Helga Katrín Tryggvadóttir

Icelanders are notoriously bad investors. Once someone has a business idea, everyone jumps on the wagon and invests in exactly the same thing. The infamous growth of the banking sector is one example, before the 2008 banking crash the Icelandic banking sector was 12 times the size of the GDP and Iceland was supposed to become an international financial centre. I have no idea how anyone got the idea that an island with three hundred thousand inhabitants could become an international financial centre, but many people in Iceland considered this a perfectly normal ambition.

And then there are the politicians, they have had the same investment idea for more than hundred years. Either it is building an artificial fertiliser factory, or it is building an aluminium smelter. Last year one MP proposed building an artificial fertiliser factory, in order to “lure home” young Icelanders who have moved abroad. A majority of those have moved abroad to educate themselves, but sure, who doesn’t want to use their PhD on the factory floor?

Now there is an Icelandic investor in the North of Iceland, Ingvar Skúlason, who is planning on building an aluminium smelter, at a time when aluminium prices have been dropping due to overproduction. He has already managed to sign a deal with a Chinese company, NFC, which is willing, he says, to pay for the whole construction, yet the smelter would be owned by Icelandic companies. All of this sounds kind of dubious in my ears. And everyone can see that this is not a good idea, even the banks, with a new report released by Arion Bank advising against more investment in the aluminium industry. The bank bases its analysis on the fact that aluminium price is too low at the moment to bring any profit into the country (since the price for the electricity is connected with the price of aluminium, the price the aluminium smelters pay to the National power company (LV) is low when aluminium prices are low).

But that does not stop the politicians from supporting the idea. The prime minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, was present when Skúlason signed a deal with the Chinese company, praising the initiative. Skúlason also claims to have support from the Minister of Industry, which is not surprising since her only campaign promise was building an aluminium smelter and get the “wheels of the economy rolling”. Recently, Alcoa World Alumina, owned by Alcoa Inc., admitted to having bribed officials in Barein. In Iceland, however, they have never had to pay any bribes. Icelandic officials have been more than willing to do their service for free, “bending all the rules” as Friðrik Sophusson, former head of LV, was caught on tape saying.

There are currently three aluminium smelters in Iceland. Together, they use 80% of the energy produced in the country and their profit account for 60 billion ISK a year (USD 500 million). Yet, a majority of the profit is registered as debt to their parent companies abroad, leaving the Icelandic subsidiaries operated in debt but creating profits to the parent companies. The only profit that is left in the country is the wages they pay to their employees, and that only accounts to less than 1% of the national revenue. The jobs they create (which is usually the main argument for their construction), also account for less than 1% of all jobs in Iceland. The price they pay for the energy is also below the normal market price. Lets think about this for a second: 80% of the electricity produced in the country goes to international corporations that only produce 1% of the national revenue and creates 1% of the jobs, exports the majority of the profits and pays below-market price for the energy. So, 99% of the people do not get any share in the majority of its electricity production. Sounds familiar.

Maybe it is time to occupy the smelters?

One of the association’s primary criticisms is directed towards the fact that a particular committee, nominated to sort the areas in question into three different categories: protection, hold and utilization – 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 on the committee. The viewpoint of nature conservation has thus no spokesperson in the working progress, states a press release from INCA.

On the website of the Framework Programme (translated as the ‘Icelandic Master Plan for Hydro and Geothermal Energy Resources’) it is stated that “Iceland has been blessed with extensive resources of renewable hydro and geothermal energy” , of which “only a portion […] has as yet been harnessed”. The further development of energy production in Iceland, according to the website, “will be a challenging task, as user interests, other than those concerned solely with energy, will have to be taken into account.” And it continues:

Policy decisions on land use can have a significant, profound, and prolonged impact on nature, regional development, tourism and outdoor activities, employment, and on society at large. Carefully thought-out decision making will minimise the risk of mistakes and shortsighted undertakings, and enhance co-operation among all partners affected by the decisions taken.

This process was initiated by the Government of Iceland in 1999, with the aim of developing a Master Plan for Hydro and Geothermal Energy Resources. The process has been formulated on a scientific and impartial basis – not dominated by narrow and biased interests – and is open to democratic public involvement and scrutiny.

By eliminating the environmentalist perspective from the above-mentioned committee, the framework programme is obviously not an example of “co-operation among all partners affected by the decisions taken.” Likewise, the manifested aim to “minimise the risk of mistakes and short sighted undertakings” is clearly not being practised.

The Icelandic Nature Conservation Association points out the fact that though the current government has now operated for two years it still remains a mystery what kind of a “settlement” the government wants to seek in harmony with the Framework Programme’s results. Like Saving Iceland has pointed out, Landsvirkjun (Iceland’s National Energy Company), adopting Orwellian Newspeak, plans to force a “national consensus” in favour of  the construction of 14 new power-plants in the next 15 years – mainly to meet the aluminium industry’s demands for increased energy for aluminium smelters in Iceland.

In their statement, INCA also highlights that the energy industry’s representatives in the aforementioned committee still push hard on preventing the enlargement of the RAMSAR listed Þjórsárver wetlands reserve, in order to be able to build the infamous Norðlingaölduveita hydro-utility. The same agents also work hard on getting access to the geothermal areas around the Torfajökull glacier and Kerlingarfjöll mountains, by fighting against these areas being categorized as protected. All of these areas were found highly valuable by a professional group consisting of biologists, botanists, geophysicists, aquatic ecologists, geochemists, archaeologists and geologists, to name a few of them, who were employed to evaluate the impacts of particular exploitation options on landscape, earth formation, vegetation, animal life and archaeological relics. According to these results INCA demands that these areas will immediately be categorized as protected, as well as other areas like river Jökulsá á Fjöllum, the glacial rivers in Skagafjörður and the areas around Skaftá and Tungnaá rivers and Langisjór lake, which were also found highly valuable by the group of professionals.

Since the work on the framework programme started more than a decade ago, energy production in Iceland has more than doubled. Despite the controversy of this development, manifested in an increased public opposition towards heavy industry and large-scale energy production, the plan is still to duplicate the current production – the plans of private and municipal owned energy companies not included.

Incidentally, in spite of promising to do so, the Icelandic government has still not ratified the Aarhus Convention Agreement which according to Kofi A. Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations:

… is by far the most impressive elaboration of principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, which stresses the need for citizen’s participation in environmental issues and for access to information on the environment held by public authorities. As such it is the most ambitious venture in the area of ‘ environmental democracy’ so far undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations.

It seems democracy does not come easy to Icelandic governments.

Map of the Intended Energy Master Plan for Iceland Phase 1 as publicised by the Ministry of Industry in 2003.

Both of the above photos are from the geothermal area around Kerlingarfjöll mountains, south west of Hofsjökull glacier.

Last spring ALCOA released the first draft of the joint environmental impact assessment for the proposed Bakki smelter and power plants at Krafla and Theistareykir. Recently Iceland’s National Planning Agency commented on the draft assessment in a damning commentary.

