Smári McCarthy`s blagoblag on Yaxic.org

Margur spyr sig hvort lífræn ræktun borgar sig. Í greininni Organic agriculture and the global food supply eftir Perfecto, et al, eru rannsakaðar 293 uppskerur sem nota ýmist lífrænan eða ólífrænan áburð í bæði þróunarlöndum og þróuðum löndum. Þar kom í ljós að þróunarlönd gætu að jafnaði haft meira upp úr notkun lífræns áburðar en ólífræns en öfugt sé farið að jafnaði með þróaðari lönd.

Ennfremur sýnir rannsóknin að ef alfarið væri skipt í lífræna ræktun á heimsvísu myndi matvælaframleiðsla heimsins vel duga fyrir alla íbúa jarðar, jafnvel þótt íbúafjöldinn aukist verulega.

Þá gætu mörg þróunarlönd á borð við Cameroon og Mali allt að sexfaldað uppskeru sína með því að nota lífrænar ræktunaraðferðir.

Eftir allt hafarí síðustu ára liggur við að hvert mannsbarn á Íslandi þekkji framleiðsluferli áls að einhverju leyti: Bauxít, álríkt málmgrýti sem er aðallega fenginn úr yfirborðsnámum í Ástralíu, Kína, Brasilíu og nokkrum öðrum löndum, er flutt til annarra landa þar ýmist orka eða vinnuafl er ódýrt, þar sem hún er hreinsuð með gríðarlega orkufreku ferli: fyrst er málmgrýtið hitað í þrýstitönkum upp í 150-200°C og blandað við natríum hýdroxíð (svokallað Bayer ferli) og þannig er rauðleitur leir að nafni gibbsít einangrað. Gibbsítið er svo hitað upp í 1000°C, en þá bráðnar það, og þá er það rafgreint með ærnum tilkostnaði með svokölluðu Hall-Héroult ferli. Einhver afbrigði af þessu ferli eru til og margt fleira sem kemur til, en þetta er sæmileg nálgun.

En hér skal staldrað við. Hví bauxít? Aðeins lítið brot þess áls sem finnst á jörðinni er bundið í þessa tilteknu gerð málmgrýtis, en stærsti hlutinn er bundinn í mun algengara grjóti á borð við andalúsít, kyanít og öðrum alúmínósilikötum. Eina raunverulega ástæðan fyrir því að bauxít er notað er vegna þess að úrvinnsluferli þess hefur verið mest notað sögulega og var eitt af þeim fyrstu sem uppgötvaðist.

Önnur aðferð sem hefur verið mun minna notuð var þróuð til að vinna ál úr leirtegund sem heitir kaolín. Grundvallaratriðið í þeirri aðferð er að hægt er að sleppa rafgreiningu alfarið og ná álinu með einföldu efnaferli: Leirinn er mulinn og hann kalsíumbættur við c.a. 750°C. Því næst er vítissódi blandaður við það og álið flýtur upp. Ferlinu er lýst mun nánar í Bandarísku einkaleyfi 4388280, sem rann út árið 2003, en auðvitað eru svo til fræðibækur sem lýsa þessu líka.

Hvort að þessi aðferð skili frá sér minna af gróðurhúsalofttegundum og annarskyns mengun en rafgreiningarferlið veit ég ekki, en þó tel ég það víst að þar sem að þetta ferli er mun orkusparnara væri hægt að reisa álver án þess að þurfa að reisa stórar raforkuvirkjanir.

 

Ekki það að við þurfum neitt á fleiri álverum að halda. Í skjölum frá Century Aluminum sem ég kom höndum yfir fyrir nokkrum mánuðum (látum það liggja milli hluta hvernig það átti sér stað) kom skýrt fram að í dag væri framleiðslugeta þeirra frekar langt umfram eftirspurn á heimsmarkaði, og var eingöngu vegna framleiðslutaps í Kína árið 2006 sem þeir náðu að halda niðri vörulager sínum. Væntanlega verður töluvert framleiðslutap á þessu ári líka, en miðað við 7% árlega aukningu á eftirspurn á áli á heimsvísu – tala sem þeir gefa sér – munu þeir samt ekki lenda í framleiðsluvanda fyrr en eftir tæpan áratug. Svipaða sögu má sennilega segja af Alcoa og öðrum álrisum.

Í dag er áætlað að hvert mannsbarn í Kanada standi fyrir um 27 kílóa neyslu á hreinu áli á ári. Miðað við sömu neyslu hér á landi má gera ráð fyrir að á meðalævi, um 80.7 ár skv. Hagstofu Íslands, sé hver einstaklingur ábyrgur fyrir um 2,2 tonnum af áli. Sú tala heldur áfram að hækka. Bandaríska stofnunin CRI áætlar að aðeins um 52% álumbúða fari í endurvinnslu á lífsferli sínum, en miðað við að um 20% áls fer í umbúðir af þessu tagi er hægt að búast við um 220 kílóum af áli sem má finna í sorpgryfjum landsins fyrir hvern einstakling á Íslandi eftir tæp hundrað ár.

