WASHINGTON—The United States on Friday denounced Iceland’s decision to go ahead with a sharply higher whaling quota, voicing concern there were not whales to sustain the hunt.

Iceland’s new left-wing government said last week it will maintain an earlier decision for a quota of 150 fin and 150 minke whales this year—a sixfold increase—despite international calls for it to reconsider.

The U.S. State Department said it “strongly opposes” the decision.

“We are deeply concerned that stocks of fin and minke whales are not adequate to support this harvest,” it said in a statement.

“We call upon the government of Iceland to rescind this decision and to focus on the long-term conservation of whale stocks, rather than on the short-term interests of its whaling industry,” it said.

The United States also said the decision would undermine ongoing talks on the future of the International Whaling Commission.

The IWC reform talks are part of a U.S.-led drive to reduce tensions around close ally Japan, which infuriates Australia and New Zealand by killing hundreds of whales each year in the Antarctic Ocean.

Japan says it abides by a 1986 IWC moratorium on commercial whaling as it uses a loophole that allows “lethal research” on the ocean giants, with the meat then heading to restaurants and supermarkets.

Norway and Iceland defy the moratorium altogether.

Iceland’s new government came to office after the global financial crisis ravaged the economy of the island, which became the first Western European nation in three decades to need a bailout from the International Monetary Fund.

The new government includes parties opposed to whaling, but it said it was maintaining the new whaling quota because it concluded it was legally bound to it.

Related Links:

‘The Cove’ pulls no punches in documenting Japanese dolphin hunt

Screwing up environment not so great for economy, studies find

Whale activists wind up Japan showdown

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Friday music blogging: Harper Simon

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tweet for the bees

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Iceland halts whale hunt due to low demand

After resuming commercial whaling just under a year ago, Iceland's fisheries minister said recently that his country will not issue new whale-hunting quotas until there's more demand for whale-derived products and until Iceland gets an export license to send whale meat to Japan. "There is no reason to continue commercial whaling if there is no demand for the product," fisheries minister Einar Guofinnsson said. "If there is no profitability there is no foundation for resuming with the killing of whales." This whaling season, Iceland's quota was 39 whales, but it harpooned just 14 due to low demand.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

New bike, parking policies leave polluting vehicles in the dust

Now for some wheely good news (sorry, it had to be done): officials around the globe are moving forward on innovative eco-transportation schemes. Last week, the city council of Reykjavik, Iceland, enacted a rule that gives free parking to those who drive fuel-efficient vehicles. In Ontario, Canada, yesterday, officials said they will develop a rating system for eco-friendly cars and trucks, with an eye toward debuting a green license plate in 2008 for low-emitters; the tag could net owners perks like free parking and access to commuter lanes. In Paris (ah, Paris), the first three weeks of the free-bicycle Vélib program saw 10,000 bikes used a total of 1.2 million times -- an average of six times per day. While some vandalism has been reported, and a few overeager commuters have illegally secured bikes with their own locks, officials are pleased with the experiment. And others are taking notice: London Mayor Ken Livingstone has asked his city's transportation agency to develop a similar scheme.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Orri Vigfússon.

Photo: Goldman Environmental Prize.

"I have a passion for salmon," says Orri Vigfússon. "It's the king of fish. It's just a spectacular creature." Vigfússon is a veteran business exec -- the Icelandic brand Icy Vodka is one of his enterprises -- and he's now using his negotiating savvy to protect the iconic North Atlantic salmon. Since the late 1980s, his North Atlantic Salmon Fund has raised money to buy netting rights from commercial fishers and create economic alternatives to the salmon business. The group has also brokered several moratorium agreements with North Atlantic nations, leading to an estimated 75 percent drop in commercial open-sea salmon fishing.

Vigfússon hopes he and his allies will soon bring an end to salmon fishing in the North Atlantic, and he continues to recruit support from anglers and fishing communities on both sides of the pond. "Every year I have to come up with new creative ideas for how to raise money, through receptions and dinners and so on, but it's become fun," he says.

Vigfússon, 64, was awarded one of six 2007 Goldman Environmental Prizes at a ceremony in San Francisco on April 23. He spoke to Grist from San Francisco.

When did you first realize that the North Atlantic salmon were in trouble?

In 1981, there was a collapse. We had very, very cold temperatures in 1979, and when we were waiting for the salmon runs two years later, we learned that the coldness had led to a collapse in the fishing. So I decided to look around and see what the hell was happening, and by 1988 I'd decided that we really needed to stop all commercial fishing for salmon -- by net, by long-lining, and so on.

Harboring hopes for the future.

Photo: Golli

I come from a herring family, so I know quite a bit about the background of fishing -- we were always thinking about the market price and the latest technology. And my family had a part in the overfishing of the herring stocks in the 1960s, so we had to stop fishing for herring for many years. The problem with all the world's fisheries is that we're killing too many fish for too long -- that's the essence of it.

So I set up the North Atlantic Salmon Fund. We recognized that the commercial fishers have the historic right to exploit the salmon, and decided that we needed to compensate them fairly -- and not just fairly, but generously. We don't believe in government resolutions. We decided that we needed to have firm commercial conservation agreements, because once you have those sorts of agreements, the industry really respects them. If they don't, if there's foul play, then no one would get paid. So those commercial conservation agreements are very, very important -- I'd like to see them used to manage fisheries all over the world.

What reactions did you get from commercial fishers when you first proposed these buyouts?