The agency stated that the environmental impacts of the project are high and cannot be mitigated. 17,000 ha of untouched wilderness will be affected. Greenhouse gas emissions of the project would constitute 14% of Iceland’s total. There is a great deal of uncertainty on the full impact of the planned power plants and particularly on how much geothermal energy can be sustainably produced. Finally, the assessed energy projects will not be able to fully power the smelter, with 140 MW of capacity missing.

This confirms three key points of critique on the smelter that we have been voicing for several years now.

Firstly, the environmental impact of the geothermal plants and drilling in the north is much greater than Alcoa has claimed.

Secondly, we have said that carbon emissions from the projects would be so high that Iceland would find it extremely difficult to meet its international obligations. If Iceland wishes to become an EU member, then this impact assessment will surely be the kiss of death for the Bakki project.

Thirdly, when the joint impact assessment was announced we insisted that possible dams in Skjalfandafljót, Jökulsá Eystri, Jökulsá Vestri and Jökulsá á Fjöllum (a 72 km2 reservoir is on the drawing boards!) should be assessed for environmental impact, because one or more of them would be needed for a 346.000-ton smelter.

Now our calculations, that the northern geothermal fields will not produce enough energy for the smelter, have been proven correct. The original proposal for the smelter was for 250.000 tons, but ALCOA have stated in international media that they intend to extend the Bakki smelter to 500.000. Whether or not this will happen, new dams need to be built if the smelter is pushed through. This will lead to a large amount of borrowing and capital inflow that will again destabilise the Icelandic economy, which is too small to deal with projects this size.

Saving Iceland’s energy calculations were published in Morgunblaðið (22 August 2008), and greenhouse gas calculations were published in an international book publication on green energy and on savingiceland.org. Other environmentalists in Iceland have also raised these issues.

However, Alcoa and the consecutive Icelandic governments have thus far ignored them.

They refuse to comment on where the required energy is going to come from.

They refuse to think about how the economy will respond to more huge projects.

They refuse to comment on how Iceland can keep its green and unspoiled reputation if so much of its landscape and rivers will be ruined and if greenhouse gas emissions sky-rocket.

They now even refuse to respond to the national planning agency, except that they have said they will simply ignore the environmental impact.

We hoped that this kind of arrogance had been gotten rid of by the fall of the government in 2009 but apparently it is still there.

Clarity and transparency is for a start needed now on this simple question: if there is going to be a 346.000-ton or more smelter at Bakki, where will the new dams be built?

References:

Development of Iceland’s Geothermal Energy Potential for Aluminium Production – A Critical Analysis

Sparking a World-wide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-Petrol World. Editor: K. Abrahamsky. AK Press, 2010.

Jaap Krater is an ecological economist and a spokesperson of Saving Iceland

This article was first published in Morgunblaðið March 5 2011.

It states that:

– Environmental impacts of the project are high and cannot be mitigated.
– 17,000 ha of untouched wilderness will be affected
– Greenhouse gas emissions of the project would constitute 14% of Iceland’s total.
– There is a high amount of uncertainty regarding the full impact of the planned geothermal power plants and particularly their impact of the geothermal energy resource base.
– The assessed energy projects are not sufficient to power the smelter, with 140 MW of capacity missing.

“These reports confirms three key elements of critique that Saving Iceland voiced now several years ago,” says Jaap Krater, a spokesperson for Saving Iceland.

“The first is that the environmental impact of the drilling in the north would be much greater than Alcoa claimed.”

“Secondly, when the joint impact assessment was announced we insisted that possible dams in Skjalfandafljot, Jökulsá Eystri, Jökulsá Vestri (both in the Skagafjörður region) and Jökulsá á Fjöllum should be assessed for environmental impact. Now our calculations that the northern geothermal fields will not produce enough energy for the smelter are proving correct.”

“Thirdly, we have said that carbon emissions from the projects would be extremely high and would make it very difficult for Iceland to meet its international obligations. This is also confirmed,” explains Krater.

“If Iceland wishes to become an EU member, then this impact assessment will surely be the kiss of death for the Alcoa Bakki project.

Saving Iceland’s energy calculations were reported in Morgunblaðið in August 2008 (1), while the greenhouse gas issues were published in a recent international book publication (2).

References

(1) Bakki Impact Assessment Should Include Dams, by Jaap Krater, Morgunbladid, August 22nd 2008, in Icelandic here and English here.

(2) Development of Iceland’s geothermal energy potential for aluminium production – a critical analysis, by Jaap Krater and Miriam Rose, In: Abrahamsky, K. (ed.) (2010) Sparking a World-wide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-Petrol World. AK Press, Edinburgh. p. 319-333. Also published on Saving Iceland’s website here.

Smelter size
Originally the Bakki smelter was said to be planned for 250,000 metric tons per year. However, Alcoa has said before it deems smelters under 360,000 tons ‘unsustainable’ (2). Now the American corporation has said it would like at least a 346,000 tons smelter (3) near Husavík. Alcoa has been steering towards a smelter of this size from the start. Their initial study for the area aimed at a smelter of this size (4), although the environmental impact assessment and energy generating plans under discussion now would be for a smaller smelter. For a smelter above 250,000 tons, the whole energy grid of the north would need to be rebuilt (5). In the end, expansion to 500,000 tons would be possible. “The bigger the better,” says Bernt Reitan, Alcoa’s Vice-President (6).

Energy requirements
A 250,000 ton smelter would require 400 MW of electricity. The energy would be coming from the geothermal fields in North Iceland. If the optimistic estimate of 370 MW for Krafla 2 (drilling into the Viti volcano), Þeistareykir and Bjarnarflag (7,8) would be realised, which is uncertain, there would still be a deficiency, so 30 MW would be taken from the yet unspoiled and unexplored Gjástykki area, at a huge environmental cost (9). For a medium sized smelter the deficiency would rise to at least 150 MW and for a large smelter it would be at least 400 MW.

Possible dams
Thus, if the Bakki project is pushed through, it is almost inevitable that this will lead to construction of more large dams. A company named Hrafnabjargavirkjun Hf is already set up to prepare construction of a new 90 MW plant with three dams in Skjalfandafljot. Fljotshnjuksvirkjun (two dams) in the same river would produce another 58 MW. The corporation is owned for 60% by Orkuveita Reykjavikur. Other shareholders include Norðurorka and Orkuveita Húsavíkur (10). The proposed Skatastaðavirkjun power plant dams on Jökulsá Eystri, Jökulsá-Vestri, Fossá , Giljá, Lambá and Hölkná and on Lake Orravatn and Reyðarvatn (north of Hofsjokull), may produce 184 MW. Villinganesvirkjun, which would dam both Jökulsá-Vestri and Jökulsá-Eystri in the Skagafjörður region, could produce another 33 MW.
A 72 km2 reservoir in Jökulsá á Fjöllum in the Eastern Highlands (Arnardalsvirkjun) could produce 570 MW.
So it would seem that new dams would need to be built in either Skjalfandafljot, Jökulsá Eystri and Jökulsá-Vestri, or in Jökulsá á Fjöllum, just to build a medium sized smelter at Bakki. Further options are more dams at Laxá í Aðaldal or Eyabakka (11).