220 kíló af hreinu áli, urðað. Það er slatti.

 

Mannkynið reiðir sig í sífellt auknum mæli á ál sem eitt af undirstöðuefnum samfélagsins. Þó tekur það senn að breytast vegna framfara í koltrefjaefnum. Koltrefjar eru mun léttari og sterkari en ál, og hafa auk þess meiri tilheygingu til að sveigjast en að brotna – gjarnan er talað um að efnið sé meira “lifandi”, jafn asnalega og það hljómar. Þetta þýðir þó að flugvélar á borð við nýju Boeing 787-Dreamliner vélina, sem smíðaðar eru úr koltrefjum í stað áls, eru í fyrsta lagi mun léttari, og í annan stað eru mun minni líkur á að eitthvað brotni í þeim. Dreamliner þoturnar eru með það sveigjanlega vængi að ef að vélin lendir einhverra hluta vegna í frjálsu falli geta vængirnir svignað þar til þeir snertast fyrir ofan vélina, sem er mun jákvæðari hegðun en að þeir brotni hreinlega af.

Sömuleiðis eru bílar sem smíðaðir eru úr koltrefjum mun þolnari gagnvart árekstrum. Minniháttar dældir laga sig bara. Auk þess, við árekstur, þá tekur koltrefjagrind á sig mikið af afli árekstursins eins og hlaup, sem eykur öryggi bílstjóra og farþega til muna. Brotþol koltrefja er um tólf sinnum meiri per fermeter en í stáli. Það hvað koltrefjarnar eru léttar gerir það einnig að verkum að eldsneytisþörfin er mun minni. Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) áætlar í bók sinni, Winning the Oil Endgame, að eingöngu 6% afls í venjulegum bíl fer í það að koma bílstjórnaum milli staða – afgangurinn er varmatap í vél, núningur bílsins við jörðina, og svo afl í að yfirvinna massa bílsins sjálfs. Með því að gera bílinn 50% léttari mætti minnka eldsneytisþörf um 68% samkvæmt RMI.

 

Íslendingar hafa verið á álfylleríi í langan tíma og það er byrjað að hafa verulega slæmar afleiðingar fyrir okkur með tilliti til efnahags, mengunarmála og ímyndar Íslands út á við. Nú finnst mér vera tvennt skynsamlegt í stöðunni. Annað væri að taka nýjum álverum með miklum fyrirvara og leggja áherslu á að skoðuð séu mun vistvænni og orkusparneytnari framleiðsluferli á þeim álverum sem nú eru til – það ætti ekki undir nokkrum kringumstæðum að vera nauðsynlegt að reisa fleiri vatnsfallsvirkjanir á Íslandi á næstu áratugum, enda ætti frekar að reyna að minnka orkuþörf fyrirtækja og heimila. “Mjúk orka” er ódýrari fyrir alla.

Í bókinni Small is Profitable sýnir höfundurinn, Amory Lovins, með afgerandi hætti að engin raforkuvirkjun sem framleiðir meira en 100 MW hafi nokkurntíman verið arðbær til lengri tíma litið þó svo að skammtímaávinningurinn sé ef til vill nokkur. Kárahnjúkavirkjun hefur rafmagnsframleiðslugetu upp á 780 MW, og miðað við samninga ríkisins við álrisana væri allótrúlegt ef að kostnaðurinn við að reisa virkjunina myndi skila sér til baka á líftíma hennar.

 

Hitt, sem væri hægt að gera, væri að skoða möguleika á að stofna koltrefjaverksmiðjur á Íslandi. Framleiðsla koltrefjaefna er raunar í dag frekar óvistvænt ferli, en eflaust mætti bæta það mjög mikið með góðu hugviti. Það væri firra að reiða efnahag Íslands á ál nú þegar koltrefjar hafa möguleika á að taka við af stórum hluta þeirra verkefna sem ál er notað í.

Svo auðvitað mætti líka spyrja sig hvort að stóriðja sé nokkuð svo sniðug. Minni framleiðslueiningar og staðvær framleiðsla eru hugmyndir sem hafa margsannað sig á síðustu áratugum. Þessi tilhneyging til að vilja hafa allt stórt er byggt á þeim algenga misskilningi að stofnkostnaður sé fasti eða vaxi mjög hægt þegar skalað sé upp, eins og allir starfsmenn fyrirtækisins Goretex gætu útskýrt mjög vel.

Margar mítur eru til, sérstaklega hvað snýr að iðnaði. Ef að það er einhver lexía sem við hefðum öll gott af því að læra, þá er það að mjög mikilvægt sé að spyrja sig réttu spurninganna. Hvað stóriðnað, virkjanagerð og mengunarmál varðar á Íslandi þá hafa menn verið að spyrja kolrangra spurninga allt of lengi.