My first treaty was in the Faroe Islands. They said, "OK, we will try it, just give us some time to think about it," and two months later they were ready to negotiate. So my friends and I had a meeting in Oslo, a dozen of us, and developed a basic strategy for me to negotiate, and I started to negotiate in the Faroe Islands in December 1989. One and a half years later we signed the treaty. It usually takes some time, you know, because we don't just pay cash over the counter. We try to help the fishers develop alternative jobs so that everyone can be a winner.

How do you go about developing alternatives?

I've worked quite a lot in helping develop new manufacturing businesses in rural areas, and I've been a banker and so on. So I have a lot of ideas and resources. I just go and talk to the netmen and I say, "Look, what are you doing? We need to find a new way for you."

It's important that you work with them, and help them develop their own ideas. Sometimes it's been difficult to get them to agree to relinquish their rights, so I say, "OK, if you don't want to do it in perpetuity, let's do it for two or three years and see what happens." So of course they don't want to be idle, they are looking around, and if they see an opportunity, they say, "OK, let's go!" I always emphasize that these guys must be compensated generously. I now have between 2,500 and 3,000 agreements with netmen, and I want them to stay on being happy forever.

What do you consider your greatest successes so far?

Our most successful project has been providing a lumpfish industry in Greenland -- Greenland has now become the world's largest producer of lumpfish caviar. I had one guy in 1991 in the Faroe Islands who came to me and said, "Now Orri, you've taken away my livelihood. How the hell are you going to help me?" We sat down, and eventually he worked out a way of using his boats to service the oil exploration industry. I think he now has 26 boats all over the world, in Alaska and in Singapore, and he's doing extremely well. One lady came to me with fishing rights on the west coast of Iceland, and she said, "Orri, I want to set up a shop." She also had cows, so she set up a special cheese shop, and that's what she's doing now. We have a lot of interesting projects like that going on.

When do you think your campaign will be over?

Probably in two to three years' time. We recently had a very big agreement with the government of Ireland -- they decided to ban driftnetting, but I think the way they plan to do it is not good enough, so we plan to follow that very closely. We've done a pilot scheme in Norway, and that has worked extremely well, and we'd like to slowly expand that to the rest of Norway.

I'm hoping that [once we end salmon fishing in the North Atlantic], my organization will then turn to more in-river stuff, helping to build up stocks. We encourage all the sportfishers to practice catch and release to help increase the stocks of the rivers. So it's not only buying up the nets, it's also catch and release, and improving the in-river habitat. I'll probably do that for the rest of my life.

I've heard you have a favorite fishing spot.

Catch and release, of course.

Photo: R. Randolph Ashton

I fish a lot in Scotland, Russia, Norway, and of course where I live, in Iceland. I try to stay in Iceland in July and August. The Big Laxá is my all-time favorite river. It's a heaven for birds as well as salmon, and it's a very beautiful area. The pools are extremely -- just very, very nice. There is no other river like it. And of course, I release all my fish.

Related Links:

Where the Sahara meets the Atlantic

Sardines head south

Time magazine names me one of the ‘Heroes of the Environment 2009’

Aluminum smelting defining Iceland elections

You no doubt know that Iceland's elections are coming up on May 12. But here's something you may not know: the country's aluminum-smelting boom has become a key issue in the race. With three smelters up and running and three more planned, fans and foes alike are fired up. A new party, the Iceland Movement, has a platform with exactly one issue -- a five-year moratorium on big industrial projects while the effects of the current boom are studied -- and the Left Green Party also opposes the smelters. The author of an anti-smelter book says efforts to please aluminum giants like Alcoa have created a "heroin economy" and worries that leaders are "diverting the whole ecosystem of the east." But supporters say the plants create jobs and, since they run on geothermal and hydro energy, can provide a fix for the world's current mess. Says Prime Minister Geir Haarde, "These smelters are not polluting in a global sense, if you were producing here what you would be producing by gas or coal somewhere else."

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on sex ... chicken sex, that is

Terrorism laws are wrongly being used to round up eco-activists, says author Dean Kuipers

U.S. denounces Iceland whaling move

Iceland to resume commercial whaling despite international ban

Iceland plans to resume commercial whaling for the first time in nearly 20 years, despite an international moratorium. Through August 2007, the government will permit whalers to harpoon 30 minke whales and nine endangered fin whales. Iceland's Fisheries Ministry says there are 43,600 minkes and 25,800 fin whales off of Iceland's coast, and that limited commercial hunting is "consistent with the principle of sustainable development." Iceland has been killing whales for allegedly scientific purposes since 2003. Anti-whaling nations, including the U.S. and Britain, were dismayed by Iceland's announcement, as were green groups in Iceland and elsewhere. "There is no market for this meat in Iceland, there is no possibility to export it to Japan; the government appears to have listened to fishermen who are blaming whales for eating all the fish," says appropriately named Arni Finnsson of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association. "This decision is giving the finger to the international community."

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

If you're into eating whales, Kouji Shingru's shop is the place for you.

Located on a pedestrian-only street in Tokyo's bustling Asakusa neighborhood, Shingru's compact establishment has it all: deep red whale steaks and fillets in vacuum-sealed packages, cured whale on a stick, snack-sized bags of whale jerky, and a wide selection of canned whale morsels packed in brown sauce. A steady stream of customers -- most of them over 50 -- flows through the Yushi Special Shop in Whales, one of the capital's only retail outlets for whale products.

Whale for sale in Shingru's shop.

Photo: Colin Woodard.

"Almost all those who like whale meat are middle-aged and older," says Shingru, a middle-aged man himself. "Young people have no experience with eating whale. In fact, my shop is one of the only places where young people have a chance to eat it."