Risks from geothermal plants
An added factor why an aluminium smelter in the north would need to rely on hydro rather than geothermal is the risks associated with power plants in highly active geological areas. Geological assessment has indicated definitite risks of geothermal boreholes being destroyed by geologic activity. In 1975, at Bjarnarflag, one of the areas that is supposed to power the Bakki smelter, four out of six boreholes were destroyed due to volcanic activity (12). For aluminium smelting, a prolonged electricity cut-off can destroy part of a smelter, which depends on continuous electric supply. A base level of supply from a second source is desirable. On top of that, geothermal energy production is more expensive than hydro.

For Alcoa, it would be neither desirable nor feasible to construct an aluminium smelter near Husavík that would be solely dependent on geothermal areas. A number of dams would need to be constructed. The environmental impact would be high.
At the same time, the damage from drilling into the Viti volcano and at Gjástykki will be considerable and at Þeistareykir a large pollution lagoon has already been formed by test drilling (13), for which no impact assessment was thought necessary.
It is thus not surprising that the pro-aluminium lobby is resisting a joint impact assessment. It would be much more convenient to have smaller half-hearted assessments when the smelter is already half built.
If the environmental impact of the Bakki smelter is to be considered seriously, then the impact of a medium to large smelter and potential new dams need to be taken into account as well as the damage from drilling around Lake Myvatn.

Jaap Krater is a spokesperson of Saving Iceland.

• 1 Iceland Review (2008). North Iceland Smelter Project up for Joint Assessment. http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandrevi… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 2 Wilson, A. (2006). Alcoa clears the air. Interview with Bernt Reitan and Wade Hughes. Trinidad Guardian, Dec 7th 2006. http://www.guardian.co.tt/archives/2006-… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 3 Alcoa (2008). Alcoa presents revised draft EIA proposal for an aluminum smelter at Bakki by Husavik. http://www.alcoa.com/iceland/en/news/wha… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 4 HRV/Honnun (2005). Primary aluminium plant located near Husavik. Site study. http://www.hrv.is/media/files/Husavik_si… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 5 Ibidem 4.
• 6 Saving Iceland (2008). Húsavík contract signed behind closed doors. http://www.savingiceland.org/?p=2500 [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 7 Ministry of Industry, Iceland (2002). Master Plan for Hydro and
• Geothermal Energy Resources in Iceland. http://www.landvernd.is/natturuafl/index… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 8 Pallson, B. (2007). Geothermal Power in Iceland. Nordnet.
• 9 Iceland Review (2008). Power Company Accused of Prioritizing South Iceland. http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandrevi… [Accessed August 5th, 2008]
• 10 Alþingi (2008). 135. löggjafarþingi 2007–2008. Þskj. 688 — 432. mál. http://www.althingi.is/altext/135/s/0688… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 11 Ibidem 7.
• 12 Sæmundsson, K. (2006). Assessing Volcanic risk in north Iceland. ISOR – Icelandic Geosurvey. http://www.hrv.is/media/files/Volcanic%2… [Accessed August 4th, 2008]
• 13 Saving Iceland (2008). Energy companies destroying Þeistareykir. http://www.savingiceland.org/?p=1317 [Accessed August 5th, 2008]

They might have thought Karahnjukar was a shame, or even a necessary sacrifice, but that it would be limited to just that.

Two years after the flooding in the east, what is happening now? The Century smelter at Hvalfjordur has just been expanded, without anyone really noticing. A huge part of the Hengill area is being blown up right now with explosives to make the ground level enough for the geothermal boreholes and pipes constructed by low-paid Eastern Europeans working 72 hours a week, living in something that makes the newly opened Akureyri Prison look like Hotel Nordica.

Work has been started to build a smelter in Helguvik for which the same will happen to all the geothermal areas in Reykjanes. Never mind the environmental impact (which hasn’t even been assessed yet).

At Krafla, Alcoa and Landsvirkjun are drilling boreholes right into one of the top 10 tourist attractions of Iceland, the Viti volcano crater. At Theistareykir the deep drilling testing has accidentally created a new arsenic-sulphur lake. Oops.

Apparently most Reykjavik journalists are too bored with the issue to go and take a few pictures up north, no one has written anything about it.

In the mean time, everyone who can calculate that one plus one is two can figure out that there won’t be enough geothermal energy in the north to power a second Alcoa smelter. If the smelter plans aren’t stopped now it is inevitable that Skjalfandafljot and the Skagafjördur rivers or Jökulsá á Fjöllum will be dammed. But apparently most journalists have forgotten their basic maths and choose to ignore the obvious.

Last year, before the Saving Iceland protest camp began, we had a two-day conference where we browsed through every little detail of the aluminium industry. We had people over from Africa, Trinidad and Brazil telling their stories. The whole conference was completely ignored by Icelandic media.

They are mostly not interested in that kind of thing. It’s boring.

When we chain ourselves to something, they always phone up asking for injuries, arrests, whether things are damaged or stolen and if anyone ever uses drugs or has ever flown in an aluminium plane.

The papers don’t show photos of pollution lakes or blown up mountains but what they do print is a giant close-up of our camp toilet. We just hope people have a look at our website or find some other way to inform themselves and then decide to take whatever kind of action they feel is appropriate.

I find it quite amusing to have the weirdest questions being asked, such as “do you use cutlery to eat?” but it also makes me incredibly sad. James, you are right, but tell me, what should we do? Maybe I will start working on my giant pink footed goose costume!

Apparently four years of climbing cranes has not motivated many people to actually do something about making sure there will not be any new dams. Everyone is just bored and apathetic about it.

Write something, make a complaint, get angry at politicians for breaking election promises, phone people up, whatever it is you can do, if you oppose these projects, no one will stop them if no one does anything. Please!

Jaap Krater

Saving Iceland’s Attention

James Weston, Iceland Review – The television is on in the corner of the room showing the evening news bulletin. A young protester is chained to a fence with a few police officers trying to pull her away. A crowd of onlookers is standing with their mouth’s agape, a few still waving their own protest banners.

Now this may seem like exciting television, but for some, it’s quite the opposite. During the piece I found my own attention wandering from the television towards the conversation that has just started between two friends. It doesn’t appear they’re listening either.

This is a piece regarding the latest protest by Saving Iceland, “who do not intend to stand by passively and watch the Icelandic government in league with foreign corporations slowly kill the natural beauty of Iceland.”

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the aluminum smelting issue facing Iceland. I’ve previously presented my outlook on the situation. That’s not to say that all of my friends and new Icelandic family agrees with me. On the contrary, there are quite a few that strongly disagree! The issue is a debate starter, but for both sides, the debate is entered with a sigh. A “here we go again…”

I keep some of my fears hidden just to grease the wheels of friendly, social conversation. Some situations do not welcome the discussion, of course. It’s tantamount to announcing that you were a card-holding communist at dinner with Joe McCarthy! I will say at this point, I am not and never have been a member of Saving Iceland. In fact I don’t know anyone that is.

