Sunday Review

New York Times

Thayer Scudder, the world’s leading authority on the impact of dams on poor people, has changed his mind about dams.

A frequent consultant on large dam projects, Mr. Scudder held out hope through most of his 58-year career that the poverty relief delivered by a properly constructed and managed dam would outweigh the social and environmental damage it caused. Now, at age 84, he has concluded that large dams not only aren’t worth their cost, but that many currently under construction “will have disastrous environmental and socio-economic consequences,” as he wrote in a recent email.

Mr. Scudder, an emeritus anthropology professor at the California Institute of Technology, describes his disillusionment with dams as gradual. He was a dam proponent when he began his first research project in 1956, documenting the impact of forced resettlement on 57,000 Tonga people in the Gwembe Valley of present-day Zambia and Zimbabwe. Construction of the Kariba Dam, which relied on what was then the largest loan in the World Bank’s history, required the Tonga to move from their ancestral homes along the Zambezi River to infertile land downstream. Mr. Scudder has been tracking their disintegration ever since.

Once cohesive and self-sufficient, the Tonga are troubled by intermittent hunger, rampant alcoholism and astronomical unemployment. Desperate for income, some have resorted to illegal drug cultivation and smuggling, elephant poaching, pimping and prostitution. Villagers still lack electricity.

Mr. Scudder’s most recent stint as a consultant, on the Nam Theun 2 Dam in Laos, delivered his final disappointment. He and two fellow advisers supported the project because it required the dam’s funders to carry out programs that would leave people displaced by the dam in better shape than before the project started. But the dam was finished in 2010, and the programs’ goals remain unmet. Meanwhile, the dam’s three owners are considering turning over all responsibilities to the Laotian government — “too soon,” Mr. Scudder said in an interview. “The government wants to build 60 dams over the next 20 or 30 years, and at the moment it doesn’t have the capacity to deal with environmental and social impacts for any single one of them.

“Nam Theun 2 confirmed my longstanding suspicion that the task of building a large dam is just too complex and too damaging to priceless natural resources,” he said. He now thinks his most significant accomplishment was not improving a dam, but stopping one: He led a 1992 study that helped prevent construction of a dam that would have harmed Botswana’s Okavango Delta, one of the world’s last great wetlands.

Part of what moved Mr. Scudder to go public with his revised assessment was the corroboration he found in a stunning Oxford University study published in March in Energy Policy. The study, by Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier and Daniel Lunn, draws upon cost statistics for 245 large dams built between 1934 and 2007. Without even taking into account social and environmental impacts, which are almost invariably negative and frequently vast, the study finds that “the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return.”

The study’s authors — three management scholars and a statistician — say planners are systematically biased toward excessive optimism, which dam promoters exploit with deception or blatant corruption. The study finds that actual dam expenses on average were nearly double pre-building estimates, and several times greater than overruns of other kinds of infrastructure construction, including roads, railroads, bridges and tunnels. On average, dam construction took 8.6 years, 44 percent longer than predicted — so much time, the authors say, that large dams are “ineffective in resolving urgent energy crises.”

DAMS typically consume large chunks of developing countries’ financial resources, as dam planners underestimate the impact of inflation and currency depreciation. Many of the funds that support large dams arrive as loans to the host countries, and must eventually be paid off in hard currency. But most dam revenue comes from electricity sales in local currencies. When local currencies fall against the dollar, as often happens, the burden of those loans grows.

One reason this dynamic has been overlooked is that earlier studies evaluated dams’ economic performance by considering whether international lenders like the World Bank recovered their loans — and in most cases, they did. But the economic impact on host countries was often debilitating. Dam projects are so huge that beginning in the 1980s, dam overruns became major components of debt crises in Turkey, Brazil, Mexico and the former Yugoslavia. “For many countries, the national economy is so fragile that the debt from just one mega-dam can completely negatively affect the national economy,” Mr. Flyvbjerg, the study’s lead investigator, told me.

To underline its point, the study singles out the massive Diamer-Bhasha Dam, now under construction in Pakistan across the Indus River. It is projected to cost $12.7 billion (in 2008 dollars) and finish construction by 2021. But the study suggests that it won’t be completed until 2027, by which time it could cost $35 billion (again, in 2008 dollars) — a quarter of Pakistan’s gross domestic product that year.

Using the study’s criteria, most of the world’s planned mega-dams would be deemed cost-ineffective. That’s unquestionably true of the gargantuan Inga complex of eight dams intended to span the Congo River — its first two projects have produced huge cost overruns — and Brazil’s purported $14 billion Belo Monte Dam, which will replace a swath of Amazonian rain forest with the world’s third-largest hydroelectric dam.

Instead of building enormous, one-of-a-kind edifices like large dams, the study’s authors recommend “agile energy alternatives” like wind, solar and mini-hydropower facilities. “We’re stuck in a 1950s mode where everything was done in a very bespoke, manual way,” Mr. Ansar said over the phone. “We need things that are more easily standardized, things that fit inside a container and can be easily transported.”

All this runs directly contrary to the current international dam-building boom. Chinese, Brazilian and Indian construction companies are building hundreds of dams around the world, and the World Bank announced a year ago that it was reviving a moribund strategy to fund mega-dams. The biggest ones look so seductive, so dazzling, that it has taken us generations to notice: They’re brute-force, Industrial Age artifacts that rarely deliver what they promise.

 ———————————————-

Photos by Ólafur Már Sigurðsson

Tourism, it need hardly be pointed out, is big business in Iceland, an industry which in the years following the crash has ballooned, with more than double the country’s population visiting last year. But while making it into the New York Times would normally be good news for Iceland’s economy, a recent entry about Iceland’s highlands on the publication’s “52 Places to Visit in 2014” list was less than ideal from a publicity standpoint.

The paragraph-long blurb did mention the area’s unique landscape, but its key takeaway was that the “famously raw natural beauty” of the highlands—and more specifically, the Þjórsárver wetlands located in the interior—may not be enjoyable by anyone, let alone tourists, for much longer. As reads the article’s subtitle: “Natural wonders are in danger. Go see them before it’s too late.”

The suggested threat facing the integrity of Þjórsárver? Not impending volcanic eruptions or natural deterioration. Rather, the article stated that the Icelandic government recently “announced plans to revoke those protections” which had been safeguarding the wetlands, and additionally, that “a law intending to further repeal conservation efforts has been put forward.”

The “52 Places” article was widely quoted within the Icelandic media. Within days of its publication, the Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources issued a brief statement in Icelandic bearing the title “Incorrect Reporting by the New York Times.” It claimed that the New York Times article was “full of misrepresentations” and was “paradoxical and wrong.” The author of the article, contributing travel writer Danielle Pergament, was not contacted in regard to any “misrepresentations,” and neither was the New York Times—although the latter was invited to send a reporter to an open Environment and Communications Committee meeting on Þjórsárver a few days after the article’s publication.

So what exactly caused all the kerfuffle? Did The New York Times get it all wrong?

A Contentious History

Before we address the “incorrect reporting” alleged by the Ministry of the Environment, it will be useful to step back and explain a little of the context surrounding the Þjórsárver Wetlands and the battles which have been waged over this area since the 1960s.

Located in Iceland’s interior, the Þjórsárver wetlands stretch 120 square kilometres from the Hofsjökull glacier in the northern highlands to surrounding volcanic deserts and are characterized by remarkable biodiversity. A description on the World Wildlife Fund website points not only to the variance of the landscape itself—“tundra meadows intersected with numerous glacial and spring-fed streams, a large number of pools, ponds, lakes and marshes, and rare permafrost mounds”—but also to the area’s unique plant and birdlife, including one of the largest breeding colonies of Pink-footed Geese in the world.

Þjórsárver is fed by Iceland’s longest river, Þjórsá, which also sources much of the country’s electricity. Since the early 1960s, Landsvirkjun, the National Power Company of Iceland, has proposed several plans for creating a reservoir on Þjórsá that would facilitate increased energy production and enlarge energy reserves. Such reserves would not only be useful for existing industries, such as aluminium smelting, but—following the proposed creation of a submarine cable to Europe—could also be sold as part of foreign energy contracts as early as 2020.

Through the years, Landsvirkjun’s proposals have been met with frequent opposition, which in 1981 led to a nature preserve being created in the Þjórsárver wetlands. However, a provision was made within these protections, allowing Landsvirkjun to create a future reservoir, provided that the company could prove that the wetlands would not be irrevocably harmed, and that the Environment Agency of Iceland approved the reservoir plans.

By the late ‘90s, there was another flurry of activity: in 1997, the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) was founded with the “primary objective” of “establish[ing] a national park in the highlands.” Two years later, the government began work on an extensive “Master Plan for Hydro and Geothermal Energy Resources.” Divided into two phases that spanned from 1999 -2010, the Master Plan was intended to evaluate close to 60 hydro and geothermal development options, assessing them for environmental impact, employment and regional development possibilities, efficiency, and profitability.

Over the course of the Master Plan’s two phases, it was decided that the nature preserve established in the Þjórsárver Wetlands was to be expanded and designated as a “protected area.” The new boundaries were to be signed into regulation based on the Nature Conservation Act in June 2013 (the resolution was passed by parliament that year according to the Master Plan), until the Minister of the Environment, Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, elected to postpone making them official in order to consider a new reservoir proposal from Landsvirkjun.

Based on this new proposal, Sigurður Ingi has drawn up new boundaries for the protected area, which would expand the original nature reservoir, but cover less area than the original boundaries created by the Environment Agency of Iceland. The new suggested boundaries do not extend as far down the Þjórsá river, and therefore would allow Landsvirkjun to build their Norðlingalda Reservoir. Conservationists who oppose this point out that the three-tiered Dynkur waterfall will be destroyed if Landsvirkjun’s reservoir plans go through.

Parsing Facts

This brings us back the alleged “misrepresentations” in the New York Times write-up. Best to go through the Ministry of the Environment’s statement and address their qualms one by one:

“The article in question is full of misrepresentations about Þjórsárver preserve and the government’s intentions regarding its protection and utilisation. For instance, it states that Þjórsárver covers 40% of Iceland, while in fact, it only covers .5% of the country today.”

The first version of the article, since corrected, read as though the Þjórsárver wetlands constituted 40% of Iceland. In reality, it is the highlands that constitute 40% of Iceland’s landmass, and Þjórsárver is only part of this area. Following a call from Árni Finnsson, the chair of INCA who was quoted in the piece, this error was corrected.

“There are no plans to lift the protections currently in place. On the contrary, the Environment and Natural Resources Minister aims to expand the protected area and if that plan goes through, it’ll be an expansion of about 1,500 square kilometers, or about 1.5 % of the total area of Iceland.”

It is true that Minister of the Environment Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson has not suggested that the current protections—namely, the preserve that was established in the ‘80s—be altered. Nevertheless, it is also misleading to suggest that he personally “aims to expand the protected area,” as the expansion plans were basically mandated by the findings of the Master Plan. Moreover, he elected not to approve the Environment Agency’s expanded boundaries, but rather to propose new boundaries which would create a smaller protected area than was intended.

So no, Sigurður Ingi is not cutting back on “current protections,” but that’s only because he refused to approve the protections that were supposed to be in place already.

“Therefore, it is clear that there will be a substantial expansion of the protected area under discussion. The New York Times asserting that protections on Þjórsárver will be lifted in order to enable hydroelectric power development is both paradoxical and wrong.”

What we’re seeing the Ministry of the Environment do here is a neat little bit of semantic parsing. The NYT article states that after spending decades protecting the wetlands, “the government announced plans to revoke protections, allowing for the construction of hydropower plants.” This is a carefully qualified statement, and might accurately refer to any of several ministerial initiatives, from Sigurður Ingi’s redrawing of the Þjórsárver protected area boundaries, to his recent proposal to repeal the law on nature conservation (60/2013). This law was approved by Alþingi and was set to go into effect on April 1, 2014. It included specific protections for natural phenomena, such as lava formations and wetlands. In November, Sigurður Ingi introduced a bill to repeal the nature conservation law, although this has yet to be voted on by parliament.

So, no, the New York Times article was not “paradoxical and wrong.” It was, unfortunately, quite correct.

A Land Beyond

Although debates over Þjórsárver and development proposals in the Icelandic highlands have been well covered and discussed in detail by the Icelandic media, conservation issues around this area have not, thus far, made many headlines internationally. So it is noteworthy that an outlet such as The New York Times chose to highlight these issues on a more prominent stage, especially given that Iceland’s breathtaking landscapes are often a driving force supporting its tourism industry. As Árni Finnsson wonders, “Who goes to Iceland to see power plants and power lines?”

While an over-saturation of tourists in fragile natural environments can pose its own, very real, threat to nature reserves and natural sites like Þjórsárver, tourism can still have a positive influence on conservation issues, such as, Árni recalls, when a greater interest in whale watching led to more effective challenges to Icelandic whaling. “It takes many millions to recover a loss of reputation,” says Árni Finnsson, speaking about Iceland’s image as a country whose nature is its biggest selling point. “It’s a huge resource, but it is so easy to destroy it.”

It was, in fact, specifically the threat of development that made this particular site stand out to Danielle Pergament. “I think people—over here [in the US] anyway—are well aware of the natural beauty in Iceland. But not many people know that the wetlands are under threat, that there is a chance that the famous landscape may be developed. I was shocked to learn about it myself. That is why I wanted to write about it.”

The question remains, however, if the attention drawn to Þjórsárver’s tenuous position will actually generate much new support. After all, in declining to publicly “correct” the New York Times, the Ministry effectively contained the debate to an Icelandic-speaking audience here in Iceland. And anyway, even if thousands of tourists become suddenly impassioned by the cause of the Icelandic wetlands, the area may remain inaccessible to many of them. “The Þjórsárver wetlands are like an El Dorado, a land beyond,” says Árni Finnsson. “They aren’t really suitable for tourism, or not for many tourists, at least. Maybe a few very keen, very well-trained hikers.”

At the end of the day, then, if the choice is made to protect Þjórsárver, it will have to be for less tangible reasons than the possible dollars generated by tourists, or international pressure. It has to come from within.

But first, let’s get the facts straight.

Originally published in Grapevine.is Feb. 10.

Read more:

Minister Of Environment Would Support Sacrificing Waterfalls For Reservoir

Proceeding With Caution (Svandís Svavarsdóttir, member of the Left Green Party, on the balance beween the nature’s value for the energy industry or tourism and its categorial value)

Peaceful Environmental Protest Following Arrest

By Julia Vol

Links:
http://grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/Minister-Of-Environment-Wont-Sign-O…
http://heartoficeland.org/
http://grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/Environmental-Minister-To-Change-Pr…
http://grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/Minister-Of-Environment-Would-Suppo…
http://thepalebluedot.me/2013/10/21/passion-for-lava/
http://grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/Ministers-Dad-And-Uncles-Profit-Fro…
http://visir.is/myndband-af-handtoku-omars-ragnarssonar/article/20131310…
http://grapevine.is/News/ReadArticle/Charges-Filed-Against-Galgahraun-Pr…
http://grapevine.is/Author/ReadArticle/27-Increase-In-Tourism-This-Year
http://grapevine.is/Author/ReadArticle/Travellers-Take-Their-Toll-On-Tou…
http://grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/Hotels-Motels-Holiday-Inns
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/10/travel/2014-places-to-go.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/19/iceland-fin-whale-hun…
http://grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/City-Hall-Wants-Answers-On-Whale-Wa…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/08/icelandic-whale-beer-…
http://grapevine.is/Features/ReadArticle/A-Look-In-The–Rearview-Mirror-

By Evi Papada

Occupied London – From the Greek Streets

Mining conflicts are increasingly surfacing globally due to complains over mines and pollution of water, soil and land occupied as well as over transport and waste disposal. The Skouries forest in Halkidiki has been at the center of a hot dispute between the mining company, Hellas Gold, a subsidiary of the Canadian mining giant Eldorado Gold and local communities. The company claims that an ambitious plan for mining of gold and copper in the area- including deforestation and open pit mining with excavation and everyday use of explosives- will benefit the region through the creation of some 5,000 direct and indirect jobs, while local residents argue that the planned investment will cause considerable damage to the environment  and livelihoods, resulting to many more jobs losses in the existing sectors of the local economy (farming, pasture land, fisheries, beekeeping, food processing and tourism).  The residents’ claims are supported by research conducted by various independent scientific institutions including the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the Technical Chamber of Macedonia. In addition to legitimacy questions underpinning the transfer of mining rights from the Greek state to the aforementioned company[1],  the Environmental Impact Assessment produced by El Dorado has been found to contain gross methodological discrepancies and whilst the public consultation process could be at best described as cosmetic[2].

Local communities have been mobilizing against the expansion of mining activities long before El Dorado was given the green light to begin works on site. Small scale mining had been taking place almost uninterrupted since the end of Second World War and residents have had first experience of its impact on their livelihoods and the  environment. During the 90’s the Greek government had made several attempts at reviving mining activity in the region but following an appeal by the people the State Council decided that the potential risks of the proposed investment were higher than the potential benefits for the community and the environment and operations came to a halt in 2002 . The case of mining in Halkdiki took a definite political dimension owing to the following events. In December 2003 the mines were transferred to the Greek state through a law ratified by the Greek Parliament for 11 million euros and were sold the same day and for the same price to Mr George Bololas, owner of Hellas Gold S.A for the same  price and  without an open procurement process.  The concessions relieve the company in advance from any tax transfers and from any financial obligation concerning environmental damage resulting from previous operation of the mines. It also stipulates that the mining company has possession of all minerals in the concession granted and there are no royalties for the state.