The problem, says Shingru, is with the supply. Since 1986, commercial whaling has been banned by the International Whaling Commission, and whale-eating nations have had to make do with the byproducts of their scientific catch. Japan -- whose people once killed and ate thousands of blue, fin, sperm, sei, and humpback whales in a single season -- has in recent years subsisted on an annual supply of 500 to 600 minke whales, each only a third the size of the fin whales that were once the backbone of the country's whaling industry.

"Twenty years ago there was a lot of whale meat, and whale was a popular fish," Shingru explains. "Now there is very little available, and whale meat is very expensive." He holds up a 100-gram package of fresh minke bacon, white and light pink in color, selling for 1,800 yen ($15.30) -- too dear for many consumers, he says. "Twenty years ago, this would have cost one-tenth as much."

That may be about to change. This year Japan has more than doubled its whaling quota to 935 minkes, ostensibly as part of long-term research into the size and health of their population in the frigid waters around Antarctica. Norway has also boosted its quota in the North Atlantic, upsetting anti-whaling activists who note that this will be the world's most deadly whaling season in a generation.

Indeed, 2006 could well be the year that the international whaling moratorium collapses altogether. In a triumph of patient diplomacy, Japan has used aid and trade measures to convince a small army of previously disinterested Caribbean and Pacific nations to join the IWC and vote with Japan. When the IWC meets this June in St. Kitts in the Caribbean, the pro-whaling bloc may well have the votes to overturn the ban. Whale, it seems, is back on the menu.

Many in the West see a resumption of whaling as barbaric, a return to the dark days of the 20th century, when floating factories drove many great whales to the brink of extinction to procure industrial oil and pet food. But people in whale-eating nations see the issue differently, and find some of the criticisms by other countries hypocritical.

In Norway, even leading environmental groups like the Oslo-based Bellona Foundation support the country's whale hunt. "We use small fishing vessels that consume few inputs and cause almost no pollution -- it's very friendly eco-production," says Bellona's Marius Holm. "Our principle is that we should harvest what nature provides, but in a sustainable way regarding the ecosystem as a whole and the specific stocks." As long as it's done sustainably, he adds, "We think whaling is a good thing."

Make way for the minke.

Photo: NOAA.

Using those criteria, it's hard to disagree. Norway's government-sanctioned hunt is controversial -- it's the only country in the world that has a commercial hunt in defiance of the moratorium -- but it does appear to be sustainable. Operating from about 30 small fishing vessels, Norway's whalers are allowed to kill up to 1,052 minkes out of a total estimated North Atlantic population of roughly 100,000. "The hunt we have had along our coast has always been sustainable," says Halvard Johansen of the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries. "We've been whaling on this coast since the ninth century, and we don't see that big a difference between aboriginal whaling and what we do here." (Native residents in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines are permitted a limited annual subsistence hunt.)

"We utilize the whole animal -- nothing is thrown away," Icelandic whaler Kristjan Loftsson told me when I visited his country. Loftsson is managing director of Iceland's four-boat whaling fleet, which catches about 40 minkes each year under a science permit. "We feel that we're being hung for mistakes made 80 years ago in the Antarctic."

Our interview started on the deck of one of Loftsson's 150-foot steam-powered boats, which are so small they return from a hunt with one or two minke carcasses strapped to the outside of the hull. (The animals are butchered on shore.) But when my questions turned to the whale's place in Icelandic food culture, Loftsson insisted we adjourn to 3 Frakkar, a nearby Reykjavik restaurant whose deep freezers have kept its tables supplied with whale throughout the moratorium.

The fin whale is served as sashimi, and looks and tastes like a cross between high-grade tuna and beef tenderloin. Despite spending 20 years in 3 Frakkar's freezers, it's subtle and delicious. "It's the best sushi meat you can have," Loftsson proclaims, his beard shaking with enthusiasm, "but here we eat it mostly as grilled meat."

When the small dish is finished, I have some misgivings about having eaten part of a great whale, but the experience can't fail to impress just how many meals a single whale must produce. In terms of food per life taken, it's hard to compete with an 80-ton mammal -- that's 35,000 times the live weight of a chicken.

In Tokyo, Shingru had a back room where customers could eat their whale purchases, but I settled for a portable bag of minke whale jerky. It tasted something like beef jerky, only sweeter, as promised by the text on the package: "This Kuzira Jerky tastes sweet," it read in English, "one's dear old taste."

The last reference was targeted at older Japanese who lived through the famine years at the close of World War II. In those days, whale meat provided a lifeline to a truly starving population, accounting for nearly half of all animal protein consumption, and earning itself a revered position in the nation's food culture. "It is no exaggeration to say that the blood of the whale has flown in each Japanese person who has consumed whale as [an] important gift from the sea," wrote Takeo Koizumi of the Tokyo University of Agriculture in a whaling association newsletter in 2003.

But a generation gap exists, says Hideki Moronuki, chief of the division that oversees whaling at the Japanese Fisheries Agency. "Whale meat is more than twice as expensive as yellowfin tuna, and many people, particularly the younger generation, can't afford it," he notes. "The quantity of whale meat provided by the market has increased because of the expansion of our research" -- the meat from the additional whales captured for science must not be wasted, under IWC rules -- "but still the price is not cheap."

If the IWC moratorium is lifted, prices could go down -- but demand, not supply, may become Japan's problem. Even with an expanded scientific hunt, hundreds of tons of unsold whale meat have been piling up in storage freezers.