With the frequent media coverage, “Saving Iceland” seems to have become a by-word for someone who posses a little environmental awareness. The mention of those two words seems to conjure up images of hand holding, banner waving lunatics .The woman from Saving Iceland interviewed after the news piece does much to uphold the viewpoint. A well-spoken Brit, earthen clothing, complete with big red dreadlocks. You really don’t get more new-age hippy than this!

There are many of my friends who are fiercely against the smelting program. When I ask them about Saving Iceland, the responses are all very similar. The overriding issue being that they are simply bored of it all. They have been seeing this for ages and find themselves switching off when any news item is raised about the group. “It’s always in the news and I kind of switch off” is a common reaction. They’re aware of the issue, but seeing it almost every day pushes it into the background for them.

It’s an age-old problem for any issue worldwide. Prolonged attention in the public eye will lead to a stagnation of reaction. Saving Iceland have done a fantastic job in keeping their cause in the public psyche. It’s a grand project and the commitment admirable. As always though, people will be looking for something new. Being told the same thing again and again does become, well, boring.

Maybe the fact that people are bored of the issue is signs of a job truly well done for Saving Iceland. They’ve almost become ubiquitous, part of the news briefings almost as much as Sports & Weather. Not everyone is going to grow dreadlocks and get out the padlocks and chains; but they are constantly aware of the situation whether it bores them or not.

JW

Is the Energy on the Doorstep?

By Dr. Ragnhildur Sigurðardóttur

Many things have been said and written about plans for ALCOA´s aluminium plant at Bakki near Húsavík. One after another, important men have praised the idea and by now the only political parties not supporting it are the Iceland Movement and the Left Green party.
The propaganda of the supporters follows these lines: “utilise the national energy potential,” “the people of Húsavík have a right to an aluminium plant,” “the plant will only use energy drawn from the land nearby Húsavík, “damming of Skjálfandafljót and Jökulsá á Fjöllum is nothing but environmental propaganda”, “Geothermal energy has a low environmental impact”, “preparation work has been exceptionally well done.”
But how much truth do those slogans contain? Is there something more that needs to be looked into? Are the people of Húsavík, politicians included pushing the issues forward without really having looked at all the facts?

Procuring energy
When producing 250 thousand tons of aluminium per year, 550MW of capactity is needed producing around 3700 GWhours per year. When signing the agreement to look into a aluminium plant by Húsavík the president of ALCOA announced his plans for right away building a 300 thousand ton aluminium plant (which demands 660MW), but in the end the community should be prepared for demands for a 500 thousand ton plant. According to Alcoa´s site report the company plans to get the energy from:

1) Þeistareykir (80 MW),
2) Krafla I (100 MW),
3) Krafla II (120 MW),
4) Bjarnarflag (80MW),
5) Gjástykki (80 MW)
6) Hrafnabjörg (90 MW).

This means five new energy plants in Suður-Þingeyjarsýsla plus almost doubling of Krafla I. Little research has gone into some of those areas, how much energy they could give is uncertain. The questions that arise are for example:

1. ALCOA includes in their plans all the energy now produced in Krafla, around 60 MW, that energy has already been sold, so somewhere there must be more energy plants or dams needed to fulfill energy needs for the national grid.

2. Where will the energy come from when the aluminium plant will be doubled?

3. Why are supporters of the aluminium plant so certain that Skjálfandafljót with Hrafnabjargafoss and Aldeyjarfoss will not be sacrificed for the plant, even though ALCOA includes Hrafnabjargavirkjun in their site report?

4. Geothermal energy plants have an estimated 30 year lifespan. What happens than? Is the aluminium plant supposed to just pack up and leave?

Energy at the doorstep
For it’s first phase the aluminium plant will have to receive energy though power lines stretching more than 114 km from Mývatnssveit and 64 km extra from Hrafnabjörg. To reach the 300 thousand ton production limit it might be necessary to get energy from Villinganes- and Skatastaðadams, but power lines from them would stretch from Skagafjörður across Eyjafjarðar- and Suður-Þingeyjarcounty all the way to Húsavík – that is if the local people are not willing to sacrifice more of Skjálfandafljót and if Jökulsá á Fjöllum will not be sacrificed. Where the energy for a 500 thousand ton aluminium plant is supposed to come from is not known at all, but must be before the decision to build a aluminium plant is taken.

• Link to the site report from ALCOA.

Is the energy really so green and great?

Water pollution from geothermal energy plants
Among the many things that have been written about pollution from aluminium plants is the cancer-causing PAH chemicals who are carried into nature, plus fluoride, sulphur and CO2 which are pumped into the air. Not so much has come forth about the impact from the energy plants themselves. Apart from the obvious impact on land, as the people in the south of Iceland have experienced with the work at Hellisheiði, the biggest polluters from geothermal plants are noise, exhaust fumes and run-off water. In geothermal run-off water the biggest polluters are hydrogen sulphite, arsenic, boron, mercury and other metals like led, cadmium, iron, zink and manganese but lithium, ammoniac and aluminium are sometimes also present in harmful amounts. From this list it is arsenic which is the biggest worry in run-off water by lake Mývatn since it is poisonous and dangerous to life. It is vital to look into whether a fivefold increase of energy production in the Mývatn county will damage the biosphere in and around the lake, but the environmental impact of all the plans has not been estimated as a whole.

Production of greenhouse and other gases
According to the estimate reports for Krafla and Bjarnarflag it is expected that 1300 tons of CO2 and 108 tons of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) will be let into the atmosphere for each MW produced by the plants. On a limited area and close to the populated area of Reykjahlíð, 390 thousand tons of CO2 and more than 32 thousand tons of H2S per year will be released into the atmosphere. Hydrogen sulphite is a poisonous gas, it´s strength in the atmosphere at workplaces in Iceland may not be above 10 ppm on a 8 hour workday. On top of this comes the production from from Þeistareykjar and Gjástykki. Given the same premises and based on Alcoa´s site report which includes a 90 MW hydropower dam in Skjálfandafljót, the probable amount of CO2 exhaustion will be 600 thousand tons a year, which is about the same amount as all transport in Iceland produces. For comparison, the aluminium plant itself will exhaust about 375 thousand tons a year. If energy will be provided only with geothermal energy the CO2 exhaust will be close to fifty percent more in providing energy for the plant than the plant itself will exhaust. In my opinion it is time that we Icelanders face the fact that maybe our green energy isn´t so green after all.

The effect on Mývatn county
The face of the province, which is supposed to be protected under nature preservation laws, will change considerably to the northeast when all work on site has been carried out. Some of the most popular hiking paths will be significantly disrupted. Blows of steam will take over the horizon with pipelines and concrete dominating the area. Since about 32 thousand tons of hydrogen sulphite will enter the atmosphere around the most populated area each year, I feel that the residents of the Mývatn county deserve that a thorough investigation into the possibility of the amount of the substance exceeding health limits. This must be investigated before it is “too late” to go back. It is predictable that the fight to preserve the nature of Mývatnssveit, which has been going on for nearly 40 years, will harden again. The comparison to the struggle to preserve Þjórsárver is striking.