When it comes to mining conflicts, issues of distribution of resources extracted, recognition of the community’s relationship to natural  resources at stake as well as their meaningful participation in the decision making processes determine the  sense of injustice, or environmental injustice[3].  In political ecology thus, mobilizations can be understood as a response to a series of disruptions in the course of ‘procedural justice’. [4] In the years to come, local village communities set up local committees and met in their homes, organized information seminars  and succeeded in engaging and mobilizing the wider scientific community of Northen Greece in an attempt to collect data and exert pressure against the expansion of mining in the region. A space has been created where communities and individuals live and develop political strategies. The documentary ‘Gold in the time of crisis: the treasure of Cassandra’ released in 2012 is a rare in depth investigation of the resistance movement and offers an eloquent account of everyday resistance in praxis.[5]

Further parliamentary pressure lead to the European Commissions’ decision that the terms of the contract amount to an illegal State aid in favor of he company and ruled that the Greek government should collect 15.3 million Euros, plus interest.  In addition, the EU Court of Justice decide that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) produced by the company failed to meet any of the goals of the Framework Directive 60/2000/EK regarding  community action in water policy and ruled it out as inadequate[6].  From the same Directive follows that mining activity can be sustainable only if it does not alter the character of a region, and developmental if it is carried out in the overall interest of society.  The Greek government has appealed the decision and  the case is still pending.  Despite a court decision and the strong criticism it received, the EIA was finally approved and in March 2012, 4.1 square kilometers of public forest was conceded for the company to begin the implementation of the mining projects.

The way an environmental conflict fleshes out is determined by the language of valuation used by the different actors involved. The impact on the surrounding environment and livelihoods of current and future generations may be evaluated in physical or monetary terms or ‘strong’ versus ‘weak’ sustainability respectively.  For the residents of Halkidiki, collective memory of village life, loss of livelihoods and the future of the coming generations are values that surpass monetary valuations of cost and benefit analysis.  On the other hand, scientific valuations typically exert a cost benefit analysis monetizing environmental externalities using basic economic theory.  Such externalities include social, environmental and policy impacts and data should be selected during the initial stages of the project. In the absence of original data selection, as is the case in the Halkdiki mines, a ‘benefit transfer’ methodology has been used as a ‘second to best’ approach to estimating benefits and costs of projects or policies. A robust Environmental Impact Assessment is deemed essential for such a method to be scientifically sound and it is, regrettably, absent given it has been ruled by the European Commission as not meeting set standards. The concept  of ‘ecological distribution conflicts’ is often used to illustrate the incommensurable values pertained in any such conflict , while dynamics of power regarding the prevailing language of such valuations may bare significant consequences on how the conflict is negotiated in the public domain. According to a study recently conducted by a consortium of Greek universities using the aforementioned methodology, the annual environmental externalities of the mining activity in the area are estimated at 1.3M while the mining project will increase GDP by 40% and national income by 66% and will create 880 indirect and induced jobs. The benefit-cost ration is found to be 3.13 for the Greek economy[7].

A golden opportunity for growth

Regional competition for resources and pressure to curb high unemployment rates are pushing a gradual shift in European attitudes and policies towards mining. In an article published on the Reuters on line edition on July the 4^th2013 titled ‘mining revival offers hope in crisis hit Europe’  an analyst of Raw Materials Group explains that growing resource nationalism in many parts of the world makes Europe more attractive from a political risk point perspective[8]. Canadian investors clearly encountered no resource nationalism  when they knocked on Greece’s door: the concessions mentioned above (full possession/no royalties for the state) were granted based on a law that dates back to the Greek military Junta, and which the current government did not bother to amend.

Since 2009, Greece has been operating under the auspices of financial recovery plan, designed collectively by the IMF, European Central Bank and the European Commission. According to the signed Memorandum, the country has agreed to a multi billion bailout on the condition of implementation of structural adjustment programmes and the attraction of investment is seen the only road to growth and job creation. Given the pressures inherent in any IMF structural adjustment programmes to allow Foreign Direct Investment, it come to no surprise that the Greek government approved the questionable terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment. The paradox however still remains as the terms of the concessions made to the company leave little room for the Greek state to profit out of this investment. The scale of environmental damage and the circumstances under which this project has been licensed bare striking resemblance to many post colonial modernization projects widespread in the developing world.[9]

It is not the first time that the economic crisis is used as a pretext for the sacrifice of the environment and basic rights. So eager was the then Minister of Finance to approve the Environmental Impact Assessment and sign the investment agreement with Hellas Gold (the Greek subsidiary of Canadian based El Dorado) and so determined to follow it through, that practically no one could stand in his way.  Certainly not protesting local residents, who were soon to be accused of forming and participating in a terrorist organization.

The turning point came on Oct. 21 2012 when about 2,500 protesters fought a pitched battle with more than 200 police along the forest road leading to Eldorado’s Skouries gold-and-copper deposit, arresting 14 people. Retribution came on the night of Feb. 16, when about 40 masked men invaded a Skouries work site in the forest, set fire to machinery and vehicles, and doused three security guards with fuel, threatening to burn them alive. Eldorado put the damage of the arson attack at $1-million (U.S.). Two men were arrested and another 18 are under investigation.

Evoking concerns over terrorist activity and threat to social order, police forces imposed a regime of occupation in Ierissos, conducting continuous house searches, interrogations, arrests including 16 DNA samples taken by force and without consent as well as arbitrary detentions, an Orwellian reality that residents of Ierissos and the neighboring areas were forced to experience. A 76 year old was called to testify at the local police station under accusations of ‘use of illegal violence’ during her participation at the June demonstration June 2013 blockade of the road leading to the worksite in Skouries. 35 more local residents are facing identical charges, for protests and blockades in April 2013. To make matters worst,  on October 23, 2013  the National Federation of Editors Union released a statement condemning the surveillance activities of the National Intelligence Service for secretly recording conversations with national and international media regarding the events in Skouries, for the purpose of using them as evidence in court against those accused.

The local mobilization and unprecedented repression that ensued quickly found an international platform for support and solidarity through social and critical media platforms. The ‘battlefield’ ceased to be the central stage for mobilization and resistance welcomed new actors. More hybrid forms of resistance emerged, local, national and global, local protests continued along with international  advocacy, lobbying etc. Consequently, police presence has been gradually withdrawing and the North Star ascended, a by private security firm guarding the site and equipment. On December 16^th, 2013, 150 employees of the aforementioned security firm were fired and came to protest  at the village square of Stratoni as El Dorado Gold decided to change their security provider to ‘Blackwater’, the notorious international private army known to the public through its involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Protesters were carrying a placard writing ‘murderers of nations out of here’.

Corruption and the mainstream media

An open letter addressed to the National Federation of Editor Unions from the Coordinating Committee of affected communities wrote:

“During the last few days…..the residents of our towns and villages have been targeted by a certain part of the Media, which systematically present us as “terrorists”. Not only is televised time split unequally, but we also often see a television “reality” that is manufactured for the needs of the 8pm news. On the pulpit of tele- democracy and the government affiliated news papers, there is no mention of the repetitive violations of our human and constitutional rights, the continuous police surveillance of our personal lives, the violation of our lawyers’ rights, the abductions/citizens’ disappearance for hours at a time, the unbearable pressure to give DNA samples. The rule of law is abolished everyday in our towns and the journalists pretend they see nothing”.(sos.halkidiki fact sheet,2012)

The mainstream media tactic concerning the events and issues surrounding the investment in Skouries has been two fold. First, the vast majority of TV and written press failed to report on the organisation of events and demonstration in area or surrounding cities, which were often attended by tens of thousands, making them the largest demonstation during the histroy of austerity in Greece.

A characteristic example is the newspaper ‘Kathimerini’ reporting of the demonstration of the 9^th of September 2012 and the police repression. In an article under the heading ‘Determination in the face of extremities’, the unknown author argued that the struggle against the expansion of mining activities is equivalent to the action of far right groups, characterizing protesters as’ leftist assault battalions.

Not a single journalistic account had been published or braodcasted on the greviances put forward by residents of nearby villages regarding the illicit activities of the company. Reporting has been scarce if not absent, rendering the importance of the events not news worthy. Second, mainstream media outlets have used the method of selective reporting of events, broadcasting exclusively the opinions of government and company representatives, allowing it to be adopted as the ‘dominant truth’.  A reference by representatives of the Ministry of Environment about a similar mining project of El Dorado S.A in environmentally sound Finland has been continuously reported whereas reports from national and international scientific bodies regarding the devastating effects on the environment are silenced is an illustrative example of the mainstream media serving particular interests. In this way, the ‘dominant truth’ is established as the single means of interpreting events, and succeeds in presenting such an investment activity as devoid of environmental risks, safe and necessary.

The political economy of the Greek media is of great interest and relevance and it has been further scrutinized both nationally and internationally, following Greece’s financial downturn in 2009. A gradual death of mainstream Greek media that positioned critically against the Memorandum singed between Greece and the Troika (IMF, ECB, EU) gave space for the emergence of a ‘memorandum of consensus’. Not only is there greater pressure on journalists to promote austerity measures, but there has also been a massive reduction of voices diversity: 63% of political parties TV air time goes to government, while Troika representatives or journalistic accounts about them account for 57% of TV news (June-December 2013). And another astonishing figure: Greece fell from the 35^th place to the 84 in Press Freedom between 2009-2013 (Smyrnaios, 2013). The attitude and stand of the Greek mainstream mass media points to interwoven relations of corruption[10]. Incidentally the owner of the biggest Media Group, DOL is Mr George Bobolas, the same person who owns Hellas Gold S.A.

Local Community strikes back

The liberal peace project of post dictatorship Greece is broken. It is beyond the scope of this document to analyze the current democratic deficit, however rampant police violence and arbitrary arrests are reported nearly on a daily basis on the few media that survived the angry grip of the establishment. All these, coupled with prohibition of assembly on major streets, marshaling of state employees, neo-nazi ressurgence and corruption at the heart of the very institutions that guarantee democratic and transparent processes are pointers to a fragile post 1974 social and political consensus.  The terms for the new social contract will have to be negotiated again as the country is struggling to cope with the social and financial wreckage of austerity. The events in Skouries are but only one example of how state and media power as technology of power is creating ruptures with the everyday lives of people.

The presence and scale of activities of the mining company constitute a challenge to customary forms of community organizing and local state institutions. Local authority representatives are divided between those who support the project and sign agreements with the company and those who oppose it and join the resistance network. Land disputes and environmental hazards pose a threat to traditional forms of employment (farming, fishing etc) and different forms of popular mobilization against the mining giant as well as the decision or not to opt for employment in the mines are challenging the main constitutes of the village community, traditionally based on family and work relations. Institutional power revealed itself as  ideology, under the mask of growth and the local struggle at safeguarding the environment against the activities of El Dorado transfuses itself with a struggle against an ideology that places the doctrine of ‘growth at whatever cost’ at the center of the new financial liberation dogma for debt ridden Greece.

The tactic of ‘divide and rule’, so carefully put in place by both the government and a large section of the mainstream media has not yield the expected results. The community’s response to the harassment, violations and serious  legal allegations has been dynamic and continues; their everyday mobilization and repoliticization denotes resistance. When the governmental, judicial and Media institutions stand so firmly against a community then autonomous agency reclaims that vacant institutional space and introduce processes that resonate with the local experience and satisfy the needs of that particular community. The different tactics the communities use are flexible, resourceful and able to adapt against the institutionalized forms of control and coercion. On Sunday 19^th of January 2014, in advance of the local election due to take place in May this year,  over 3000 voters from five villages of the Aristotelis Municipality, under the banner of ‘ An initiative of Unity’ organized a secret ballot for the purpose of selecting one out of the three candidates, all active members in the movement against mining in the region, who will represent the anti mining block in the local elections. This is where autonomous agency meets with the liberal paradigm and creates what Oliver Richmond refers to as places of hybridity.[11]In other words, this is an example of a creation of a space for political emancipation.

Original Page: http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/2014/01/30/skouries-a-story-of-political-emancipation/

People have different passions. Some people are enthusiastic about coffee, others adore shiny things, yet others are passionate about nature and wildlife. Passion for nature makes people chain themselves to trees, parade naked to protest the fur trade, sail in rough seas to stop whale killing, climb oil rigs to protest drilling etc.

Now in Iceland, a group of environmentalists (lead by the NGO “Friends of the lava” are passionate about protecting a lava field, close to Reykjavík called Gálgahraun (Gallow-lava), from being dug up and buried under major roadworks. Some people might think this very odd. Why protect a small piece of lava since Iceland has so much of it? There is lava pretty much everywhere! There are a number of reasons why this particular lava field is unique and should be kept unspoiled. This lava was formed in the eruption of Búrfell, 8000 years ago and is protected by law. This beautiful lava field is mostly intact, and contains amazing geological features and old historical paths used by our ancestors. It also has a strong resonance for cultural reasons, as our best known painter, Jóhannes Kjarval, used scenes from the Gálgahraun lava field as inspiration for some of his famous paintings. Furthermore, it is one of the last unspoiled lava fields within the greater Reykjavík area. What upsets people about the situation is that the planned (and possibly illegal) road construction is completely unnecessary. It will only serve a low number of people (Álftanes has a population of 2.484) and the road construction will cost a fortune (approx 6 million Euros). The argument put forward for the new road layout is that the old road has caused accidents because of icing but out of 44 roads within the greater Reykjavík area, 21 roads were considered more dangerous than the Álftanes road, and of 1427 roads in the whole country, 301 roads have more accidents than Álftanes road. The road could be improved and made much safer for a fraction of what the new road would cost. I don’t know exactly what drives the municipality of Garðabær and The Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration to pursue this insane road construction but something about the whole thing stinks very badly.

Four nature NGO’s have sued the municipality to halt the road construction, but have not been able to change the planned work and the lawsuit is still being processed in court. In the last weeks hundreds of people have been protecting the lava field and they set up a rota to make sure there was always someone in the lava field protecting it from the bulldozers. These brave people are making a human shield to protect something they love. Today, the police started dragging them away and are carrying them handcuffed like they were the criminals. On days like these it doesn’t feel like Iceland is a country of law and order anymore.

If you want to help in any way, you can either show up in Gálgahraun and protest or transfer a donation to their bank account number: 140 05 71017, kennitala. 480207 – 1490. All help is greatly appreciated.

Addition at 13:30 on 21st of October: I just came from Gálgahraun and the bulldozers are already ruining this amazing lava field. Dozens of people have been arrested, there is police everywhere and we all (even the police) stood there horrified watching the screaming bulldozer tear down delicate lava features. The people responsible will stop at nothing, their greed has no limits.

Update in February 2014: Gálgahraun lavafield has been destroyed and the court cases against its defenders have commenced. All are charged for “disobeying police orders”. (S.I .Ed.)

Saving Iceland would like to recommend this recent and informative film by Bert Ehgartner. Below is a short trailer for the film. You can stream or download the whole film, in either English or German here.

See also: Is Aluminium Really a Silent Killer?

Jamaica Bauxite Mining Videos

People can let off steam, get angry, shudder at the thought of it… ‘Who do these politicians think they are?’ ‘Scumbag generals!’ […] And they get more and more angry, and then, burp! A little liberatory burp to relieve their social indigestion.

These words came to mind last month when Iceland’s media reported upon the current situation of river Lagarfljót in the east of Iceland. “Lagarfljót is dead,” some of them even stated, citing the words of author and environmentalist Andri Snær Magnason regarding a revelation of the fact that the river’s ecosystem has literally been killed by the the gigantic Kárahnjúkar Dams. The dams were built in Iceland’s eastern highlands in the years between 2002 and 2006, solely to provide electricity for aluminium giant and arms producer Alcoa’s smelter in the eastern municipality of Reyðarfjörður.

The revelation of Lagarfljót’s current situation originates in a report made by Landsvirkjun, Iceland’s state owned energy company and owner of the 690 MW Kárahnjúkar power plant, the main conclusions of which were made public last month. Although covered as breaking news and somewhat of a scandal, this particular revelation can hardly be considered as surprising news.

Quite the contrary, environmentalists and scientists have repeatedly pointed out the mega-project’s devastating irreversible environmental impacts — in addition to the social and economical ones of course — and have, in fact, done so ever since the plan was brought onto the drawing tables to begin with. Such warnings, however, were systematically silenced by Iceland’s authorities and dismissed as “political rather than scientific”, propaganda against progress and opposition to “green energy” — only to be proven right time and time again during the last half a decade.

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS SHOULD RECEIVE MORE ATTENTION

One of the Kárahnjúkar plant’s functions depends on diverting glacial river Jökulsá á Dal into another glacial river Jökulsá í Fljótsdal, the latter of which feeds Lagarfljót. This means that huge amounts of glacial turbidity are funnelled into the river, quantitatively heretofore unknown in Lagarfljót. This has, in return, led to the disintegration of Lagarfljót’s ecosystem, gargantuan land erosion on the banks of the river, serious decrease in fish population and parallel negative impacts on the area’s bird life.

