ICELAND REVIEW 31

Global warming is good. Or at least pretty good.If you live in Iceland, and Arctic warming will open shipping lanes, expand fisheries and, almost magically, bring tuna to the south shores, then you should be happy about global warming. This is the news that Icelandic Ambassador Gunnar Pálsson, Director of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs, has for the world. And Pálsson isn’t just an average diplomat. As the Chairman of the Senior Arctic Council Committee, Pálsson played a key role in putting together one of the most important documents on climate change of the last decade. In other words, if anyone should know about Arctic warming, Gunnar Pálsson should. And in an hour-long interview with me, and in at least one speech given in Washington DC, Pálsson wants us to look at the positive side. “One should not necessarily take a bleak view of climate change,” Páls-son tells me when I ask if Iceland may suffer from Arctic warming. “It’s clear that many communities in the Arctic region will be nega-tively affected. This is true of the indigenous peoples in North America and Russia. Some of these peoples may see the basis of their livelihoods disappear, more or less. There could be very serious repercussions for traditional hunting, for instance.”I nod, silent. I had attended the announcement of the Reykjavík Dec-laration, covering it for the Associated Press. The discussion of dam-ages to the indigenous peoples’ lifestyles had been overwhelming. “Our livelihood is based on the living resources of the ocean and on energy resources. Therefore, we are especially observant of the impact of climate change, as regards those two areas. Whereas if we were living in places like Siberia, we would presumably be worrying more about the effects of climactic changes on infrastructure, on roads and railroad lines, in areas where you see the permafrost melting.”Pálsson, wearing a navy suit with vivid sky-blue pinstripes and what looks to be healthy dose of convertible windburn, has the air of an

eccentric senior accountant in his last tax season. He speaks knowledg-ably, without error and without prompting. One gets the impression that he is shielding nothing. All this makes his comments that much more surprising. His “optimistic” views on global warming are far from the most extreme in the debate: best-selling American author Michael Crichton joins millions of those who believe global warming is a sham altogether. (Crichton’s book, State of Fear, which denounces global warming as fraud in using non-fictional footnotes, is rated 10th on the New York Times best-seller list after 12 weeks.) But Pálsson ex-plaining the positives in Arctic warming seems analogous to President Chirac explaining the benefits of the Bush presidency.

AND THEN THERE IS THE TUNA

As Pálsson openly admits in his interview and in speeches, climate change will affect fishing stocks and will melt the glaciers which pro-vide Iceland with its energy through meltwater. It would seem, then, that if Iceland makes its money through fishing and energy - 62% of the economy is now based on this - that threats to fishing and glaciers would be deemed... well, bad.But not so. Regarding the melting of glaciers, Pálsson points out that it is possible that precipitation will increase. Regarding fishing stocks, Pálsson acknowledges that “we have been told by scientists” of the danger and risks of rising temperatures. But, in using a rhetorical f lare, he points out that we don’t know “whether stocks living south of the Icelandic waters, like tuna, will head north towards our shores.”As tuna is an even more valuable fish than herring and cod, this seems like a dream scenario. Why stop at tuna, you may wonder. Why not fish for mermaids?But the fact is that tuna is indeed being caught near Icelandic waters, and that with continued warming, perhaps they could come closer. However, even the most optimistic fisherman points out that the tuna stock is depleted and overfished anyway, and that losing the cod and

WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOUR COUNTRY IS LOCATED IN THE WORLD’S BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL TROUBLE ZONE AND NATIONS FAR LARGER THAN YOUR OWN ARE THREATENING TO DESTROY YOUR NATURAL RESOURCES, YOUR CLIMATE AND YOUR WAY OF LIFE?

DEVELOP AN APPETITE FOR TUNA.

TEXT BY BART CAMERON PHOTOGRAPHS BY PÁLL STEFÁNSSON

Melting Iceland

herring stock - if trends continue - to Greenland, perhaps, would be a blow that would be catastrophic to the Icelandic economy. To summarise the whole discussion he offers his unique axiom for talking about Arctic warming: “You could say that where you stand on global warming depends on where you sit.”Ah. Of course. It sounds beautiful. Where you stand depends on where you sit. Unfortunately, with the most optimistic interpretation, Páls-son’s comments on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment mean noth-ing. With a more pessimistic view, he seems to be saying, “If it doesn’t hurt us, it isn’t a problem.”

WHAT IS WRONG AND WHAT’S THE WORRY?