A native Alaskan crew at work.

Photo: NOAA.

Now there's even a campaign to introduce whale to Japanese children and teens. Schools in Wakayama, a whaling region, have added the meat to their lunch program. "Whale culture" lessons have been added to elementary-school curricula, and one fast-food chain has started serving whale burgers, to a storm of international criticism.

But Glenn Inwood, a New Zealander who serves as spokesperson for Tokyo's Institute for Cetacean Research, thinks the anti-whaling argument has become philosophical, not scientific. "It has really come down to whether or not you think the whale resource should be used at all, regardless of their abundance," he says. Opposition, he says, is fueled by public revulsion over harpooning and flensing -- the process of removing blubber from the carcass -- two practices that opponents have videotaped for distribution.

In the end, supporters say the whale hunt is not all that different from the mainstream meat industry. "Many of us live in cities and eat meat wrapped in plastic and manage to have our eyes closed to where it came from," Inwood says. "The one thing the meat industry has been successful at is making sure nobody sees what happens inside a slaughterhouse."

Related Links:

Biochemist Oliver Peoples explains how his polymer-producing microbes could transform the plastics i

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

The future of storytelling?

The loneliness of the long-distance rider.

I have seen the future, and it works.

The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust pipe: a trickle of water.

This is one of three hydrogen buses added to the streets of Iceland's capital, as part of a pilot project with nine other European cities. "We have tested and tested, and we have learned and learned," Hordur Gislason, a bus-system manager, tells me. "And what we have learned is -- they function smoothly. In the beginning we had to stop them often for repairs, but as time went by they became [more and more] stable.

"You could drink the water that comes out of the tailpipe," Gislason continues. "You wouldn't want to -- but in an emergency!"

Though the first buses were custom-made, Gislason predicts they'll be mass-produced 10 years from now. Which is about the right timeline. Iceland has announced a goal of being entirely fossil-fuel free by 2050 -- converting an entire nation (albeit a small one, of just under 300,000 souls) to a hydrogen economy.

It is incredibly moving to stand next to the pumps at the world's first commercial hydrogen filling station. (In mid-June, the "Hydrogen Puffin," a motorized tricycle, fueled up there for a circumnavigation of the island to draw attention to the new fuel's possibilities.) The display signs from the E.U. consortium funding the project announce as obvious truth those axioms my own nation, the U.S., is still unwilling to hear: "Fossil-based fuels will eventually run out"; "Governments are under pressure to meet internationally agreed emissions targets." You think: maybe this is doable. Maybe there really are some silver bullets out there that will help us wean ourselves off fossil fuels before it's too late.

And then you think some more.

Rollin' in Reykjavik.

Photo: Icelandic New Energy.

For one thing, hydrogen makes enormous sense -- in Iceland. Because Iceland is, in essence, a nation-sized science-fair project. Everything is steaming, puffing, erupting, geysering. This means there's an almost inconceivable amount of renewable energy waiting to be tapped.

So far it's mostly used to make electricity -- a power source so cheap that some major international aluminum smelters have relocated here. But that electricity can in turn be used to make hydrogen. Passed through water, it strips the element out, allowing it to become usable fuel for buses or cars or anything else. In most of the rest of the world, people who talk about a hydrogen economy are talking about using some hydrocarbon -- natural gas, usually -- as their feedstock. Better than driving around on oil, but not incredibly better.

You can imagine renewable systems elsewhere -- the solar panel on your roof, the windmill on the ridge -- making the clean electricity needed to produce hydrogen, but for a long time to come that clean electricity will be needed simply to displace the dirty electricity we're already making. Not only that, but Iceland's compact size -- there's one city, and the rest of the nation's population mostly lives right off a single coastal ring road -- means that building a network of filling stations is a considerably smaller challenge than, say, converting the United States.

There's a deeper problem, too, one that's visible on the 111 bus: most of the time I have it to myself. Not because it's a hydrogen bus. Because it's a bus. This is a brilliant public-transportation system -- its 100 buses are 97 percent on time, clean, comfortable. (Reykjavik's drivers just won the Nordic bus-driving championship for the fourth straight year, and the individual champion, Markus Sigurdsson, is one of the hydrogen pilots.)

"The problem is more to have people appreciate it," says Gislason. "The buses are used, but we can't say heavily used. Icelanders can afford a car ... And we went pretty much from the individual horse into the private car." Indeed, many Icelanders have a pair of cars: something small and sensible for the commute, and something big for driving on the many dirt and ice roads of the country's interior highlands.

Not only that, but as the economy has boomed in recent years (genetics is the new gusher), Reykjavik has sprawled. Not quite American-style, but still. As Gislason stands at the filling station, he points at the horizon: "There's part of Reykjavik here, and part over there, and now a new part over there." The parliament is considering legislation to encourage what an urban planner would call "infill," and it's possible to imagine it passing -- this was the first nation in the world, after all, to take fishing quotas seriously. But it doesn't make it any easier to run a bus company.

"We have a European standard of bus service," says Gislason, "but we have the American syndrome of the private. That's our case."

In some ways it's the world's case. Will China and India and the rest of the developing world tilt toward a European mix of public and private, or toward the American denigration of everything communal, be it buses or medical care? If there were technological silver bullets, it might not matter -- if we all had vast geothermal reserves to cleanly provide as much energy as we wanted, then it's possible to imagine an SUV future. But since we don't, culture will matter as much as technology.