As reported by Saving Iceland in late 2011, when the dams impacts on Lagarfljót had become a subject matter of Iceland’s media, the glacial turbidity has severely altered Lagarfljót’s colour. Therefore, sunlight doesn’t reach deep enough into the water, bringing about a decrease of photosynthesis — the fundamental basis for organic production — and thereby a systematic reduction of nourishment for the fish population. Recent research conducted by Iceland’s Institute of Freshwater Fisheries show that in the area around Egilsstaðir, a municipality located on the banks of Lagarfljót, the river’s visibility is currently less than 20cm deep compared to 60cm before the dams were constructed. As a result of this, not only is there less fish in the river — the size of the fish has also seen a serious decrease.

Following last month’s revelation, ichthyologist Guðni Guðbergsson at the Institute of Freshwater Fisheries, highlighted in an interview with RÚV (Iceland’s National Broadcasting Service) that the destruction of Lagarfljót’s ecosystem had certainly been foreseen and repeatedly pointed out. He also maintained that aquatic environment tends to be kept out of the discourse on hydro dams. “People see what is aboveground, they see vegetation, soil erosion and drift,” he stated, “but when it comes to aquatic ecosystems, people don’t seem to see it very clearly. This biosphere should receive more attention.”

BENDING ALL THE RULES

All of the above-mentioned had been warned of before the dams construction took place, most importantly in a 2001 ruling by Skipulagsstofnun (Iceland’s National Planning Agency) which, after reviewing the Kárahnjúkar plant’s Environmental Impact Assessment, concluded that “the development would result in great hydrological changes, which would have an effect, for example, on the groundwater level in low-lying areas adjacent to Jökulsá í Fljótsdal and Lagarfljót, which in turn would have an impact on vegetation, bird-life and agriculture.” The impacts on Lagarfljót being only one of the dams numerous all-too-obvious negative impacts, Skipulagsstofnun opposed the project as a whole “on grounds of its considerable impact on the environment and the unsatisfactory information presented regarding individual parts of the project and its consequences for the environment.”

However, Iceland’s then Minister of the Environment, Siv Friðleifsdóttir, notoriously overturned the agency’s ruling and permitted the construction. Although her act of overturning her own agency’s ruling is certainly a unique one, it was nevertheless fully harmonious with the mega-project’s overall modus operandi: For instance, during Alcoa and the Icelandic government’s signature ceremony in 2003, Friðrik Sophusson, then director of Landsvirkjun, and Valgerður Sverrisdóttir, then Minister of Industry, boasted of “bending all the rules, just for this project” while speaking to the US ambassador in Iceland.

A BIOLOGICAL WONDER TURNED INTO DESERT

As already mentioned, the destruction of Lagarfljót is only one of the dams irreversible impacts on the whole North-East part of Iceland, the most densely vegetated area north of Vatnajökull — the world’s largest non-arctic glacier — and one of the few regions in Iceland where soil and vegetation were more or less intact. Altogether, the project affects 3,000 square km of land, no less than 3% of Iceland’s total landmass, extending from the edge of Vatnajökull to the estuary of the Héraðsflói glacial river.

Sixty major waterfalls were destroyed and innumerable unique geological formations drowned, not to forget Kringilsárrani — the calving ground of a third of Iceland’s reindeer population — which was partly drowned and devastated in full by the project. In 1975, Kringilsárrani had been officially declared as protected but in order to enable the Kárahnjúkar dams and the 57 km2 Hálslón reservoir, Siv Fiðleifsdóttir decided to reduce the reserve by one fourth in 2003. When criticized for this infamous act, Siv stated that “although some place is declared protected, it doesn’t mean that it will be protected forever.”

The dams have also blocked silt emissions of the two aforementioned glacial rivers, Jökulsá á Dal and Jökulsá í Fljótsdal, resulting in the receding of the combined delta of the two rivers — destroying a unique nature habitat in the delta. In their 2003 article, published in World Birdwatch, ornithologists Einar Þorleifsson and Jóhann Óli Hilmarsson outlined another problem of great importance:

All glacier rivers are heavy with sediments, and the two rivers are muddy brown in summer and carry huge amounts of sediment, both glacial mud and sand. The Jökulsá á Dal river is exceptional in the way that it carries on average 13 times more sediment than any other Icelandic river, 10 million metric tons per year and during glacial surges the amount is many times more. When the river has been dammed this sediment will mostly settle in the reservoir.

In contravention of the claim that Kárahnjúkar’s hydro electricity is a “green and renewable energy source,” it is estimated that the reservoir will silt up in between forty and eighty years, turning this once most biologically diverse regions of the Icelandic highlands into a desert. While this destruction is slowly but systematically taking place, the dry dusty silt banks caused by the reservoir’s fluctuating water levels are already causing dust storms affecting the vegetation of over 3000 sq km, as explained in Einar and Jóhann’s article:

The reservoir will be filled with water in autumn but in spring 2/3 of the lake bottom are dry and the prevailing warm mountain wind will blow from the south-west, taking the light dry glacial sediment mud in the air and causing considerable problems for the vegetation in the highlands and for the people in the farmlands located in the valleys. To add to the problem the 120 km of mostly dry riverbed of Jökulsá á Dal will only have water in the autumn, leaving the mud to be blown by the wind in spring.

This development is already so severe that residents of the Eastfjords municipality Stöðvafjörður, with whom Saving Iceland recently spoke, stated that the wind-blown dust has been of such a great deal during the summers that they have often been unable to see the sky clearly.

All of the above-mentioned is only a part of the Kárahnjúkar dams over-all impacts, about which one can read thoroughly here. Among other factors that should not be forgotten in terms of hydro power would be the dams’ often underestimated contribution to global warming — for instance via reservoirs’ production of CO2 and methane (see here and here) — as well as glacial rivers’ important role in reducing pollution on earth by binding gases that cause global warming, and how mega-dams inhibit this function by hindering the rivers’ carrying of sediments out to sea.

TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER

“Lagarfljót wasn’t destroyed by accident,” Andri Snær Magnason also said after the recent revelation, but rather “consciously destroyed by corrupt politicians who didn’t respect society’s rules, disregarded professional processes, and couldn’t tolerate informed discussion.” The same can, of course, be said about the Kárahnjúkar ecological, social and economical disaster as a whole, the process of which was one huge textbook example of corruption and abuse of power.

Responding to same news, Svandís Svavarsdóttir, Iceland’s current Minister of the Environment, cited a recent report by the European Environment Agency, titled “Late Lessons from Early Warnings,” in which the results of a major research project into mega-project’s environmental impacts and public discussion are published. One of the damning results, the report states, is that in 84 out of 88 instances included in the research, early warnings of negative impacts on the environment and public health proved to be correct.

This was certainly the case in Iceland where environmentalists and scientists who warned of all those foreseeable impacts, both before and during the construction, found themselves silenced and dismissed by the authorities who systematically attempted to suppress any opposition and keep their plans unaltered.

One of the most notorious examples of this took place after the publication of Susan DeMuth’s highly informative article, “Power Driven,” printed in The Guardian in 2003, in which she highlighted all the up-front disastrous impacts of the project. The reaction in Iceland was mixed: While the article served as a great gift to Icelandic environmentalists’ struggle — tour guide Lára Hanna Einarsdóttir suggesting “that an Icelandic journalist would have lost their job if he or she had been so outspoken” — the reaction of the project’s prime movers was one of fury and hysteria. Mike Baltzell, president of Alcoa Primary Development and one of the company’s main negotiators in Iceland, wrote to The Guardian accusing DeMuth of “creating a number of misconceptions” regarding the company’s forthcoming smelter. Iceland’s Ambassador in the UK and Landsvirkjun’s Sophusson took a step further, contacting the British newspaper in a complaint about the article’s content and offering the editor to send another journalist to Iceland in order to get “the real story” — an offer to which the paper never even bothered to reply.

Another example is that of Grímur Björnsson, geophysicist working at Reykjavík Energy at that time, who was forbidden from revealing his findings, which were suppressed and kept from parliament because they showed the Kárahnjúkar dams to be unsafe. His 2002 report, highly critical of the dams, was stamped as confidential by his superior at the time. Valgerður Sverrisdóttir, then Minister of Industry, subsequently failed to reveal the details of the report to parliament before parliamentarians voted on the dams, as she was legally obliged to do. Adding insult to injury, Grímur was finally deprived of his freedom of expression when his superior at Reykjavík Energy — taking sides with Landsvirkjun — prohibited him to speak officially about the Kárahnjúkar dams without permission from the latter company’s director at that time, Friðrik Sophusson.

THE SHADOW OF POLLUTED MINDS

Similar methods applied to the East-fjords and other communities close to the dams and the smelter, where the project’s opponents were systematically ridiculed, terrorized and threatened. One of them is Þórhallur Þorsteinsson who, in a thorough interview with newspaper DV last spring, described how he and other environmentalists from the East were persecuted for their opposition to the dams. In an attempt to get him fired from his job, politicians from the region even called his supervisor at the State Electric Power Works, for which he worked at the time, complaining about his active and vocal opposition. Another environmentalist, elementary school teacher Karen Egilsdóttir, had to put up with parents calling her school’s headmaster, demanding that their kids would be exempt from attending her classes.

Farmer Guðmundur Beck — described by DeMuth as “the lone voice of resistance in Reyðarfjörður” — was also harassed because of his outspoken opposition towards the dams and the smelter. After spending his first 57 years on his family’s farm where he raised chicken and sheep, he was forced to close down the farm after he was banned from grazing his sheep and 18 electricity pylons were built across his land. Moreover, he was literally ostracised from Reyðarfjörður where Alcoa’s presence had altered society in a way thus described by Guðundur at Saving Iceland’s 2007 international conference:

In the East-fjords, we used to have self-sustaining communities that have now been destroyed and converted into places attracting gold diggers. Around the smelter, there will now be a community where nobody can live, work or feed themselves without bowing down for “Alcoa Director” Mr. Tómas.* — We live in the shadow of polluted minds.

(*Mr. Tómas” is Tómas Már Sigurðsson, Managing Director of Alcoa Fjarðaál at that time but currently president of Alcoa’s European Region and Global Primary Products Europe. Read Guðmundur’s whole speech in the second issue of Saving Iceland’s Voices of the Wilderness magazine.)

A LESSON TO LEARN?

All of this leads us to the fact that Icelandic energy companies are now planning to go ahead and construct a number of large-scale power plants — most of them located in highly sensitive geothermal areas — despite a seemingly non-stop tsunami of revelations regarding the negative environmental and public health impacts of already operating geothermal plants of such size. This would, as thoroughly outlined by Saving Iceland, lead to the literal ecocide of highly unique geothermal fields in the Reykjanes peninsula as well as in North Iceland.

Two of the latter areas are Þeistareykir and Bjarnarflag, not far from river Laxá and lake Mývatn, where Landsvirkjun wants to build power plants to provide energy to heavy industry projects in the north. Large-scale geothermal exploitation at Hellisheiði, south-west Iceland, has already proven to be disastrous for the environment, creating thousands of earthquakes and a number of polluted effluent water lagoons. The Hellisheiði plant has also spread enormous amounts of sulphide pollution over the nearby town of Hveragerði and the capital area of Reykjavík, leading to an increase in the purchasing of asthma medicine. Another geothermal plant, Nesjavallavirkjun, has had just as grave impacts, leading for instance to the partial biological death of lake Þingvallavatn, into which affluent water from the plant has been pumped.

Responding to criticism, Landsvirkjun has claimed that the Bjarnarflag plant’s effluent water will be pumped down below lake Mývatn’s ground water streams. However, the company has resisted answering critical questions regarding how they plan to avoid all the possible problems — similar to those at Hellisheiði and Nesjavellir — which might occur because of the pumping and thus impact the ecosystem of Mývatn and its neighbouring environment. In view of this, some have suggested that Iceland’s next man made ecological disaster will be manifested in a headline similar to last month’s one — this time stating that “Mývatn is dead!”

Concluding the current Lagarfljót scandal — only one manifestation of the foreseen and systematically warned of Kárahnjúkar scandal — the remaining question must be: Will Icelanders learn a lesson from this textbook example of political corruption and abuse of power?

Recent polls regarding the coming parliament elections on April 27, suggests that the answer is negative as the heavy-industry-friendly Framsóknarflokkur (The Progressive Party), for which both Siv Friðleifsdóttir and Valgerður Sverrisdóttir sat in parliament, seems to be about to get into power again after being all but voted out of parliament in the 2007 elections. Following the Progressives, the right-wing conservative Sjálfstæðisflokkur (The Independence Party) is currently the second biggest party, meaning that a right-wing government, supportive of — and in fact highly interrelated to — the aluminium and energy industries, is likely to come into office in only a few days from now.

In such a case, Iceland will be landed with the very same government that was responsible for the Kárahnjúkar disaster as well as so many other political maleficences, including the financial hazardousness that lead to the 2008 economic collapse and Iceland’s support of the invasion in Iraq — only with new heads standing out of the same old suits. Sadly but truly, this would fit perfectly with the words of Dario Fo’s Maniac when he states on behalf of the establishment:

Let the scandal come, because on the basis of that scandal a more durable power of the state will be founded!

Join us at the eighth annual AGM protest: 28 August 2012 2.00 pm, Lincoln Centre, 18 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3ED. Nearest tube Holborn (Piccadilly & Central lines) or Chancery Lane (Central).

We are also calling out for a global day of action. Please show your solidarity with movements across India and Africa fighting this devastating company. Email your pictures or statements to savingiceland (at) riseup.net.

Why Peoples’ Movements are Fighting Vedanta:

These news echo the many warnings made by the opponents of the cluster of five dams at Kárahnjúkar and nearby Eyjabakkar, who repeatedly stated that the project’s alleged profitability was nothing but an illusion, but were systematically silenced by Iceland’s authorities.

Now, as these facts finally become established in the media—this time straight from the horse’s mouth—similarly bad news has arrived regarding another big Icelandic energy company. Reykjavík Energy has failed to make a profit from their 2007 and 2008 investments, effectively making them lose money. At the same time, new research shows that the environmental impacts of the Kárahnjúkar dams are exactly as vast and serious as environmentalists and scientists feared.

And yet, more dams, geothermal power-plants and aluminium smelters are on the drawing table—presented as the only viable way out of the current economic crisis.

Dividend: Close to Zero

During the last half century, Landsvirkjun has paid its owner—the Icelandic nation—only 7,8 billion Icelandic Krónur (66 million USD at present value) as dividend, which according to Hörður Arnarson is way too low and in fact almost equivalent to zero. While it would be fair to expect around eleven percent dividend from the company’s own equity, it has been at an average of two percent since Landsvirkjun was founded. The income from the Kárahnjúkar plant has been about 6 percent of its book value, which again is too low, as according to normal standards the income should be 9 percent of the book value.

At present, Landvirkjun’s total earnings have been 73 million US dollars at most, whereas it should be closer to 180 million USD, considering the owner’s 1,6 billion USD equity. It was made clear by Arnarson that the price of energy purchased by large-scale energy consumers plays a major role herein—a price that obviously has been far below any rational logic and standards.

Same Old, Same Old

In 2003, British newspaper The Guardian published “Power Driven”, Susan De Muth’s exclusive report about the Kárahnjúkar power plant, which at that point was already under construction. Among many critiques made in the article, De Muth questioned Kárahnjúkar’s allegeded profitability. She wrote:

Thorsteinn Siglaugsson, a risk specialist, prepared a recent independent economic report on Karahnjukar for the Icelandic Nature Conservation Association. “Landsvirkjun’s figures do not comprise adequate cost and risk analysis,” he says, “nor realistic contingencies for overruns.” Had the state not guaranteed the loans for the project, Siglaugsson adds, it would never have attracted private finance. “Karahnjukar will never make a profit, and the Icelandic taxpayer may well end up subsidising Alcoa.”

Siglaugsson is just one of many who critically analysed the economics of the Kárahnjúkar project, concluding that its contribution to Iceland’s economy would be about none—or in fact negative. But just as many geologists who cautioned against the risks of locating the dams in a highly geologically seismic area were dismissed by Valgerður Sverrisdóttir, then Minister of Industry, as “politically motivated and not to be listened to”, so were the skeptical economists.

De Muth’s article caused a real stir in Iceland, manifest for instance in the fact that Landsvirkjun and Iceland’s Embassy in London contacted The Guardian in a complaint about “so much space […] used for promoting factual errors and misconceptions of the project and Icelandic society as a whole.” Friðrik Sophusson, Landsvirkjun’s director at that time—who in the article is quoted calling all of Kárahnjúkar’s opponents “romantics”—actually offered The Guardian to send another journalist over to Iceland in order to do “a proper report on issues in Iceland”, this time with his “assistance.” ALCOA also sent a barrage of objections to the Guardian. All the facts presented in the article were double checked by the Guardian’s legal team and confirmed to be accurate.

This volatile response from the authorities and corporates only strengthened the article’s points on the Icelandic tradition of suppressing criticism. This was confirmed in a letter to The Guardian by Icelandic environmentalist and commentator Lára Hanna Einarsdóttir, who suggested that “an Icelandic journalist would have lost [his or her] job if he or she had been so outspoken.”

The Coming Recession

And no wonder, as the article pinpointed serious flaws in the whole rhetoric surrounding the plans to heavily industrialize Iceland, plans that would be nothing without the construction of a series of mega hydro dams and geothermal power plants. Whereas these plans were presented as a path to an increased economical prosperity, De Muth quoted aforementioned economist Siglaugsson, who voiced his fear “that a boom during the construction period, with attendant high interest rates, will be followed by a recession.”

