Iceland is situated directly on top of the Earth’s tectonic plates, spreading over the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Consequently, around one-third of all lava that has erupted from the Earth’s surface over the past 500 years has flowed out of Iceland’s surface, creating the rough lava fields that distinguish Iceland’s landscape.[1] This combination of warm surface heat, coupled with Iceland’s abundance of glaciers and the cold atmosphere of the Arctic Circle, creates geothermal activity below the surface and powerful rivers above it, making Iceland one of the most concentrated sources of geothermal and hydroelectric energy on Earth.[2] The vast majority of Iceland’s buildings are heated by geothermal energy and around 95 percent of Iceland’s electricity is derived from a combination of geothermal- and hydro-power.[3] The seemingly unlimited amount of geothermal energy and hydro-power makes Iceland attractive to heavy industry as a cheap and abundant source of electricity. Currently, the aluminum industry is the largest customer of geothermal energy, consuming 75.9 percent of all electricity generated in Iceland, surpassing residential consumption by 70 percent.[4]
Since the 2008 economic collapse, the auctioning of Iceland’s geothermal energy to foreign companies has increased.[5] The aluminum smelters that Alcoa has built in Iceland (which run on the extraction of geothermal energy) have dire, long-term consequences for Iceland’s economic, social and environmental future.[6] Alcoa’s presence in Iceland has met much opposition from the public, and has been the cause of protests, both in Iceland and from environmental agencies around the world, who warn of the global consequence that ruining one of the second largest masses of pristine wilderness left in Europe will have.[7] Projects such as the Karanhjuka dam, which displaced hundreds of animals and will eventually lead to the complete and irreversible draining of a large body of water, exemplifies why natural resource extraction is a short-term solution to Iceland’s economic woes.[8] It is vital for Iceland to find other solutions for creating revenue, solutions that will generate long-term employment and cause minimal exploitation to the environment. In what follows, I consider three such solutions.
Iceland applied for EU membership in July 2009, negotiations started in July 2010, and now the EU has opened accession talks. The European Commission recognizes that Iceland has already assimilated many of its national laws in accordance with EU laws.[9] But progress has halted because the EU demands Iceland resolve the continued dispute with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands over the money lost when the online Icesave bank collapsed.[10] Public opposition to joining the European Union is also a challenge. Media and polls document public fear that the EU will regulate fishing quotas and whaling.[11]
I argue for Iceland’s admission to the European Union (EU) and full adaptation of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). An internal working paper released in May 2010 by the European Commission maintains that EU member states could make €26 billion in profit annually by 2020 through auctioning emission permits, and as much as €928 million a year by 2012 through the auctioning of permits to airlines.[12] The profits Iceland could make, especially in light of their heavy airline traffic and vast geothermal- and hydro energy, will strengthen their economy considerably. Joining the EU will also ensure vital legal restrictions on excessive external exploitation of geothermal extraction[13] by means of stricter regulation through the full implementation of the EU ETS.[14] Fully implementing the EU ETS would also give Iceland further incentive to ease their dependency on renewing business contracts with Alcoa, and the planned expansion of aluminum smelters throughout Iceland, all of which have a devastating impact on local farming communities. [15]
Iceland will not join the EU unless Icelanders support the decision in a referendum that may be held in early 2012. According to three polls conducted by Gallup between May and September 2010, 69 percent of those asked oppose Iceland joining the EU. Politicians express worries that Iceland will no longer have a say with regards to EU laws.[16] This is a misconception. By joining the EU, Iceland would gain autonomy. Already a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland implements all laws of the common European market, except for agreements on fisheries and agricultural policy. Because a large majority of Iceland’s current laws are decided in Brussels, joining the EU means Iceland will have voting power with regards to laws already adopted by the Icelandic Parliament. Thus, Iceland would gain considerable autonomy by joining the EU.[17]
Second, I argue for wetland and wildlife restoration. This is in keeping with new legislation from the Environmental and Planning Ministry of Iceland, which proposes considerable limitation on foreign access to Iceland’s natural resources—the water, wetlands, glaciers, geothermal- and hydro energy for smelters.[18] Proposals from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change outline the importance, and potential profit, of implementing a legislative remedy to wetland restoration.[19] Restoring drained and degraded wetlands would reduce carbon, nitrous oxide and methane from the atmosphere—an innovative means for Iceland, and other countries, to meet their annual EU ETS emissions requirements.
Third, I argue for the commitment to fish stock restoration. Fish stock restoration is vital to the Icelandic economy as 60 percent of Icelandic exports are fish products.[20] In order to restore fishing stocks, there must be strict government regulation. But citizens and politicians are also wary of outside intervention in national fishing matters, and fears are often publicly expressed that joining the EU will cause outside intervention in national quota laws.[21] Public distrust is exemplified by a history of fishing “wars” with the United Kingdom, most famously the Cod-wars.[22] To combat the documented dangers of fish depletion,[23] fishing stocks must be restored through stricter government regulation to ensure appropriate national laws are in place to protect Iceland’s fishing interests before the country joins the EU.
By joining the EU, Iceland would increase its legal autonomy in addition to increasing government revenue through the full implementation of the EU ETS. If wetland restoration is implemented as a means of restoring depleted wildlife, Iceland will be preserving its wildlife and increasing sustainability measures while simultaneously meeting annual EU ETS carbon emissions requirements, which in turn helps to offset pollution from heavy industry projects currently being executed. This will also save money for the government since they will not be forced to purchase offsets if they run over emissions limits, a scenario that is highly likely to occur according to data presented at the 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.[24] Moreover, by restoring fishing stocks through stricter regulation of fishing quotas, a vital source of Iceland’s employment will be preserved.
Iceland has only been an independent country since 1944, when it broke from Danish rule. For most of its existence as an independent country, Iceland’s economy has been dependent on the fishing and agricultural industry. During World War II, British forces occupied Iceland, and after the war Iceland joined NATO and Americans took over the army base that British forces previously occupied. This lead to a large influx of foreign capital, temporarily boosting the economy and creating service jobs for Icelanders on the base. The Americans eventually began to decrease their reliance on the army base in Iceland, and pulled troops out, decreasing employment for Icelanders and leaving them with the difficulty of maintaining much of the infrastructure that the Americans had built and paid for surrounding the base. Adding to economic and employment instability, in the 1980s there were strong fishing quotas enforced on Icelanders, which caused a decrease in the fishing industry and forced many fishermen to find new jobs.[25]
Over the past twenty years Iceland has been hit hard by the consequences of rapid urbanization which has left many of the former farming and fishing towns near empty and hungry for employment. Adding to the desperation is the declining fish stocks following fishing quotas that were imposed in the 1980s. As a result, the Icelandic Government entered into a 40-year contract with the American aluminum company Alcoa to supply hydroelectric power for aluminum smelters that have been built not far from Egilsstadir in a place known as Karahnjukar.[26] The idea was that the Alcoa aluminum smelter would produce around 400 jobs, and increase the service industry around Egilsstadir, allowing for an infusion of foreign capital and a diversification in the Icelandic economy for which everyone longed.[27] The reality has been quite different. Since the contract was signed in 2003, Alcoa has flooded the remote highland wilderness of Karahnjukar to create a reservoir, the tallest of its kind in Europe.[28] While these are not the only reasons why Iceland decided to welcome a 40-year contract with Alcoa, they are important in understanding the economic desperation that led the Icelandic government to seek out industrial alternatives.