Nokkrar heimildir og ýtarefni:

• Small is Profitable eftir Amory Lovins (PDF)
• Winning the Oil Endgame eftir Amory Lovins (PDF)
• CRI - Aluminum recycling rate
• National Encyclopedia - South Africa - Mining
• Extraction of Aluminum from Clay - US Patent 4388280
• Hall-Héroult process - Wikipedia
• Hagstofa Íslands
• “Vafasöm gögn” frá Century Aluminum
• Viðtal við Marcin Jakubowski: Global Swadeshi Dialogues 1
• Samtal við Marcin Jakubowski, Open Farm Tech
• Myndir: Ýmsar heimildir. Afsakið höfundarréttarbrotin.

Samkvæmt rekstrarkostnaðarlíkani FÍB má gera ráð fyrir að einkabíll sé ekinn um 30000 km á ári að jafnaði. Fjöldi skráðra einkabíla á Íslandi 31. desember 2000 var 158936 og hefur aukist verulega síðan. Í gær hækkaði verð á bensínlíter um 6 krónur, sem þýðir að hækkunin í gær, m.v. 9.5 lítrum á hundraðið sem meðaleyðslu á bensíni, hljóðar upp á 7.5 milljónir króna á dag í aukaleg rekstrarútgjöld fyrir Íslenska einkabílaflotann.

Það eru um 2.7 milljarðar á ári.

Nú mætti ef til vill skoða það fyrirfram að spara um 27 milljarðar til tíu ára miðað við engar hækkanir á bensínverði með því að fjárfesta 10 milljörðum í að breyta helming bílaflotans í vetnis-, metans- eða rafmagnsbíla og koma fyrir áfyllingastöðvum fyrir allt ofangreint um allt land. Skynsamlegt? Já.

(ATH að hér er BARA verið að tala um sex krónu aukninguna frá því í gær!)

My friend and colleague Friðrik Björgvinsson did an interesting paper on the fuel expenditure of the Icelandic fishing fleet compared to the amount of fish caught. He focused on capelin (mallotus villosus), but I have recently seen a different paper with a similar result for cod.

According to Friðrik’s data, over a six year period the Icelandic fleet spent 5.204.249 liters of oil fishing for capelin, and caught over the same period 209.803.115 kilos of capelin, giving on average 40,31 kilos of capelin for each liter of fuel. The paper goes more deeply into monthly averages and shows trends in fuel consumption and relative efficiency, which can be used to try and heighten efficiency by fishing on particular months more than others.

Considering the price of oil is one way to view this. Another way would be to look at the carbon footprint involved on a per kilo scale. 0,02 liters of oil for each kilo gives us, assuming diesel @ 2,772 kg CO2/liter, roughly 69 grams of CO2 emitted per kilo of fish.  Oddly enough, this number increases almost tenfold for cod (I’ll post exact numbers when I have them handy).

Calculating the environmental impact of food production is something that needs to be done regularly, and figuring out new ways to improve efficiency and reduce waste - both greenhouse gas emissions and all other kinds - are paramount to our survival as a species. Iceland currently has one ship that runs off hydrogen fuel cells, but it’s a whale watching boat. Two quick suggestions would be to fit ships with wrankel engines and throughflow tesla turbines to improve efficiency of fuel expendature and to utilize the laminar forces of the sea against the hull when at speed, and secondly to consider deploying high altitude kites as a propulsion method.

There’s a lot of graffiti in Reykjavík’s city center these days. I decided to send an e-mail to Reykjavík city council’s department of environmental issues. Here it is (Icelandic):

  Ekki þarf að ganga langt um miðborg Reykjavíkur í dag til þess að rekast á ótal dæmi um veggjakrot. Magn veggjakrots hefur aukist töluvert á undanförnu og vel þess virði að spyrja sig hvort ekki sé tímabært að gera eitthvað í málinu.

Kannski er réttara að byrja á því að spyrja sig hvers vegna það er mikilvægt að gera eitthvað í málinu. Jú, þetta er ljótt og skapar mjög ófagra ímynd fyrir miðborgina, en það er meira.

Rannsóknir sálfræðingsins Phillip Zimbardo á stýriþáttum atferlis benda mjög sterklega til þess að hægt sé að hafa áhrif á tíðni stærri glæpa með því að útiloka minni glæpi. Svo vitnað sé í grein eftir Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point (sem nú er bók):

“In a famous experiment conducted twenty-seven years ago by the Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo, a car was parked on a street in Palo Alto, where it sat untouched for a week. At the same time, Zimbardo had an identical car parked in a roughly comparable neighborhood in the Bronx, only in this case the license plates were removed and the hood was propped open. Within a day, it was stripped. Then, in a final twist, Zimbardo smashed one of the Palo Alto car’s windows with a sledgehammer. Within a few hours, that car, too, was destroyed. Zimbardo’s point was that disorder invites even more disorder-that a small deviation from the norm can set into motion a cascade of vandalism and criminality. The broken window was the tipping point.” [Gladwell 1996]

Hér er um sama fyrirbærið að ræða. Afskiptaleysi húseiganda og stjórnvalda í Reykjavík gagnvart þeim minniháttar glæpum sem veggjakrot og rúðubrot eru hefur skapað umhverfi þar sem minniháttar glæpir þrífast og erum við að verða komin að faraldspunktinum.