Which is to say, a hydrogen bus is a neat trick. But a full bus, no matter what it's burning, is an even better one. I've seen the future, and it works -- but only if you climb on board and pay your fare.

Related Links:

For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?

Ask Umbra on offsetting work trips

Sen. Ben Cardin answers Grist’s questions on public transit and mountaintop removal mining

Sources:
1. Country Information, Iceland Naturally.
2. Kentucky QuickFacts, U.S. Census Bureau.
3. The World Factbook: Iceland, Central Intelligence Agency.
4. "Spotting Elves in Iceland," Spirituality and Health, July/August 2004.
5. "This Dynamic Earth: The Story of Plate Tectonics," U.S. Geological Survey.
6. Thingvellir, Icelandic Tourist Board.
7. "Whale of a Debate in Iceland," CBS News, 11 Jun 2003.
8. "Iceland Continues a Minimal Implementation of Its Research Plan for Minke Whales," Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries, 01 Jun 2004.
9. Iceland Whales Pledge, Greenpeace International.
10. "Hunting or Tourism? Iceland's Tough Whaling Choice," Agence France-Presse, 18 Jul 2004.
11. "Iceland Be Dammed," Smithsonian, June 2002.
12. Getting Around New York City on Foot, NYC & Company website (formerly the New York Convention & Visitors Bureau).
13. "Iceland, Environmentalists Clash," Associated Press, 23 Dec 2002.
14. "Björk's Mother Ends Hunger Strike," BBC, 30 Oct 2002.
15. "2007 Tree Seedlings Planted in the Alcoa Forest in Reydarfjordur, Iceland," Alcoa corporate website, 18 Jun 2003.
16. 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index [PDF], Yale University and Columbia University, 26 Jan 2005.

Related Links:

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

Greenpeace calls on world leaders to stop rainforest destruction

Biochemist Oliver Peoples explains how his polymer-producing microbes could transform the plastics i

New Yorker launches three-part exploration of climate change

Writer Elizabeth Kolbert must have single-handedly accelerated global warming with the jet fuel she burned visiting the Arctic, Iceland, Greenland, Alaska, and the Antarctic to research a big three-part series on climate change for The New Yorker. What did she find? Well, it's all melting. The Alaskan village of Shishmaref is going to be uprooted and moved en masse, thanks to increasing exposure to rising tides and grumpy weather. The Arctic sea ice is melting, thus reducing its reflectivity, thus absorbing more energy, thus melting faster (and so on). Greenland's ice sheet is melting, raising sea levels and possibly altering the ocean currents that keep the world's temperate zones temperate. Meanwhile, the third part of a big multi-country climate report -- the part on the actions governments need to take -- is being delayed by the U.S. delegation, which doesn't like the word "mandatory." If you haven't slit your wrists yet, get ready for part two ...

Related Links:

Satellite data suggests “that EAST Antarctica is losing mass”

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Arni Finnsson.

With what environmental organization are you affiliated?

Iceland Nature Conservation Association. We are the biggest member-based NGO in Iceland with 1,300 members.

What does your organization do? What, in a perfect world, would constitute "mission accomplished"?

The powerful glacial river in the Karahnjukar area.

Photo: Johann Isberg.

INCA was established in 1997 and our main focus was to protect the Icelandic highlands (some 15,400 square miles of wilderness areas more than 650 feet above sea level) from hydropower developments. We set as our goal the creation of one national park in the highlands. We have enjoyed great international support for our campaigns. In particular we are grateful to the World Wildlife Fund Arctic Program and the International Rivers Network.

In a more perfect world, we would like to see Iceland as a champion of conservation at home as well as abroad. In our view, Iceland must take a position as a leading nation calling for international action to prevent human-induced climate change.

What do you really do, on a day-to-day basis?

I run the INCA office, provide service for our members, deal with media, and keep contacts with other NGOs. Apart from conservation in Iceland, we work on climate issues and ocean issues. Needless to say, we can't run a full-fledged campaign on any or all of these issues. It would be more appropriate to say INCA tries to serve as a clearinghouse for environmental issues by sending out information and networking with other people at home and abroad.

What long and winding road led you to your current position?

From 1989 to 1996 I worked for Greenpeace International, based in Gothenburg, Sweden. Greenpeace was a great experience and, at times, a tough school. When we moved back to Iceland in 1996, I started working on environmental issues, and in May 1997, we established INCA.

How many emails are currently in your inbox?

I get loads of emails every day, and I find this to be a lifeline to the outside world. Obviously one can't read all of it, but it is worth getting. The internet is a great source of information and provides great opportunities to disseminate information. It's cheap, too.

Who's the biggest pain in the ass you have to deal with?

Ours is too small a society to name those who are a pain in the ass.

Who's nicer than you would expect?

I always enjoy meeting people on the opposing side whose manners are good enough to talk to them on issues which divide.

Where were you born? Where do you live now?

I was born and raised in Akureyri, north Iceland. Today I live with my family (wife and two daughters) in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland.

What has been the worst moment in your professional life to date?

It was when it became inevitable that we would lose our campaign to stop the 690-megawatt Karahnjukar Hydropower Scheme, the construction of which started in 2003. The customer will be an Alcoa-owned aluminum smelter in a small coastal village some 30 miles away.

Toefrafoss or Magic Waterfall, which will be destroyed by the Karahnjukar power plant.

Photo: Johann Isberg.