For those unfamiliar with the debate, in November of 2004, through the work of more than two hundred scientists and researchers through-out the North, the Arctic Council released an Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report (ACIA) which pointed out rising temperatures in the Arctic, significant danger to indigenous peoples, and the melting of large amount of sea ice. As explained to me by Tero Mustonen, a post-graduate lecturer from the University of Akureyri who co-authored the ACIA, the report proved that “human-induced climate change has become a reality in the Arctic.” Among the key figures Mustonen points out are the star-tling accounts of peoples of the North, ranging from Akureyri to Fin-land, of changes in habitat, to the obvious empirical data in the melting of glaciers in Greenland and Iceland. Indeed, with the ACIA, the Arctic is becoming a symbol for the dan-gers of global warming. Delivering the inaugural address at the Delhi

Sustainable Development Summit, Iceland’s President, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, pointed out that the ACIA was “one of the most important contributions to the global debate on climate change. Primarily be-cause the evidence existing in the Northern regions is so dramatic and so clear to the open eye, one only has to arrive in those regions to be able to bear witness...” Grímsson brief ly made world news when a rhetorical invitation to world leaders to come witness the destruction of his glaciers was taken as a slight against US President George W. Bush. A f lub during a BBC interview may have led to the confusion, though the idea that Gríms-son was interested in belittling the US President seems unlikely, as in the same speech cited for the slight, Grímsson thanked the US directly for their help with the ACIA. Particularly sad in the brief f lurry was the distraction from Grímsson’s key point: if any world leader took a good look at Vatnajökull, the massive glacier in southeastern Iceland that has been receding rapidly in recent years, they would be humbled. I have climbed on this glacier - it is not a large block of ice, it is more like a mountain. If one centi-metre were melting annually, that would be cause for alarm. The fact that this glacier is retreating one metre annually is mind-boggling. Ac-cording to Dr. Helgi Björnsson of the University of Iceland, who has been studying the Icelandic glaciers, “during the period 1995 to 2005 the glaciers lost 1m per year evenly distributed over their entire area. Shrinking at this rapid rate they would disappear in 300 years.”Aside from the common sense reaction - the country’s largest land-mark is disappearing, this can’t be good - for one familiar with climate theory, melting glaciers are very bad news.

THE FLAT-OUT POLITICAL FACT IS THAT ICELAND, EVEN ACTING IN COLLUSION WITH NORWAY,

SWEDEN, DENMARK AND CANADA, CAN’T SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE CARBON EMISSIONS

– SUPERPOWERS ARE DECIDING THIS.

Frightening as melting sea ice is - the ACIA reported that 386,100 square miles of sea ice in the Arctic has retreated over the last thirty years - the melting of land-based glaciers bodes worse for the global environment. The millions of gallons of fresh water introduced from melting glaciers in Greenland and Iceland raise water levels, but the in-troduction of freshwater threatens the ocean currents - particularly the Gulf Stream current which keeps Iceland so warm, relatively speaking, for its latitude. This seeming paradox confuses many casual observers, but most sci-entists subscribe to the theory that, as co-author of the ACIA report Tero Mustonen explained to me in an email, “In the long term, a new ice age will arrive for sure and the impact of the...weakening of the (Gulf ) stream may have a site-specific cooling impact in Iceland and Scandinavia.”If you live in Iceland, then, you don’t want that mountain of ice in your backyard melting anytime soon.In other parts of the world, the rising ocean levels and erratic weather patterns will have many more catastrophic effects. A somewhat insen-sitive comment from climate scientist Dr. John Christy of the Univer-sity of Alabama puts the discussion into perspective, “You’ve got 100 years to move inland.”For most involved in the field, global climactic studies don’t give them much to feel good about. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently reported that the world as a whole has experienced a 30-year rise in temperature, “due primarily to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” The greenhouse gasses NASA mentions, primarily carbon dioxide, show no signs of declining... or even curbing. Ac-

cording to a recent report by David Stainforth of Oxford University, published in Nature, carbon-dioxide levels, which are at 379 parts per million right now, will hit 560 by 2050 - double the levels they were at before the industrial revolution. In short, the earth is getting much warmer due to greenhouse gasses. And the production of these gasses, particularly with the development of third and fourth world countries, looks set to increase. The average global temperature will continue to rise, possibly at a greater rate. (In one model done by Stainforth, an increase of 11 degrees Celsius was predicted.)

IT’S EASY TO BLAME THE US

In my months covering ACIA and the climate debate, one thing has repeatedly come up: with all this uncertainty, many otherwise intel-ligent people are looking for a bad guy.As a reporter for the Associated Press I was reprimanded when I failed to report on how the US exerted pressure on the Arctic Council to ease up on environmental recommendations. I attended the 24 No-vember 2004 meeting at which the Reykjavík Declaration, stating the policies for the Arctic Council, was announced, and I saw no pressure from the US whatsoever. Though the US did take some ribbing for its environmental policies, no representative with whom I spoke had significant criticisms. A Reuters piece, citing quotes from the indig-enous peoples of the Arctic region and environmental groups, sug-gested the US had thrown a wrench in the meeting. Citing chief Gary Harrison of the Arctic Athbaskan Council, Reuters used a particularly