I hope that most people take a stand based on real facts, whether they see those ideas about aluminium plants as a well thought out environmentally friendly action which will please and benefit all who live in this part of the land. To me the words and propaganda of supporters of the aluminium plans raise many questions. When does propaganda become truth and when does imagery become reality?

Almost 6,000 people partied in protest against the devastation of Iceland’s wildernesses on January the 7th.

The lineup included KK, Björk and Zeena, Múm, Sigur Rós, Magga Stína, Rass and Dr. Spock, Damien Rice, Mugison, Lisa Hannigan, Hjálmar, Ghostigital, Damon Albarn (from Blur), Ham, and Egó. Performance artists and film-makers were also among the nearly two hundred artists that contributed to the event.

In an interview with the British newspaper The Guardian (13 Feb ’06), Björk had this to say about politics and the dam:

“In elections in Iceland I have always been an abstainer. It seems like politics is such a small bundle of self-important people, who don’t have much to do with things I’m interested in. Or something. But then, obviously, when you get older you realise that they do have a lot to say, right? Maybe I would just like to think there are other angles than that. For example, I got involved in a concert in Iceland a month ago, which protests (against) building huge dams in the country. Environmental (politics) aren’t any more a left, green, hippy thing. It’s something that concerns everyone, cross-politically. I guess I’m more on that page than party politics.” (Added 13 April 2006)

Click here for photos

This time around Reykjavík was host to an International Conference on Anode Rodding Plants for Primary Aluminium Smelters. At the conference, which was largely funded by Icelandic tax payers’ money, Iceland was yet again being offered up for sale as a cheap country for aluminium smelting, while undesirable points of view were unwelcome.

On the morning of 21 September delegates woke up to a noisy bunch of protestors standing outside the Hotel Nordica blowing whistles and horns and banging away on pots and drums, just to remind the delegates and their hosts that there is active and unfailing resistance to the systematic destruction of Icelandic nature and the increase in pollution of our environment.

Same day in the late afternoon the representatives of the most polluting industry in the world were treated with champagne and canapés at the Reykjavík Municipality. At the same time an International Transport week was being celebrated in Reykjavík; its stated purpose was “to raise awareness among the public on the necessity of reducing pollution caused by traffic”. Greenhouse gas emissions from the ALCOA smelter in Reyðarfjörður will be equal to that of 172.000 cars; the entire car-fleet of Iceland!

Together with NatureWatch and youngsters of Ungrót, Saving Iceland organized another noise protest outside the Municipality as the mayor welcomed delegates of the conference. A heavy police presence was deemed necessary to protect the polluting fat cats while they sipped champagne and listened to fawning speeches of Icelandic dignitaries. For two hours environmentalists put on street performances and vigorously banged on their drums. A large window on the side of the building gave the delegates a good view of the crowd and their banners.

The protestors were content with their ample supplies of green skyr (Icelandic dairy product very useful for splashing on poisoners of the earth!) and in the spirit of sharing offered the delegates to have some on their way out from the mayor’s visit. This generosity caused unexplained tremors amongst the cops and delegates alike. Perhaps bad memories from last June had something to do with it…

A 14 year old protestor was arrested for
mooning at the aluminium sophisticates!

23 September

Delegates of the conference visited the aluminium smelters at Straumsvík and Grundartangi. Saving Iceland went to the ALCAN factory to warn them what aluminium smelting can do to their health.

To indicate solidarity with the people who have suffered from ALCAN’s immoral and inhuman working practices around the world the protestors sang The Alcan Song:

“It’s ALCAN the Aluminium Man
The Aluminium Man with the Aluminium Plan
For making lots of aluminium
Out of other peoples land!

Will this Man of Aluminium
Realize what he’s done,
Once he’s done what he is about to start?
He’s got aluminium, but he’s got no heart!”

Meanwhile ALCAN’s flag was stamped on, torn and finally burnt.

Yes, there was some dancing too

Two people were illegally arrested for throwing a harmless and perfectly legal smoke-bomb into an open field. One of them was arrested for driving a “stolen” car from the protest, even if the owner of the car gave immediate proof thathe had his permission to drive the car! Both were held for five hours and released without charge.

Below is a statement from the protestors:

“Today delegates of the 3rd International Conference on Anode Rodding Plants for Primary Aluminium Smelters in Reykjavík are due to visit the aluminium smelters at Straumsvík and Grundartangi. Little attention has been paid by the conference to the negative impact and harmful effects to people’s health of aluminium smelting and related types of processing.

At this conference, which is partly funded by Icelandic tax payers’ money, the Technological Institute of Iceland, City of Reykjavík, the Ministry of Industry, Icelandair and the National Power Company, Landsvirkjun are among the sponsors and participants, Iceland is yet again being offered up for sale as a cheap country to smelt aluminium, while undesirable points of view are unwelcome.

We wish to convey the message to the conference guests that there is active opposition in this country to the further build-up of heavy industry, and point out the impact that this build-up will have on the local people and on the environment of those of us who live on Faxaflói bay.

Our protest is designed to express our opposition to the proposed expansion of the aluminium smelters at Straumsvík (ALCAN) and Grundartangi (Century), as well as the construction of an anode factory at Katanes (R&D Ltd.) and yet another Century smelter at Helguvik. We find it wholly unacceptable that the Faxaflói bay should become the most highly polluted area in Northern Europe, yet this is what will happen if these plans go ahead.

The additional sacrifices of Iceland’s most precious natural jewels, the Ramsar protected wetlands of Thjorsarver and one of Europe’s most beautiful lakes, Langisjor, to facilitate the expansions of the ALCAN and Century smelters are completely unacceptable.

We also wish to show our solidarity with the people who have suffered from ALCAN’s immoral and inhuman working practices around the world; from the workers at Straumsvík who have contacted us to describe their unacceptable working conditions and the abuse of employees’ rights, to the inhabitants of the Kashipur district of India who have been fighting for twelve years against a planned bauxite mine and ALCAN aluminium plant which will force at least 20,000 people to leave their farm lands and will pollute their water supply (see www.saanet.org), not forgetting the residents of Hafnarfjördur in Iceland who are demanding a local referendum on the expansion of the ALCAN plant.

We urge the press to better inform themselves about the environmental impact of the planned build-up of heavy industry around Faxaflói bay, and equally about the record and working practices of the foreign companies that the Icelandic government continues to eulogize and acclaim as the saviors of Iceland.”

(Needless to say, there are no signs of the Icelandic media picking up the challenge and doing their home work for a change. Icelandic media is under the tight control of the triple headed hydra; The State, the nouveau riche and the bitter old rich. Investigative journalism in the aluminium republic belongs to the past.)

