Greenland has a message for the rest of the world: Come visit
'Come visit Greenland,' said Nukartaa Andreassen, who works for a water taxi company in the capital city, Nuuk. 'Learn about it, learn about us. We love to have you. We love to tell our stories and our culture.'
The mineral-rich Arctic island is open for tourism. Whale-watching tours, excursions to the iconic puffin island and guided charters through remote settlements are just the beginning of what Greenland has to offer visitors. Locals want to show what makes the island unique beyond a recent diplomatic dustup with U.S. President Donald Trump.
'Our goal and mission is to present and be the ambassadors of Greenland,' said Casper Frank Møller, the chief executive of Nuuk-based tour guide company Raw Arctic, 'and to show what beauty you can experience while you're here.'
The tourism industry is expected to see a boom this year following the launch of a new route between Nuuk and Newark, New Jersey. The inaugural flight June 14 was the first direct travel from the U.S. to Greenland by an American airline.
Before the direct flight, air passengers departing from the U.S. needed a layover in Iceland or Denmark to reach Greenland. The change benefited travelers like Doug Jenzen, an American tourist who was on the United Airlines plane from New Jersey.
'I came with the purpose of exploring some of the natural sites around the world's largest island, hoping to support things like ecotourism and sustainable travel while supporting the local economy,' Jenzen said.
Cruise ships can already dock on the island but they bring less money to businesses catering to tourists because passengers sleep and usually eat on board.
Some 150,000 tourists visited Greenland in 2024, according to Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland's business minister.
'We really want to grow the tourism sector. It's a very good fit for many in Greenland,' Nathanielsen added. 'Tourism is about good vibes. It's about sharing culture, sharing history. It's about storytelling. And as Inuit, that's very much part of our heritage.'
Greenland gained worldwide attention when Trump earlier this year announced he wanted to take control of the semiautonomous Danish territory, through a purchase or possibly by force.
Denmark, a NATO ally, and Greenland have said the island is not for sale and condemned reports of the U.S. gathering intelligence there.
Despite the diplomatic tension, Frank Møller of Raw Arctic sees an upside.
'It has kind of put Greenland on the world map. And it's definitely a situation that Raw Arctic has used to our advantage,' he said.
Still, beefing up the tourism industry should happen at a pace that prioritizes the voices and comfort levels of the roughly 56,000 people on the island, he added.
Andreassen, of Nuuk Water Taxi, agreed.
'It's very important for me to tell my own story. Because I always feel like when I meet new people, I always introduce a whole Greenland,' she said. 'It's important for me to show our own culture, our own nature. Not by television, not by other people from other countries.'
In June, Pinar Saatci, a 59-year-old Turkish tourist, saw several whales breach the ocean surface during a boat tour.
'It's very exciting to be here, at the other part of the world, so far away from home,' she said. 'It's a very exciting and unforgettable moment.'
Risskov Rejser has visited Greenland several times through her travel company for Danish travelers. But she is worried about the impact of a tourist invasion.
'For me, the worst thing would be if mass tourism starts and people come here, and sort of look upon the Greenland people as if they were a living museum,' she said. 'It has to be done in a respectful way and you have to consider what the consequences are.'