And as time told, this was indeed what happened. In an article published in the early days of Iceland’s current financial crisis, Jaap Krater, ecological economist and spokesperson of Saving Iceland, gave it a thorough explanation:

These mega-projects in a small economy have been compared to a ‘heroin addiction’. Short-term ‘shots’ lead to a long-term collapse. The choice is between a short-term infuse or long-term sustainable economic development. The ‘shot’ of Fjardaal [Alcoa’s aluminium smelter in Iceland, powered by the Kárahnjúkar power plant] overheated the Icelandic economy.

Recognizing the dangers of overheating the economy—a point also made clear in Charles Ferguson’s recent documentary, Inside Job—leaves us with two options. As Krater pointed out:

There has been a lot of critique on the proposed plans to develop Iceland’s unique energy resources. Those in favour of it have generally argued that it is good for the economy. Anyone who gives it a moment of thought can conclude that that is a myth. Supposed economic benefits from new power plants and industrial plants need to be assessed and discussed critically and realistically. Iceland is coming down from a high. Will it have another shot, or go cold turkey?

Another Shot, Please

This spring, Landsvirkjun stated that if the company was to start its operations from scratch the aluminium industry would be its prime costumer. This particular paradox—as the aluminium industry is already its biggest energy purchaser—was just one of Landsvirkjun’s many. Another one is their suggestion that Icelanders should “settle upon” plans to build 14 new power plants in the next 15 years. And the third one is the company’s plans to sell more energy to aluminium companies—costumers who, in Landsvirkjun’s own words, do not pay a fair amount for what they get.

But Arnarson has said that the future looks better, referring for instance to the fact that the price for Kárahnjúkar’s energy is directly connected to world-wide aluminium prices, which Arnarson says are getting higher. Herein is the fourth paradox, as linking energy prices with aluminium prices has so far been disastrous for Iceland’s economy—most recently acknowledged in an official report regarding the profitability of selling energy to heavy industry. According to the report, commissioned by the Ministry of Finance and published last Friday, December 2nd, the total profitability has been an average 5% from 1990 until today, which is far below the profitability of other industries in Iceland, and much lower than the profitability of similar industries in Iceland’s neighbouring countries. The year 1990 is crucial here, as since then, Landsvirkjun’s energy prices to heavy industry have been directly linked to global aluminium prices.

It is worth quoting Jaap Krater again here, where he explains the dangers of interlinking these two prices, and describes how increased aluminium supply will lower the price of aluminium and decrease revenue for Iceland:

One might think that a few hundred thousand tons of aluminium more or less will not impact the global market. The reality is that it is not the sum of production that determines the price but rather the friction between supply and demand. A small amount of difference can have a significant effect in terms of pricing.

High Costs, Low Production

On top of this, recent calculations revealed in newspaper Fréttablaðið, show that Kárahnjúkar is Landsvirkjun’s proportionally most expensive construction. When the production of each of the company’s power plants is compared with the production of Landsvirkjun’s property as a whole, as a proportion of their construction costs, it becomes clear that Kárahnjúkar—with its 2.3 billion USD initial cost—is the most economically unviable plant.

Another Energy Company in Crisis

At the same time that Icelanders face Landsvirkjun’s confession to it’s virtually zero profitability, a damning report on another big energy company, Reykjavík Energy (OR), has been made public. It was originally published at the beginning of this year but wasn’t supposed to enter the public sphere, which it indeed didn’t until in late November. Reykjavík Energy’s biggest shareholder is the city of Reykjavík, meaning the inhabitants of Reykjavík.

As already documented thoroughly, the company—which operates several geothermal power plants, including Hellisheiðarvirkjun, largely built to fuel Century Aluminum’s production—is in pretty deep water. But the newly leaked report proves that it has sunk even deeper than generally considered. The report is a literal condemnation of the company, its board and its highest ranking managers, who get a grade F for their job. A good part of Reykjavík Energy’s investments from 2007 and 2008 are now considered as lost money.

The report also reveals that when energy contracts between OR and Norðurál (Century Aluminum) were made, for the latter’s planned fantasy-of-a-smelter in Helguvík, Reykjavík Energy’s directors completely ignored the very visible economic collapse confronting them.

Recently it has been reported that Reykjavík Energy owes 200 billion Icelandic ISK in foreign currency, which is two thirds of all foreign debts owed by Icelandic companies, whose income is not in foreign currency.

What we see here are two of Iceland’s largest energy companies, both of them public property, both having spent hugely excessive amounts of money—or more precisely, collected gigantic debts—struggling to continue to build power plants in order to feed the highly energy intensive aluminium industry with dirt cheap and allegedly “green” energy. As a result, they have ended up without profit and in a deep pool of debt.

And who is to pay for their gambling risks? As Thorsteinn Siglaugsson stated in 2003: the Icelandic taxpayer.

“No Impacts” Become Huge Impacts

To make bad news even worse, the irreversibly destructive ecological impacts of the Kárahnjúkar dams have, in the last months, become more and more visible. To quote “Power Driven” once again (as simply one of a good number of warnings on the dams’ environmental impacts):

The hydro-project will also divert Jokulsa a Dal at the main dam, hurtling the river through tunnels into the slow-moving Jokulsa i Fljotsdal, which feeds Iceland’s longest lake, Lagarfljot. The calm, silver surface of this tourist attraction will become muddy, turbulent and unnavigable.

This was written in 2003. Today, this is what is happening: because of the river’s glacial turbidity Lagarfljót has changed colour, which according to Guðni Guðbergsson, ichthyologist at the Institute of Freshwater Fisheries (IFF), means that light doesn’t reach as deep into the water as before (see photos aside and below). Photosynthesis, which is the fundamental basis for organic production, decreases due to limited light, its domino effects being the constant reduction of food for the fish. IFF’s researches show that near Egilsstaðir, where visibility in Lagarfljót was 60 cm before the dams were built, it is now only 17 cm. They also show that there are not only less fish in the river, but that the fish are much smaller than before.

In addition to this, residents by Lagarfljót have faced serious land erosion due to the river’s increased water content and strength.

This effect was warned of in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project by the Iceland National Planning Agency (INPA), purposely ignored and overruled by Siv Friðleifsdóttir, then Minister of Environment. Landsvirkjun had complained to the Ministry of the Environment, and the EIA ended up on Friðleifsdóttir’s table, who nevertheless issued a permit for the construction, stating that the dams would have no significant impact on Lagarfljót.

In response of the news on Lagarfljót’s current condition, Svandís Svavarsdóttir, Minister of the Environment, said during parliamentary discussion last September, that her Ministry’s over-all administration regarding the Kárahnjúkar decision-process will be examined in detail. She should demand a similar investigation into the decision making of the Ministry of Industry, whose Minister, Valgerður Sverissdóttir has, along with Landsvirkjun’s Friðrik Sophusson, openly admitted while joking on film with the US ambassador in Iceland, how they enjoyed “bending all the rules, just for Alcoa.”

All the Old Dogs

Despite all of this, Iceland’s energy companies, hand in hand with the aluminium industry, some of the biggest labour unions and industry-related associations—not to mention a majority of parliamentarians, including those of government-member social-democratic Samfylkingin—are still in heavy industry mode, campaigning for the construction of more dams, geothermal power plants and aluminium smelters. Ironically, but still deadly serious, smelter projects such as Century Alumium’s Helguvík, which is at a standstill, unable to guarantee both necessary energy and financing, continue to be presented as profitable solutions to the current crisis.

Met with little resistance in parliament, most of these plans are still considered to be on the drawing table, though most of them seem to be on hold when looked at closely. The latter is mostly thanks to grassroots activists, bloggers and commentators who have systematically reminded the public of the reality, while the bulk of journalists seem to be unable to stick to facts—being extraordinarily co-dependent with those in favour of further heavy-industrialization.

Under the banner of “solving the crisis”, “creating jobs”, and most recently “getting the wheels of work to spin again”, the heavy industry-favoured parties seem to simply refuse to listen to hard facts, even their very own. This attitude is probably best summed up in the recent words of Valgerður Sverrisdóttir, responsible as Minister of Industry, for the building of the dams at Kárahnjúkar, who in response to the news about the power plant’s close-to-zero profitability, said that she wouldn’t want to imagine how the current financial situation would be, if the dams hadn’t been built.

It is said that an old dog will not learn new tricks. And to be honest, ‘old dogs’ pretty accurately describes those making decisions on Iceland’s energy and industry affairs. In order to learn from mistakes and prevent even bigger catastrophes, it wouldn’t be unfair to ask for a new generation—would it?
_____________________________________________________

More photos of Lagarfljót’s turbid condition

These photos are from 2008, which suggests that the current condition is even worse.

The Energy Master Plan is a framework programme, meant to result in a long term agreement upon the exploitation and protection of Iceland’s glacial rivers and geothermal areas. Its making, which since 1999 has been in the hands of special steering committiees, established by the two above-mentioned ministries, reached a critical status in July this year when its second phase was finished and presented to the ministers who in mid August presented their proposition for a parliamentary resolution. Before it will be discussed in parliament the proposition will be open to comments and criticism from the public, as well as interested parties, energy and aluminium companies on the one hand, environmentalists on the other.

Twenty-Seven Energy Options Put on Hold

The proposition lists natural areas into three categories; protection, exploitation and hold. The last-mentioned includes areas that, according to the steering groups and ministers, have not undergone enough research for a decision to be made upon weather to protect or exploit them. Included in this category are, among other, the glacial rivers in fjord Skagafjörður as well as other rivers such as Skjálfandafljót, Hvítá, Hólmsá and Farið by lake Hagavatn in the south-west highlands. Also geothermal areas such as Trölladyngja and Austurengjar in Krýsuvík and certain areas around mount Hengill where the heavily indebted Reykjavík Energy (OR) already operates Hellisheiðarvirkjun, a sulphur polluting geothermal power plant. The 27 areas of the waiting category will be revised in five years, given that satisfactory studies have been made at that time.

Þjórsárver Wetlands to be Saved

Delightfully, the protection category features the uppermost part of river Þjórsá where Landsvirkjun wants to construct Norðlingaölduveita, a dam that would destroy the Ramsar listed Þjórsárver wetlands. River Jökulsá á Fjöllum, which has been seen as an energy potential for a new Alcoa aluminium smelter in Bakki, is also listed protected. The same applies for certain parts of river Tungná, in which Landsvirkjun is already building the Búðarháls dam that will provide energy for increased production in Rio Tinto Alcan’s aluminium smelter in Straumsvík.

The protection category also features geothermal areas such as the ones around Brennisteinsfjöll mountains on the Reykjanes peninsula, as well as Gjástykki, close to volcano Krafla and lake Mývatn. The same goes for the Grændalur valley and Bitra, which are located close to the small town of Hveragerði and have been particularily desirable in the eyes of energy companies. Bitra was saved by a local campaign in 2008 whereas Grændalur was recently threatened when Iceland’s National Energy Authority allowed a company called RARIK to operate test drilling in the valley, in complete contravention of previous rulings by the Ministries of Industry and of Environment.

Krýsuvík, Þeistareykir and Þjórsá to be Destroyed

The exploitation list features geothermal areas Þeystareykir, Bjarnarflag and Krafla in the north of Iceland, as well as Hágöngur in the mid-highlands west to glacier Vatnajökull. Also certain parts of the area around mount Hengill and finally geothermal spots in Reykjanes, Krýsuvík and Svartsengi, all three on the Reykjanes peninsula. Rivers Hvalá, Blanda and Köldukvísl are then all categorised as exploitable. And most critically the Energy Master Plan proposition allows for Landsvirkjun’s construction of three dams in the lower part of river Þjórsá.

Environmentalists Threefold Response

The most common response from environmentalist so far has been threefold. Firstly there generally satisfied by the protection of areas such as the Gjástykki, Jökulsá á Fjöllum and Grændalur, let alone the Þjórsárver wetlands. Shortly after the publication’s release, Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) stated that, if approved by parliament, the Master Plan will mark the end of environmentalists’ forty years long struggle to save Þjórsárver from destruction. Though listed by the international Ramsar Convention on Wetlands due to its unique ecosystem, the wetlands have been on Landsvirkjun’s drawing table as a potential for construct a large reservoir, meant to produce energy for a planned expansion of Rio Tinto Alcan’s aluminium smelter in Hafnarfjörður, which was later thrown off in a local referendum. The plan has always been met with fierce opposition, no matter of Landsvirkjun’s repeated attempts to get it through by proposing a smaller dam and reservoir.

Secondly environmentalists are critical of the fact how many invaluable areas, such river Skjálfandafljót, are kept on hold instead of simply been categorised protected. Thirdly there is a clear opposition to the planned exploitation of certain wonders of nature, one example being the geothermal areas on the Reykjanes peninsula. Ellert Grétarsson, a photographer who has documented these areas extensively (his photos are here aside), fears that the drilling in Krýsuvík – covering between five and eight thousand square meters of land – will simply kill the area. And as a matter, says Ellert, the whole Reykjanes peninsula will be riddled with energy construction. Hjörleifur Guttormsson, former Left Green MP and a genuine environmentalists, shares Ellert’s worries and has asked for an integral study of Reykjanes before any decisions are made.

Þjórsá, the Bone of Contention

As as mentioned before the biggest concern regards Þjórsá, which has for a long time been the bone of contention between the two clashing arrays fighting for or against nature conservation. The struggle over Þjórsá has been especially tough, actually to such an extent that the government can be reputed to stand or fall with that conflict in particular. Guðfríður Lilja Grétarsdóttir, MP for the Left Greens, demonstrated, during parliamentary debate last April, her full opposition to the construction of dams in Þjórsá. At that point, three Left Green MPs, who up until then had been increasingly critical of the government and its lack of left-leaning policies, had just recently departed from the party, leaving the government with only one person’s majority in parliament. And as most members of the social-democratic People’s Alliance (Samfylkingin), which makes up the government along with the Left Greens, have not shown a sign of objection to the damming of Þjórsá, it wouldn’t be surprising if the river will be up for a heavy debate in parliament.

In fact it is more than sure that Þjórsá will be among the main matters of argument in parliament. The right wing Independence Party, which was in in power from and is largely responsible for the neo-liberalisation and heavy-industrialisation of Iceland, has always been one of the driving motors behind Landsvirkjun’s plans to dam Þjórsá. When the Master Plan’s proposition was presented in August, Ragnheiður Elín Árnadóttir, a MP of the party, called for the immediate starting of construction in Þjórsá. She also said she grieved the long period of which the project has been stuck within bureaucracy, referring to the attempts of Svandís Svavarsdóttir, current Minister of Environment, to halt the construction of one of the three proposed dams by refusing to include the dam, Urriðafossvirkjun, in a land-use plans for the parishes of Flóahreppur and Skeiða- and Gnúpverjahreppur (rural districts along Þjórsá) made by them at the request of Landsvirkjun.

Three Dams: Threat to Society and Ecology

The conflict in parliament mirrors the actual conflict in the Þjórsá region where locals have for a long time fought over the river’s fate. There Landsvirkjun hasn’t only used bribes in its attempt to get its plans through local administration, but also threatened farmers whose lands are at stake will the dams be built, by stating that if the farmers do not negotiate with the Landsvirkjun, the company will attempt for a land expropriation. This conduct has created a complete split within the local community, clearly demonstrated in last March when young locals from the region published a statement, in which they demanded a permanent halt to all plans of damming Þjórsá – thereby an end to the social conflict associated.

As a matter of fact two members of the Master Plan’s steering committee recently stated, when interviewed on state radio station RÚV, that due to the serious lack of studies regarding the social impacts of the planned Þjórsá dams, those plans should without any doubt have been put on hold. This is exactly what Guðmundur Hörður Guðmundsson, chairman of environmentalist organization Landvernd, said in last July following the publication of the Energy Master Plan’s second phase report.

Þjórsá’s position in the Master Plan proposition, yet shouldn’t be of any surprise. In the second phase report the three planned dams are not considered to be a great threat to the ecology of Þjórsá and its surroundings – contrary to the opinion of environmentalists who have voiced their worries concerning the dams’ impacts, for instance on the river’s salmon stock. Orri Vigfússon, chairman of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF), recently stated that “never before in the history of Iceland has there occurred such an attack on a sensitive area of wild salmon.” As is considered that the salmon’s spawning and breeding grounds are mosty located above waterfall Urriðafoss, where one of the three dams is planned to be built, Orri believes that the stock of salmon and salmon trout are likely to vanish.

Energy Companies Unsatisfied as Expected

As one could have imagined, Icelandic energy companies and other adherents of large-scale power production for heavy industry, are everything else than happy about the Master Plan’s proposition. Following its release Eiríkur Hjálmarsson, Public Relation manager of Reykjavík Energy, opposed the protection of Bitra on the ground that the company has already harmed the area with three examination boreholes, roads and electricity lines – but most importantly, spent 785 million ISK on the project. As reported earlier this year by Anna Andersen, journalist at the Reykjavík Grapevine, the foolhardy business operations of Reykavík Energy during the last decade or so – including large-scale geothermal projects associated with heavy industry – have brought the publicly owned company a debt of 233 billion ISK (2 billion USD or 1.4 billion Euros). Despite this financial collapse the company still advocates for the continuation of the agenda that brought it down.