With the growing awareness of climate change, carbon emission restrictions may not be too far off. Because countries that pollute the most may well get the heaviest restrictions, rather than seeking to reduce their emissions many industrial corporations are looking to move operations abroad.
Iceland, despite modern European levels of education, welfare and wealth, has almost no heavy industry. Their carbon rations will be up for grabs. Seeing the extra pollution coming, in 2001 Iceland got a 10% increase on the CO2 limits imposed by the Kyoto treaty. The problem is that the lack of heavy industry means a lack of the major power supply needed for such things. But Iceland has glacial rivers in vast areas unpopulated by humans; land for hydroelectric dams that can be seen as carbon-neutral.

So Alcoa, the world’s largest aluminium company, approached the Icelandic government with a view to building an enormous aluminium smelter there, and the government readily agreed.

Alcoa proposed the Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Project. In the east of the country on one of the largest pristine wild landscapes left in Europe, they are to build a colossal project of dams, pipelines, and tunnels, diverting two of Icelandï’s largest glacial rivers and a dozen other clear-water rivers into a reservoir.

At 190m high and 730m wide, Kárahnjúkar will be the tallest rock-and-gravel dam in Europe. Together with two smaller dams, it will create the Hálslón reservoir, submerging 57 sq km of glacial river valley in the process.

Itï’s not just the submerged land that will be obliterated, but the land beyond the dam will be deprived of its water. This is intact wilderness, the oldest surviving areas of Icelandï’s original vegetation. Around 380 square miles will be directly affected, with a far larger area secondarily impacted.

And thatï’s before we mention the pollution the smelter will put into the air, the groundwater and pump out to sea.

Silting of the dams will start as soon as the reservoir is filled. Collected there, when the water level seasonally falls the exposed silt will dry out. The strong winds in the area will carry substantial quantities of dust over great distances, damaging the delicate plant life and in turn the fauna that feed on it.

That silt would otherwise have flowed down to the Herardsfloi delta as it does today, forming banks that are home to a sizeable seal population and a moulting ground for geese. Instead, these banks will erode and take the habitat away.

Over several centuries, the dams will silt up completely, becoming full and unusable within 400 years.

The mix of latitude and geothermal activity makes Iceland an ecologically unique place. Glaciers and volcanoes on the same land. Whilst most of the seismic activity is west of the dam site, the prospect of a large seismic event rupturing the dam cannot be discounted.

The government has issued carefully worded statements saying that the risks are very small on the basis of known data. The amount of known data has been made deliberately small; a nearby volcano has had no hazard evaluation done on it, and the only good reason to be deduced is that the government donï’t want the wrong answer.

Itï’s an opinion held by those who know most about the subject. Former director of the Nordic Volcanological Institute Guðmundur E Sigvaldason has criticised the governmentï’s wilful paucity of information, adding, ï’The observed heavy fracturing of the crust at the dam site combined with ongoing crustal deformation due to fluctuations in glacier loading is a serious matter of concern for the proposed projectï’.

Aside of the dangers and environmental loss, the Icelandic people get none of the power generated, it will be solely for the use of the Alcoa aluminium smelter.

Such a scheme is so obviously crazy that it was rejected by the Iceland Planning Agency in August 2001, citing ï’substantial, irreversible negative environmental impactï’.

Iceland has a population of under 300,000 – around the same as Bradford or Cardiff ï’ and with barely 60 MPs making up the parliament itï’s not difficult for vested interests to hold power and correspondingly corrupt decisions to be made.

The appeal against the projectï’s rejection went to the Environment Minister, Siv Fridleifsdottir, who duly overturned it for no good reason in December 2001. The smelter is on. Construction has already started. Hillsides are already being blown up.

Alcoa claims the new smelter will be super-green. Funny, then, that they got the Environment Ministry to give them permission to emit 12kg of sulphur dioxide (SO2) per tonne of aluminium produced, when the World Bank says 1kg is reasonable for a modern smelter.

When a minerals firm refers to a desire to ï’play a sustainable roleï’ ï’ as Alcoaï’s Hrönn Pétursdóttir does ï’ you know youï’re being greenwashed.

The area of the Kárahnjúkar project is not a popular tourist destination. Indeed, there are no roads on much of it, and Alcoa have said the dam project could provide access roads for a possible national park (carefully mapped to avoid the area Alcoa want to use). Itï’s precisely this absence of humanity that gives the area its enormous ecological value. The tourism touted by Alcoa and the Icelandic government as mitigation is actually a furthering of the damage humans will inflict on the area. We have to learn to stop valuing the natural world in terms of its usefulness to humans.

But at least national park status would protect land from future industrialisation, right? There is no reason to think so. The Kárahnjúkar project will submerge about a third of the Kringilsarrani environmentally protected area. Environment Minister Fridleifsdottir has justified it by explaining that ï’protectedï’ did not mean ï’for ever protectedï’.

What is the meaning of environmental protection if it is only protected until wanted by an American industrial corporation?

Alcoa and the Icelandic government claim the impact on ecosystems wonï’t be so great. When faced with the fact that theyï’re affecting reindeer calving grounds, they suggest that perhaps the reindeer will find somewhere else. Part of the solution theyï’re implementing is a cull of a third of the reindeer in order to offset the problems of reduced feeding areas.

Any talk from Alcoa about the environmental soundness of their plans is exposed as guff when you consider that the same money put into aluminium recycling would mean the same output and far greater emission reductions. The only difference comes in less profitability.

They see possible fossil-fuel rationing or taxing in the pipeline, so theyï’re just moving to where the electricity is cheaper. Itï’s nothing to do with environmental concerns at all.

CO2 is only a bit player here. Aluminium smelting produces serious quantities of tetra-fluoromethane and hexa-fluoromethane which are literally thousands of times more powerful in producing the greenhouse effect.

We need to be finding ways to scale back our consumption, not just move it around the world. The climate doesnï’t give a damn where we emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases, only that we do it at all. Even if we find power supplies that use less fossil fuel, we are still burning, polluting, transporting. Industrialisation itself needs to be scaled back.

This should be clearer in Iceland than anywhere else, which already shows dramatic evidence of climate change. Glaciers are in retreat, and at the present rate will be completely gone within 300 years.

Italian construction company Impregilo won the contract to build the dams, primarily on the grounds that they made the cheapest offer, the only bidder to bid below the consultantï’s estimate. That fact in itself speaks volumes about any mitigation of environmental damage they might splash out on.

Impregilo was a contractor on the Yacyreta dam in Argentina. That project cost billions more than had been planned, in no small part due to financial corruption. Impregilo was also part of the consortium that would have built the notorious Ilusu Dam in Turkey before that was stopped by a concerted global campaign. In Iceland, Impregilo have subsequently had over a thousand exemptions written into their contract to avoid a vast range of liabilities.

The Icelandic government and their power company Landsvirkjun have engaged in a sustained publicity campaign for the projects, not just in terms of promoting it but also in smearing those who oppose it.