Alcoa’s presence in Iceland has met much opposition from the public, and has been the cause of protests, both in Iceland and from environmental agencies around the world who warn of the dire, long-term consequences for Iceland’s economic, social and environmental future, as well as the global implications of ruining one of the second largest masses of pristine wilderness left in Europe.[29]
Until 2000, Iceland had not been successful in their efforts to attract heavy industry to the island with promises of cheap energy, due to the island’s isolation in the middle of the Atlantic and the relatively small, over educated and highly paid work forces of the population. [30]
The Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) has opposed the Alcoa smelter projects from the beginning, and has been at the forefront of the fight for environmental justice in Iceland, along side the project Saving Iceland, demanding that Alcoa’s projects be subject to formal Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). On May 4, 2000, a formal EIA report for the Karahjukar Dam Project was published, followed by a publication by the INCA in which an economic analysis of the project was made by Thorsteinn Sigurlaugsson, an economist, in which he stated: “The environmental impact of the development is within acceptable limits in light of the economic benefits which the proposed power plant will bring to the nation and the upswing of employment accompanying the sale of energy.” [31]
The criticism of the project prevailed, however, and in August 2001 the Physical Planning Agency of Iceland delivered its verdict against the Karahnjukar Dam Project, stating that the environmental consequences were far too great, and the economic benefits were unclear–a victory for environmentalists nation wide. In September 2001, the National Power Company, Landsvirkjun (who would be directly benefiting from the power that Alcoa would purchase to run the aluminum smelters), appealed the verdict from the Physical Planning Agency to the Environmental Minister, who is the highest authority on the matter according to the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment. At the end of December 2001, following much governmental pressure from the Conservative Party of Iceland who at the time had the majority of parliamentary seats, the Environmental Minister ruled in favor of the Karhnjukar Dam Project.[32]
Following the Environmental Minister’s verdict, there was much protest, and many written appeals to no prevail and in March 2002 the national daily newspaper of Iceland, Morgunbladid, announced that due to controversy and the uncertain environmental consequences, Norsk Hydro was opting out of the project. After a few frantic weeks, it was announced that Alcoa was replacing Norsk Hydro for negotiations.[33]
Despite widespread public and political criticism, in April 2002, the Icelandic parliament, Althingi, adopted a new legislation that empowered the Minister of Industry to grant a license to Landsvirkjun to build the Karahnjukar Dam, a project that relied on foreign loans and cost over 3 billion dollars.[34] This was followed by the District Court of Reykjavik’s dismissal of a lawsuit that had been put forth by the INCA, not on grounds that there was no legal case, but because the case had not been “correctly formulated.” The INCA corrected, and put forth the lawsuit again, but it was sent to the High Court only to be dismissed.[35]
Iceland then received an exemption from the Kyoto Protocol pollution limits which allowed them to increase their pollution by ten percent from 1990 levels in light of the aluminum smelter project, allowing them to emit 1.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year until 2012.[36]
In the capital of Iceland, Reykjavik, more than 10,000 people marched against the Karahnjukar Dam Project in May 2004, which is equivalent to around ten-million people in the United States.[37] Following the emergence of widespread opposition in Iceland, Alcoa released a “Sustainability Initiative” as an attempt to quiet the environmental opposition. The “Sustainability Initiative,” however, mainly outlined future projects that Alcoa wished to pursue, the economic benefits which were possible, and why Alcoa was an environmentally friendly company in light of the fact that they ran aluminum factories on geothermal energy and not coal, claiming that 1.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide is released for every metric ton of aluminum produced compared to 13 metric tons a coal operated smelter would produce. [38]
Sustainable development is defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development as, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[39] According to this definition, it is obvious that the Karahjukar Dam project is not a form of sustainable development. It is also obvious that while the Karahjukar Dam project may meet the needs of the present (that is, if we define “needs” in terms of economic gain), it causes irreversible environmental damage for future generations. Currently, Iceland is considered one of the countries that have been the hardest hit by the economic crisis that has swept the world beginning in the fall of 2008. Many Icelandic politicians are now focusing their blame for the rapid decline in the Kroner’s value to the rapid economic boom that followed the industrialization of Iceland’s wilderness. It is apparent that, whether you define gain in terms of sustainable development or capital gain, since entering Iceland, Alcoa has produced neither.
According to the Treadmill of Production, it is the prospect of economic gain that drives citizens, corporations and governments to turn to unsustainable means, which in turn has a paradoxical affect in that it will eventually not be good for anyone involved, aside from the few that gain the quickest capital. In Iceland, however, it has been outlined since the beginning of negotiations with Alcoa that the economic benefits of such projects as the Karahnjukar Dam Project were unknown. This is due to the fact that the capital gain for Iceland is reliant both on the market price of aluminum (which is at present very low) and in turn how much demand there is for the aluminum. While it is debatable how many jobs Alcoa has actually provided for Icelanders, in order to profit, Iceland has to be selling Alcoa the power to produce aluminum, which in turn is reliant on global aluminum demand.[40]
Glitnir, which was one of the largest banks in Iceland before it was nationalized—along with three other banks—in 2008 following the economic crisis, released the following statement regarding the Karahnjukar Dam Project in 2006: “Economic benefits are probably out-weighed by the developments’ indirect impact on demand, inflation, interest rates and the ISK exchange rate.”[41] More recently, the former Prime Minister of Iceland, Geir H. Haarde, said in a television interview for a popular evening discussion show entitled Kastljosid, “one of the main reasons for the fall of the Krona was execution of heavy industry projects.” This is also consistent with a statement released by the Iceland Nature Conservation Association in which they say that the Karhnjukar plant is not “financially viable when value based on market rates.” [42]
Regarding the jobs that Alcoa promised Icelanders: there are as yet no obtainable statistical data that offers the exact number of employment offered or lost because of the Karahnjukar Dam project. However, both the National Daily Newspaper of Iceland, Morgunbladid, and the Saving Iceland website have reported that while Alcoa increases jobs, they displace existing local industries, which could account for the increase in people moving to Southern Iceland from the Eastern part where the Karahnjukar Dam project is based. In response to the lack of interest from Icelanders to work at the actual aluminum smelters or work building the Karahnjukar Dam, Alcoa hired a foreign contracting agency, Impregilo, to recruit foreign workers, which brought a huge influx of immigrants into Iceland. [43]
The environmental impact of the Karahnjukar Dam is enormous; the power plant itself is the largest industrial development in Iceland’s history. The Iceland Nature Conservation has reported that the prospective aluminum smelter projects will devastate 3 percent of Iceland’s landmass, and will lay ruin or severely affect sixty waterfalls. This is not including the secondary impact of windblown dust, long-term erosion, downstream or costal slit and soil deposits, alterations in groundwater characteristics in peripheral areas with resulting changes in vegetation and wildlife habitats.[44]
The direct impact area is 1,000 sq. km. and includes the area of two of three major glacial river systems that flow north from Vatnajokull, the largest glacier in Europe. It is this area, including catchments north of it, that comprises one of the largest remaining wilderness areas of Europe. Some of the animals whose habitats will be severely affected include geese, reindeer, harbor seals, and rare invertebrate species. Furthermore, there have been widespread reports that the pollution emanating from the smelters causes damage to livestock (from the fluorine pollution) and crops of neighboring farms. The possible side-effects of the electromagnetic fields emanating from the projects’ 31 miles of high-tension power lines are unknown. The smelters also release potentially acid-rain producing sulfur dioxide.