Other energy companies have responded similarly, mostly complaining about the amount of areas listed as protected or on hold. Landsvikjun’s director Hörður Árnason has said that compared to the second phase report, the parliament proposition suggest that way too many energy options are put on hold. Another company, Suðurorka, owned by Alterra Power (former Magma Energy) and Íslensk Orkuvirkjun, had planned to construct a dam, called Búlandsvirkjun, in river Skaftá – a plan that the proposition puts on hold. The company argues that few energy options have been studied as thoroughly and while the studies might have been done – and might be thorough – not everybody agrees with the company on the impacts. Farmers in the area have opposed the project as some of their most important grasslands will be drowned under the dam’s reservoir.

Energy company RARIK will, due to the Master Plan, loose its grip on geothermal areas in Grændalur valley, as well as rivers in Skagafjörður and Hólmsá river – projects that the company claims to have invested in with 300 million ISK. Using the same monetary argument, HS Orka, also owned by Alterra Power, has been vocal about its 700 million ISK investment into their proposed, but now delayed if not entirely halted, geothermal plants in Trölladyngja. Finally representatives from Reykjahlíð, a small town that holds the good part of Gjástykki’s property rights, have stated that if the area will be protected, billions of ISK will be demanded as compensation.

The Predominant Strategy

Those arguments do in fact manifest the predominant strategy of those involved in the heavy industrialization of Iceland. Instead of waiting for all necessary contracts to been signed, all needed permissions to be granted, and all required energy to be ensured, the energy and aluminium companies have simply started major construction immediately when only one or a few permissions have been granted. And when criticised, not to mention when forced to stop, they have stated that because these projects have been announced and vast amounts of money put into them, they should be allowed to continue. If needed, they have also pointed out that because the natural areas at stake have already been harmed (by themselves), there is “no point” in preserving them.

One example would be Helguvík, where a framework for a proposed Century Aluminum smelter has already been built but hardly any construction has taken place there for two year. With every day that passes it becomes clear that not only has the company failed to ensure the energy needed to operate the smelter, but also that the energy simply doesn’t exist.

Geologist Sigmundur Einarsson has, for the last years, pointed this out and stated that the amount of energy needed for the Helguvík smelter cannot be found and harnessed on Reykjanes, like stated by the parties involved. For instance he believes that no more than 120 MWe can be harnessed in Krýsuvík, contrary to the official numbers of 480 MWe, and has repeatedly demanded answers from the authorities about where from the rest of the energy is supposed to come. Just as Saving Iceland’s questions about the whereabouts of energy for Alcoa’s planned smelter in Bakki, Sigmundur’s questions have never been answered, but he claims the Energy Master Plan proofs his theory.

Yet Another Three Kárahnjúkar Dams!

Environmentalists have reacted to the energy companies’ complaints and asked how on earth the companies can still pretended to be unsatisfied. As pointed out by Landvernd, these company’s are about be granted permission to harness energy equivalent of three Kárahnjúkar dams. From 2004 to 2009, Iceland’s energy production duplicated, largely with the construction of Kárahnjúkar dam, and is currently 16,900 gigawatt-hours. If the Energy Master Plan will be accepted as proposed, the energy companies will be able to duplicate the production again in few years, says Guðmundur Hörður, chairman of Landvernd, and continues:

The increase of public electricity usage is about 50 gigawatt-hours per year. The expansion entailed in the proposition would thus sustain that particular public increase for the next 265 years! If this will be the conclusion, the energy companies can be very satisfied. Still they send their agents onto the media, in order to cry and complain. That doesn’t give a good hint for a settlement.

Other environmentalists, Ómar Ragnarsson for instance, have mentioned that the whole discourse surrounding the Energy Master Plan portrays a false image. While the plan regards Iceland’s each and every hydro and geothermal area, potential for exploitation, the areas that have already been harnessed are kept outside of the discourse. Ómar says that it is simply false to state that “only twenty-two areas” have been categorised exploitable, as twenty-eight large power plants have already been built in Iceland. That means that out of the ninety-seven considered in the Master Plan, fifty have already been or will be utilised. In addition to the twenty-seven areas put on hold, another thirty-two have yet not been categorised by the steering committees, which makes the current proportion of protected areas even lower.

Ómar has also pointed out mismatches within the proposition. One example regards geothermal area Gjástykki that is listed as protected, as it is “a part of Krafla’s volcanic system, which has a protection value on a worldwide scale,” like stated in the proposition. But according to Ómar this will depend entirely on definitions. As an energy option, Vítismór, which is a part of Krafla’s volcanic system and is an inseparable part of the Gjástykki-Leirhnjúkur area, is currently listed as an addition to the Krafla power plant and would thus, regardless of its position within the Master Plan, be available for exploitation.

Limnology (or freshwater science) professor Gísli Már Gíslason upholds Ómar’s argument and has stated that half of Iceland’s “profitable hydro power” has already been utilised. One of those rivers is Jökulsá á Dal, harmed by the infamous Kárahnjúkar dam, which in order to be built required disallowing the protection of Kringilsárrani, an extremely important grassland for reindeer. This is not a unique incident as, for instance, the three dams in river Láxá are also manifestations of hydro power plants built in protected areas.

The Coming Struggle

Notably by the above-listed contradictions, which though demonstrate only a small part of the debate about the Energy Master Plan so far, the coming struggle about the fate of Iceland’s nature is going to be harsh and heavy. Armed with the rhetoric of economic crisis, unemployment etc., those in favour of heavy industry – in other words a big part of parliament, the energy companies, the Associations of Industry and Employers, the country’s biggest trade unions, and most recently Samál, a joint association of aluminium producers in Iceland – use literally every opportunity to push for the further development of industry, especially aluminium. In order for that development to occur, the country’s glacial rivers and geothermal areas have to be exploited on a mass scale.

Environmentalists, on the other hand, need to sharpen their knives and both ask and answer a great amount of questions. What, if any, are the actual benefits of heavy industry and its parallel large-scale energy production? And what are its impacts on Iceland’s society and ecosystems? No less importantly, what are its global impacts such as on the atmosphere or bauxite communities in India, Guinea, Hungary and Jamaica? How has it affected the economy and what are its contributions to the current economic situation? What are the impacts of the building of big dams and geothermal power-plants, fuelled by extremely high loans, bringing a temporary pump into the economy that inevitably leads to the demand for another shot? And what is the value of nature per se?

Only by answering all of these and many more questions, one can honestly try to answer the one fundamental question regarding the Energy Master Plan: What actual need is there for yet another three Kárahnjúkar dams, or in fact just a single more power plant?

A plan to build three dams in the river Þjórsá could wipe out salmon in the river. National power company Landsvirkjun insist they have measures on the table to keep the salmon alive. Vísir reports that an environmental assessment has already confirmed that should the three proposed dams be built, the salmon that use the river will disappear.

Plans to dam Þjórsá have not been without their controversy, as the project has been heatedly debated for years now. In fact, the notion that damming up the river would wipe out salmon from the river was known as far back as 2002. While Landsvirkjun says they would construct what effectively amounts to a sperm bank for salmon to fertilise eggs, the Ministry for the Environment has looked at the plan and concluded that nothing in the plan indicates that it would even work.

The three dams have been green-lit, though, so the options now on the table are to either find some other way to save the river’s salmon while construction goes underway, or to pull the plug on construction, either temporarily or permanently. Neither option will be inexpensive for the parties involved.

Report by Dr. Ranghildur Sigurðardóttir on the effects of a dam at Urriðafoss in Þjórsá. (in Icelandic)

Like explained on the project’s official website the process was “split into two phases. The first phase, 1999–2003, evaluated and ranked 20 large-scale hydro-power options, mostly located in the highlands, and the same number of geothermal options in 8 high-temperature areas.” The second phase was supposed to “rank all the options to produce the final result,” including “an evaluation of whether some areas should be conserved completely, without any energy-harnessing activities.” Proposed power projects were said to be “evaluated and categorised on the basis of efficiency, economic profitability, and how they will benefit the economy as a whole,” while the “the impact on the environment, nature, and wildlife” was also supposed to be evaluated, “as well as the impact on the landscape, cultural heritage and ancient monuments, grazing and other traditional land use, outdoor activities fishing, and hunting.”

TORFAJÖKULL AND KERLINGAFJÖLL PROTECTED – HELLISHEIÐI, REYKJANES AND KRAFLA AMONG “EXPLOIT-FRIENDLY” AREAS

The second phase’s report, as said before, was published in the beginning of July 2011, two years later than expected when the process started. On top of the protection list are two geothermal areas, around Torfajökull glacier and Kerlingafjöll mountains, which both have been viewed as preferable exploitation areas by the energy industry and its representatives in committees concerning the Master Plan. Other areas scoring high on the protection list are geothermal area Vonarskarð and rivers Skaftá and Hólmsá, south-west of Vatnajökull glacier, the latest-mentioned being a part of Landsvirkjun’s recently announced plan to build 14 new power-plants in the next 15 years. These areas are, according to the report’s authors, the highest ranking natural treasures that were taken into account in the making of the report.

On the other hand the geothermal areas on Hellisheiði by mountain Hengill, the Reykjanes peninsula and volcano Krafla, as well as river Tungnaá, are listed on the top of exploitation areas. Geothermal energy production has been going on Hellisheiði since 2006 (where Saving Iceland’s 2008 action camp was located ), resulting in highly increased sulphur pollution in the Reykavík capital area. There is a vast local opposition against the plant and the planned enlargement of it, its most recent manifestation being when residents of Hveragerði, living close by one of Reykjavík Energy’s boreholes, called the police to complain about constant noise coming from the borehole. Further construction is currently taking place in Hellisheiði as well as in Tungaá river where Landsvirkjun is building its Búðarháls dam that will produce energy for increased aluminium production in Rio Tinto Alcan’s smelter in Straumsvík, Hafnarfjörður. Already existing plans to increase geothermal energy production on the Reykjanes peninsula, for a planned Norðurál/Century Aluminum smelter in Helguvík, have resulted in worries of overexploitation – not only by environmentalists but also, and most recently, by Iceland’s National Energy Authority.

ÞJÓRSÁ RIVER NOT CONSIDERED NATURALLY VALUABLE

What mostly grabs one’s attention is the fact that Þjórsá river is llisted quite high on the report’s exploitation list, meaning that according to the authors, Landsvirkjun’s three planned dams in the river would not have any serious impacts on the environment surrounding the river. Thus the planned dams by Holt and Hvammur are number 15 and 16 on the list, while the damming of Urriðafoss waterfall – the most critical of all three – is located number 28, which is still above the list’s middle. This conclution completely contradicts environmentalists nation-wide and many local residents around the river, opposing all three dams. In an article e.g. published on Saving Iceland’s website, natural scientist and author Guðmundur Páll Ólafsson, criticised the rhetoric of those in favour of the dams:

When a glacial river is harnessed to generate electricity, this important function, and the binding of the greenhouse gas CO2, is diminished. What they generate is not green energy as the advocates of hydro-power plants and heavy industry maintain, but black energy. Dams and reservoirs hinder the function of glacial sediment in the oceans, and hence hydro-electric power plants that harness glacial rivers are far more harmful than has hitherto been believed.

The planned Þjórsá dams have also been highly criticised from a social perspective, most recently by a group of young locals who challenged Iceland’s government “to state officially that no dams will be built in the lower Þjórsá river, against the peoples wishes.” This happened shortly after a Supreme Court ruling stating that the decision of Environmental Minister Svandís Svavarsdóttir, to reject the construction of a dam in Urriðafoss waterfall in Þjórsá river, was illegal. The ruling was only a one small factor in the long and complicated farce concerning the Þjórsá issue – a farce including Landsvirkjun’s attempts to bribe local residents and the company’s threats of using expropriation in order to gain access to lands owned by people opposed to the dams. Following the publication of the Master Plan’s second phase report, Guðmundur Hörður Guðmundsson, chairman of environmentalist organization Landvernd, expressed the organization’s disagreement with Þjórsá’s position on the exploitation list, stating that a much better and more detailed research has to be done on the planned dams’ social impacts.

Interviewed by newspaper Fréttablaðið, natural scientist Guðmundur Páll Ólafsson voiced a very negative view towards the report, saying that the whole process of it marks the energy company’s coming retrieval. “My criticism is mostly based on the premises that the exploitation options are always at the forefront, but not to protect the Icelandic nature and Icelandic natural treasures from the outburst of the present,” Guðmundur said and added that the latter is much more important than to exploit certain areas. He also criticised the Minstry of Industry and the National Energy Authority for allowing Landsvirkjun to walk all over the second phase’s protective section.

THE COMING RETRIEVAL

Only a few days prior to the report’s publication Landsvirkjun announced the company’s future policy formulation, parallel to the publication of another report that was made for Landsvirkjun by a consulting service named GAMMA. The reports states that according to the results of the Energy Master Plan’s first phase, Landsvirkjun can duplicate its energy production in the next 15 years, promising between 9.000 and 11.000 thousand related jobs. If things go like planned, at least 3.000 people would be employed by energy-intensive heavy industry companies in 2025, while the so-called – and often doubted – derivative jobs would be a little more than 4.000, meaning that c.a. 4% of the Icelandic nation would work directly or implicitly for heavy industry. To make a good story better the director of Landsvirkjun, Hörður Arnarson, compared Landsvirkjun with the Norwegian oil industry, saying that if the company is allowed to follow its published strategy, only its dividend payment and tax payment could become 14% of the state treasury. Hence Landsvirkjun would be able to live up to the cost of Iceland’s police, courts, culture, sports, colleges and universities.

Aforementioned Guðmundur Hörður Guðmundsson, chairman of Landvernd, called Landsvirkjun’s strategy “the mapping of the next economical bubble,” pointing out that the financial amounts mentioned in the report are much higher than the amounts of the Kárahnjúkar dam project, which contributed fiercely to Iceland’s economic collapse in 2008. “How will the situation be here when all this construction will be finished?” he asked when interviewed by a left-leaning news-website Smugan, adding that Landsvirkjun is not the only energy company planning large-scale constructions. The editor of that same website, Þóra Kristín Ásgeirsdóttir, called the report “Landsvirkjun’s political manifesto” and asked when a time would come where expensive professionals would be hired to write a report about the immeasurable value of unspoiled nature instead of yet another report on the greatness of large-scale exploitation. In an open letter to Katrín Júlíusdóttir, Minister of Industry, Guðmundur Páll Ólafsson said that “in fact nothing has changed in the Minstry of Industry since the collapse […] except that the scurrility is more than before.”

ENVIRONMENTAL MINISTER PROMISES EMPTY-LOOKING CHANGES

As reported by Saving Iceland before, environmentalists are highly critical of the making of the Master Plan, especially in relation to a committee, nominated to sort the areas in question into three different categories: protection, hold and utilization. The committee did not include a single representative from environmentalist organizations whereas representatives from the energy and tourism industries, as well as the Ministries of Environment and Industry, had seats IN it. Minister of Environment and a Left Green MP, Svandís Svavarsdóttir, has now backed up the criticism, stating that there is, and has always been, an enormous advantage difference between environmentalists on the one hand and those in favour of extreme exploitation on the other. Interviewed by State TV station RÚV, Svandís said that within both the Ministries of Environment and Industry there is a will to strengthen environmentalists’ position, though no plans have been made how to actually execute that will.

Once again promises given about changes concerning the protection of Iceland’s nature seem to lack all real meaning.

Sigmundur Einarsson, a geologist at the Icelandic Institute of Natural History, has written some articles on this matter (in Icelandic). He has tried, amongst a number of other environmental scientists,  to warn the Icelandic government about a new kind of collapse, an energy collapse due to following far too optimistic speculation of irresponsible people.

Einarsson’s first article was named: Iceland’s great energy sources. After the Icelandic economic collapse in 2008 politicians have constantly claimed that the future strength of the country lies in its wealth of power stored within rivers and geothermal areas. Einarsson has pointed out that all available geothermal power in Iceland would not be enough to power two big aluminium smelters proposed at Helguvík in SW Iceland and at Bakki in NE Iceland.

The only answer to Einarsson’s first article appeared in Century Aluminum´s homepage saying that about 1500 MW of energy is available from SW Iceland’s geothermal fields and rivers and that the Helguvík smelter needed only 625 MW. The company´s numbers on energy include all already harnessed geothermal fields along with highly optimistic numbers on areas not yet investigated.

Einarsson who has long experience working on geothermal activity in Iceland answered with more arguments titled Century Aluminum´s dreams of energy . The following table from his article includes every geothermal field in SW Iceland.

The following table shows the amount of technically exploitable power (TEP), already utilized power (AUP) and non-utilized power (NUP) in the geothermal fields of SW-Iceland. The numbers for TEP are Einarsson’s estimates and the numbers in brackets come from a paper by S. Björnsson, a geophysicist at the Icelandic Energy Authority.

Geothermal field             TEP (MW_e)            AUP (MW_e)            NUP (MW_e)

Reykjanes 100 (200)             100             0

Eldvörp/Svartsengi 100 (120)             75             25

Krýsuvík (Trölladyngja,             100 (480)             0            100

Sandfell, Seltún,

Austurengjar)

Brennisteinsfjöll (40)             –             –

Hengill (Hellisheiði,             600 (600)             333            267

Hverahlíð, Bitra, Nesjavellir)

Total            900 (1440)             508             392

Reykjanes geothermal field A 100 MW_e power station is already running in the area. The power company HS Orka has requested permission from the authorities (Icelandic Energy Authority) to the enlarge the station to 200 MW_e. The permission has not been granted since the power company has not been able to proof further exploitation to be sustainable (showing that Einarsson’s estimate for TEP might even be too high). In 2006 HS Orka signed a contract with Century Aluminum about 150 MW_e of energy for the Helguvík smelter, partly from this source. This delay is already under jurisdiction in Sweden, home country of  Magma Sweden, the owners of HS Orka.