___
Stefanie Dazio in Berlin contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Senate Passes One Big Beautiful Bill Despite One Big Not-So-Beautiful Price Tag
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 1: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) pauses while speaking to reporters off the Senate floor after the Senate passes President Donald Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Act at the U.S. Capitol Building on July 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by) Getty Images Senate Republicans narrowly passed President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' with a 51-50 vote after three Republicans—(Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.)—joined Democrats in voting no. Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaker vote. The tax provisions in the Senate would make permanent a number of the expiring tax cuts contained in Trump's signature 2017 tax legislation— the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWB Model), a nonpartisan, research-based initiative that provides an economic analysis of public policy's fiscal impact, making those cuts permanent would increase the deficit by $4.3 trillion over 10 years. These changes would be partly offset by spending cuts of $1.460 trillion for a total conventional cost of $3.104 trillion. The PWB Model analysis scored the legislation against a current law baseline. That's also how the Joint Committee on Taxation originally scored the bill. The baseline impacts how the cost of extending tax cuts is calculated (that's called scoring) and how it impacts the overall budget. As you know from past bills, including the Bush tax cuts, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, it has long been the case that bills are scored based on the cost to move forward based on current law (so, in all of those examples, any provisions that were set to expire are reset to zero while those previously made permanent are ignored). Senate Republicans had requested that the JCT rescore it using a new approach called a current policy baseline. With a current policy baseline, extending provisions that are set to expire are scored as having zero cost. The Parliamentarian ruled that the new approach breaks the rules—this is consistent with precedent. With a current law baseline, the cost of the extensions is fully counted. Senate Committees According to the PWB Model analysis, increases in spending under the Armed Services, Judiciary, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees would add $290 billion to the deficit. While other committees proposed net spending cuts or revenue increases, the savings amount to only $1.5 trillion, offsetting less than one-third of the $4.6 trillion increase in deficits from tax cuts and spending increases. You can see how those costs are expected to play out here: Penn Wharton Budget Model Analysis, Senate Bill Kelly Phillips Erb (You can read more about the TCJA extensions as they originally appeared in the House version of the bill here.) Major Spending Cuts The Senate bill includes changes to health programs, including Medicaid. Notably, it would cut Medicaid spending by imposing work requirements, restricting state-level taxes on healthcare providers that receive federal matching funds, increasing the frequency of eligibility checks, changing Medicaid eligibility requirements based on immigration status, and phasing down state-directed payments to providers to align with Medicare rates. Overall, cuts to Medicaid would reduce the federal deficit by more than $900 billion. The bill also reduces spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) by $186 billion over ten years. The cost doesn't just disappear—it shifts the responsibility for payment to the states with a new cost-sharing formula. It would also create additional work documentation requirements, shift administrative costs to states, and make other changes to reduce federal SNAP costs. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee eliminates subsidized and income-driven loan repayment plans, imposes new limits on student borrowing, and tightens the eligibility requirements for Pell Grants. Altogether, it would reduce spending by $350 billion over the budget window. Impact To The Federal Debt Overall, the PWB Model analysis predicts that the bill would increase debt by 7.6% over 10 years and decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.3% over the same period. That's different than the impact to the federal deficit. Here's the quick difference between deficit and debt: The federal deficit is the excess of expenditures over revenue in a fiscal year. In simple terms, if we spend more than we take in, we have a deficit. If we spend exactly what we take in, we achieve a balanced budget. If we take in more than we spend, we have a surplus. The deficit is recalculated annually based on the shortfall or surplus each month. If there is a deficit, the Treasury borrows money to make up the difference. The Treasury accomplishes this by selling securities like T-bills, notes, and savings bonds. The federal debt is essentially the total of the deficits. So, if we owe $800 million one year and it's not repaid, and in another year we owe $500 million that is also not repaid, we accumulate a debt of $1.3 billion. Make sense? Since this amount represents borrowed money, we also pay interest on it, causing it to continue growing even if we are not actively adding to it. Next Steps Now that the bill has passed the Senate, it moves back to the House. Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose three votes—the last iteration in the House passed 215-214. The versions passed in the House and Senate must match exactly for the bill to become law. Forbes What's Comes Next For The One Big Beautiful Bill Act By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes As The Byrd Bath Continues, Here's A Look At What Will Likely Be Out Of The One Big Beautiful Bill (Updated) By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes House Passes Trump Tax Bill After Marathon Session, Now It Moves To The Senate By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes A Guide To The Tax Cuts In (And Out) Of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' By Kelly Phillips Erb
Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
HDB's $1.5 Billion IPO Points to Strong Appetite For Large Offerings in India
Before the trading day starts we bring you a digest of the key news and events that are likely to move markets. Today we look at: Good morning, this is Ashutosh Joshi, an equities reporter in Mumbai. Local shares could be in for a volatile session, tracking losses in Asian markets as US President Donald Trump refuses to budge on his July 9 deadline for higher tariffs. All eyes will be on HDB Financial as the year's biggest IPO debuts on the bourses. Also in focus will be Asian Paints after the antitrust regulator ordered a probe on the company over alleged abuse of dominant market position.
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
When Is It Too Late For Asset Protection Planning?