II. Iceland and the EU ETS
The European Union (EU) defines Iceland as “a country with deep democratic roots and a tradition of good governance, high social and environmental standards and historically close ties with many European countries.”[45] Iceland has been involved with the EU since its conception. In 1970, Iceland became a member of The European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and joined the bilateral Free Trade Agreement with the EEC in 1972. Though not part of the European Union, Iceland has already integrated many of the EU laws to fit national laws following the establishment of the European Economic Area (EEA) in 1994. The agreement was between member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Community, which would later become the European Union.[46] In short, the EEA agreement allows Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway to participate in the EU’s single market without any obligation of becoming an EU member. In exchange, the countries must adopt all EU legislation pertaining to the single market, except that which relates to agriculture and fisheries. The agreement grants citizens of membership countries the right to travel and work freely throughout other membership countries.
Yet, despite a large portion of EU laws that have been applied, and Iceland’s involvement with numerous EU agencies and programs encompassing the fields of enterprise, environment, education and research, the Icelandic government is still unable to vote on EU legal resolutions (which in turn effect those EU laws they have adopted) because they are not officially a member of the EU. In addition, two-thirds of Iceland’s foreign trade is with EU Member States.
Despite Iceland’s 2008 financial crisis, subsequent nationalization of the banking system, and devaluation of the national currency, the European Union maintains that Iceland’s “economic base remains strong and the prospect of EU membership is expected to have a stabilizing effect on the Icelandic economy.” [47]
EU appears eager to receive Iceland as a member, further exemplified by the European Commission’s amendment to the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance so as to include Iceland as a beneficiary, a move meant to assist Iceland financially to ensure the country can be fully prepared to “take on the obligations of membership of the European Union by the time of accession.” [48]
Iceland applied for membership to the EU in July 2009, negotiations started in July 2010 and the EU has opened accession talks. On June 17, 2010, the European Council announced it was ready to open accession negotiations with Iceland. On July 26, 2010, the EU Negotiating Framework was adopted, which “outlines principles, substance and procedures guiding the negotiations with Iceland, thus paving the way for upcoming accession talks between Iceland and the EU.” The first inter-governmental conference on the accession of Iceland to the EU was then held in Brussels on July 27, symbolizing that accession talks had officially begun.[49]
Currently, progress has halted because the EU has demanded that Iceland resolve the continued dispute with the UK and the Netherlands over the money lost when the online Icesave bank collapsed in 2008.[50] Icelanders rejected a payment plan in a referendum held in March 2010. The UK and Dutch governments want Iceland to reimburse $5 billion that they paid as compensation to Icesave investors.[51] The EU also expects Iceland to implement more regulations on the financial system in order to qualify for membership. [52]
In 2005, the EU launched a new program, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are the only member states who are not part of the European Union, but are members of the EEA. [53] A study in 2008 for the Pew Center for Global Climate Change by A. Denny Ellerman and Paul L. Joskow of MIT concludes that, given the start-up challenges, “the [EU ETS] system has performed surprisingly well.”[54]
The EU ETS is the most far-reaching example of greenhouse gas emissions trading in the world. The system encompasses the emissions from power plants and six major industrial sectors, including oil, iron and steel, cement, aluminum, and airline pollution. Phase I of the EU ETS was coined the “learning phase” and ran from 2005 through 2007. The second phase coincides with the compliance period of the Kyoto Protocol from 2008-2012. The third phase is planned to run from 2013 through 2020.
Joining the EU will ensure vital legal restrictions on excessive external exploitation of geothermal extraction[55] through the full implementation of the EU Environmental Trading Scheme (ETS).[56] Fully implementing the EU ETS would also give Iceland further incentive to ease their dependency on renewing business contracts with Alcoa, and the planned expansion of aluminum smelters throughout Iceland[57], which has a devastating impact on local farming communities. However, Iceland will not join the EU unless Icelanders support it in a referendum, which may be held in late 2011 or early 2012. According to three polls conducted by Gallup between May and September 2010, between 54 and 69 percent of those asked oppose Iceland joining the EU.[58]
Two-thirds of Iceland is almost, or completely, devoid of vegetation. Glaciers cover some 11 percent of the country, and rivers and lakes another 2.2 percent. Approximately 27 percent of the land area has vegetation, about one-third of which is wetland.[59] According to guidelines set forth by the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the purpose of green house gas, land use, land-use change and forestry (GHG LULUCF) accounting, wetlands “include land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of the year (e.g. peatland) and that does not fall into the forest land, cropland, grassland or settlements.”[60] The biggest source of carbon on land is found in wetlands. Through draining and degradation, wetlands become a net source of greenhouse gas emissions. The Karanhnjukur dam project, as well as numerous other current, and proposed, projects throughout Iceland—such as in Eyarfjordur, Husavik and Myvatnsveit—are also examples of the continued need to increase political and public support for the restoration of wetlands.
Lack of vegetation, coupled with the densely populated coast (the center of Iceland is uninhabitable), lead to the draining of much of Iceland’s wetlands in the 20th Century. Studies from Iceland’s University of Agriculture show that there are considerable C02 emission from these drained areas, but that by blocking draining ditches and raising water levels, a large amount of the biodiversity can be restored, and the C02 emissions significantly reduced, if not stopped entirely.[61]
The data collected shows that the emissions reduction potential through wetland restoration in Iceland is equitable to half the country’s overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In other words, the restoration would restore almost half of the annual combined emissions from fossil fuel (such as from cars) and industrial process (such as an Alcoa smelter).[62] The report concludes, “Clearly, this means that there is high technical mitigation potential in wetland restoration in Iceland, which could be utilized by providing incentives,” while noting that, “It is economically, politically and technically impossible to restore all disturbed wetlands to their former state,” as much of the land has been converted to agricultural space.[63] A national program is most likely to work, and meet the least amount of opposition, if it focuses only on land that has been abandoned or neglected.
While the main intent for implementing wetland restoration at a national level is environmental, the main incentive is economic. The first phase of such a program, however, will cost money; it requires a focus on establishing, and improving upon, land inventory, in addition to deciding upon a methodology of evaluations.