Því vil ég leggja til vil borgaryfirvöld að gripið verði til aðgerða, og þau hús í miðborginni sem eru til óprýðis verði máluð upp á nýtt og brotnar rúður lagaðar. Tímaramminn til að framkvæma svonalagað er stuttur, því ef þetta er gert í áföngum er ekki öruggt að þetta eigi eftir að bera árangur. Hugsanlega er best að niðurgreiða málninguna fyrir húseigendur, en það má spyrja sig hvort það sé nægileg hvatning að þeirra hálfu til þess að taka þátt í hreinsunaraðgerðum. En hvernig sem það verður þá er mjög líklegt að fjárfesting í nokkur hundruð lítra af málningu eigi eftir að skila sér margfallt til baka í minni rekstrarkostnaði hjá lögreglu (að þurfa að sinna ýmsum smáglæpum), umhverfishreinsun (t.d. brotnar flöskur o.þ.h.) og almennt glaðlyndari íbúum (sem leiðir til ómælanlegra áhrifa í hagkerfinu).

Hopefully it will spur the right kind of response. Generally I think it is far better to nudge the variables than to use reactionary means like Reykjavík’s police has been doing for months, when they decided to deploy swat officers in the city center during weekends to make sure people don’t urinate on the streets or break bottles. Expensive, authoritarian, and extreme overkill.

I got e-mailed an Icelandic translation of the talk Miriam Rose did at the Reykjavík Academy on the 20th of November. Miriam was one of the people who protested the Kárahnjúkar dam project up until the last minute, and she managed to get arrested, stored in solitary confinement for 8 days and almost deported from Iceland for no more than disobeying the Police - something most people simply get slapped on the wrist or at most fined for around here.

Miriam is a member of the Saving Iceland movement. I’d like to say that although I very much agree with their cause and support it wholeheartedly, I firmly disagree with a lot of their methodology, especially with regards to acts of sabotage. (In fact, a friend of mine calls it a “terrorist organization”, which I find stupid - there’s no such thing as terrorist organizations. It’s not like a group of people sits down one day and decides to become terrorists just for kicks. Rather, it’s people fighting for a cause, and such people sometimes resort to violence. This aspect is, as a rule, ignored in western media.) I maintain that destruction, being the opposite of creation, is always the wrong way to do things, and therein it is imperative that we do not break laws in the name of justice - as is pointed out in the speech, law and justice are too different concepts altogether - but rather be subversive and find ways to give the wrongdoers a taste of their own medicine. The system the tyrants have concocted makes this difficult, but beating people at their own game is always the sweetest of all victories.

Now, with that caveat out of the way… well. Miriam’s speech is extremely good. (The Icelandic translation by Eiríkur Örn Norðdahl is almost flawless too, although his translation of “spin doctor” was lax..)

Miriam graciously allowed me (and everybody else) to republish the talk, saying that there is a recording and she’s going to try and get it for me. I’ll post a link when it becomes available.

Here it is:

---

For those of you who don´t already know me, my name is Miriam Rose, and I am an activist and environmental scientist from the UK. I have been asked to speak today on my experience of the basic values of Icelandic society, based on an interview I did on Kastljos in October, after I was threatened with deportation from Iceland for my part in actions against the heavy industry policy of your government. The letter of requested deportation which I received explained that I may be expelled from Iceland for a minimum of three years as my behavior constitutes a ‘threat to the fundamental values of society’.

In the interview I noted how telling I thought this choice of words, and raised the question: What are the fundamental values of Icelandic society? It seems that free speech, equal rights and the right to protest are not amongst them, so what does this sentence say? To me it revealed a very simple truth about the nature of the decision. I had questioned the right of market and economic values to dominate society and nature, through the policy of heavy industrialisation. In this accusation it was made painfully clear that these are the ‘fundamental values’ of today’s Icelandic society even at the expense of human freedoms, and those who question such values are not welcome here. I will go on to explore this hypothesis tonight.

Iceland is a country with a proud history and belief in strong democracy and human rights. It is certainly perceived from the outside as a country with a representative and refined democratic system, and peaceful and humanist values. But what are these basic values we are so proud of maintaining in such a developed society? There are two essential building blocks of commonly percieved fundamental values of society- the fundamental human rights and the basic democratic values. I will go on to examine some of these values in detail, in relation to their applications in modern Icelandic society.