This project will fundamentally change and destroy one of Europe's wildernesses, a high plateau of lakes and virgin rivers, jagged canyons, and snowy former volcanoes linked by swards of treeless tundra inhabited by thousands of reindeer and geese. According to a recent survey by Gallup, 40 percent of Icelanders say the decision to build this power plant was wrong and 50 percent of those living in Reykjavik say it was wrong.

What's been the best?

Last January the government decided to establish a new national park in the northeast, including one major glacial river, Europe's most powerful waterfall, and a unique volcanic landscape. Ultimately some 10 percent of Iceland's landscape will be protected in this national park. This is less than our vision in 1997, but it is pretty far, nevertheless. I also felt pretty good when the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on Feb. 16.

What environmental offense has infuriated you the most?

The Icelandic government has at times used very aggressive tactics to bad-mouth and attack conservationists, media people, or just anyone who wouldn't agree with them on environmental issues. Large amounts of taxpayer money have been devoted to this effort, and this sense of democracy, or rather lack thereof, often infuriates me. To be fair, governmental practice has improved, but Iceland still refuses to ratify the Aarhus Convention, the parties to which "... shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention."

Remember, "government of the people, by the people, for the people ..." Environmental campaigning is also a campaign for democratic principles, reminding governments who they should work for.

Who is your environmental hero?

I greatly admired David McTaggart, the founder of Greenpeace International.

Who is your environmental nightmare?

The best you can do is to wake up and try to find out how you can deal with the nightmares. I must admit, though, that the policies of the Bush administration are scary.

For the pragmatic environmentalist, what should be the focus -- political action designed to change policy, or individual action designed to change lifestyle?

As individuals we can do our share, but in a democracy, politicians are responsible. Whether it is tax policy, energy policy, agricultural policy, education policy, or what have you, those policies can be changed, and need to be changed, in order to provide the individual with options: better public transportation, stricter emission standards for vehicles, etc.

Sheep Valley in the Karahnjukar area.

Photo: Johann Isberg.

What's your environmental vice?

In Iceland, public transport is very poor. We have almost as many cars per capita as do Californians. I have one, too. Also, to travel abroad, one needs to fly.

What are you reading these days?

Right now I'm into a thriller by a Swedish author; Scandinavian thrillers often tell stories involving political and social issues. Henning Mankell is one of my favorites. I also enjoy reading history books and biographies.

What's your favorite meal?

One at home with family and friends.

What's your favorite place or ecosystem?

Lake Myvatn in northern Iceland is stunningly beautiful.

What's one thing the environmental movement is doing particularly well?

On a global scale, I think environmental NGOs did a very good job in support of the Kyoto Protocol. We all know it isn't enough. Yet I think we are on the winning side. Our arguments are solid and well-put.

What's one thing the environmental movement is doing badly, and how could it be done better?

Unless we can reach out and raise funds, we stand short. We need to raise our profile and public willingness to pay for environmental campaigning.

If you could institute by fiat one environmental reform, what would it be?

I would like to see the U.S. Senate adopt the McCain-Lieberman bill, setting a target or ceiling on U.S. emissions. It would send a strong signal to the White House and help change irresponsible and corrupt U.S. climate policy.

What was your favorite band when you were 18? How about now?

Led Zeppelin and Bob Dylan. I still enjoy listening to Dylan. Today I mostly listen to jazz and classical music. A record I bought recently is The Great Renata Tebaldi; she was a fantastic opera singer.

What's your favorite movie?

The Godfather I and II, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

What are you happy about right now?

According to a recent opinion survey carried out for INCA by Gallup, some 75 percent of Icelanders are worried over climate change. This despite the fact that our government has more or less ignored the issue and failed to inform the citizens of the dangers involved. I think the result shows that we are reaching out, getting the message across.

If you could have every InterActivist reader do one thing, what would it be?

"Don't send your love, send money," a friend of mine said. Please help us finance what the environmental movement needs to do.

Arni Finnsson, Iceland Nature Conservation Association.

How badly does hydroelectric power affect the environment? I thought it was a good alternative to burning fossil fuels for energy.    -- Corey Bonasso, Morgantown, W.Va.

In Iceland, valleys or lower-lying areas in the highlands, which the power industry would like to use for reservoirs, are usually the most vegetated and biologically rich.

As an example, the Karahnjukar hydropower plant will severely impact one of the largest wilderness areas remaining in Western Europe due to the construction of a number of dams, channels, diversions, reservoirs, and roads. In total, some 380 square miles in the central highlands north of the Vatnajökull Glacier will be directly affected, although the impact area is much larger. The project would irreparably damage a rare oasis of highland vegetation, characterized by diverse plant communities (covering more than 200 square miles), and geological formations and landscapes, some of which are rare on a world scale. It would dam the glacial river Joekulsa a Bru, and it would also involve the damming and diversion of the large glacial river Jökulsá in Fljótsdalur Valley and about a dozen other smaller, clear-water rivers. As a result of habitat destruction and drowning in murky reservoirs, many species in affected rivers, lakes, and wetlands would be impoverished or disappear altogether. The largest reservoir would be 22 square miles in size with a water-level fluctuation of up to 246 feet.

I recently returned from a visit to Iceland. I found both the urban and undeveloped places quite striking, unique, and beautiful. I heard from many Icelanders that currently an unprecedented amount of investment in capital projects is occurring in and around Reykjavik. Does Iceland have any growth-management laws or policies that guide where, when, and how development occurs?    -- Katie Lichtenstein, Seattle, Wash.

We do have laws on nature conservation and environmental impact assessment (i.e., how to go about development). Yet, these laws do not count when large development projects are at stake.