A proposal drafted by the Icelandic Ministry for the Environment, and presented at the 2008 United Nations Convention on Climate Change, outlines the global importance of executing wetland restoration. The report states: “The technical mitigation potential for drained and damaged wetlands, including peatlands, would appear to be sizable on a global scale, perhaps equivalent of up to 10% of global emissions, counting emissions from wooded peatlands,” but admits that due to geographic and population limitations, most countries have lower mitigation potential than Iceland. The report also states that Iceland suffers from a “small-economy syndrome,” which means that single projects, such as the Karanjukar dam, can have a big effect on emissions. Accordingly, it is estimated that approximately 10% of Iceland’s national greenhouse gas emissions come from the heavy industry projects, such as the Karahnjukar dam and Reykjanesbaer aluminum smelter.[64]
To illustrate the pragmatism of utilizing wetland restoration as a means of meeting international GHG agreements, the report draws on similar guidelines presented under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. These guidelines state that Annex I countries must include the C02 effects of management of existing forests (as opposed to wetlands) in their national greenhouse gas inventories. The offsets of the forest emissions can in turn be used as carbon credits which fulfill their terms of the Kyoto commitments. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations estimates that forest and wetland restoration can produce C02 credits worth hundreds of millions of euros.[65] The system used by the Kyoto Protocol for member countries to meet their carbon commitments is analogous to how European Union member states can approach the implementation of wetland restoration as a means of meeting annual EU ETS emissions requirements.
In another proposal presented by representative from Iceland’s Ministry of the Environment, a Kyoto Protocol Workshop in Bonn on March 27, 2009 concludes that it is a realistic goal to aim for a 50-70 percent emissions cut by 2050 through the implementation of wetland restoration. The report draws on conclusions by an unnamed “committee of experts” who assess Iceland’s mitigation potential.[66]
All studies put forth by Iceland’s Ministry of the Environment conclude that increased emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane caused by degradation, can be in the least halted, at the most reversed, through wetland restoration.
(a) wetlands restoration initiatives are lacking at present.[67]
Recommendation for Iceland to restore drained and degraded wetlands as means of reducing carbon, nitrous oxide and methane from the atmosphere. Also a proposal of an additional way for countries to meet their EU ETS mitigation commitments.
Aside from heavy industry executed by means of utilizing geothermal energy, fisheries[68] are the next largest driver of the Icelandic economy. Fisheries account for 15 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and 75 percent of the nation’s goods exports. Agriculture represents only 3 per cent of GDP, but produces sufficient meat and dairy products to satisfy domestic demand. [69]
(a) Challenges – public opposition. In order to restore fishing stocks, there must be strict government regulation. But citizens and politicians are also wary of outside intervention in national fishing matters, and fears are often publicly expressed that joining the EU will cause outside intervention in national quota laws[70]. Public distrust is exemplified by a long history of fishing “wars” with the United Kingdom, most famously the Cod-wars[71]. Currently, Iceland is engaged in a dispute with Scotland and the Faeroes over mackerel.[72]
(b) Legal history[73]
(c) Recommendation to restore fishing stocks through stricter regulation, while simultaneously ensuring that national laws are in place that protects Iceland’s fishing interests before the country joins the EU.
Bibliography
Alcoa, “Aluminum Plant in Reydarfjordur,” Alcoa, www.alcoa.com/iceland/ic/pdf/2006_08_eia_english.pdf (July 2006).
Alcoa, “Sustainability Initiative; Measuring Alcoa and Landsvirkjun Performance,” Alcoa, www.alcoa.com/iceland/en/pdf/Iceland_Sustainability_Final_Report.pdf (April 2005).
Alcoa, “Alcoa’s Fjardaal Team; Project Overview and Icelandic Travel Guide,” Alcoa, www.go2go4.com/simply/portfolio/…/ALCOA/pdf/Alcoa_Fjardaal_Team.pdf (January 2004).
Althingi.is, “Lagasafn,” Althingi.is, http://www.althingi.is/vefur/lagasafn.html
BBC News, “1975: Attack on British vessels heightens Cod War,” BBC News, http://
news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_2546000/2546045.stm (no publication date listed).
BBC World News, “EU Enlargement: The Next Eight,” BBC World News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11283616 (November 11, 2010).
BBC News, “Scottish fishermen are to boycott a meeting in the Faroe Islands over the host country’s decision to unilaterally increase mackerel quotas,” BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11199799 (September 6, 2010).
BBC News, “Faroes and Iceland urged to back down over mackerel,” BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11199799 (August 24, 2010).
Brown, Ian T., “Many Icelanders Keen on Adopting Euro, Mixed on EU,” Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/118381/icelanders-keen-adopting-euro-mixed.aspx (May 27, 2009).
Del Giudice, Marguerite, “Power Struggle,” National Geographic Magazine, http://
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/iceland/del-giudice-text (March 2008).
Eckstein, Anne, “EU/Iceland: Fisheries a Hot Issue in Membership Talks,” Europolitics, section No. 4018, July 13, 2010.
Eckstein, Anne, “EU/Iceland: Fisheries a Hot Issue in Membership Talks,” Europolitics, section No. 4018, July 13, 2010.
Eckstein, Anne, “Fisheries: Mackerel: Reykjaviki Rejects EU Proposals,” Europolitics, section No. 4076, November 4, 2010.
The Economist, “Crack in the Crust; Iceland,” The Economist, Briefs, December 13, 2008.
The Economist, “All Things to Althinigi; Iceland and the European Union,” The Economist, Europe, July 25, 2009.
Ellerman, Denny and Paul L. Joskow, “The European Union’s Emissions Trading System in Perspective,” Washington D.C.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, May 2008.
European Union, “The European Economic Area,” European
Union, http://eeas.europa.eu/eea/
European Commission, “Iceland and EU Relations,” European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/iceland/relation/
index_en.htm
European Commission, “Guidance on Interpretation of Annex I of the EU ETS
Directive (excl. aviation activities),” http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/docs/
100318_guidance_interpr_annex_i_final.pdf (March 18, 2010).
Morgunbladid, “Forsetar Raeddu Orkumalin,” Morgunbladid,” Morgunbladid, http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2010/09/19/forsetar_raeddu_orkumalin/ (September 19, 2010).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “FAO Country Profiles, Iceland,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index.asp?lang=en&iso3=ISL&subj=4
Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol, “Compilation of Pledges for Emissions Reductions and Related Assumptions Provided by Parties to Date and the Associated Emission Reductions,” Bonn: Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awg12/eng/inf01.pdf (June 1-11, 2010).
Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Executive Summary of the National
Communication of Iceland,” submitted under Articles 4 and 12 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, unfccc.int/cop5/resource/docs/nc/ice01.pdf (May 15, 1996).
Gallup, “Many Icelanders Keen on Adopting Euro, Mixed on EU,” Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/118381/icelanders-keen-adopting-euro-mixed.aspx (May 27, 2009).
Gross, Daniel, “Iceland’s Green Man; How a Tiny Island Nation Weaned Itself off Fossil Fuels and Took the Lead In Alternative Energy,” The Economist, Environmental & Leadership section, Vol. 151, No. 18, May 5, 2008.
Gudmundsdottir, Bjork, “After Financial Meltdown, Now It’s Smeltdown: The Men Who Made Iceland Go Cap In Hand To The IMF Are Now Bent On Ruining Its Landscape,” Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviornment/2010/oct/12/iceland-banks-geothermal-economic (February 2009).
Gould, Kenneth A. and Tammy L. Lewis, Twenty Lessons in Environmental
Sociology, England: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Gupta, Harsh and Sukanta Roy, Geothermal Energy: An Alternative Resource for the 21st Century, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2006.
