Everything is relative. This maxim is never truer than when it comes to weather. Here in New York, we’re, as they say, freezing our back sides off. (Well, most New Yorkers would add a little flavor to that statement). Yesterday I woke up to move the car bright and early, and noticed that the car’s thermometer read thirteen degrees. A short drive away, a bank’s sign claimed the temperature was ten degrees cooler. Whichever one was closest to the actual temperature, my memories of living in Los Angeles, and playing golf in shorts this time of year quickly crept back into my thoughts. But aside from the obvious sigh of relief that the world isn’t quite prepared to end on account of global warming, the cold also got me to thinking about the northern edges of the planet, and what goes on there when it comes to land use. Being back in the Arctic blast zone, I wonder if things are any different “up there,” and search for solace that somewhere it has to be colder than here.
Iceland, a country of fabulous landscapes and a unique cultural heritage, must be colder than New York. And despite having “ice” in its name, well, it’s not necessarily colder. Today’s high temperature in Reykjavik, the capital, is over 30 degrees. That blows that theory. But what about how Iceland grapples with land use questions? In the eastern part of the island country, which is colder than Reykjavik (and the interior highlands being still colder, thank you very much), the aluminum producer Alcoa is constructing an enormous smelting plant. Powered by a hydroelectric power infrastructure constructed specifically for the new facility, Alcoa’s plant will use eight times the nation’s current total electrical consumption. Aside from the environmental imposition on a part of the world where reindeer outnumber people, the plant has spawned a building boom in the existing, surrounding towns. For instance, aside from an increase in the building of new homes, Reydarfjordur, population 650, just had its first mall open in town.
As is always the case when a new project comes to town, not everyone’s happy. In 2001, the project received approval from the central government’s environmental minister, even though the Icelandic Planning Agency rejected the proposal. Citizens have voiced their objections to the plant, from prominent writers and journalists to the locals in the eastern region directly impacted by the facility. Environmental concerns have not been the only basis for opposition. Some believe that bringing in outside corporations as the main economic development tool for the nation hinders the growth of native-bred enterprises. But as with any debate, there must be another side. Alcoa points out that it has the cleanest facility of its type in the world, by a wide margin. Also, Iceland, under the Kyoto Protocol, which regulates greenhouse gas emissions in most parts of the world except the U.S., has ample emission allowances for this project, as well as for the other aluminum plants slated to join Alcoa’s facility in Iceland. Finally, the new plant has already brought increased prosperity for the eastern region. One of the locals in revitalized Reydarfjordur, while shopping at the new mall, explains regarding the plant, “It’s not beautiful, but I accept it because it’s necessary.”
With any land use choice, it’s hard to choose a side, particularly when the stakeholders are all huddled around the Arctic Circle. But even though they’re located in the great north, the issues that impact Icelanders up there are very much like the ones faced down here whenever a new project comes before a planning body’s scrutiny. That same balance between benefits and impacts must be drawn. And especially this time of year, as we “southerners” must don our heavy parkas, it’s that much easier to relate.
No comments:
Post a Comment