non-Arctic metaphor in claiming, “The United States is like an ostrich burying its head in the sand.”Negative publicity for the Arctic Council continued - despite the fact that eight nations had got together and given a very sharp warning about the future of the Arctic. The news, even here in Iceland, was that the Nordic countries got steamrolled.The Iceland Nature Conservation Association, the largest environ-mental group in the country with about 1,300 members, printed an editorial in Morgunbladid the day after the meeting. Working chair-man Árni Finnsson summarised his argument for me: “The Reykjavík Declaration was weak. The ministers, thanks to US opposition, did not take any specific action. The US is blocking any action in the Arctic Council or any call to action in any international body.”Due to immediate bad press, which many have suggested was due to the forthcoming US presidential elections, the Reykjavík Declaration has been seen as another document tainted by the US. As a witness to the proceedings, I do not believe the US was push-ing other countries around. While the US did seem more conserva-tive about policy decisions based on the ACIA, the US representatives at least expressed concern about climate change. Other countries and industrial interests seemed, and I know this will be hard to believe, optimistic. Geir Tommy Pedersen, head of the Saami council based in north Nor-way, put it best in an interview with Reuters: “It is alarming that some governments and many multinational enterprises seem to be most im-pressed by the fact that a warmer Arctic may become a more accessible Arctic.”Weeks after the meeting, a 26 January report by AFP described the borderline glee being felt among Russian, Canadian and American companies at the opening of the Northern seas. Ports in Canada were being dredged to prepare for the import of crude through the new waterways. “We’re very excited. There is great potential for increas-ing trade between North America and the Russian sphere,” the direc-tor of the port project told reporters. (Russian ambassador to Canada, Georgiy Mamedov, is also mentioned in the article as supporting the project.)Overall, the actions in parts of the Arctic, even among those countries with indigenous populations which will obviously suffer greatly, seem analogous to a family selling tickets to watch the neighbour’s house burn down. Dr. Helgi Björnsson believes the Icelandic attitude is, “Enginn er ey-land” (Nobody is an island), and he has suggested, in emails, that the Foreign Ministry fully understands the consequences to its neighbours. But of those speaking out on the environment in Iceland, the only

voice I heard that seemed to support this belief came from Mr. Árni Finnsson, of INCA. Mr Finnsson criticises US inf luence strongly, but he is just as critical of his own government. “It’s easy to hide behind American inaction... that doesn’t mean you don’t have to do something yourself,” he told me. Before I asked about the government’s view on thinking optimistically, Finnsson mentioned that he had heard his government promoting the positives in climate change. “The idea that Iceland will do well, that is extremely parochial thinking. Surely Iceland will be affected by global developments. I mean how stupid can you get?”Like Ambassador Pálsson, Finnsson discussed the fisheries, though he pointed out that Pálsson’s views were risky. “You can be optimistic for the next twenty or thirty years. If it goes beyond two degrees Celsius on average globally, it will be runaway global warming, and you will have non-linear warming, which is very, very risky.”Finnsson’s attitude is continuously one of caution and responsibility.His attitude regarding the environment seems to be conservative and sane: don’t do any irreparable damage to the thing that feeds you, is his message.

REMEMBER THE COD WARS

When I asked Mr. Finnsson what, exactly, Iceland as such a small country could do to have any effect on environmental practices, he gave a straightforward answer: In the 1950s, 60s and 70s, when we were campaigning for changes in international law on the seas, we took action. We got changes there, now we need changes in the treat-ment of industry.”He has an interesting point: years ago Icelanders defended their fishing territory - and even expanded it - by attacking English fishing trawl-ers. In some cases, Icelandic coast guard boats even took to ramming English frigates and support ships. Such an image of fearless underdogs made an impression worldwide. Indeed, perhaps with so much at stake, it would make sense for Iceland to charge out and defend itself against the current threat. One question though: when temperatures are rising due to CO2 out-put from hundreds of nations, some, like China and India, just begin-ning to hit their industrial stride, whom exactly do you ram? The f lat-out political fact is that Iceland, even acting in collusion with Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada, can’t shape the future of the carbon emissions - superpowers are deciding this. In effect, Iceland is in the position of a child in a sloppy divorce. No matter how this country acts, it will face consequences of someone else’s actions. Perhaps, given that, it is best to follow Ambassador Páls-son’s advice and start looking for the positives.

34 ICELAND REVIEW

DURING THE PERIOD 1995 TO 2005 THE GLACIERS LOST 1M PER YEAR EVENLY DISTRIBUTED OVER

THEIR ENTIRE AREA. SHRINKING AT THIS RAPID RATE THEY WOULD DISAPPEAR IN 300 YEARS.