Eldvörp/Svartsengi geothermal field Preparation for extended exploitation of the geothermal field has not started. The pressure within the reservoir has recently become steady after 28 years of constant draw down so increased exploitation is not likely to be allowed in the near future. Energy for the Helguvík smelter can not be expected from this source.

Krýsuvík geothermal fields This geothermal area which consists of 4 subfields has never bee harnessed. HS Orka has license for research in the total area but has only made agreement for future production with the landowners of the two smaller Trölladyngja and Sandfell subfields. Two deep drill holes in Trölladyngja subfield have proved negative and research has not started in the other three subfields. Scientific views on power potential of the total area are controversial, partly due to lack of data. Energy from these fields seems unlikely.

Brennisteinsfjöll geothermal field is quite small and lies in the mountains south of Reykjavík. This area is not likely to be harnessed in the future.

Hengill geothermal field with the subfields Hellisheiði, Hverahlíð, Bitra, Nesjavellir lies SE of Reykjavík. The area has been harnessed by the power company OR, owned by the Reykjavík municipality. This power company almost vent bankrupt after Icelands financial  collapse. The companies financial plans do not assume any new power stations in the next five years. So energy for the Helguvík smelter from this source can hardly be expected until at least 8 years from now. OR has secured energy for one 90 MW_e power station, but further plans have not been confirmed.

The above mentioned potential origins of power for the aluminium smelter are specified in the EIA report and nothing else.  Einarsson has in his articles repeatedly pointed out that it will never be possible to feed the smelter with energy from these geothermal areas. No answers have ever come from the authorities, neither local or governmental.

The third power company, Landsvirkjun, has prepared three water power stations in the river Thjórsá (Þjórsá) in South Iceland, producing about 230 MW. Landsvirkjun has repeatedly argued that the electricity from these power stations will not go to aluminium smelters. Other power potentials are not in sight in southern Iceland.

See also:

Threatened Areas

Development of Iceland’s geothermal energy potential for aluminium production – a critical analysis

Big dams have a serious record of social and environmental destruction, and there are many alternatives. So why are they still being built?

On a hot May day, a peasant farmer named Bounsouk looks out across the vast expanse of water before him, the 450-square-kilometer reservoir behind the new Nam Theun 2 dam in Laos. At the bottom of the reservoir is the land where he once lived, grew rice, grazed buffalo, and collected forest fruits, berries, and medicinal plants and spices. Now there is just water, water everywhere.

“Before the flood I could grow enough rice to feed my family and I had 10 buffalo,” he says. “I like our new houses and I like having electricity in the new village, but we do not have enough land and the soil quality is very poor. Now I can’t grow enough rice to feed my family, and three of my buffalo died because they didn’t have enough food.”

Bounsouk is one of 6,200 indigenous people whose lands were flooded to make way for the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project in this small Southeast Asian country. His story is one that is heard over and over again in the project resettlement area. People are generally happy with their new houses, electricity, and proximity to the road, but are concerned about how they will feed their families in the long term. The poor quality of land and lack of viable income-generating options in this remote area make their prospects bleak.

Big dams have frequently imposed high social and environmental costs and longterm economic tradeoffs, such as lost fisheries and tourism potential and flooded agricultural and forest land. According to the independent World Commission on Dams, most projects have failed to compensate affected people for their losses and adequately mitigate environmental impacts. Local people have rarely had a meaningful say in whether or how a dam is implemented, or received their fair share of project benefits.

But Electricité de France, Nam Theun 2’s developer, together with the Lao government, the World Bank, and other backers, promised that Nam Theun 2 would be different. They called it a “poverty-reduction project.” The company committed to restoring the incomes of affected communities, and the World Bank claimed that the cash-strapped Lao government would use the revenues from Nam Theun 2’s electricity exports to neighboring Thailand solely to benefit the poor. These promises helped seal the deal, bringing in European development agencies, banks, and export credit agencies with hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, loans, and insurance for the US$1.45 billion project, the largest foreign investment ever in Laos.

But while Nam Theun 2’s engineering deadlines have been met, social and environmental programs have stumbled ever since construction started, making life more difficult for Lao villagers. Legal agreements have been violated and social and environmental commitments have been broken. In a manner typical of hydro projects worldwide, promises were made prior to project approval that were later broken by project developers and governments.

Downstream, more than 120,000 people are waiting to see how their lives will be affected when the project starts operation in early 2010. They are likely to suffer the project’s most serious damage, including destruction of fisheries, flooding of riverbank gardens, and water quality problems. Yet the programs to restore livelihoods in this area are badly under-funded and poorly planned.

Rather than being a new model of hydropower development, the experience with Nam Theun 2 to date only reinforces lessons learned from other large hydropower projects around the world. Instead of giving hope for the future, Nam Theun 2 threatens more of the same: broken promises, shattered lives, ruined ecosystems.

Hydro Boom

The dam building industry is greenwashing hydropower with a public relations offensive designed to convince the world that the next generation of dams will provide additional sources of clean energy and help to ease the effects of climate change. In some of the world’s last great free-flowing-river basins, such as the Amazon, the Mekong, the Congo, and the rivers of Patagonia, governments and industry are pushing forward with cascades of massive dams, all under the guise of clean energy.

Following a decade-long lull, a major resurgence in dam construction worldwide is now under way, driven by infusions of new capital from China, Brazil, Thailand, India, and other middle-income countries. In particular, Chinese financial institutions have replaced the World Bank as the largest funder of dam projects globally. Chinese banks and companies are involved in constructing some 216 large dams (“large” means at least 15 meters high, or between 5 and 15 meters and with a reservoir capacity of at least 3 million cubic meters) in 49 different countries, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia, many with poor human rights records. A look at the heavy dam-building activity in China, the Amazon basin, and Africa illustrates the risks involved.

China. China is already home to more than 25,000 large dams, about half of the global total. These projects have forced more than 23 million people from their homes and land, and many are still suffering the impacts of displacement and dislocation. Around 30 percent of China’s rivers are severely polluted with sewage, agricultural and mining runoff, and industrial chemicals, and the flows of some (such as the Yellow River) have been so dramatically altered that they no longer reach the sea. Free-flowing rivers with adequate oxygen and natural nutrient balances can remove or reduce the toxicity of river contaminants, but dams compound pollution problems by reducing rivers’ ability to flush out pollutants and because the reservoirs accumulate upstream contaminants and submerge vegetation, which then rots. The water then released can be highly toxic and can have significant ecological and human-health effects downstream.

Despite the poor record of dam construction in China, the Chinese government has ambitious plans to expand hydropower generation, more than doubling capacity to 250,000 megawatts by 2020. Huge hydropower cascades have been proposed and are being constructed in some of China’s most pristine and diverse river basins in the country’s remote southwest.

The Three Gorges Dam, perhaps the world’s most notorious dam, generates electricity equivalent to that of about 25 coal-fired power stations. Yet the tradeoffs involved are enor-

mous. The project has been plagued by corruption, spiraling costs, environmental catastrophes, human rights violations, and resettlement difficulties. To date, more than 1.3 million people have been moved to make way for the dam. Hundreds of thousands of these people have received tiny, barren plots of land or have been sent to urban slums with limited cash compensation and housing. Those resettled in towns around the edge of the Three Gorges reservoir have seen the shore of the reservoir collapse in as many as 91 places, killing scores of people and forcing whole villages to relocate. Protests have been met with repression, including imprisonment and beatings.

The Three Gorges Dam is, unfortunately, the tip of the iceberg. In southwest China, at least 114 dams on eight rivers in the region are being proposed or are under development on major rivers, such as the Lancang (Upper Mekong), the Nu (Upper Salween), and the Jinsha (Upper Yangtze). Many of these projects are among the largest in the world, with correspondingly serious impacts on river ecology, displacement of hundreds of thousands of ethnic minority people, and concerns about the safety of downstream communities. Several of the projects are in or adjacent to the Three Parallel Rivers World Heritage Site, threatening the ecological integrity of one of the most spectacular and biologically rich areas of the world.

Of increasing concern is the potential for dams in Southwest China to trigger earthquakes. Recent evidence has emerged that the devastating 7.9-magnitude Sichuan earthquake of May 2008, which killed an estimated 90,000 people, may have been caused by the Zipingpu Dam. It is well established that large dams can trigger earthquakes through what is called reservoir-induced seismicity. Scientists believe that there are more than 100 instances of reservoirs causing earthquakes around the world. According to geophysical hazards researcher Christian Klose of Columbia University, “The several hundred million tons of water piled behind the Zipingpu Dam put just the wrong stresses on the adjacent Beichuan fault.”

Many of China’s dam projects are being built on international rivers with no evaluation of the potential transboundary impacts. The cascade of eight dams being built on the Lancang River will drastically change the Mekong River’s natural flood/drought cycle and block the transport of sediment, affecting ecosystems and the livelihoods of millions living downstream in Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Fluctuations in water levels and reduced fisheries caused by the three dams already completed have been recorded along the Thai-Lao border. Despite this, construction has proceeded without consultation with China’s downstream neighbors and without an assessment of the dams’ likely impacts on the river and its people.

Meanwhile, downstream along the Mekong, the governments of Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia are planning their own cascade of 11 dams on the river’s mainstream, and scores of additional dams on its tributaries. The projects are being proposed by Chinese, Vietnamese, Malaysian, and Thai developers, with financing presumably from public and private financial institutions in their home countries. The growth of regional capital has fueled the resurgence of these projects, which have been on the drawing board for decades.

Around 60 million people depend on the Mekong River for fish, irrigation, transportation, and water. Known regionally as the “Mother of Waters,” the Mekong supports one of the world’s most diverse fisheries, second only to the Amazon. Those fisheries are a major source of protein for people living in the Mekong basin, and the annual fisheries harvest has a first-sale value of about $2 billion. If built, the dams would severely damage the river’s ecology and block the major fish migrations that ensure regional food security and provide income to millions of people.

The Amazon.  Under the guise of promoting cheap, clean energy, Brazil’s dam builders are planning more than 100 dams in the Amazon. Already two big dams are under construction on the Amazon’s principal tributary, the Madeira, with several others in the licensing process. Brazil’s electricity-sector bureaucrats say these will be kinder, gentler dams with smaller reservoirs, designed to lessen social and environmental impacts. Legislation has been introduced that would fast-track the licensing of new dams in Amazonia and allow projects to circumvent Brazil’s tough environmental laws, under the pretext that they are of “strategic importance” to Brazil’s future.

By flooding large areas of rainforest, opening up new areas to logging, and changing the flow of water, the scores of dams being planned threaten to disturb the fragile water balance of the Amazon and increase the drying of the forest, a process that is already occurring due to climate change and extensive deforestation. New research confirms the critical role the Amazon plays in regulating the climate not only of South America, but also of parts of North America. The transformation of extensive areas of the Amazon into drier savannas would cause havoc with regional weather patterns. Lower precipitation, in turn, would render many of the dams obsolete.

Meanwhile, mocking one of the dams’ justifications, the greenhouse gas emissions could be enormous. Amazonian dams are some of the dirtiest on the planet; the Balbina Dam alone emits 10 times more greenhouse gases (from rotting vegetation in the reservoir) than a coal-fired plant of the same capacity. What’s more, the planned projects would expel more than 100,000 river-bank dwellers from their lands and seriously degrade extensive indigenous lands and protected areas.

The Santo Antonio and Jirau Dams on the Madeira River, currently under construction, have also raised the possibility that individual dams could affect a huge area of the Amazon Basin. Scientists have pointed out that several valuable migratory fish species could suffer near-extinction as a result of the Madeira dams, depleting fisheries and fauna thousands of kilometers up and downstream. The fertility of the Amazon floodplain, important for agriculture and fish reproduction, would also be impaired because a significant portion of the sediments and nutrients carried by the Madeira would be trapped in the reservoirs.

There is no doubt that meeting Brazil’s future energy needs is of crucial importance, but there are alternatives to more dams. A study by WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature showed that Brazil could meet a major part of its future energy needs at lower social, environmental, and economic cost by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Brazil’s enormous windpower potential is attracting investors, and the country’s potential for generating electricity from biomass, such as sugarcane bagasse, rice husks, and sawmill scraps, has been calculated to exceed the capacity of the massive Itaipu Dam.

Africa.  In Africa, dam construction is also on the rise. Africa is the least-electrified place in the world, with just a fraction of its citizens having access to electricity. Solving this huge problem is made more difficult by widespread poverty and poor governance, and because a large majority of the people live far from the grid, which greatly adds to the cost of bringing electricity to them.

The World Bank and many of the continent’s energy planners are pinning their hopes for African electrification on something as ephemeral as the rain, by pushing for a series of large dams across the continent. World Bank energy specialist Reynold Duncan told an energy conference earlier this year that Africa needs to greatly increase its investments in hydropower. “In Zambia, we have the potential of about 6,000 megawatts, in Angola we have 6,000 megawatts, and about 12,000 megawatts in Mozambique,” he said. “We have a lot of megawatts down here before we even go up to the Congo.”

Duncan said that governments and investors should not hesitate to look at riskier assets such as hydropower, adding that only 5 percent of the continent’s hydro potential had been tapped. But “risky” is right. New African dams are being built with no examination of how climate change will affect them, even though many existing dams are already plagued by drought-caused power shortages.

Climate change is expected to dramatically alter the dynamics of many African rivers, worsening both droughts and floods. In this climate, the proposed frenzy of African dam building could be literally disastrous. Unprecedented flooding will cause more dams to collapse and hasten the rate at which their reservoirs fill with sediment. Meanwhile, worsening droughts will mean dams will fail to meet their power production targets.

Dams are not inexpensive investments: Just developing one of these dams, the Mphanda Nkuwa in Mozambique, is expected to cost at least $2 billion (not including the necessary transmission lines). Yet these huge projects are doing little to bridge the electricity divide in Africa. With the majority of the continent’s population living far from existing electricity grids, what is needed is a major decentralized-power rollout of renewables and small power plants to build local economies from the ground up, not the top down. But that’s not where the money is right now.

Corruption

These examples from three areas of heavy dam-building activity hint at the spectrum of major problems they present. Big dams can contribute to development, but that progress often comes at staggering cost, in displaced and impoverished refugees, ecologically fragmented and damaged rivers, and downstream victims of destroyed fisheries and impounded sediments. Big dams also expand the habitat of waterborne disease vectors such as malaria, dengue fever, schistosomiasis, and liver fluke, and can trigger devastating earthquakes by increasing seismic stresses. Dams frequently fail to deliver their projected benefits and usually wind up costing more than predicted. And although hydropower is touted as a solution to climate change, many dams actually emit huge quantities of greenhouse gases. As Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy has put it, “Big dams are to a nation’s development what nuclear bombs are to its military arsenal. They’re both weapons of mass destruction.”

If dams continue to wreak havoc with people’s lives and ecosystems, and are increasingly risky in a warming world, why do they continue to be built and promoted? And why are they now being hailed as a source of green, renewable energy?

One of the main reasons is vested interests: There are substantial profits to be had, for the hydropower industry, their network of consultants, and host-country bureaucracies, from planning, building, and operating massive infrastructure projects. These attractions often trump the impacts on people and ecosystems and the need to develop sustainable economies in the midst of a growing water and food crisis.

Industry consultants and engineering companies that undertake feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments know that they need to portray a project in a favorable light if they want to get future contracts. In case after case, and without comprehensively assessing the alternatives, they consistently claim that the impacts can be mitigated and that the project in question represents the best option for meeting the country’s needs.

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that should anticipate problems have served as a rubber-stamping device rather than a real planning tool. Jiang Gaoming of the Chinese Academy of Sciences reports that construction on many projects in southwest China is under way in violation of key aspects of Chinese law. Many projects lack an EIA and have not been approved by the government. According to Jiang, even basic safety checks have not been performed and government regulators are uninvolved. “EIAs have become a marginalized and decorative process, seen as just a part of the cost of doing business,” says Jiang. “Both the builders and local government know that, to date, an EIA has never managed to halt a dam project.”

Needless to say, corruption also plays a key role. A dam involves a huge upfront investment of resources, making it easy for government officials and politicians to skim some off the top. One of the most egregious examples of corruption involving a dam project is the Yacyretá Dam on the Paraná River, between Argentina and Paraguay. In the 1980s, the cost of this “monument to corruption” (in the words of former Argentine president Carlos Menem) ballooned from an original estimate of $1.6 billion to more than $8 billion. In 2002 and 2003, several of the biggest dam-building companies in the world were convicted of bribing the former director of the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority to win contracts on Lesotho’s Katse Dam. Masupha Sole accepted around $2 million in bribes from major dam-building firms such as Acres International of Canada and Lahmeyer International of Germany. In China, corrupt local officials stole millions of dollars intended for people displaced by the Three Gorges Dam. At least 349 people have been found guilty of embezzling a total of about 12 percent of the project’s resettlement budget.

The Way Forward

Needless to say, these are not easy problems to address. The most ambitious and systematic attempt to date has been undertaken by the World Commission on Dams (WCD), a multi-stakeholder independent body established by the World Bank and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in 1998. After a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of large dams, the Commission issued its final report, Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making, in 2000.