Developed democracies claim to value above all the basic human rights; free speech, equal rights, freedom of movement etc. Rights that were defined by hundreds of years of social struggle against repressive regimes, for equality and freedom, and are now enshrined into UN conventions and government constitutions to put our minds at rest.

So let us start with equal rights, perhaps the most fundamental of these values, assumed by all and part of our everyday rhetoric on the advantages of western democracy. But how are our equal rights monitored and enforced? Well, if we feel we have been treated unequally our first stop is the law courts, designed to check the application of such rights and deliver justice. It is well known that our ability to be represented in the courts requires and depends on money; good lawyers, payment of court fees, time off work etc. So this system is fundamentally flawed and unequal.

Secondly it is the duty of governments and companies to practice and ensure equal rights in their policies and actions. But will they really do this at the expense of enormous profit margins? Big corporations and state economies operate by using cheap labour and products from countries with dubious human rights to give their customers cheap ‘value-added’ goods. Value in this sense means only the size of the dent in the purse, not the rights of those whose slave labour creates it.

To confuse the matter of equal rights further, the use of human rights terminology must also be monitored, as its original purpose is misused and mistreated in the court room. The European Court of Human Rights has in several cases awarded corporations the human rights of individuals. The idea is that by acting against a corporation, you are acting against its shareholders and their fundamental human rights. (ie by blockading a MacDonalds truck you restrict the freedom of movement of its shareholders). Even these conventions now serve to protect the rights of big business and capital growth, and do not represent the voiceless majority as they were intended.

In Iceland there is considerable evidence of terrible mistreatment of foreign workers at Karahnjukar dams. Illegal workers brought by construction company Impregilo had almost no rights in Icelandic society, and reports of deaths at the work site are accused of being grossly underestimated. They received no justice or equality here. The Icelandic state ignored this ill-treatment in favour of the profits promised by powerful companies like ALCOA, (and perhaps also in fear of speaking against corporations with such highflying connections).

Personally I have experienced considerable inequality in my treatment here. This summer i was sent directly to prison after being notified of a fine for disobeying the police. In contrast to the norm I was given no time to pay the amount and no right to appeal in the courts, and was sent immediately to prison where I was kept in isolation for 8 days, as there was not space in the womens prison for me. While inside I was told by the prison guards that this was very unusual as most women are pardoned a few times before being imprisoned in Iceland, hence the small number of female prisoners. They were quite surprised that a woman convicted of her first and non-violent crime would be treated this way. It seems that this unfair treatment was intentionally harsh as a warning to other protesters that they were not wanted by the state.

Let us move on to free speech. Unlike the controlled media of dictatorships and communist regimes, we pride ourselves on the free and unbiased press of the Western world. But how impartial is it really? Icelandic media is controlled by a few private groups and a small state run element, which accepts private finance. What are their interests? Can company owned and sponsored media really criticise its own, or associated companies, or report fairly on their economic abuses? In whose interest was it that lies about the payment of Saving Iceland activists were published by RÚV and never revoked despite complaints made through all the official channels?

I will use the pertinent form of questioning taken by tribal rights activists in India, whom I have worked with and ask:
Free speech for whom? At what cost?

Thirdly, and in strong relation to my experience, what of freedom of assembly or the right to demonstrate? When our ability to express ourselves through the democratic system or the free media fails, this is an essential human right to test our democracy and the existence of our perceived fundamental human rights and values. On this subject i will read from an essay by booker prize winning Indian author Arundhati Roy:

“The only way to make democracy real is to begin a process of constant questioning, permanent provocation, and continuous public conversation between citizens and the State. That conversation is quite different from the conversation between political parties. (Representing the views of rival political parties is what the mass media thinks of as ‘balanced’ reporting.)

It is important to remember that our freedoms such as they are, were never given to us by any government, they have been wrested from them by us. If we do not use them, if we do not test them from time to time, they atrophy. If we do not guard them constantly, they will be taken away from us. If we do not demand more and more, we will be left with less and less.” (Roy, 2005)

In several instances the Icelandic State has shown its intolerance to the right of freedom of assembly, and to methods of civil disobedience as a form of protest. (Despite huge admiration for the use of these methods in defining our civil rights and freedoms). In 2002 any person suspected of being a member of the Falun Gong (a strictly pacifist human rights movement), were arrested or denied entry into Iceland at the request of a corrupt and internationally frowned upon government. (China.)

As a personal anecdote, I often use an example from my treatment here last summer. After being arrested and taken to Eskifjorður police station after a protest action, I found myself very thirsty while held in one of the small hot cells. When I knocked on the door to ask for a glass of water (my constitutional right) I was told, “You lost your rights when you broke the law!” and denied the water. This incident highlights to me the mentality of absolute lack of acceptance of the validity of this form of protest, and the lack of respect of human rights by those who´s job it is to protect them. (The police.)

