Upon our trip to Iceland, Julie and I have observed some disturbing developments with respect to hydroelectricity and the inundation of some beautiful waterfalls and relatively unspoiled wilderness. This is evidenced by our observations at Lagarfoss north of Egilsstadir and the dams in the Hrauneyjar area on the Thjorsa River. And of course, who can forget the highly controversial Karahnjukar Dam southwest of Egilsstadir. There are also several others being proposed or worked on. On the other hand, they've been creative in their ability to harness what's available to them especially when it comes to harnessing geothermal energy.
Still, there has been a history of resource depletion going back to the Saga Days when timber was harvested and exported until the forests were about completely stripped bare. Even today, overfishing is resulting in the decline of many of its fisheries (especially in both the Westfjords and Eastfjords) and it may have even contributed to their decision to resume commercial whaling last year.
And so it begs the question: Does Iceland need to exploit its wilderness for industry, for sustenance, or for tourism?
One of the most memorable yet annoying things about a visit to Iceland is how expensive everything is. Just to give you an idea, you can expect to be paying on the order of $15-25USD for a 12" wheel (or pie as they say in New York) of pizza, $10-20 on hamburgers, over $200/night for a two-to-three star (Eurpoean Standard) accommodation, and $40-70USD for a main dish of fish or lamb at a restaurant. For alcohol, forget it. You'll break the bank.
In any case, one has to wonder why everything there is so expensive. While the obvious answers involve high cost of labor (due to high cost of living), lack of resources (considering their harsh landscape, diminishing resources, soil erosion, etc.), and imports, we still can't figure out why a bag of American-branded Doritos tends to cost less than an Icelandic brand of chips. The cost of living is also no fluke for locals as they must work multiple jobs to pay off their debts (most likely from the purchase of a car, house, usual cost of living, and various luxury items like fancy clothing, cigarettes, etc.). So it started to raise some suspicion about whether the decision to sacrifice waterfalls and wilderness is related to the expensiveness of living here (especially when compared to the far less expensive United States).
After some profound thought on the topic, I think the issue has to do with the global economy perpetuated by the American capitalism of the bottom line. In countries where products are cheap, there is almost always an exploited class of people for cheap labor. In the States, the exploitation goes as far back as slavery but continues with illegal aliens and 3rd world country sweatshops. Similarly in mainland Europe, there is considerable cheap labor to be obtained from Eastern Europe. Such factors are clearly attributable to some seemingly impossible low prices of various merchandise and produce.
Conversely in Iceland, we noticed it was the younger local citizens (as well as some of the older ones) who were put to work. From what we could tell, there was far more limited use of the exploited class. However, it seems the government is on the fence about bringing in cheap foreign labor (such as in the Karahnjukar Project). Moreover, they're also experimenting with sacrificing parts of their vast wilderness in an effort to perhaps export some of their products or at least reduce costs at home. Such developments are probably made to perhaps drive the cost of living a bit lower and make the country more competitive in the global marketplace (especially to attract buyers of their exports). Of course, this comes at the price of their desired independence and self-sufficiency. Still, with these things in mind, it kind of sheds quite a bit of light on the dilemma that the leaders of Iceland face today.
In other industrialized (or "developed") countries, this decision has already been made (you see the results today). It just goes to show you how young Iceland is as an independent country. Moreover, I think with its unique position in Europe as possessing the last remaining tracts of unspoiled wilderness (hence they're numerous wild and humungous waterfalls), they're at a crossroads where their decisions on land usage and management made now will forever impact the fate of their nature as well as the well-being of their country. It's happening before our very eyes!
