UKC

Iceland's Highlands, its Interior, is under serious, current threat from roads, dams and power lines (including a proposed under-sea line to the UK), which would dramatically damage is qualities as wilderness.

There's significant opposition to this within the country and Björk is heading its international extension.
http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/video-bjork-calls-global-action-defend-i...

If you know and love Iceland, want to go before it's too late (number 30 here http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/10/travel/2014-places-to-go.html... , or just like knowing that there are bits of our planet, even in Europe, that haven't been touched by human rapacity, please consider signing the PETITION here:
http://heartoficeland.org/

More info can be found here.
http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/organisations-start-a-petition-try-and-s...

Thanks.

In reply to Solaris:

Brings new meaning to nimby, not in my country! Seems a little harsh of the UK to expect other countries to build on their landscape, hope the lcelanders plan to charge a premium price for the electricity, might encourage the UK to finally get a grip.

In reply to Solaris:

I've been there, loved it and have signed the petition.

In reply to summo:

From reading related articles, Iceland has an energy surplus already, an energy link between the UK and Iceland seems relatively cheap, the U.K. Has an energy gap, Iceland has few exports.

Perhaps a win win situation rather than anybody forcing anybody else?

In reply to Dr.S at work:
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'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.

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.

In reply to Rob:

Thanks.

In reply to Solaris:
I see the point of opposing building in the unspoilt wilderness, but I'm less clear on the objection to the UK Iceland energy link.

In reply to Solaris:

I wonder how many of those opposing this would support building nuclear or fossil fuelled power stations instead? Or do they just want to ruin someone else's wilderness areas?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Well, you can't will the end without willing the means, and current Icelandic hydro-power and related schemes are already controversial. Secondly, we should be investing in developing our own renewables – that is, willing the ends at our own environmental expense, not someone else's.

In reply to Solaris:

You could start campaigning in the UK to build many new nuclear fission power plants?

In reply to Solaris:

I don't disagree that we should do more in the UK. However Iceland would appear to be in a similar position to Scotland - unusually rich in opportunities for renewable energy production.

If we do move towards a low/zero carbon world economy then areas of the world like that will likely become energy exporters to regions with less capacity to generate clean electricity.

As long as that does not lead to wholesale destruction of the environment that both countries rely on for tourism, that seems like a sensible way forward.

In reply to wintertree:

Some people in the green lobby favour fission - eg George Monbiot, iirc.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I think it follows from your argument that we should develop UK resources before others'.

But remember the Beauly to Denny power line and the proposed wind farm near Pumlumon.

In reply to Solaris:

It follows from my argument that we should do both.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Only if we are unable to meet our own needs. (And note the "before" in my sentence.) But if we should do both, should we will the exploitation of others' pristine landscapes against their own will?

If we object on environmental grounds to the spoiling of our own landscapes, there's a case for objecting to others doing the same thing, such as to Sarah Palin's views about the Alaskan wilderness. And many do and have objected, possibly despite the majority of Alaskans approving.

I'll assume that all those who have no objections to the Icelandic proposals also had no objections to the Beauly to Denny powerlines or to HEP in the Llanberis Pass - neither of which by any stretch of the imagination is a pristine wilderness - or to windfarms to which residents object.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Does flooding 57 km2 of Europe's largest unspoiled wilderness count? And that's only one of several recent projects, and they are only the beginning of what could happen. The unique wetlands of Thjorsaver are next in line.

https://ejatlas.org/conflict/karahnjukar-iceland

vimeo.com/4319612

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/freshwater_news/?6481...

http://www.savingiceland.org/2013/04/the-biological-death-of-river-lagarflj...

In reply to Solaris:

Spent a lot of time in that valley, have friends in Akureyri. Aldeyjarfoss is possibly the most beautiful place I have ever visited in the world. Im speechless, especially since I know how much Icelandic people have such an affinity with their natural surroundings and appear to understand why wild land should stay that way. Signed and shared

In reply to Solaris:


I object to the Icelandic proposals, and I objected to the powerlines and associated windfarms in Scotland. But I don't object to the construction of more nuclear power stations, and I don't object to fracking as a short term stop gap. Without any data to back it up, I suspect that most people objecting to the Icelandic proposals also oppose nuclear and fracking,

In reply to newhey:

Thank you.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Thank you.

Perhaps I've managed to distract attention from the possible destruction of Icelandic wilderness by discussing the wider issues, but as it happens, I agree with you on both your points - fracking, partly based on the opinion of an industrial geologist from Lancashire...

In reply to Solaris:

In the video I linked to above, at 1:30 in, Björk says that the majority of Icelanders agree with the formation of a national park in the Highlands and so she asks "the world to support us against our government. Help us protect our wilderness."

For those who want more details of what's proposed, and of the economic arguments against it, the first 10 minutes of that video is good. (The rest is Q&A.) I especially liked the bit about "elf economics" which poses big questions to the (supposed) win-win argument.

Facebook page: Facebook.com/gaetumgardsins

In reply to Dr.S at work:

relatively cheap? Compared to? laying a cable across the atlantic won't be free, I imagine the UK will be tied to a contract for some time to cover the cost of this. Plus where will it hit mainland UK? More power lines to transfer the energy south, or will the cable go direct to the places of highest energy use following the coast line.


I would agree if it is a genuine excess and not one that is being currently created, which appears to be the case. Otherwise it would seem that the UK is wrecking other countries land to obtain it's power rather than it's own. The UK would do better to boost it's own production from renewables, which seems to have fallen off the agenda.

In reply to summo:

Well said, and thanks.