Briefly, the WCD recommends conducting an open and participatory process to identify the real needs for water and energy services, followed by a careful assessment of all options for meeting those needs, giving social and environmental aspects the same significance as technical, economic, and financial factors. If a new dam is truly needed, outstanding social and environmental issues from existing dams should be addressed, and the benefits from existing projects should be maximized. Public acceptance of all key decisions should be demonstrated and decisions affecting indigenous peoples should be guided by their free, prior, and informed consent. Legally binding agreements should be negotiated with affected people to ensure the implementation of mitigation, resettlement, and development entitlements. Impact assessments should follow European Union and other global EIA standards. By definition, an effective EIA “ensures that environmental consequences of projects are identified and assessed before authorization is given”- something that almost never occurs in today’s world. Dam projects built on international rivers should also evaluate the potential transboundary impacts or cumulative impacts from multi-dam projects in regional watersheds.

The dam industry has rejected the WCD guidelines and in 2007 established its own process, hoping to develop a sustainability protocol that will replace the WCD framework as the most legitimate benchmark for dam projects. But the industry approach is clearly an attempt to circumnavigate the more robust requirements of the WCD while paying lipservice to sustainability.

In fact, the industry’s attempt to repackage hydropower as a green, renewable technology is both misleading and unsupported by the facts, and alternatives are often preferable. In general, the cheapest, cleanest, and fastest solution is to invest in energy efficiency. Up to three-quarters of the electricity used in the United States, for instance, could be saved with efficiency measures that would cost less than the electricity itself. Developing countries, which will account for 80 percent of global energy demand growth up to 2020, could cut that growth by more than half using existing efficiency technologies, according to McKinsey Global Institute. “Technology transfer” programs can be an effective way to help poorer nations avoid having to reinvent the wheel; for example, California’s remarkable energy efficiency program has been sharing knowledge with Chinese energy agencies and government officials to jump-start strong efficiency programs there.

Even with investment in efficiency, however, many developing countries will require new generation sources. Developing countries often have vast, unexploited renewable energy potential, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and modern biomass energy, as well as low-impact, non-dam hydropower. Such technologies are much more suited to meeting the energy needs of the rural poor, as they can be developed where people need the power and do not require the construction of transmission lines. Examples include the installation, supported by Global Environment Facility incentives, of hundreds of thousands of solar home systems in Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, and Uganda.

Large-scale true renewables can also be an attractive and affordable solution to many countries’ energy problems. The cost of windpower in good locations is now comparable to or lower than that of conventional sources. Both solar photovoltaic and concentrating solar power are rapidly coming down in price. A 2008 report from a U.S. National Academy of Engineering panel predicts that solar power will be cost-competitive with conventional energy sources in five years.

As for systemic corruption, it must be openly challenged by governments, funding agencies, and other proponents of dam projects. Regulations must be written to identify, define, and eliminate corruption at all levels of the planning process. And the regulations must be openly supported and enforced by the World Bank, the dam industry, the hydropower companies, and the governments supporting dam construction. The dam industry itself, together with its biggest government allies, such as China, Brazil and India, must take steps toward internal reform. Adopting the WCD guidelines would be a good first step, together with instituting such practices as integrity pacts, anti-corruption legislation, and performance bonds that require developers to comply with commitments.

A vigorous assault on corruption, plus technology transfer and financial assistance: these are the keys to allowing developing countries to leapfrog to a sustainable, twenty-first-century energy regime. The stakes are high, because healthy rivers, like all intact ecosystems, are priceless. The alternative, quite simply, is a persistent legacy of human and environmental destruction.

Aviva Imhof is the campaigns director for International Rivers, an environmental and human rights organization based in Berkeley, California. Guy R. Lanza is a professor of microbiology and director of the Environmental Science Program at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Iceland is developing its hydro and geothermal resources in the context of an energy master plan, mainly to provide power for expansion of the aluminium industry. This paper tests perceptions of geothermal energy as low-carbon, renewable and environmentally benign, using Icelandic geothermal industry as a case study.
The application of geothermal energy for aluminium smelting is discussed as well as environmental and human rights record of the aluminium industry in general. Despite application of renewable energy technologies, emission of greenhouse gases by aluminium production is set to increase.
Our analysis further shows that carbon emissions of geothermal installations can approximate those of gas-powered plants. In intensely exploited reservoirs, life of boreholes is limited and reservoirs need extensive recovery time after exploitation, making geothermal exploitation at these sites not renewable in the short to medium term. Pollution and landscape impacts are extensive when geothermal technology is applied on a large scale.

Krater and Rose – Development of Iceland’s Geothermal Energy – Download as PDF
The full publication will be available from Jan. 15, 2010. ISBN 9781849350051.

By Miriam Rose

The economic issues currently causing mass demonstrations in Iceland have a less publicised ecological cousin, and one which the IMF has recently identified as part of the economic collapse. In 1995 the Ministry of Industry and Landsvirkjun, the national power company, began to advertise Iceland’s huge hydropower and geothermal energy potential. In a brochure titled “Lowest energy prices!!” they offered the cheapest, most hard working and healthiest labour force in the world, the cleanest air and purest water – as well as the cheapest energy and “a minimum of environmental red tape” to some of the world’s most well known polluting industries and corporations (such as Rio Tinto and Alcoa). This campaigning has led to the development of an ‘Energy Master Plan’ aimed at damming almost all of the major glacial rivers in Iceland, and exploiting all of the geothermal energy, for the power intensive aluminium industry. The loans taken by the Icelandic state to build large scale energy projects, and the minimal payback they have received from the industry, has been a considerable contributing factor to the economic crisis, while at the same time creating a European ecological crisis that is little heard of.

The Largest Wilderness in Europe
I first visited Iceland in 2006 and spent a week with activists from the environmental campaign Saving Iceland, a network of individuals from around Europe and Iceland who decry the fragmentation of Europe’s largest wilderness in favour of heavy industry. From these informed and passionate folk I learned of the 690 MW Kárahnjúkar dam complex being built in the untouched Eastern Central Highlands to power one Alcoa aluminium smelter in a small fishing village called Reydarfjörður. The dams formed the largest hydro-power complex in Europe, and were set to drown 57 km² of beautiful and virtually unstudied wilderness, the most fertile area in the surrounding highlands. Ultimately it would affect 3% of Iceland’s landmass with soil erosion and river silt deprivation. They also explained how materials in the glacial silt transported to the oceans bonds with atmospheric CO₂, sinking carbon. The damming of Iceland’s glacial rivers not only decreases food supply for fish stocks in the North Atlantic, but also negatively impacts oceanic carbon absorption, a significant climatic effect. After taking part in demonstrations at the construction site of the Alcoa smelter (being built by famous Iraq war profiteers Bechtel), I went to see the area for myself.

Travelling alone on foot in this vast and threatening landscape was one of the most incredible and spiritual experiences of my life. I walked along the deep canyon of the crashing glacial river set to be dammed, as ravens soared above me and a sound like falling rocks echoed from distant mountains. I slept in grassy valleys and bathed in a warm waterfall which ran from a nearby hot spring as reindeer galloped in the distance. The midnight sun showed me the way to Snæfell mountain, from the top of which I could see from the Vatnajokull ice cap all the way to the dam construction site; across wetlands, black sand deserts and shadowy mountains. By the next year the dam’s reservoir would stretch across this whole area. I felt small and vulnerable and had a sense of the immense power of nature, and the even greater power of mankind to choose whether to preserve or to irreversibly destroy it.

Since then critiques of the completed Kárahnjúkar project have made it increasingly unpopular with the Icelandic public, who have become sceptical about the secretive nature of energy deals and the damage to nature. As a result, Landsvírkjun and the heavy industry lobby are now focussing on geothermal power which has a more benign reputation. Ultimately, it is proposed that all of the economically feasible hot spring areas in Iceland will be exploited for industrial use, including a number of sites located in Iceland’s central highlands, the beautiful heart of Iceland’s undisturbed wilderness. Landsvirkjun, without any irony, has termed Iceland ‘the Kuwait of the North’.

The following section challenges some of the myths about ‘green’ geothermal energy.

Renewable
Geothermal energy is created when boreholes are drilled into hot subsurface rock areas or aquifers, and turbines are powered by the emitted steam. They only have a sustainable production level if the surface discharge of heat is balanced by heat and fluid recharge within the reservoir (as occurs at undisturbed hot springs), but this is generally not sufficient for exploiting economically. The Geyser hot springs at Calistoga, USA experienced a 150% decrease in production over ten years, due to rapid exploitation to meet economic requirements, and there have been many similar cases. Geothermal boreholes in Iceland are usually modelled for only 30 years of productionⁱ.

Carbon-neutral
The concentration of carbon dioxide present in geothermal steam is a reflection of the chemical make up of the underground reservoir and is distinct to each area. The 400 MW of boreholes planned for another Alcoa smelter in the north of Iceland will release 1300 tonnes CO₂ per MWⁱⁱ. An average gas powered plant would produce only slightly more, 1595 tonne per MWⁱⁱⁱ. The total of 520,000 tonnes CO₂ for these fields alone is almost as much as what is produced by all of road transport in Iceland^iv.

Minimal environmental impact
Geothermal power accounts for 79% of Iceland’s H₂S and SO₂ emissions^v. In 2008, sulphur pollution from the Hellisheiði power station, 30 km away, was reported to be turning lamposts and jewelry in Reykjavík black, as a record number of objections was filed to two more large geothermal plants in the same area, which would have produced more sulphur and carbon emissions than the planned smelter they were supposed to power, and plans were put on hold.
Geothermal areas such as Hellisheiði are globally rare, very beautiful and scientifically interesting. Icelandic geothermal areas are characterised by colourful striking landscapes, hot springs, lavas and glaciers, and are biologically and geologically endemic to the country. Irreversible disturbance to these wild areas for power plants includes roads, powerlines, heavy lorries and loud drilling equipment.

Wishful green thinking?
In the desperate search for plausible alternatives to our fossil fuel economy, a number of well known British greens have been advocating a ‘European Grid’ energy future, in which Icelandic large scale hydro and geothermal power, and Saharan solar, are transferred by underwater cable to Britain and Europe^vi. It is quite understandable that such schemes look appealing, but it is also essential to have a realistic analysis of the impacts caused by these so-called sustainable technologies before we accept them as a panacea to our fossil fuel sickness.

The technological or pragmatic environmentalism in favour of super grids comes down to a proposal to sacrifice unique ecological areas for the greater good of living a resource-intensive life style ‘sustainably’. In contrast, for anyone who identifies with a natural area, it is easy to understand why it has a value of its own. This value can be seen as far greater than that of any of our possessions; it is in a sense, invaluable.

What can perhaps be concluded from this Icelandic green energy case study is that application of a technology that has been thought of as renewable, climate-friendly and low-impact, on the large scale that is associated with fossil fuels, makes it a lot like the technology it was supposed to replace. It has certainly been argued that technological systems tend to reproduce themselves independent of the specific technologies^{vii viii}. Simply applying a different technology to address issues that are not entirely technological, is not addressing the problem of our consumptive lifestyles. But it can irrevocably end the existence of a place that is not like any other.

References:

i E.g. VGK (2005), Environmental Impact Assesment for Helisheidarvirkjun [online]. URL http://www.vgk.is/hs/Skjol/UES/SH_matsskyrsla.pdf [Accessed August 15, 2007].
ii Sigurðardóttir, R. Unpublished. Energy good and green. In: Bæ bæ Ísland (bye bye Iceland), to be published by the University of Akureyri and Akureyri Art Museum.
The data in this study is arrived at by calculation of the figures in site surveys for the Krafla, Bjarnarflag and Þeistareykir geothermal plants.
Sigurðardóttir has experienced threats and harassment by Landsvirkjun, the national power company, since 2000. In that year, she concluded the formal environmental impact assessment for a proposed large dam, Þjórsárver, a Ramsar treaty area, by stating there were significant, irreversible environmental impacts. The national power company did not pay her and refused to publish the report. Since then Sigurðardóttir has been refused all Icelandic government commissions. Since then, practically all EIAs for geothermal and hydro plants and smelters have been commissioned to the companies HRV and VGK, construction engineers rather than ecological consultancies and “the leading project management and consulting engineering companies within the primary aluminum production sector” (HRV. 2008. Primary aluminium production [online]. URL http://www.hrv.is/hrv/Info/PrimaryAluminumProduction/ [Accessed 13-12-2008]).
iii US Govt. Energy Information Administration. 2008. Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases program. [online]. URL http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html [Accessed 13-12-2008].
iv Ministry of the Environment, Iceland (2006). Iceland’s Fourth National Communication on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/islnc4.pdf [Accessed August 15, 2007].
v Statistics Iceland. 2007. Emission of sulphur dioxides (SO2) by source 1990-2006 [online]. URL http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Geography-and-environment/Gas-emission [Accessed 12/12/2008]
vi E.g. Monbiot, G. (2008). Build a Europe-wide ‘super grid’ [online]. URL http://e-day.org.uk/solutions/charities/14536/george-monbiot–build-a-europewide-super-grid.thtml [Accessed 13-12-2008].
vii E.g. Mander, J. 1992. In the absence of the sacred. Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA.
viii Krater, J. 2007. Duurzame technologie, een contradictie? Buiten de Orde, zomer 2007.

In the early 1970s, after three decades teaching philosophy at the University of Oslo, Næss (pronounced Ness), an enthusiastic mountain climber and an admirer of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” threw himself into environmental work and developed a theory that he called deep ecology. Its central tenet is the belief that all living beings have their own value and therefore, as Naess once put it, “need protection against the destruction of billions of humans.”

Deep ecology, which called for population reduction, soft technology and non-interference in the natural world, was eagerly taken up by environmentalists impatient with shallow ecology — another of Næss’s coinages — which did not confront technology and economic growth.

It formed part of a broader personal philosophy that Naess called ecosophy T, “a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium” that human beings can comprehend by expanding their narrow concept of self to embrace the entire planetary ecosystem. The term fused “ecological” and “philosophy.” The T stood for Tvergastein, his name for the mountain cabin he built in 1937 in southern Norway, where he often wrote.

Arne Dekke Eide Næss was born in Slemdal, near Oslo, in 1912. His older brother was the shipping tycoon Erling Næss, who died in 1993. After earning a degree from the University of Oslo in 1933 Arne Naess continued his education in Paris and in Vienna, where he became part of the Vienna Circle, a philosophical school dedicated to empiricism and logical analysis. In the belief that philosophers should be self-aware, he also underwent psychoanalysis.

After completing “Knowledge and Scientific Behavior,” his dissertation, in German, he was given a teaching position at the University of Oslo, where, as Norway’s only professor of philosophy until 1954, he was the animating figure in the Oslo School. Working in teams, the Oslo School’s adherents used questionnaires to investigate the meanings that ordinary people assigned to terms like “truth,” “free enterprise” and “democracy.” In 1958 he founded the journal Inquiry.

Over his career, Næss progressed from a radical empiricism to pluralism and skepticism. In his many publications, he took on a wide variety of philosophical problems. Harold Glasser, the editor of “The Selected Works of Arne Næss” (2005), has called him “the philosophical equivalent of a hunter-gatherer.” He was interested in language, meaning and communication, a subject he wrote about in “Interpretation and Preciseness” (1953) and “Communication and Argument” (1966), and in the relationship between reason and feeling. He also wrote books on two thinkers central to his worldview, Spinoza and Gandhi.

In 1969 Naess left the university to develop his ecological ideas, which, he believed, demanded political action. With other environmentalists, he chained himself to rocks in front of the Mardal waterfall, successfully pressing the Norwegian government to abandon plans for a dam on the fjord that feeds the falls. He also wrote extensively on the ethics of mountaineering, a field in which he had considerable expertise. In 1950 he led the first expedition to climb Tirich Mir, a 25,000-foot peak in the Hindu Kush in Pakistan.

His ideas on ecology and ecosophy were developed in numerous books and articles, notably “Freedom, Emotion and Self-Subsistence” (1975), “Ecology, Community and Lifestyle” (1989) and “Life’s Philosophy: Reason and Feeling in a Deeper World” (2002).

Surveying the continuing destruction of the environment, Naess was pessimistic about the 21st century but optimistic about the 23rd. By then, he predicted, population control would show results, technology would be noninvasive and children would grow up in a natural environment. At that point, he said, “we are back in the direction of paradise.”

In his article, “Is There Enough Aluminium in the World?” Jakob Björnsson, former director of energy affairs points out that “by far the biggest part of alulminium usage in the world today is in the industrial countries, where 25% of the people of the world live.” He also mentions that when China and India will have gone through proper indutrialization, 62% of humanity will live in industrial countries and the other 38% are also on their way there; that they want to enjoy the indstrialized countries’ living standards, even dream of cars and beer cans. These are very important facts.

Two things make Jakob’s article very interesting. Firstly, he says that it is a realistic oppurtunity that all human beings on the planet can reach the “qualities of life” and lifestyle that Occidentals now live with. Secondly, he states that human equalitiy is possible inside the system we live in.

Western society has been associaded with prosperity, which is said to be for the good. It is said to be a sign of success and progress. But what is the prosperity based on? What is sacrifized for the so-called life qualities?

20% of humanity consumes 80% of earth harnessed resources. The western ecological footprint is way to big for this planet. Considering the fact that unindustrialized countries are getting near to us when it comes to industrialization, production and consumption, it is clear that radical changes are needed.