Environmental consultant Dr Ragnhildur Sigurdarsdottir was commissioned to write a on the Thjorsa hydropower project. ï’I was asked to falsify my report to justify the larger-scale power plans Landsvirkjun wanted,’ she said. ‘When I refused, it was altered anyway.ï’ When she made this public, all other jobs she had lined up were cancelled.

Landsvirkjunï’s managing director Fridrik Sophusson dismisses Sigurdarsdottirï’s allegations with the curiously uncontradictory word ï’unsubstantiatedï’.

Even if the smelter were to be built, it could be powered by a smaller dam and geothermal energy. But Siggurdur Arnalds, the projectï’s PR man, says that making the dam any smaller would be ï’a waste of our national resourcesï’.

The Icelandic government has underwritten the loans for the project, and so Barclays arranged the final $400m loan required by Landsvirkjun in July 2003. This happened despite the fact that a month earlier Barclays had signed up to ï’Equator Principlesï’ which were to guarantee ï’sound environmental management practices as a financing prerequisiteï’.

In a globalised freemarket, the prices on which the whole project was calculated will change. The profits envisioned depend upon a consistently high price for aluminium. If it falls, itï’s the Icelandic taxpayer whoï’ll get the bill, effectively paying for the destruction of their own country.

The smelter will create about 600 jobs. Not a lot and, in a country with only 3% unemployment, hardly something thatï’s desperately needed. It will, however, be a major exporter, it will generate some income for those with a stake. Many of those will be Alcoaï’s employees abroad. As with most foreign investment, it will act to siphon money away more than bring it in.

Furthermore, the aluminium will be exported unworked; this means the real money will be made elsewhere. The use of it, the bit that adds value, will happen abroad. Iceland will be the equivalent of underpaid cocoa farmers, suppliers of essential raw material but the money is made by the rich-nation chocolate companies that turn it into finished products. The profits will go home to Alcoaï’s American boardroom.

This is about the Icelandic governmentï’s image, the desire to be seen as a world player and using the hydroelectric potential as the springboard. The only real benefits for anyone will be in the form of corporate profits. Itï’s no more than a way for the rich to become richer at the expense of the environment.

There is depopulation occurring in the eastern highlands, but a smelter is not going to change that. Icelandï’s low unemployment and enormous middle class (some 80% of the population) mean that such jobs are not going to appeal. The two smelters already working in Iceland are staffed using a lot of foreign labour. Likewise, the construction work on the project is being undertaken with the use of foreign workers.

The Kárahnjúkar project divides the Icelandic population, with about half in favour and half against. The issue is arousing passions and garnering attention like no other.

Campaigning group Saving Iceland has worked on many fronts, and this summer has been running SOS Iceland, a camp on land due to be drowned, where protests are planned and co-ordinated. Activists from all over Europe have been visiting, many passing on skills learned on previous protests elsewhere. On 19th July, the first political blocade in Icelandï’s history took place. Vehicles going to work at the dam were locked on to and work on the dam was halted. The police had to make up a word for ï’lock-onï’ on the spot!

The camp issued a press statement:

From the Narmada Dams in India to the proposed Ilisu Dam in Turkey, the story is one of big business and oppressive government. The struggle to save our planet, like the struggle against inhumanity, is global, so we have to be too. Weï’re here to prevent the Kárahnjúkar Dam project from destroying Western Europeï’s last great wilderness.

The industrialisation of Icelandï’s natural resources will not only devastate vast landscapes of great natural beauty and scientific importance, but impair species such as reindeer, seals and fish, and the already endangered pink-footed goose and several other bird species. Through this mindless vandalism against nature, the Icelandic tourist industry will also be affected and the health and quality of life of the Icelandic people.

This industrialisation will bring pollution such as Iceland has not seen before. Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen, and many other chemicals used to process aluminium, are all products of the unnecessary and short-sighted profit-driven environmental barbarism of the aluminium industry. Under the burden of Kárahnjúkar, only one of many dams planned, rivers will choke, and people will choke.

If this dam goes ahead, it will pave the way for similar dams of glacial rivers all over the Icelandic highlands; Thjórsárver (protected by the international treaty of Ramsar), Langisjór (one of Europeï’s most beautiful lakes), the rivers in the Skagafjördur region and Skjálfandafljót. All just to generate energy for aluminium corporations. If this will be allowed to happen Iceland will face the same sad fate as other global communities, which have suffered under similar projects.

The camp has cost a lot of money to put on, and many activists have run up debts for it. Donations can be made online at the Saving Iceland website.

There is still a lot to play for. Despite the damage of construction, the major impact will be when the waters are diverted and dammed. Until that point, there is a lot of reason to protest.

Also, as the SOS Iceland statement says, there are plans in the pipeline for more industrial damming projects in Iceland. If this one proves too be too costly, financially and/or politically, then others will not go ahead.

Icelandic concern for the opinions of foreigners has a large part to play here. Aside from appeals to sense, to have concerns other than short term financial gains for the very rich, there is a way to appeal to those who do only care about money. Tourism is Icelandï’s second biggest industry, and itï’s largely based on that eco-angle; the geological weirdness, the unspoiltness. To build the dams is to tarnish that image and so have a detrimental effect on an industry far more important to Iceland than aluminium.

If those further dams are stopped then thereï’s a broader global knock-on push against such schemes. Whereas if the dams go ahead, thereï’s gathering momentum to keep on with our overconsuming ecocidal ways, merely changing the source of our energy.

Outside pressure is starting to show. Environment Minister Fridleifsdottir has started to refuse interviews with foreign media. It seems that, as a physiotherapist with no qualification or experience in environmental concerns, she fears well-informed questions.

The 10th World Aluminium Conference was held in Reykjavik in June. During a seminar with the oxymoronic title ‘An Approach to Sustainability For A Greenfield Aluminium Smelter’, activists showered bigwigs from the Kárahnjúkar project with green skyr (a sort of Icelandic runny yogurt) to symbolically throw their greenwash back at them. This marks a new turn in Icelandic politics, as direct action has been previously unknown.

Also in June, the Icelandic High Court ruled that the construction of the Alcoa factory was in breach of Icelandic law without an Environmental Impact Assessment. But a government is a hefty thing to turn around. Construction goes ahead unabated.

Icelandic writer Gudbergur Bergsson says of his compatriots, ï’What they perceive as ‘in’ right now is globalisation, so they want to be part of that. If the international community can show them how truly ridiculous it is to destroy nature, the very thing they love most, for one aluminium smelter, they may start to think for themselves. They might finally have the guts to speak up and tell their dictatorial government how absolutely they have got this wrong. You have to shame us into change.ï’

———

Saving Iceland
Icelandic and foreign activists opposed to the dam – if you want to donate money, these are the people to give it to.

Protests have taken place at Icelandic embassies. People have also written to their Icelandic ambassador. You can do it too!
For the UK;
2A Hans Street, London SW1X 0JE
020-7259-3999.
 icemb.london at utn.stjr.is

For the USA;
1156 15th Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington DC 20005-1704
(202) 265 6653
 icemb.wash at utn.stjr.is

———

Incidentally, if youï’re wondering why youï’ve not heard about this before, it isnï’t only because of Icelandï’s remote location. There has been a peculiar silence from Greenpeace. Whilst WWF and Friends of the Earth have made representations, Greenpeace have said nothing.