We suffer from an obsession with the ’sacred’ nature of the law, which denies us the right to challenge laws, ask who they are there to protect, and allow society to change and grow as it has historically by the use of these methods.

Having examined some of the main human rights let us now turn to the fundamental values and building blocks of democracy, the pride of Iceland´s history as the first truly democratic nation. Democracy is based on; participation (of people in the system), representation (of the people by politicians) and accountability (of decisions taken to the people). By examining these elements I will present the idea that real democracy has been replaced by an ‘illusion of democracy’, manufactured by PR experts and spin-doctors who now hold such an important place in the workings of our governments. In fact many western governments (including Iceland) rely on this illusion to maintain a fairly silent and disinterested population, who don’t question a so-called democratic system which benefits big business and capital growth at the expense of all else (the environment, civil liberties etc).The use of rhetoric has confused the ‘free-market’ with the freedom of the people, suggesting that an open economic environment means an open society, and disguising the loss of civil liberties and democracy that march hand in hand with such unchecked and unquestioned capital growth.

First let us examine participation. In this the democratic systems we use are fundamentally flawed. In the 2003 Icelandic elections 33.7% voted Independence party, 31% voted for the Alliance (social democrats), and 17% voted Progressive. In the following coalition, not only did just 34% vote for the winning party, but a party with only 17% support achieved huge shared power in government. This was the coalition who went on to repeatedly deny requests for an open vote on Kárahnjukarvirkjun.

Secondly we may examine representation and accountability. Once elected it seems that ministers have a clean bill to do what they (and their interest groups) want without any accountability to, or representation of the people who put them there. In 2003 Prime Minister David Oddsson and Foreign Secretary Halldor Ásgrimsson, allied Iceland to the war in Iraq without the consultation of the people or even the government. This decision was vastly against public opinion. It was not representative and against the parliamentary rules and the constitution, which state that such issues must go through the foreign affairs commitee (which it did not). The Penal Code states that anyone who challenges the fairness of the Icelandic state as defined in the constitution is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Were they tried on this crime? No. Representation and accountability failed here as in so many cases.

Again, when the legal system and democracy has failed to hold the government accountable, protest is the only avenue for justice. In 2006 fifteen thousand people marched in towns and cities around Iceland in protest of the drowning of Kárahnjukar, to no effect. It is no wonder that people feel powerless with these methods of protest, and turn to direct action and civil disobedience to challenge decisions made in their name.

Some would even say that corporations have more power than people and even politicians in Iceland. Since we have seen the connection between money and power, it is clear that enormous monopolies like ALCOA, Baugur group, RioTinto and the KolKrabbin hold much. And how are they held accountable? DECODE, the owner of almost all Icelandic human DNA are selling off their information to other companies at 60,000 Kr a piece, with no public permission. Meanwhile ALCOA receives energy for many times less than the Icelandic public, an amount so small that Landsvirkjun will not even disclose it.

Again we ask: Representation for whom? At what cost? Democracy for whom? At what cost?

Modern Western democracies (such as Iceland and the UK) rely on a silent and disillusioned population, allowing the passing of controversial policies without check, as we are fooled by the rhetoric of democracy and freedom. Unlike under a harsh dictatorship or tough communism, we are too wealthy and content to question the system that creates our wealth.

On the issue of authority and acceptance, I always find the famous psychological test by Stanley Milgram very interesting. In this experiment a member of the public is asked to participate in a contrived experiment in which they must read out a list of questions to
a second participant (actually an actor) sitting in the next room. When the answerer gets the questions wrong, they must give them an electric shock, the dose of which will increase with each wrong answer until it reaches a red (very dangerous) zone on the machine. The participant can hear the screams of the answerer getting louder and more horrific with each dose. In most experiments the participant complied to a very worrying level of electric dosage and did not question the authority of the white-coated, clipboard holding scientist directing the test. Milgram concluded that the perceived authority of the scientist removed the personal values of the participant to some extent.

He went on to examine how compliance changed with variations to certain aspects of the experiment. He found that compliance dropped dramatically when: a) the scientist did not wear a labcoat or hold a clipboard, b) A third party actor playing another member of the public entered and questioned the validity of the experiment. When related to democracy and societal values, the first instance shows the importance of perceived legitimacy in authority figures, and the need for the PR man to ensure the image keeps the people silent and satisfied. The second element I find most interesting as it shows the huge destabilising force of the dissenting public voice to the illusion of democracy. It only takes one other voice of concern to unmask the powers that be and lead to rejection of the system and re-establishment of personal values. No wonder governments try so hard to quash protest against their contentious policies.

Finally, when asking Icelanders what they consider the basic values of their society, the issue of Independence came up time and time again. It seems that if liberty is the fundamental value of the USA, Independence is that of Iceland. Icelanders are respected worldwide for their rejection of a national army, of the EU, of the globalisation of fishing rights. There is a real, and admirable feeling of the need to be self sufficient as an island state here, even at the cost of expensive fat-cat friendships in Europe and beyond.