For example, the environmental impact report (by the developer) for the Karahnjukar power plant was rejected by the Planning Agency of Iceland. However, the developer (the National Power Corporation) appealed the decision, and according to the law on environmental impact assessment, the environment minister is to rule on such appeals. The environment minister, though, belongs to the government, and the government was determined to push the project all the way through the decision-making process. No surprise, the environment minister overruled her own Planning Agency and agreed to the Karahnjukar power project with minor changes.

Has Iceland shown signs of global warming, and what are the theories regarding the future of Iceland if global warming is ignored?    -- Jeff Ball, Sacramento, Calif.

Yes, there are signs. Glaciers are retreating. Given the present rate of change, they will disappear in 200 to 300 years.

How should we deal with the problem of climate change? Where do you think our efforts are best directed -- toward reducing our emissions here in the West, or by influencing the developing world not to increase their emissions in their future development?    -- Kalle H., Oslo, Norway

No nation can walk alone. We need an international, legally binding structure such as the Kyoto Protocol, which must be strengthened considerably, in order to solve the problem. It is complex and it is difficult, but it must be done.

Keep in mind that developing countries will suffer most from global warming. Due to historical and current greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fact that emissions cannot be reduced to zero overnight, we know we are already committed to future warming and sea-level rise. This will cause increased risk of disease, hunger, water shortage, and coastal flooding for somewhere between tens of millions and some billions of people depending on the impact area and the rate and extent of the warming. Major adaptation efforts will be required to minimize the adverse consequences related to health, food security, water supply, storms, and sea-level rise.

Everything humanly possible must be done to limit global warming increases to less than 3 degrees Fahrenheit (above preindustrial times), and then the warming should be reduced as fast as possible from this peak.

Developing countries must play a role, and their economies must be set on a decarbonization track that would drive the rapid introduction of clean technologies that can reduce emissions and meet sustainable development objectives in developing countries. The industrialized countries would provide resources and technology to drive much of this track.

In principle, we all have equal access to the atmospheric commons. This implies that those who have already contributed to the climate-change problem substantially need to create the space for others to emit more in the future.

In the long run, per capita emissions for individual countries should allow for convergence of per capita emissions. Our generation should not pass to future generations unfair burdens. Delaying action on climate change now would transfer large costs to future generations. The principle of historical responsibility is an important element in determining who should act and when.

Why do you think many Americans are numb to the threat of global warming and other related environmental issues? Do Icelanders react the same way? And is the study of global warming and sustainable development part of the curriculum in schools in Iceland?    -- Louise Fry, New York, N.Y.

I don't think Americans are numb to the threat of global warming. I think the White House is. Likewise Texaco is. However, a number of states and cities in America are taking action on climate change. The U.S., being such a large emitter on the global scale, needs a much greater awareness, stronger environmental NGOs, and stronger citizen action to call the federal government and business to the task. We can't wait because within a decade or so, it will be too late.

In Iceland, we do have different opinions. Recent public-opinion surveys carried out for Iceland Nature Conservation Association show that people are pro-conservation and do feel concerned about climate change.

And no, global warming isn't part of the curriculum in Iceland. However, there has been progress. Recently, Reykjavik City Council decided to set up a project to assist teachers in the city to work with pupils in natural areas, thus teaching them about nature. How much global warming will come into it I don't know, but single teachers will have some freedom as to how they form the curriculum.

What, if anything, did your time at Greenpeace teach you about working as an environmental activist? How do you feel about the organization's suggested boycott of Iceland due to the country's whaling policies?    -- Name not provided

Belonging to an organization like Greenpeace is a great asset for anyone who cares for the environment. I worked with a number of highly committed and competent people, and I learned a lot. Yet, also in Greenpeace, it is your responsibility to act. Even in a small NGO like INCA, you can have an influence.

I'm not aware of any Greenpeace plans to boycott Iceland. On the contrary, Greenpeace has repeatedly stated in Iceland that it has no such plans. Iceland did catch 25 minke whales last year for "scientific" purposes. In 2003, 36 minkes out of a quota of 38 were caught. The original plan was to catch 200 minkes during these two years as well as 200 fin whales and 100 sei whales. There is no export market for these products, and the market in Iceland hardly exists. Large chunks of whale meat are being stored in freezers as there is no one to buy it. In a sense, one could say that Icelanders are boycotting whale meat.

On the other hand, whale watching has developed rapidly in Iceland during the last 10 years or so. The number of tourists going on whale-watching trips last year was 81,600. Iceland has become the whale-watching center of the North Atlantic.

Are there environmental effects associated with Iceland's being such a popular tourism destination? Are there things tourists to Iceland can do in alliance with INCA?    -- Judith Niemi, St. Paul, Minn.

There are a number of problems. The biggest one is that protected areas get overcrowded during the high season, and there are not enough resources put toward staffing and conservation measures. INCA has called for human-made structures to be in the outskirts of the highlands and other wilderness areas. Also, we are opposed to building roads in the highlands. Then there is off-road driving, but that problem applies just as much to Icelanders as foreign tourists.

INCA has not had a tourism project of any kind, but people have called us for information, and I have given lectures to groups coming to Iceland organized by the Sierra Club.

You say Iceland should take a position as a leading nation, calling for international action on issues like climate change. How do you feel Iceland is faring so far in that capacity?    -- Name not provided

First, let me say that Iceland played a leading role in calling for international action on persistent organic pollutants -- substances like DDT, PCBs, and 10 other toxic substances. Last year, the Stockholm Convention, as it is called, became international law.