Haarde, Geir, “Kastljosid 1. April 2008,” Youtube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6qZJJFpOI (accessed November 24, 2010).
Iceland’s Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, “Index of Laws and Regulations,” http://eng.idnadarraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations/ (access November 24, 2010).
Iceland Review Online, “Pollution In Smelters Damage Teeth in Sheep, Iceland Review Online, http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=309548 (July 27, 2008).
Iceland Review Online, “Heavy Industry Projects Have Low Returns, Displace Jobs,” Iceland Review, http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=183691 (accessed November 24, 2010).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (2006).
Jakobsdottir, Steinnun, “Best of Karahnjukar,” The Reykjavik Grapevine, http://www.grapevine.is/Features/ReadArticle/Best-of-Karahnjukar (accessed November 24, 2010).
Kägi, W. and H. Schmidtke, “Who Gets the Money? What Do Forest Owners in Developed Countries Expect from the Kyoto Protocol?” Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0413e/a0413E09.htm
Landbunadur.is, “Third Informal Dialogue on LULUCF,” Landbunadur.is, http://landbunadur.is/landbunadur/wgrala.nsf/key2/hhjn7etf6x.html (May 9., 2008).
Legal Week, “Emerging Steps Do Little For Icelandic Confidence,” Legal Week, October 15, 2009.
Magnusson, Arni, “Glitnir; Sustainable Banking,” United Nations website, www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/…/23_magnusson.pdf (accessed November 24, 2010).
McFarlane, Andrew, “Why Is Britain Braced for a Mackerel War?” BBC World News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11062674 (September 6, 2010).
Ministry for the Environment, Iceland, “Legislation,” Ministry for the Environment, Iceland, http://eng.umhverfisraduneyti.is/legislation/
Ministry of the Environments, Iceland, “Wetland Restoration and Management,”
for AWG-KP 6, part I meeting in Accra, unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/iceland.pdf (August 2008).
Ministry for the Environment, Iceland, “Wetland Restoration; A Proposal for an Amendmentto Decision 16/CMP.1 on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry adopeted by Decision 11/CP.7,” Ministry for the Environment, Iceland, www.coford.ie/iopen24/pub/workshop-Iceland.pdf (March 13, 2009).
Ministry for the Environment, Iceland, “Economic Analysis of Climate Change Mitigation Potential” Bonn: KP Workshop, http://www. unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/ application/pdf/1_8_iceland.pdf – 2009-03-28 (March 27, 2009).
Ministry for the Environment, Iceland, “Iceland’s Target in the Copenhagen Accord,” Ministry for the Environment, Iceland, http://www.unfccc.int/files/meetings/application/pdf/icelandcphaccord_app1.pdf – 10k – 2010-04-30 (March 4, 2010).
Morgunbladid, “40 lögreglumál vegna stóriðjumótmæla,” Morgunbladid,
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2008/09/03/40_logreglumal_vegna_storidjumomaela (September 5, 2008).
Neelman, David, “Grimsson Says Iceland Seeks Solution in Depositor Spat: Video,”
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/14/
VI2010091407299.html (Septmeber 15, 2010).
Nature Conservation of Iceland, “Cronology of Karahjukar Project,” Iceland’s Nature Conservation, http://www.inca.is/articlesiv2.asp?ID=9
Nature Conservation of Iceland, “Tilaga Natturuverndarsamtaka Islands ad Athugasemdum til Skipulagsstofnunar,” Nature Conservation of Iceland, http://www.natturuverndarsamtok.is/natturuvernd/page.asp?ID=2522 (July 10, 2010).
Nature Conservation of Iceland, Baraclays and the Karahjukar Dam Project,” Iceland Nature Conservation, www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/barclays_karahnjukar.pdf (2006).
Nature Conservation of Iceland, “Af sumarhúsastóriðju við Úlfljótsvatn,” Iceland’s Nature Conservation, http://www.natturuverndarsamtok.is/natturuvernd/page.asp?ID=2584 (accessed May 26, 2006).
Óskarsson, Hlynur and Skarphéðinn Halldórsson, “Áhrif framræslu á útskolun
kolefnis úr mýrarjarðvegi,” Landbunadur Haskoli: Hvanneyri, http://www.landbunadur.is/landbunadur/wgsamvef.nsf/8bbba2777ac88c4000256a89000a2ddb/452123f0cb2a457600257102004864aa?OpenDocument
Reykjavik: BÍ, LbhÍ, L.r., S.r., (2006).
Official Journal of the European Union, “Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC,” Official Journal of the European Union, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:275:0032:0032:EN:PDF (October 13, 2003).
Piore, Adam and Stefan Theil, “Hydrogen Economy,” Special Report; page 60, April 8, 2002.
Reuters, “Iceland panel wants charges over 2008 bank collapse,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68A1JP20100911 (September 11, 2010).
Saving Iceland, “Help! Nature Under Attack! Stop Destruction of Iceland!” Saving Iceland, http://www.savingiceland.org/sos/ (September 2008).
Schneider, Keith, “Iceland Plans to Withdraw from International Whaling Agreement,” Europolitics, Secion 1; Page 3; Column 1, December 28, 1991.
Sigurjónsson, Júlís, “Forsetar Raeddu Orkumalin,” Morgunbladid,” http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2010/09/19/forsetar_raeddu_orkumalin/ (September 19, 2010).
Sigurlaugsson, Thorsteinn, “Karahnjukr Dam Project, Estimation of Profitability,” Prepared for the Iceland Nature Conservation, http://www.inca.is/articlesiv2.asp?ID=9 (Reykjavik, 2008).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Iceland – Economic Analysis of Climate Change Mitigation Potential,” KP Workshop: Bonn, http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/1_8_iceland.pdf (March 27, 2009).
Veal, Lowana, “Iceland Bank on Geothermal For Economic Expansion,” Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/12/iceland-banks-geothermal-economic (October 12, 2010).
Van Treek, Sophia, “Sophia and the EU,” The Reykjavik Grapevine, http://www.grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/Sophia-And-The-EU- (June 23, 2010).
Wit, Ron, Bart Boon, André van Velzen, Martin Cames, Odette Deuber, and
David Lee, “Giving Wings to Emissions Trading: Inclusion of Aviation Under the European Emission Trading System, Design and Impacts,” European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/aviation_et_study.pdf (May 2010).
Washington Post, “Grimsson Says Iceland Seeks Solution in Depositor Spat: Video,” Washington Post Online, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
video/2010/09/14/VI2010091407299.html
[2] Gupta, Harsh and Sukanta Roy, “Geothermal Energy: An Alternative Resource for the 21st Century,” Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2006.
[3] Tronnes, R.G., “Geology and geodynamics of Iceland,” Volcanological Institute, University of Iceland, www3.hi.is/~oi/…/Geology%20and%20geodynamics%20of%20Iceland.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010).
[4] Islandsbanki, “Iceland Geothermal Energy Market Report,”Islandsbanki, www.islandsbanki.is/…/2010%200419%20Iceland%20Geothermal%20Energy%20Market%20Rep… (accessed December 1, 2010).
