In reply to Dr.S at work:
> seems relatively cheap... .
Well, that depends on your scale of values, but even on purely economic grounds (which in the overall scheme of things is pretty narrow), it's debatable:
> ...Iceland has few exports
Iceland's economy is significantly dependent on tourism. According to the Icelandic Environment Association "tourism now counts for about 20% of the export value of the country"
http://landvernd.is/en/Nature-Conservation/Tourism, no date given.
One of the points that Icelanders opposed to the projects make is that they stand (further) to soil their own nest. In a 2011 survey – that is, before the current proposals – 56% of respondents favoured the extension of the national park to protect the area, 26.2% were neutral, and 17.8% against.
What brings people to the country is its unspoiled wilderness, so given the economic significance of tourism, it seems to many people unwise to damage what attracts them to the country.
> ... perhaps a win win situation
Unlikely, since the majority of Icelanders seem not to want it. And for us in the UK, perhaps there's a slight analogy with Primark and Bangladeshi workers.