In the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, when Iceland was in the forefront of shaping the new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, a fundamental change in international law on the oceans, Iceland took action. We got changes there; now we need changes in the treatment of industry.

Iceland needs to ally itself with European states, small island states, and the environmental NGOs calling for strong international action to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

What would you recommend visitors to Iceland do if they have only seven days to explore the country?    -- Name not provided

I would recommend you visit one part of the country. For example, the Breidafjoerdur area and the West Fjords.

What's the cuisine like in Iceland?    -- Name not provided

On a good summer's day, we would put lamb meat on the barbecue, but we have to import the wine.

What does puffin taste like?    -- Bess Floozie, Christchurch, New Zealand

I haven't tasted one since 1970, when I visited relatives at Aedey Island in northwest Iceland. It was very tasty.

Related Links:

A video interview with Bill Moyers

The Yes Men reveal their next big stunt

A video interview with the Yes Men

Photos: © Layne Kennedy

In case you haven't heard, we're giving away a trip to Iceland. As a result, this photo essay is a bit of a divergence from our usual tough-as-nails coverage, wherein the prettiest pictures we run are of, well, politicians. But we're not just shilling here -- Iceland is a hotbed of Grist-worthy news.

Iceland is known as the land of fire and ice thanks to dramatic glaciers and volcanoes, but recently the country's reputation has been running hot and cold among environmentalists, too. In 2003, the country raised hackles by rejecting an international ban on commercial whaling, a practice the government defended as important to scientific advancement. That same year, Iceland earned global kudos by opening the world's first hydrogen-fuel filling station -- a concrete step in a sweeping and much-praised project to shift the entire country to hydrogen-based energy over the next few decades.

Even that clean-energy dream finds its foes. Some local environmentalists say harnessing the country's waters to create hydrogen will destroy unparalleled landscapes and decimate biodiversity. Now, a high-profile dam-construction project that will flood the nation's wild eastern highlands to power an aluminum smelter has awakened activists around the world. While that battle rages, there's climate change to think about, and its impact on the glaciers that make Iceland, well, icy.

In short, this land of ecological wonders has become a land of ecological wondering. These glimpses by Minneapolis-based photographer Layne Kennedy offer a sense of what's at stake.

Related Links:

U.S. denounces Iceland whaling move

Björk, Sigur Rós protest Icelandic aluminum plant in concert

Iceland announces it will reinstate whaling ban next year

Enviros Protest Massive Dam in Iceland

Extreme weather and remote locations can't stop the forward march of, uh, progress, as Iceland's Karahnjukar dam shows. The dam, which will be Europe's highest, is being built in a huge wilderness area, much to the dismay of environmentalists. They fear it will drown highland vegetation, change the groundwater balance, and create so much mud that in the dry season the dust blowing from the region will choke a nearby town. Moreover, they say, it will disturb the area's reindeer, freshwater fish, and harbor seals, and destroy some 500 nesting spots of the pink-footed goose. The dam, which is being built by the national power company Landsvirkjun, will have just one customer: an Alcoa aluminum smelter slated to open in 2007.

Related Links:

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

U.S. denounces Iceland whaling move

Nonbinding agreement reached to breach Klamath River dams by 2020

First Minke Whale Killed in 14 Years

A team of Icelandic hunters who resumed whaling recently despite international protests killed a minke whale yesterday, the first in 14 years. The team, from Iceland's Marine Research Institute, plans to kill 37 more in the next six weeks. The hunt is part of a research program, and thus technically legal under the International Whaling Convention, and the hunters say minke whales have become abundant in Icelandic waters. But critics contest that there is no scientific reason for the hunt, and say the nation is using it as a smokescreen to resume commercial whaling. The U.S. has threatened to instate an embargo against the country because of the whaling practices, and environmental and animal rights activists have pursued the hunters in protest.

Related Links:

Biochemist Oliver Peoples explains how his polymer-producing microbes could transform the plastics i

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

MacArthur genius award winners include climate and ocean researchers

It's been a bad news week for whales. First, Iceland announced that it would begin hunting minke, fin, and sei whales again after a 13-year hiatus. The nation says the whaling will be strictly for research purposes, but environmentalists say the plan is a smokescreen for commercial hunts. The World Conservation Union's Red List ranks fin and sei whales as endangered, while North Atlantic minkes are near-threatened. Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere, a Japanese whaling fleet has killed 400 minke whales during a five-month expedition in the Antarctic. The Japanese government acknowledged the hunt but said it was conducted to help gauge the impact of whale populations on fisheries stocks and assess migration patterns and population trends. The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, but it allows unlimited catches for research purposes.

Related Links:

Biochemist Oliver Peoples explains how his polymer-producing microbes could transform the plastics i

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

China steals Cimate Week spotlight, but U.S. still in the hot seat

After a 10-year struggle to reclaim its whaling rights, Iceland has finally gotten the green light from the International Whaling Commission to resume commercial hunting. The commission outlawed commercial whaling in 1986, but Iceland and Norway refused to accept the ban. Norway negotiated to remain part of the commission and hang onto its hunting rights, but Iceland walked out -- a move it would later regret. Following a narrow vote, and despite protests from the U.S. and Great Britain, the IWC has finally opened its arms to Iceland again; in 2006, the country will resume hunting fin and minke whales, which it says are abundant. Indigenous people who fish the Bering Strait will also be permitted by the IWC to resume whaling.

Related Links:

Biochemist Oliver Peoples explains how his polymer-producing microbes could transform the plastics i

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

The future of storytelling?