals only appear a few times a year.

  Food insecurity is a major challenge presented by climate change. While people often think about countries along the equator facing droughts and crops dying, arctic communities that rely on wildlife rather than cultivated crops are facing just as many challenges. Seal hunting has been on the decline where the ice has gone missing. As the fjords no longer provide ice pack and instead flow free, cod and salmon have become more common. Seal hunts, bringing in over 200 seals in a season, are dwindled down to less than a hundred. Fishing has taken the place of seal hunting for many but comes with its own economic challenges. The Inhuguit of southern Greenland have not only faced problems feeding themselves, but their dogs. With little sea ice to traverse and no prey to hunt, an increasing number of families have begun to rely on imported, industrially made dog food, i.e. kibble.

 The season for polar bear hunting, while not the exclusive target species, is between January and May when sea ice is present for both. Tunumiit hunters from the most active polar bear hunting towns of Tasiilaq and Ittoqqortoormitt were interviewed regarding their hunting experiences and changes they saw while hunting. The hunters hadn’t noticed a decrease in the bears themselves, perhaps due to changes in hunting regulations and quotas, but felt that the bears were easier to find because of a lack of sea ice. They often said that the bears were running out of places to go and were showing up closer and closer to town.

 Many communities feel as though they are held hostage by external economies. The hunt of seals and polar bears has been threatened by imposing conversation organizations. While hunting is allowed, there is controversy surrounding whether hunters want to accept much-needed money to illegally allow tourist, big game hunters to participate in their trips. It is a difficult decision made within families regarding such a culturally important practice.

 In attempting to field public appeal, organizations like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have had to carefully craft responses regarding polar bear hunting. In the past, taking a respectful stance to not interfere with traditional hunting practices has led to public outrage, accusing the organizations of facilitating the illegal fur trade. On the other hand, narratives that hunting should be banned signal to hunters that these organizations do not have human interests at heart.

 Much of what is produced from hunting is sold rather than domestically used. While the meat itself is usually kept, the skull, skin, and claws are almost always sold to private buyers, amounting to a few thousand per bear. Sealskins are another good produced by hunters, but strict trade regulations instituted by the European Union and the United States make exporting difficult. Greenlanders experience environmental injustice in reporting regarding their cultural practices and traded goods. Certain countries in the EU have allowed Inuit-harvested sealskin to be sold, but even then, such strictly controlled sales often bury the prospects of trade. Additionally, sealskin isn’t seen as desirable when marine mammal conservation narratives punish the idea of using pelts without considering the difference between colonial exploitation and traditional hunting practices. To most people from the outside world, stories about skinny dying arctic animals compel people to recycle and save water; the prospect of trading sealskins and polar bear meat usually warrants outrage.

 The miles of ice don’t just serve as an ecological platform. They protect rich deposits of rare earth metals desired by numerous foreign powers. The Trump administration has shown particular interest in Greenland, making claims indicating he wants to buy Greenland. Greenland also has limited power; it’s not its own country, but technically a territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Aside from the United States, both France and China have made it known that they would like what Greenland’s mines provide.

 Trump’s interest in the landmass is not in the interest of its people. Many feel that they do not want another colonial power to step in. Their independence is a tricky issue since Greenland largely relies on Denmark for economic support for healthcare, infrastructure, and education. Additionally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) includes these factors as determinants in a region’s susceptibility to climate change. Without Denmark’s support, Greenlanders could lose access to infrastructure in multiple dimensions that would make recovery from the loss of sea ice, and thus natural resources, particularly difficult. Some Greenlanders feel that being independent now would not only cost them those benefits, but make them vulnerable to other foreign powers, especially those that are willing to send troops for what they want like France or the U.S.

 Greenlander’s natural resources are desirable to threatening foreign powers, colonial infrastructure impedes on tradition, and their foods and hunting practices become constrained by the lack of sea ice. The Inuit have a lot to protect.