Clearly, Greenpeace cannot be unaware of the Kárahnjúkar project. Itï’s just that they are busy ï’offering to help the government promote nature tourism as an alternative to whalingï’. They have a pledge to sign where you say youï’ll visit Iceland if whaling stops. So they encourage the pollution from tourists flying to Iceland and sweep all other concerns, even one as mighty as Kárahnjúkar, under the carpet.

A September 2003 visit to Iceland by the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior met with American diplomats, but didnï’t mention the dam and smelter being built for an American company. They tell their members that the only ecological concern in Iceland is the slaughter of 500 whales. The colossal unnecessary destruction of unique habitat and monstrous pollution is ignored as inconvenient.

Aside of lying by omission, they have lied outright too. Frode Pleym, one of the Rainbow Warrior crew on that mission, said, ï’Iceland is actually a model nation environmentally in many respects, and a strong ally to Greenpeace internationally on several issues – from ocean pollution to fisheries management to climate change – that whaling needs to be seen as the anomaly it is.ï’

Greenpeace members are being deliberately kept away from an important environmental issue that they have the power to affect. I suspect a majority of Greenpeace members ï’ especially those whoï’ve been convinced to sign the pledge – would be shocked to find this out, rightly feeling deceived and betrayed.

Just like the way the National Trust reneged on its ï’for ever for everyoneï’ motto by doing swaps with the government for land on the Newbury Bypass, so with Greenpeaceï’s silence over the Icelandic dams we see those who act in our name prove themselves unworthy.

If ever there was an example of why we shouldnï’t use the unwieldy corporate behemoth scale of working; why trusting others to do your political work for you is a last resort; why we shouldnï’t get dragged into compromise with the ecocidal forces that run the world; this surely is it.

ï’1997-2005ce Head Heritage

 http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/feat…

We who have been protesting against heavy industry and the devastating destruction of Iceland’s natural environment at Kárahnjúkar in the Eastern highlands of Iceland and in other parts of the country in recent months would like to take the opportunity to make the following statement:

During our protests we have used methods which may not have a long tradition in Iceland but which do not constitute a breach of the law. We are a broad-based group of Icelanders and people of many other nationalities united by our respect for the natural environment and our intolerance of repression, the misuse of power and the violation of human rights.

We have expressed our opposition to the large-scale destruction of areas of outstanding natural beauty in the Icelandic highlands in the following ways:

– by disseminating information about the heavy-industry madness of the Icelandic government, which is reflected in the proposed construction of hydroelectric plants by the National Power Company (Landsvirkjun) and other power companies at sites such as Thjórsárver, Langisjór, Skjálfandafljót and Skagafjördur.

– by hanging a banner displaying a crack on the Karahnjukar dam.

– by locking ourselves on to construction machinery and climbing up cranes.

– by writing slogans on workmen’s huts at the Kárahnjúkar dam construction site

– by holding protest walks at the Kárahnjúkar dam site.

People from Impregilo, the Italian construction group building dams and tunnels at Kárahnjúkar, have displayed threatening behaviour such as driving motorcycles through the protest camp at night (with children in the tents) and by vandalizing the property of the camp.

The workers of Impregilo live under squalid conditions, have been put in life threatening situations and violated in various other ways. Icelandic unionists have repeatedly complained that Impregilo have been allowed to break laws, for months at a time. G. Gunnarsson, leader of the Icelandic Electrician’s Union has pointed out in the Icelandic press that neither the police nor the government act when worker’s rights are violated but resources are always on hand during protests against dam. Impregilo has got away with repeatedly breaking the law which the government has chosen to ignore. Sabotage of machinery by disaffected Impregilo workers has been frequent at the Kárahnjúkar dam site.

By encouraging the use of cheap international migratory labour for building the dams and building and working in the Alcoa aluminium smelter the Icelandic authorities are deliberately trying to break down the achievements of a century long struggle for the rights of Icelandic workers. This also exposes as completely false the claims of the Icelandic government that the Kárahnjúkar project is to create jobs for the Icelandic people of the East.

We consider our protest as being clearly within Icelandic law and so regard as illegal the deportation of people who have taken part in our protest, given that no charges have been brought against them. Deporting people from Iceland and barring them from returning to the country simply because they have expressed their opposition to the hydroelectric developments at Kárahnjúkar, which is a very controversial decision by the Icelandic government, is not in accordance with the democratic rule of law due to the undeniable fact that so much of the information to push this through parliament was systematically falsified.

We would also like to point out that some of the people on the Directorate of Immigration’s list for deportation have already left the country and most of the rest will have left by the time the decision about their deportation is obtained. Their deportation therefore has no other purpose than to exclude foreign environmentalists from Iceland in the coming years, thereby isolating Icelandic protesters from the outside world.

There is no question that we will test the legality of deporting foreign nationals simply for expressing their opinion of the government’s hydroelectric policy.

Those of us who have organized the protests have experienced treatment at the hands of the Icelandic police that is wholly inconsistent with a democratic society that should respect human rights. We have been treated as if we were terrorists. Many of us have been followed by uniformed and plain-clothes police officers for up to twenty-four hours a day. The police have broken into our homes without search warrants, on the pretext of serving us with papers from the Directorate of Immigration, laid hands on those of us who were at home and treated us in a degrading manner. Our cars have been impounded without authority.

Some of us have been arrested on no charge by plain-clothes officers and taken to police cells where we have been detained without food or water. The Icelandic police have repeatedly abused their power by violating our fundamental rights such as the right to enjoy our homes in peace.

We will be lodging a complaint with the State Prosecutor in which we will demand that the actions of the police are subjected to a public inquiry.

The reason for the presence in Iceland this summer of a large group of protesters from the international community should be obvious in the light of globalisation. After all, the government has invited multinational corporations to the country to take part in the feeding frenzy of heavy industry that now has Icelandic society and nature in its grip.

Companies like Alcoa, Bechtel and Impregilo have a long history of convictions for crimes against nature and still have judgements pending on charges of serious environmental damage or corruption. In addition, as mentioned above, they currently have a large number of foreign nationals working for them in Iceland.

This attack on Icelandic nature is not a private affair for the Icelanders; pollution knows no national borders. Ironically, the Icelanders boast of living in an unspoilt land and promote the country on this basis in the international marketplace. If the government’s policy of heavy industrialization is not stopped, such a promotion of Icelandic nature will cease to have any basis in truth.

We have not given up our opposition and will continue our battle as is our legal right. Our protest will take diverse forms, ranging from books, films, music, picnics, lectures, information booths, banners, placards, words and festivals to climbing construction cranes.

We will continue our protest summer after summer, winter after winter, until we have achieved our goal which is to galvanize the Icelandic people to take action against the destruction of their land and the curtailment of their freedom of speech.

Stop the outrage, stand up for our natural environment!

The Protestors