Despite this, there is great willingness of the Icelandic nation to accept neo-colonisation of the economy by very few Aluminium corporations, who rip off energy at a fraction of the public cost, burdening the taxpayer and creating economic reliance on so few foreign companies. (ALCOA admitted in a meeting in Brazil that they are paying less than half for Icelandic power, as they will pay for big dam electricity there.) Yet, when foreign activists join Icelanders in opposing this sellout they are shunned and told, ‘it is not your business’.

So it seems that the freemarket, the economy and Iceland’s role in corporate globalisation are the key values of today’s Icelandic society. So we ask once more: Globalisation for whom? At what cost?

Does globalisation mean international free movement of people?
No, not in the case of the Falun Gong, or saving iceland activists repeatedly threatened with deportation.

Does it mean equal respect for all human lives?
Not in the case of the secretive treatment of workers at Karahnjukarvirkjun.

Does it mean meaningful international treatise on climate change, racial discrimination or nuclear weapons?
No, again it doesn’t. Geir H. Harde is even currently trying to weedle his way out of Iceland’s already excessive Kyoto allowances.

And, if these are the values of Iceland, are they really the values of the Icelandic people? Or just those of the powerful few at the head of the decision making process? And if they are not the people’s values, how will the people object to them? How will they regain and redefine the real fundamental values of society? That is the question which faces Iceland and most states today. In a climate where the market God has become almost unquestioned as the basis of our life and values, we must decide whether it is really ok to take the blue pill and settle into the cushioned comfort of the illusion, or gulp the red pill, open our eyes, and set ourselves to unmasking the powers that we must once again wrest our values from.

References:

Roy, Arundhati, 2005. ‘An ordinary persons guide to empire’. Penguin Books, India.

Miriam Rose is also co-author of:

Aluminium Tyrants (The Ecologist)
http://www.savingiceland.org/node/1021

Relevant stories:

The Directorate of Immigration Refuse to Deport Miriam Rose
http://www.savingiceland.org/node/1022

London Protest Against Iceland’s Deportation of Environmental Activists
http://www.savingiceland.org/node/998

Stop Iceland’s Persecution of Environmental Activists - London Demo 2 October
http://www.savingiceland.org/node/988

UK Greens Urge Icelandic Government to Stop Persecution of SI Activists
http://www.savingiceland.org/node/985

UK Greens Back British Environmental Activist Imprisoned in Iceland
http://www.savingiceland.org/node/917

‘Surprise, surprise!’
http://www.savingiceland.org/node/144

---

(Copied from SavingIceland.org, with permission)

Kevin Rudd, the new prime minister elect of Australia, has stated that he intends for Australia to ratify the Kyoto accord. One of the reasons John Howard gave for being unwilling to ratify the Kyoto accord was a very good one, and I fear it may be one that Kevin Rudd is ignoring or simply unaware of. As much as it gladdens me to see somebody with an inkling of sense at the helm of the Australian federal government for a change, I’m slightly wary of where these good intentions may take them.

Australia is a federation of six states and several territories. The overall governance goes through the commonwealth parliament as legislative authority (a bicameral parliament) and the federal executive council as executive authority (the governor-general grants authority to the elected prime minister).

These parties preside over most of the common affairs of Australia, but many affairs such as environmental affairs, have historically fallen squarely to the individual states. There is nothing in the constitution banning the federal government from taking over environmental affairs (there may be some law, but I am fairly unfamiliar with Australian laws), but it’s one of many things where each of the states has commonly had authority.
Section 109 of the Australian constitution provides that, “where a State law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law prevails” to the extent of the inconsistency, so ratification of the Kyoto accord on the large scale would make it a fact on the small scale regardless of the decisions of the individual states.

The thing I’m shaking a finger at isn’t the Kyoto accord - I fully support it although I believe it is far from being enough. What I’m shaking a finger at is that if Kevin Rudd makes a precedence for taking over these typically state-level affairs, he’ll be tipping a lot of the power from the small scale into the large scale in a way that could be damaging in the future.

I would rather suggest that the new Australian federal executive council advise each of the states to ratify the accord individually and then unitedly announce that Australia complies and is willing to take the next step. That would be the democratic way of doing it.

Something similar probably applies here in Iceland. Note how the governments are creating artificial scarcity of some things. Any milk produced without milk quota allowances is considered superfluous and is generally wasted. Great piece over at TreeHugger.

Update: Parliamentarian Katrín Júlíusdóttir sent me an e-mail to notify me that the laws will not in fact take effect after 12 hours but have been postponed until the 1st of November 2009. This happened on the 18th of October, and it obviously slipped below my radar, which is extremely awkward but not at all surprising. So we’ve got another year until this happens, and a lot can happen in a year. Thank you to all those parliamentarians who voted in favor of the postponement.