And these changes can not include new “techno-fixes” that are supposed to solve the problems of the natural environment. They can not be fake sollutions, pretending that the western way of living can ever be positive for the earth, that we can really have positive impacts without radical changes of the consumer culture. The fact is this: We need to go back!

This lifestyle is not sustainable and will never be. That as easy as it gets. The word sustainability does not fit our society in any context. Capitalism does not assume sustainability, because it spins around constant economic growth and contantly increasing parallel aggressiveness. Therfor, capitalist society will never be environmentally friendly.

Corporations and authorities introduce to the public several actions, said to be real sollutions, but none of them assume real, radical changes. They are all centred upon continued production; selling and buying. When e.g. “green” cars are mentioned, the production process is never dealt with. Mining, transport, enormous usage of water and under-paid workforce in the third world – all of these fundamental parts of the production are kept away.

The goal is of course to keep the consumption pattern unchanged without attcking the roots of the problems. Peole are not encouraged to drive less, not to mention even stop driving. People are still supposed to buy new, nice looking cars every few years; and the society is still being organized with the benefits of car owners in mind. New highways are constantly being built and old ones enlarged.

This lifestyle, this culture, can not be taken up by the whole of humanity. The earth is not cabable of it. It means that we have to go back if the whole humanity is ever supposed to be able to be on the same line. We can neiter continue the so-called progress nor stand still.

And than we come to Jakob’s second point; that by time, equality can possibly be reached inside the system we live in. I hardly doubt that he believes this himself – and to be honest, I doubt that he, the primary spokesperson for the aluminium industry here in Iceland, really wants equality. Capitalism does not assume equality, but rather the complete opposite: Capitalism thrives on inequality. Just as big food producers and other big corporations, the aluminium companies thrive on inequality. The situation of the indigenous tribes of Orissa in India is a great example.

Jakob states that the tribes are on their way to industrialization like all other Indian people. The Orissa inhabitants that I have talked about in my prior articles here in Morgunblaðið, live on bauxite resources and fight heavily against bauxite mining, the destruction of ecosystems and their own extermination. The only thing the bauxite mining does to them is to dismantle their lands and livelihoods, as well as their lifestyle, language and culture. Their poverty will not be exterminated, but they will rather be fundamentally pushed into poverty. People will be banished from their sustainable communities, into the cities where nothing waits for them expect boring factory jobs and poverty. And more likely, they will fight for their lives to the last drop of blood. That is how capitalism works.

Coca Cola and a range of other companie have destroyed and polluted water, e.g. in India, and had to do with the murders of worker’s union leaders, e.g. in Columbia. The basic needs of Alcoa’s workers in Honduras and Mexico have been ignored, workers have been fired for organizing unions and their wages are only high enough to live up to one third of what they need to sustain their families and homes. Clothes companies run operate their factories in countries where they can pay their workers as lowe wages as possible; huge fields of land, forests and lakes are destroyed for the production of luxury items for the western countries. Is this maybe the equality that Jakob is talking about?

Capitalism on the one hand and equality and sustainability on the other, do not have anything in common. Neither one assumes the other and they simply do not work together. Reforms inside the system will have no good impacts, since they are not even made to have any good impacts. The only real sollution to the world’s problems is the extermination of capitalism.

Sermeq Kujalleq is the largest glacier in the northern hemisphere that flows out to sea. The icebergs it calves float along a fjord that was recognized as one of the wonders of the world when it was added to the 2004 World Heritage List by the United Nations, which cited its natural history, geology, and beauty.

Although millions of people across the world still aren’t convinced global warming exists or that it’s as big a problem as scientists claim, symptoms of the planet’s warming pop up everywhere in Greenland.

The summer fishing season is longer. Crops are being grown in areas never thought possible. Tourism is booming.

Interest in oil exploration and mining has hit a feverish pitch, with several ‘interesting’ projects under way, including the possibility of aluminum smelters being built there to take advantage of the island’s hydropower potential, according to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

A recent editorial in the Copenhagen Post said Greenland is ‘believed to be sitting on a mind boggling 10,000 billion kroner [nearly $2 trillion] worth of offshore oil reserves.’
Even the island’s first-ever craft brewery, Greenland Beer, is a product of global warming. The company markets the water it uses as purer than what is found in other parts of the world because it comes from melted inland ice formed thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution.

But Greenland’s long-term problems from global warming will likely overshadow such short-term gains.

A lack of sea ice has made winter passage between settlements more difficult, if not impossible. That’s a huge problem because there are no roads between villages. Greenland is one of the only places on Earth that relies on sled dogs as a primary mode of transportation.

Fishing is Greenland’s No. 1 industry. Mild winters, especially in Uummannaq on Greenland’s west coast, have made it treacherous for residents to fish or hunt on what little ice there’s been.

Greenland is the world’s top producer of halibut and cold-water prawns, or shrimp. Halibut in particular have become more elusive, plunging to greater depths as the ocean temperature has warmed. Other species are moving in, but those gains are offset by the movement of whales toward the coast.

Whales have become so common near Ilulissat that two of the village’s three tour operators began offering whale-watch excursions in 2007. Fishermen fear whales will act like vacuum cleaners, sucking down fish they want to catch.

Two leaders of the Ilulissat fishing community, Peter Olsen and Johanne Mathaussen, said the downward movement of halibut makes those fish more difficult and costly to catch. Full-sized halibut that used to be available at depths of about 1,000 feet now swim at depths of about 2,600 feet.

Another commercial fisherman, Gedion Lange, said long-line fishing he does with as many as 300 hooks at a time isn’t as productive as it was in the 1990s.

Ove Rosbach, who has fished the Arctic for decades, blamed the decline on warmer ocean currents flowing to the north. He said a similar phenomenon occurred in the 1950s.

Halibut returned when the ocean current cooled in the 1970s, but Mr. Rosbach said things feel different now. ‘[Even] when the sun is not shining, it’s still very warm,’ he said. ‘The sun is warmer than normal now.’

Niels Kristensen, an Ilulissat municipal official, said many fishermen can no longer catch what their quota allows. ‘It’s much more difficult because of the climate,’ he said.

Warming, cooling cycles
Greenland and its ice sheets are immense. The island spans 1,660 miles from north to south, longer than the distance from Maine to Cuba. From west to east, Greenland is 652 miles, just shy of the distance between Chicago and New York.

It is a fickle place. A Danish territory of 56,000 people, it has gone through extreme warming and cooling periods before.

Literature produced for visitors claims various cultures of Inuits have lived on Greenland for more than 4,500 years, although it also notes extensive periods in which the island had no inhabitants – usually when climatic conditions were so extremely cold there was little, if any, wildlife to hunt.

Legend has it the island got its name from a murderous Viking called Erik the Red, after he was ousted from Iceland about 950 A.D.

He reportedly put together a group of men to sail with him, with the lure of an island of lush greenery. That was more than 1,000 years ago, during the Medieval Warming Period – a climatic era that preceded the Little Ice Age and the island’s modern ice sheet.

That ice sheet today is a hotbed for research as scientists from across the world study how the island is melting, sometimes with lakes appearing out of nowhere and the melt water vanishing suddenly through deep crevices known as moulins.

Greenland may be a harbinger of things to come, although it is second to Antarctica terms of ice.

Seventy-seven percent of the planet’s fresh water is locked up in the ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica, with about 70 percent of that in Antarctica. Ninety-eight percent of Antarctica is still covered by ice compared to Greenland’s 80 percent.

Antarctica, the coldest and windiest place on Earth, is seven times the size of Greenland. It is less prone to melt. Portions of that continent’s ice sheet are actually thickening, a reminder of how much more rugged the South Pole is than the North Pole. Antarctica has 250 days a year that are 50 degrees below zero or colder.

Far-reaching effects
While politicians remain in a quandary over what to do about global warming, change is coming that will affect life everywhere from the Himalayan mountain range in Asia to the Great Lakes region of North America.

Peru’s political instability is further threatened by changes in water flow as glaciers retreat in the central Andes mountains, resulting in less water for agriculture and hydroelectric power.

Southern Africa is expected to lose 30 percent of its staple food, corn, by 2030. As London-based journalist Gwynne Dyer noted in a column earlier this year: ‘No part of the developing world can lose one-third of its main food crop without descending into desperate poverty and violence.’

And even if the most conservative estimate for sea level rise materializes – 1 meter, or about 3.3 feet of water by 2100 – low-lying regions of the South Pacific and South Asia will be flooded. The result could be a mass exodus of people from one of the poorest and most populated regions of the world.

America’s Gulf Coast, the southern tip of Florida, and parts of the Atlantic seaboard would be submerged as well.

The prospect of mass flooding by the end of this century, though, has taken a back seat to more immediate changes in the Arctic Circle’s northwest passage, especially with gasoline being sold in the United States between $3 and $4 a gallon.

Russia – second only to the Middle East in oil reserves – last year staked claim to the North Pole, where speculation about huge petroleum reserves runs rampant.

Once impassable to ships, the northwest passage has become a tug-of-war involving Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Greenland, and Iceland.

‘The potential is there for an outbreak of tensions we have not seen since the Cold War days,’ said Rob Huebert, associate director of the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

The Arctic’s warming climate has opened up the passageway to more than just oil tankers and cargo ships.

Oliver Pitras, 48, of Norway, said he has seen sailboat traffic on the rise. He sailed through the northwest passage in 1999 and is spending five months crossing it now at the helm of a yearlong sailing expedition he began taking around the world May 17 to raise global awareness of climate change. Details of his trip are at 69nord.com. ‘We’re talking about the opening of a common route,’ he said. ‘But it’s still a delicate situation.’

Last year, several congressmen were stunned to learn that summer sea ice could be gone from the Arctic by 2015 – well ahead of the earlier projection of 2050, said Daniel Schrag, director of Harvard University’s Center for the Environment.

Human activity
Changes to the Earth’s climate are nothing new. Scientists believe natural climate variations occur every 100,000 years based on how the planet spins, tilts, and orbits around the sun.

The sun itself changes. NASA believes that volcanic eruptions on Earth, coupled with natural changes to the sun, explain warming and cooling from 1000 through 1850.

But the space agency also believes that Earth has been on a one-way warming trend triggered by human activity since the Industrial Revolution began about 1850.

Heat-trapping carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is on a course to exceed 500 parts per million in the atmosphere later this century, something the human race has never experienced, Mr. Schrag said.

An abundance of greenhouse gases means higher temperatures on land and in the oceans. The gases rise in the atmosphere and trap the sun’s energy, keeping heat from escaping back into space.

A climate variation of 3 to 5 degrees ‘is a really big deal,’ considering that much of the Earth was covered in ice 18,000 years ago when the planet was only an average of 5 degrees cooler, Mr. Schrag said.

‘We are performing an experiment at a planetary scale that hasn’t been done for millions of years. No one knows exactly what will happen,’ he said.

‘Unequivocal’ warming
The scientific consensus about climate change is based primarily around evidence of increasing air and ocean temperatures, accelerated melting of snow and ice at the polar ice caps, and rising ocean levels.

Records on global surface temperatures only go back to 1850. But the world’s most prestigious body of climatologists – the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – noted in its landmark 2007 series of climate reports that the Earth’s average temperatures for 11 of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 were at or near record-high levels.

Those reports concluded there has been ‘unequivocal’ warming of the planet and claimed with a certainty of greater than 90 percent that human activity was largely responsible. The data those reports used came, in part, from satellite images showing an accelerated loss of northern polar sea ice since 1978 and a rise in average sea levels since 1961 – accelerating after 1993.

About 600 scientists from 40 U.N. countries and the World Meteorological Organization were involved in producing those reports. Scientists directly involved with the panel’s work shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Since losing the 2000 presidential race, Mr. Gore has given countless lectures across the country about global warming. He authored the book, An Inconvenient Truth, and won an Academy Award for the documentary based on it.

The greatest single source of human-generated carbon dioxide comes from coal-fired power
plants. Other major contributors include factories and automobiles.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings were preceded by a 2001 report by America’s most prestigious group of government scientists – the National Academy of Sciences – which stated explicitly that human activity has affected the Earth’s climate. Similar statements have been issued by a consortium of 13 federal agencies called the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

‘A shared risk’
Ellen Mosley-Thompson of Ohio State University’s Byrd Polar Research Center said public officials and lobbyists have wasted valuable time disputing the science behind climate change.

She wonders how many naysayers would get into their automobiles without making some adjustments if they learned there was greater than a 90 percent chance they’d get in a wreck. ‘The difference is that [climate change] is a shared risk,’ she said.

People identify with symbols, but are they doing so at their own peril by dismissing climate change as some distant problem that just affects polar bears? Why aren’t connections being made?

The cost of dealing with climate change is one reason.

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain agree the United States must get more aggressive about controlling carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants but aren’t sure whether a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade approach is best.

The Edison Electric Institute said it cannot quantify how much a carbon tax would drive up electric bills but said the cost would be ‘substantial.’ Under a cap-and-trade program, the government would place a limit on emissions and force utilities to barter for carbon credits with other utilities.

A matter of degree
Few Toledoans probably realize they live in the 41st Parallel North, meaning they are 41 degrees above the equator, or less than halfway to the North Pole. The effects of climate change are more acute near the relatively uninhabited poles, where average temperatures are rising twice as fast as they are near the equator.

Most Ilulissat residents know they’re in the 69th Parallel North, which is 69 degrees above the equator and nearly two-thirds of the way to the North Pole. One of Ilulissat’s soccer teams is named I-69, after the village’s latitude.

Ilulissat is Greenland’s third-largest village, with 4,500 people and just as many sled dogs. Each summer, it hosts dozens of researchers and hundreds of tourists. Many of the latter see Greenland’s famous Eqi glacier breaking off into seawater from the comfort of luxury cruise ships.

Influential U.S. lawmakers, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), have recently stayed in the village’s posh Hotel Arctic, as have celebrities such as pop singer Bjork and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. The hotel is in the midst of doubling in size.

Regardless where they stay, nearly everyone who visits Ilulissat seems to have a feeling of suspended reality when they open their hotel blinds each morning.

Almost without fail, the icebergs they saw the night before have been replaced by new ones.

How can such massive hunks of ice come and go so fast? After all, they were formed from thousands of years of compressed snow. And they look harder to budge than skyscrapers.

But it happens. The frequency that the Sermeq Kujalleq glacier calved icebergs over the past decade rose, throwing some of the world’s top Greenland experts for a loop.

One of them is Swiss-born Konrad ‘Koni’ Steffen of the University of Colorado. He has done field work in the Arctic since 1975 and on Greenland’s ice sheet at least once every year since 1990. His work is cited in major publications.

He is at the table of most major climate talks.

Conventional wisdom during the 1970s was that Greenland’s ice sheet would take thousands of years to melt.

‘Nobody would have predicted 10 to 15 years ago that Greenland would lose ice that fast,’ Mr. Steffen said. ‘That revises all of the textbooks.’

His take-home message: Forget the scientific modeling. Greenland is melting faster than anyone’s best guess.

‘How can you have an ice sheet so big and respond that quickly?’ he asked. ‘That is still part of the mystery, to be honest.’

Ohio State’s Jason Box is perhaps the most famous of Mr. Steffen’s former students, having done research in Greenland every summer except one since 1994.

Mr. Box has likewise gained attention from the national media for his work. He synthesizes data he and others generate into a ‘holistic’ view of Greenland’s thaw, using a number of tools, including time-lapse photography.

A costly problem
Americans may fret about paying more for electricity if the next Congress enacts a carbon tax or strict regulations on utilities to combat global warming. But Mr. Box said that cost will be a fraction of what adapting to climate change will cost, especially if nothing’s done to curb emissions now.

Billions of dollars will be needed to construct New Orleans-like levees along the nation’s coastline to guard against flooding, he said.

‘It’s going to get too expensive for the U.S. to mitigate,’ Mr. Box said. ‘It’s going to be kind of like taking on a global war against terrorism. It’s going to be too expensive. It’s going to sap the U.S. economy.’

Sea level rise is ‘going to cost people whether their properties are flooded or not,’ he said.

On average, Greenland’s ice sheet loses 300 billion tons of ice a year. That hasn’t been enough to raise global sea level a millimeter a year, though.

The Greenland ice sheet has been eroding almost annually for 50 years, except for a short period in the 1970s when temperatures were cool enough in summer to keep it ‘in balance’ by rejuvenating itself enough in winter.

But the greatest ice losses on record are recent – in 2003, 2005, and 2007, Mr. Box said.

Losing ground
In Alaska, coastal villages are eroding. Long stretches of highway are impassable for months at a time because they were built on permafrost that is melting.

One of the most impacted villages, Newtok (population 400), was told in June that it will get $3.3 million in state aid to help relocate displaced residents to higher ground.

Alaska is putting aside nearly $13 million to protect six remote villages in the coming year. That could only be the beginning of a massive tab for taxpayers. According to the Government Accountability Office, erosion and flooding affect 184 of Alaska’s 213 native villages to some degree.

In Greenland, Ilulissat’s soccer field is slumping because of permafrost melt. Tourists hiking marked trails to see the village’s famous glacier feel the spongy soil.

During the Republican National Convention, TV crews aired sound bytes from delegates who said they’ll leave the Earth’s climate in God’s hands.

‘It’s actually not a faith issue but whether or not you believe in the science. In its purest form [climate change] is objective science,’ Mr. Box said. ‘The ice in the Arctic is the canary in the coal mine. To put it bluntly, the canary is dead.’