[5] Gudmundsdottir, Bjork, “After Financial Meltdown, Now It’s Smeltdown: The Men Who Made Iceland Go Cap In Hand To The IMF Are Now Bent On Ruining Its Landscape,” Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviornment/2010/oct/12/iceland-banks-geothermal-economic (accessed October 18, 2010).
[6] Veal, Lowana, “Iceland Bank on Geothermal For Economic Expansion,” Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/12/iceland-banks-geothermal-economic (accessed October 18, 2010).
[7] Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, “A Clean Energy Future for The United States: The Case of Georthermal Power,” testimony by the President of Iceland at a US Senate Hearing, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, September 26, 2007, http://www.forseti.is/media/files/testimony.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010); Saving Iceland, “Help! Nature Under Attack! Stop Destruction of Iceland!” Saving Iceland, http://www.savingiceland.org/sos/ (accessed October 18, 2010).
[8] Iceland Review Online, “Pollution In Smelters Damage Teeth in Sheep, Iceland Review Online, http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=309548 (accessed October 18, 2010).
[9] “EU Enlargement: The Next Eight,” BBC World News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11283616 (accessed September 14, 2010).
[10] Neelman, David, “Grimsson Says Iceland Seeks Solution in Depositor Spat: Video,” Washington Post Online, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/14/VI2010091407299.html (accessed September 24, 2010).
[11] “Many Icelanders Keen on Adopting Euro, Mixed on EU,” Gallup,” http://www.gallup.com/poll/118381/icelanders-keen-adopting-euro-mixed.aspx (accessed October 5, 2010).
[12] Wit, Ron, Bart Boon, André van Velzen, Martin Cames, Odette Deuber, and
David Lee, “Giving Wings to Emissions Trading: Inclusion of Aviation Under the European Emission Trading System, Design and Impacts,” European Commission, May 2010,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/aviation_et_study.pdf (accessed October 8, 2010).
[13] Sigurjónsson, Júlís, “Forsetar Raeddu Orkumalin,” Morgunbladid,” http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2010/09/19/forsetar_raeddu_orkumalin/ (accessed September 19, 2010).
[14] “Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC,” Journal of the European Union, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:275:0032:0032:EN:PDF (accessed September 14, 2010).
[15] Del Giudice, Marguerite, “Power Struggle,” National Geographic Magazine, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/iceland/del-giudice-text (accessed September 22, 2010).
[16] Brown, Ian T., “Many Icelanders Keen on Adopting Euro, Mixed on EU,” Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/118381/icelanders-keen-adopting-euro-mixed.aspx (accessed October 5, 2010).
[16] As proposed, but never implemented, by Icelandic parliament for AWG-KP 6, part I meeting in Acura 2008.
[17] Van Treek, Sophia, “Sophia and the EU,” The Reykjavik Grapevine, http://www.grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/Sophia-And-The-EU- (accessed October 18, 2010).
[18] “Legislation,” Ministry for the Environment, Iceland, http://eng.umhverfisraduneyti.is/legislation/ (accessed October 5, 2010).
[19] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Iceland – Economic Analysis of Climate Change Mitigation Potential,” KP Workshop, Bonn, 27 March 2009, http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/1_8_iceland.pdf (accessed October 18, 2010).
[20] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “FAO Country Profiles, Iceland,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index.asp?lang=en&iso3=ISL&subj=4 (accessed October 18, 2010).
[21] McFarlane, Andrew, “Why Is Britain Braced for a Mackerel War?” BBC World News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11062674 (accessed August 25, 2010); BBC News, “Faroes and Iceland urged to back down over mackerel,” BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11199799 (accessed September 10, 2010); BBC News, “Scottish fishermen are to boycott a meeting in the Faroe Islands over the host country’s decision to unilaterally increase mackerel quotas,” BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11199799 (accessed September 10, 2010).
[22] The Cod wars, or Þorskastríðin, was a series of territorial confrontations in the 1950s and 1970s regarding fishing rights in the Atlantic between the United Kingdom and Iceland. In 1976 Britian deployed naval vessels within the disputed waters and Iceland treatened to close the major NATO base in Keflavik—the dispute ended shortly thereafter.
BBC News, “1975: Attack on British vessels heightens Cod War,” BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_2546000/2546045.stm (accessed September 22, 2010).
[23] Schneider, Keith, “Iceland Plans to Withdraw from International Whaling Agreement,” Europolitics, Secion 1; Page 3; Column 1, December 28, 1991; Eckstein, Anne, “EU/Iceland: Fisheries a Hot Issue in Membership Talks,” Europolitics, section No. 4018, July 13, 2010; Eckstein, Anne, “Fisheries: Mackerel: Reykjaviki Rejects EU Proposals,” Europolitics, section No. 4076, November 4, 2010.
[24] Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol, Bonn 1-11 June, 2010. “Compilation of Pledges for Emissions Reductions and Related Assumptions Provided by Parties to Date and the Associated Emission Reductions.” http://www. unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awg12/eng/inf01.pdf (accessed November 17, 2010).
[25] Gross, Daniel, “Iceland’s Green Man; How a Tiny Island Nation Weaned Itself off Fossil Fuels and Took the Lead In Alternative Energy,” The Economist, Environmental & Leadership section, Vol. 151, No. 18, May 5, 2008.
[26] Nature Conservation of Iceland, “Tilaga Natturuverndarsamtaka Islands ad Athugasemdum til Skipulagsstofnunar,” Nature Conservation of Iceland, http://www.natturuverndarsamtok.is/natturuvernd/page.asp?ID=2522 (accessed November 17, 2010).
[27] Alcoa, “Alcoa’s Fjardaal Team; Project Overview and Icelandic Travel Guide,” Alcoa, www.go2go4.com/simply/portfolio/…/ALCOA/pdf/Alcoa_Fjardaal_Team.pdf (September 2003).
[29] Iceland’s Nature Conservation, “Af sumarhúsastóriðju við Úlfljótsvatn,” Iceland’s Nature Conservation, http://www.natturuverndarsamtok.is/natturuvernd/page.asp?ID=2584 (accessed November 24, 2010).
[30] Del Giudice, Marguerite, “Power Struggle,” National Geographic Magazine, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/iceland/del-giudice-text (accessed September 22, 2010).
[31] Iceland Review Online, “Heavy Industry Projects Have Low Returns, Displace Jobs,” Iceland Review, http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=183691 (accessed November 24, 2010).
[32] Iceland’s Nature Conservation, “Chronology of the Karahjukar Project,” Iceland’s Nature Conservation, http://www.inca.is/articlesiv2.asp?ID=9 (accessed November 24, 2010).
[33] Morgunbladid, “40 lögreglumál vegna stóriðjumótmæla,” Morgunbladid, September 2008, http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2008/09/03/40_logreglumal_vegna_storidjumotmaela (accessed November 17, 2010).
[34] Iceland’s Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, “Index of Laws and Regulations,” http://eng.idnadarraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations/ (access November 24, 2010).
[35] Iceland’s Nature Conservation, “Chronology of the Karahjukar Project,” Iceland’s Nature Conservation, http://www.inca.is/articlesiv2.asp?ID=9 (accessed November 24, 2010).