That said, nobody voted against it, but strangely most of the people who originally supported the bill didn’t show up.

Voted yes: Atli Gíslason, Álfheiður Ingadóttir, Ármann Kr. Ólafsson, Árni Þór Sigurðsson, Ásta Möller, Birgir Ármannsson, Bjarni Benediktsson, Björk Guðjónsdóttir, Björn Bjarnason, Björn Valur Gíslason, Einar Már Sigurðarson, Grétar Mar Jónsson, Guðbjartur Hannesson, Guðfinna S. Bjarnadóttir, Guðjón A. Kristjánsson, Guðmundur Steingrímsson, Helgi Hjörvar, Illugi Gunnarsson, Jón Bjarnason, Jón Gunnarsson, Jón Magnússon, Katrín Júlíusdóttir, Kjartan Ólafsson, Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, Kristinn H. Gunnarsson, Kristján Þór Júlíusson, Kristján L. Möller, Lúðvík Bergvinsson, Ólöf Nordal, Ragnheiður E. Árnadóttir, Þorvaldur Ingvarsson, Ögmundur Jónasson, Össur Skarphéðinsson

No vote: Bjarni Harðarson, Guðni Ágústsson, Höskuldur Þórhallsson, Magnús Stefánsson, Siv Friðleifsdóttir, Valgerður Sverrisdóttir

Away on leave: Árni M. Mathiesen, Ellert B. Schram, Herdís Þórðardóttir, Pétur H. Blöndal, Þuríður Backman

Not present: Ágúst Ólafur Ágústsson, Árni Johnsen, Ásta R. Jóhannesdóttir, Birkir J. Jónsson, Björgvin G. Sigurðsson, Einar K. Guðfinnsson, Geir H. Haarde, Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, Gunnar Svavarsson, Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Karl V. Matthíasson, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, Ragnheiður Ríkharðsdóttir, Sigurður Kári Kristjánsson, Steinunn Valdís Óskarsdóttir, Sturla Böðvarsson, Þorgerður K. Gunnarsdóttir, Þórunn Sveinbjarnardóttir.

And finally I’d like to apologize to those who got mail from me regarding this matter for the spam. I should have done my homework better!

(English version below)

Eftir um 12 klukkutíma verður allt vatn á Íslandi einkaeign, hvort sem það er í föstu, fljótandi eða gufuformi. Vatnið hættir að teljast almenningsauðlind og verður að eign þeirra sem eiga landið sem það er á.

Ég hef barist gegn þessu síðan að lögin voru samþykkt, frægast með grein sem ég skrifaði þann fyrsta maí 2007, þar sem fjölmargir þingmenn rituðu svör og kváðust samhuga mér í þessu máli, þar á meðal Össur Skarphéðinsson iðnaðarráðherra, sem gaf það út í byrjun stjórnartíðar sinnar að hann hugðist taka málið til athugunar.

Ekkert hefur enn gerst. Nú eru tólf tímar til stefnu. Ekki láta þetta enda svona Össur.

---

After roughly 12 hours, all water on Iceland will become private property, be it in solid, liquid of gaseous form. Water will no longer be a common resource of the Icelandic people but will instead be the property of land owners.I have fought against this since the laws were passed a year ago, most notably with an article I wrote on the 1st of May 2007 to which many parliamentarians replied and claimed to be supportive of my cause. Amongst them was Össur Skarphéðinsson, now minister of industry, who at the beginning of his term announced that the matter was being taken under advisement.

Nothing has happened yet. Now there are twelve hours left. Don’t let it end this way, Össur.

According to an article in todays edition of Morgunblaðið, 49.5% of all garbage coming from Icelandic homes is leftover food and newspapers, and in Reykjavík that means several hundred thousand cubic meters more garbage being put into landfills every year. So much for a clean city, eh?

In Reykjavík people are encouraged to have a separate garbage can for paper waste - I have one. All paper waste from these cans is diverted to recycling instead of the landfills, thereby decreasing the total domestic waste by about 26%. Not enough people are doing this, which is odd because not only is it relatively cheap to start to do, but the homes that have waste paper bins get a discount on the garbage collection costs if I recall correctly. It’s a win-win situation.

Food, however, is not being treated very sensibly, with only a fraction of people composting their leftover food. I was meaning to build a compost box back in Vestmannaeyjar when I lived there, but seeing as how I have upwards of eighteen thumbs and until recently almost no knowledge of woodworking (let alone Fab Labs!), the project kept getting postponed.

Promoting this almost 50% cut in waste is something the authorities of Icelandic municipalities should definitely be considering.

By the way, I’d like to remind folks in that business that I am available for consultancy on this kind of matter, but there’s also a lot of extremely talented folks at Umhverfisstofnun that can help folks thread the way through the bureaucracy involved in doing everything here and, well, Get Shit Done.