Explores the tradeoffs between climate change action and economic development from the perspective of Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark. Greenland lacks autonomous decision-making authority in several key international fora, including the United Nations international climate negotiations. The Paris Agreement was a milestone in international climate negotiations, and an important step towards limiting global greenhouse gas emissions. Greenland, as part of wealthy Denmark, would be considered under the Paris Agreement obligations of the European Union and Denmark. The central conflict explored in this case is whether Greenland should participate in the Paris Agreement or request a territorial exclusion from Denmark. The Paris Agreement was widely accepted by the international community, with signatories ranging from the wealthiest nations to the least-developed nations. However, countries are not equally responsible for historical emissions. With a population of approximately 56,000 (90% indigenous Inuit), Greenland has contributed a negligible amount of historic emissions, but is experiencing disproportionate impacts from climate change, including rapid melting of its ice sheet. During the case, Greenland is in the process of nation building. Greenland's economy historically has been dependent on fisheries, but with climate change transforming the landscape, Greenland has an opportunity to pursue economic development by tapping into its abundant natural resources, including minerals, oil, and gas, or developing other sectors like tourism. This development is seen as the key to Greenland's economic growth and ultimate independence from Denmark. Many in Greenland's government are concerned that joining the Paris Agreement would limit Greenland's ability to achieve economic growth and independence. Others were in favor of participating in the Paris Agreement to demonstrate Greenland's active participation in global efforts against climate change.

Iceland has two unique features. First it has one of the most unique landscapes in the world. A country twice the size of Switzerland, it has only 300,000 inhabitants and thus most of its regions are sparsely inhabited. Second, it also has access to significant amounts of "green energy" in the form of geothermal and hydroelectric power and in the future, possibly wind. Further in Iceland green energy is comparatively inexpensive. These two attributes have set in motion a major debate - should Iceland accelerate the development of its green energy resources by attracting more power intensive industries to locate in the country and perhaps export some of its power to Europe or should it slow the rate of power development and focus on preserving its unique natural resources and build up its tourism industry? This case addresses these two alternatives. It is built around two specific decisions - whether the government should build the generating facilities that would provide the electricity for a fourth aluminum smelter and whether to accept a new plan written by the national electric company to aggressively embrace additional development of its energy resources. Case Number 1968