The Judgment is the sword and Asset Protection is the shield. Asset protection planning is where a person takes steps to disassociate themselves from their current assets so that they are no longer available to creditors. Although asset protection planning as a discrete practice area for attorneys has only existed since the 1980s, folks with valuable assets have been trying to legally distance those assets from potential creditors since there were valuable assets. The Romans, for instance, promulgated laws that prohibited a debtor from transferring away assets so as to cheat creditors, and these Roman laws were the basis of the fraudulent transfers laws found in Anglo-American law. Some asset protection is proper and will be recognized as valid by the courts. Some asset protection is improper and the courts will set it aside, and may also issue certain penalties for the attempt. Questions of whether certain asset protection is proper or improper usually comes down to the timing of the transfers involved. If the asset protection planning is done too late, then it will likely be both ineffective and the debtor (and possibly the transferee) will be put into a potentially worse situation than before. Understanding The Dividing Line So, when does asset protection go from being proper to improper? To answer this question, one must first understand the concept of a claim. The word claim is a term-of-art in fraudulent transfer law which basically means a legal liability arising from some event. A creditor has a claim against the debtor. The claim can be contingent or unliquidated. A claim arises at the precise moment in time that the event giving rise to the liability occurs. To answer the main question: Asset protection goes from being proper to improper at the time that the claim arises, i.e., at the time that the event giving rise to the liability occurs. This is the relevant point in time. Asset protection planning done before a claim arises is proper; asset protection planning after a claim arises is improper. It is a clear delineation. In explaining this concept to folks who contact me, they'll often say the following things: Where this usually comes up is in the context of personal guarantees. The usual line that I hear will be something like this: "The loan is not in default yet, but I'm concerned that it might be and I've signed a personal guarantee." It's too late to do asset protection planning. For purposes of determining when a claim exists, the claim arose on the date that the guarantee was entered into. That is when the guarantee liability arose. Thus, if somebody has entered into a personal guarantee, it is probably too late to do any asset protection planning even if the project is still doing well and the underlying loan obligation is not in default. The next thing they'll say is, "Can I at least protect assets that were not on the financial statement that I gave to the bank?" No, that does not matter one iota. A personal guarantee is a pledge of all of one's non-exempt assets to back a debt, whether disclosed or not. A similar circumstance is one that we could call "the retiring doctor". This is the physician who retires, but is concerned that something in the past has occurred that the doctor is not yet aware of, but which might later turn into a problem for the patient and thus trigger a malpractice lawsuit. Unfortunately, if the doctor has done something negligently, then that event has already occurred and the claim already exists whether the patient or the doctor knows about it or not. Thus, the doctor cannot do asset protection planning (unless the doctor has tail coverage against such negligence claims, in which case the doctor doesn't have to worry about this in the first place and can still do asset protection against other unforeseen future events). Note that the same is true for all professionals, e.g., the architect who is concerned about a skyrise condo collapsing someday. Common situations where it is too late to do asset protection planning include: In all these situations, asset protection cannot properly be done and at rate it is unlikely to be effective. In fact, trying to do such planning in these situations can easily make the debtor's situation worse ― and possibly much worse ― as will next be discussed. Downsides Of Too Late Transfers Once a claim has arisen, then it is not possible to do proper asset protection going forward aside perhaps from some exemption planning in certain states. At the point in time that a claim arises, the planning is not proper asset protection planning at all but simply good old fashioned fraud on creditors. This can generate a variety of bad outcomes: In other words, by engaging in a fraudulent transfer a debtor can easily make their situation much worse than if they just let the creditor take the asset. One of the problems in this area is that there are "planners" (and I use that term quite loosely) who will advocate and assist with the making of fraudulent transfers. These folks will take their fees from the debtor and then basically try to disappear when things go badly. If the debtor complains, their defense will be something like, "well, you were going to lose that asset anyway." Thankfully, the rise of theories of liability for creditors suing these planners have been expanding and there are now much fewer of them still around. Also, case law has now established that it is possible for a creditor, receiver or bankruptcy trustee to take over the debtor's malpractice cause of action against the asset protection planner who advised a transfer that resulted in a fraudulent transfer. How To Avoid This Mess To have a chance of succeeding, asset protection planning must be done in advance of any claims. It is analogous to getting a flu shot: You get the shot when you are healthy, not when your throat starts to feel scratchy because then it is too late. Continuing this analogy, trying to do asset protection after a claim arises is like getting the flu shot after you already have the flu. In the best case, it will not do anything. The difference is that, as described above, post-claim transfers can make the debtor's situation much worse. For asset protection planning to be effective, it must be done at a time when there are no significant creditors, either known or unknown, and great care must be taken to ensure that enough assets remain outside of the asset protection plan such that there are no arguments of insolvency at the time of the planning. But therein lies the problem with asset protection planning, which is that most people don't think of it until it is too late. Most folks are optimists in that they think they will not have a problem until the moment they do. By that point, however, asset protection planning can no longer be properly done. So, don't wait until you get the creditor flu to get the asset protection shot.