[36] Ministry for the Enviornment, Iceland, “Economic Analysis of Climate Change Mitigation Potential” KP Workshop, Bonn, 27 March 2009, http://www. unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/1_8_iceland.pdf – 2009-03-28 (accessed November 17, 2010).
[37] Jakobsdottir, Steinnun, “Best of Karahnjukar,” The Reykjavik Grapevine, http://www.grapevine.is/Features/ReadArticle/Best-of-Karahnjukar (accessed November 24, 2010).
[38] Alcoa, “Sustainability Initiative; Measuring Alcoa and Landsvirkjun Performance,” Alcoa, www.alcoa.com/iceland/en/pdf/Iceland_Sustainability_Final_Report.pdf (accessed November 24, 2010).
[39] Quoted by Gould, Kenneth A. and Tammy L. Lewis in Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology, England: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[40] Sigurlaugsson, Thorsteinn, “Karahnjukr Dam Project, Estimation of Profitability,” Prepared for the Iceland Nature Conservation, http://www.inca.is/articlesiv2.asp?ID=9 (accessed November 24, 2010).
[41] Magnusson, Arni, “Glitnir; Sustainable Banking,” United Nations website, www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/…/23_magnusson.pdf (accessed November 24, 2010).
[42] Haarde, Geir, “Kastljosid 1. April 2008,” Youtube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6qZJJFpOI (accessed November 24, 2010).
[43] Morgunbladid, “40 lögreglumál vegna stóriðjumótmæla,” Morgunbladid,
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2008/09/03/40_logreglumal_vegna_storidjumomaela (Accessed October 28, 2010).
[44] Iceland Nature Conservation, Baraclays and the Karahjukar Dam Project,” Iceland Nature Conservation, www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/barclays_karahnjukar.pdf (accessed November 24, 2010).
[45] European Commission, “EU-Iceland Relations,” European Comission. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/iceland/relation/index_en.htm (accessed November 2, 2010).
[46] European Union, External Action, “The European Economic Area,” European Union, http://eeas.europa.eu/eea/ (accessed November 17, 2010).
[47] European Commission, “EU-Iceland Relations,” European Comission. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/iceland/relation/index_en.htm (accessed November 2, 2010).
[48] European Commission, “EU-Iceland Relations,” European Comission. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/iceland/relation/index_en.htm (accessed November 2, 2010).
[49] European Commission, “EU-Iceland Relations,” European Comission. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/iceland/relation/index_en.htm (accessed November 2, 2010).
[50] “Grimsson Says Iceland Seeks Solution in Depositor Spat: Video,” Washington Post Online, accessed September 24, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/14/VI2010091407299.html
[51] “Iceland panel wants charges over 2008 bank collapse,” Reuters, Accessed September 12, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68A1JP20100911
[52] “EU Enlargement: The Next Eight,” BBC World News, accessed September 14, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11283616
[53] European Commission, “Guidance on Interpretation of Annex I of the EU ETS Directive (excl. aviation activities),” http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/docs/100318_guidance_interpr_annex_i_final.pdf (accessed December 1, 2010).
[54] Ellerman, Denny and Paul L. Joskow, “The European Union’s Emissions Trading System in Perspective
[55] “Forsetar Raeddu Orkumalin,” Morgunbladid,” accessed September 19, 2010, http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2010/09/19/forsetar_raeddu_orkumalin/
[56] “Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC,” Official Journal of the European Union, accessed September 14, 2010, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:275:0032:0032:EN:PDF
[57] “Power Struggle,” The National Geographic Magazine.,” accessed September 22, 2010, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/iceland/del-giudice-text.
[58] “Many Icelanders Keen on Adopting Euro, Mixed on EU,” Gallup,” accessed October 5, 2010, http://www.gallup.com/poll/118381/icelanders-keen-adopting-euro-mixed.aspx
[59] Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Executive Summary of the National Communication of Iceland, “submitted under Articles 4 and 12 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 15, 1996 unfccc.int/cop5/resource/docs/nc/ice01.pdf (accessed November 17, 2010).
[60] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,” www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (accessed November 24, 2010).
[61] Óskarsson, Hlynur and Skarphéðinn Halldórsson, “Áhrif framræslu á útskolun kolefnis úr mýrarjarðvegi,” http://www.landbunadur.is/landbunadur/wgsamvef.nsf/8bbba2777ac88c4000256a89000a2ddb/452123f0cb2a457600257102004864aa?OpenDocument (accessed December 2, 2010), Reykjavik: BÍ, LbhÍ, L.r., S.r., 2006
[62] The calculations in the report by Óskarsson and Halldórsson were made using Tier-1 methods from IPCC 2006 Guidelines. The emissions are 1,788,106 tons of CO2 eq, (1,468,106 tons from CO2 and 320,106 tons from N2O).
[63]http://www.landbunadur.is/landbunadur/wgsamvef.nsf/8bbba2777ac88c4000256a89000a2ddb/452123f0cb2a457600257102004864aa?OpenDocument (accessed December 2, 2010), Reykjavik: BÍ, LbhÍ, L.r., S.r., 2006
[64] Ministry of the Environments, Iceland, “Wetland Restoration and Management,” for AWG–KP 6, part I meeting in Accra, August 2008, unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/iceland.pdf (accessed November 17, 2010).
[65] The principles guiding the activity would be those listed in Decision 16/CMP.1 as outlined by Kägi , W. and H. Schmidtke, “Who Gets the Money? What Do Forest Owners in Developed Countries Expect from the Kyoto Protocol?” Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0413e/a0413E09.htm (accessed November 17, 2010).
[66] Ministry for the Enviornment, Iceland, “Economic Analysis of Climate Change Mitigation Potential” KP Workshop, Bonn, 27 March 2009, http://www. unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/1_8_iceland.pdf – 2009-03-28 (accessed November 17, 2010).
[67] 1. “Third Informal Dialogue on LULUCF,” Landbunadur.is, accessed September 14, 2010, http://landbunadur.is/landbunadur/wgrala.nsf/key2/hhjn7etf6x.html
2. “Wetland Restoration; A Proposal for an Amendmentto Decision 16/CMP.1 on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry adopeted by Decision 11/CP.7, “Ministry for the Environment,” www.coford.ie/iopen24/pub/workshop-Iceland.pdf
3. “Informal Data Submission on LULUCF to the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Fuerther Commitments for Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP),” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, accessed September 14, 2010, http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/…/awgkplulucficeland081209.pdf
[68] I use the term ‘fisheries’ to mean both the catching of fish and the processing of fish.
[69] unfccc.int/cop5/resource/docs/nc/ice01.pdf
[70] “Why Is Britian Braced for a Mackerel War?” BBC World News, accessed August 25, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11062674
[71] The Cod wars, or Þorskastríðin, was a series of territorial confrontations in the 1950s and 1970s regarding fishing rights in the Atlantic between the United Kingdom and Iceland. In 1976 Britian deployed naval vessels within the disputed waters and Iceland treatened to close the major NATO base in Keflavik—the dispute ended shortly thereafter. “1975: Attack on British vessels heightens Cod War,” BBC News, accessed September 22, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_2546000/2546045.stm
[72] 1. “European Parliament Could Take Action In Mackerel Fish Row,” BBC News, accessed August 30, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11126330
2. “Faroes and Iceland urged to back down over mackerel,” BBC News, accessed September 10, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11199799
3. “Scottish fishermen are to boycott a meeting in the Faroe Islands over the host country’s decision to unilaterally increase mackerel quotas,” BBC News, accessed September 10, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11199799
[73] “Lagasafn,” Althingi.is, accessed October 4, 2010, http://www.althingi.is/vefur/lagasafn.html
1. European Commission Climate Action, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu/index_en.htm, accessed October 18, 2010.
This website helps me to understand the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). I can access the information of almost everything pertaining to the EU ETS, including recent proposals by other countries and legal amendments. This website publishes estimates, and realities, of the fiscal benefits of implementing the EU ETS. The website also publishes reports, such as the internal working paper released in May 2010 by the European Commission which maintains that the EU member states could profit as much as €26 billion annually by 2020 through auctioning emission permits and as much as €928 million a year by 2012 through the auctioning of permits to airlines, a new addition to the Phase III of the ETS which begins January 2013. There are no specific points of view this website takes other than promoting the EU ETS. I access this website weekly.
2. Swan, Jon, “The Icelandic Rift Industry Versus Natural Splendor in a ‘Progressive’ Nation,” Orion Magazine, March/April 2004, http://www.savingiceland.org/2005/09/the-icelandic-rift-industry-versus-natural-splendor-in-a-progressive-nation-by-jon-swan/, accessed October 18, 2010.
Provides important historical information regarding Iceland’s involvement with Alcoa and the privatization of the geothermal energy. Helps to strengthen my argument on why the further privatization of Iceland’s geothermal energy would be detrimental to Iceland’s economy in the long run, which in turn further justifies my recommendation of the necessity for stricter regulation of geothermal energy. Swan draws on financial data to illustrate why heavy industry weakens the Icelandic currency, and how it contributed to the current financial crisis. Swan also draws on ecological- and case studies to exemplify the long-term dangers of executing heavy industry projects that strip the land of natural resources. I access this website weekly.
3. Iceland Nature Conservation Association, http://www.inca.is, accessed October 18, 2010.
I utilize this as a source for news and policy proposals. This site rounds up national news pertaining to the protection of Icelandic nature. The website helps me to locate the most recent national findings pertaining to the exploitation of Iceland’s natural resources, as well as the national response. Usually, the articles found on this website support more environmental regulation, and favor sustainable approaches to industry, which exclude the involvement of Alcoa. I access this website weekly.
4. BBC World News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news, accessed October 18, 2010.
I utilize this website as a means of monitoring the British take on events that are going on in Iceland. The BBC World News is especially helpful for following coverage of Iceland’s ‘fishing wars,’ and other issues pertaining to fishing stock restoration. I cite many articles from the BBC World News while discussing the necessity of fishing stock restoration. The slant of the BBC articles is arguably more sympathetic to British foreign policy, but the information is factually correct. I access this website weekly.
5. The European Union, http://europa.eu/index_en.htm, accessed October 18, 2010.
I use this website to monitor recent developments within the European Union, especially new legislation and treaties. This offers me a greater understanding of how the EU functions. I access this website bimonthly.
6. Althingi Islands (the Icelandic Parliament), http://www.althingi.is/, accessed October 18, 2010.
This is the official website of the Icelandic Parliament. I use this website to track past and current legislation, as well as to gain insight into current political trends and opinions (usually by listening to the speeches made by the heads of the main political parties). This website is important because it backs up my assertions that Iceland should join the EU as well as utilize wetland restoration as a means of meeting EU ETS emissions requirements because I can hear the politicians discussing the proposals, such as Svandis Svavarsdottir’s address on February 2, 2010 where she urges members parliament and the Environmental Planning Committee to seriously consider a complete restructuring of environmental- and energy policies in preparation for Phase III of the ETS, drawing a connection between the current financial crisis in Iceland and their involvement with heavy industry. Her speech, and other findings, helps to strengthen my thesis claim that Iceland must restructure the wetlands and fully embrace the EU ETS. (Svavarsdottir is the chair of the Left-green movement which currently holds parliamentary majority. She is also the Minister of the Environment.) I access this website biweekly.
7. Umhverfisráðuneytis (The Ministry of Environment), http://www.umhverfisraduneyti.is/, accessed October 18, 2010.
I utilize this website as a reference for environmental legislation in Iceland, as well as a source for current proposals and reports. I access this website weekly.
8. Landbúnaður (Ministry of land-use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF)) , http://landbunadur.is/landbunadur/wgsamvef.nsf/key2/index.html, accessed October 18, 2010.
I utilize this website as a reference for current legislation pertaining to the land-use in Iceland. It is a vital source for current wetland restoration proposals. I can also track the history of land permits, which helps me to understand Iceland’s history with Alcoa. I access this website bimonthly.
9. Saving Iceland, www.savingiceland.org, accessed October 18, 2010.
I utilize this site as a source for news. The web site rounds up international news pertaining to Iceland’s involvement with international corporations involved with the privatization and exploitation of natural resources. This website also helps to further my argument of why Iceland must protect its natural resources as a means to ensure biodiversity and fiscal independence. The material found on the website is always sympathetic to the environment, and critical of heavy industry and foreign control of natural resources. I access this website weekly.
10. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Iceland – Economic Analysis of Climate Change Mitigation Potential,” KP Workshop, Bonn, 27 March 2009, http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/1_8_iceland.pdf, accessed October 18, 2010.
A policy proposal that evaluates the environmental and fiscal motivations for why Iceland, and other small countries with industry, should focus on wetland restoration as a means of meeting their yearly EU ETS emissions requirements. Includes the scale and cost of mitigation actions, and justifications for adopting such measures. The proposal outlines why wetland life restoration is productive as a means to meet the yearly carbon emissions quota (as applicable to member states of the EU ETS), and why/how adopting such measures will promote sustainability initiatives while simultaneously generating money.
11. Tuerk, Andreas, ed. Linking Emissions Trading Schemes. London: Earthscan Publications, 2009.
This is a collection of essays by different scholars and politicians throughout the world. The articles outline how different countries are implementing the EU ETS. The research included in this book examines the economic, political and institutional implications of implementing the EU ETS. All of the articles are analytical, but some are more critical than others. The collection is most helpful to me because it explores different approaches to implementing the EU ETS, as well as how countries can link their approaches to make the ever-evolving EU ETS scheme more efficient.
12. Freestone, David and Charlotte Streck, eds. Legal Aspects of Carbon Trading: Kyoto, Copenhagen and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
This book embraces the EU ETS, exploring the main legal issues which are raised by the explosion of carbon finance, that is the EU ETS. In addition, the Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms are explored, which further my understanding of how wetland restoration can be applied as a means of meeting annual carbon caps. The book also gives a superb background of the EU ETS. Unlike many other sources, this one explores in detail the one of the newest phases of the EU ETS, the aircraft emissions scheme, as well as the latest mitigation actions that countries are taking in light of the increased climate change worries.
© 2024 Honors Thesis Colloquium 2010-11 Powered by WordPress MU
Entries
and comments
OceanWide made by Romow.com. Hosted by Macaulay Eportfolio Community
