Victims of Global Warming: The "Lucky Ones" Got Shot
I'm back in Iceland, and although it might seem strange if you are familiar with my previous adventure here in the dead of winter I'm happy to report that July is definitely a better month for visiting than December. No howling winds or pounding rain. Fleece is still the garment of choice but the sun never goes down. I'm here at an annual cradle to cradle conference (well more like a gathering) with eco architect Bill McDonough who first came to Iceland with Benny Goodman thirty five years ago. (Bill put himself through architecture school working as Goodman's chauffeur and the two became good friends.) McDonough is now the leading authority on cradle-to-cradle design in which there is no end to a product's usefulness, everything is continually recycled, eliminating the concept of waste entirely.
The conference schedule in Iceland sure takes some getting used to. Salmon fly fishing by day, lunch at three, dinner at ten, discussion begins at eleven...pm! Ideas really sound good around then. You don't know what a long summer day is until you've spent one in Iceland! Hitting the hay at three in the morning requires an eye mask and heavy drapes.
The most impressive fact about Iceland is that they went from a completely fossil fuel dependent nation to a completely coal independent nation. Not a single chunk of coal is burned for electricity there. Instead, they power their booming economy with renewable geothermal and hydropower (and they heat around 90% of their buildings with geothermal too). (Iceland has no nuclear plants either.) It can be done. They proved it!
But even though Iceland is energy independent, they are seeing firsthand the effects of global warming. Two weeks ago a couple polar bears, sitting atop two separate icebergs drifted all the way from Greenland to Iceland. The first bear was spotted by a ten-year-old girl walking along the beach, and because of its proximity to a farm, it was shot immediately. The second bear, because of the public outcry to the first shooting, had a slight reprieve. An expert was brought in from Denmark to try to figure out how to save it, but ultimately that bear was shot soon after as well.
I heard about this rare occurrence of polar bears drifting to Iceland from the fly fishing guide Hallur Lund (a mechanical engineer during the off season) who thinks global warming is the reason the polar bears ended up in the wrong place. "They would never swim from Greenland to Iceland. No way," Hallur said. If two polar bears hit this tiny little island I wonder how many end up floating past, never bumping into a shore and end up drowning. You could say the two who landed were the lucky ones; at least they found land.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The other answer about the polar bears is that they are increasing in number and need to expand their range to get food and survive. This is actually more likely since polar bear numbers have been increasing over the last 30 years.
Ms. David, how long did it take you to get to Iceland. . . .in your personal Gulfstream? How many tons of CO2 did you spew into the upper atmosphere?
What a bunch of cant-do people. I'm embarrassed to share a nationality with you.
Countries that produce a lot naturally consume a lot of energy. America uses more energy per person because it produces more per person than any other country in the world.
The day you start advocating for nuclear energy (industrialization with no CO2 production) I will start believing that you are more concerned with lowering CO2 production than destroying the economy of America. By the way, have you seen the pollution levels in China -- the US could park every car and close every factory and China would more than replace that CO2 production from 15 years of its growth.
Do you honestly believe that the U.S. produces more energy per capita than the countries of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Dubai, Kazakhstan, Norway, or Venezuela?
Actually we are the can-do people since we are the largest producers of G.E. in the world.
Right back at ya!
Get real. Iceland has a far greater amount of geothermal energy available then Yellowstone National Park. All they have done is take advantage of their greatest natural resource. To that they have also taken advantage of their terrain for hydroelectric power.
If we tapped all geothermal resources in the US, even to the point of stopping all geysers in Yellowstone, and dammed every river for hydroelectric power to the point that the flow of water produced the greatest possible amount of power we still would not be able to produce as high a percentage of our power needs as Iceland does of theirs from those two sources.
However, in the US we have the best location in the world for solar energy and many locations on shore and off for wind power generation. Some studies go so far as to suggest that if developed correctly, our solar capabilities could supply 75% of WORLD electricity needs.
See all of our solar farms? The reality is that we couldn't tap our natural resources because it would upset the oil cartels who own the current administration.
Iceland serves as a beacon for what can be done to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. This story is nothing more or less than an expression of this example.
Power "needs"? Our fossil fuel consumption isn't sustainable under any form of government. I think the issue is really how much should government do to push the nation in the direction of energy independence. And don't tell me driiling for oil in the Arctic will do it. People who say that are the ones that need to get real.
Exactly, Iceland is totally different from the United States, and the rest of the world. If Iceland didn't take advantage of their geothermal energy, they would be stupid.
Get real. Iceland has a far greater amount of geothermal energy available then Yellowstone National Park. All they have done is take advantage of their greatest natural resource.
_______________________________________________________________
While this is true, Iceland's example should teach us to work with the type of alternative energy sources that we have available *here,* and there are a great many.
Not the least of these is wind power. Wind is free, non-polluting and it blows abundantly in most areas of the country. For example, in our nation's capital, the wind coming from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. These 500+ individuals could probably power half the East Coast if properly harnessed, just by continuing to speak as usual.
Now look at all the governors and local representatives in our 50 states. There are probably thousands of them. They may seem to be lesser wind bags than the ones we have in Washington, but how can we know until we hook them to the power grid and see what happens?
Let Iceland have its geothermal energy. We have all the wind we need to free us from oil and coal once and for all.
Wind is fine when its windy. Unless, of course, it is windy and there is a view to be spoiled off Hyanisport. Then it is not so good, eh, Senator?
We may not be able to generate much electricity with geothermal, but we can easily heat and cool buildings with it. There are already about 650,000 of these in the US so it's currently available technology.
http://earthcomfort.com/
http://homerepair.about.com/od/heatingcoolingrepair/ss/heating_types_7.htm
geothermal is available for both purposes. The plant details are all that are different.
Small scale Geothermal installations suitable to support one household can be installed quickly at some expense. This is just one such manufacturer: http://www.geocomfort.com/?page=Products/Residential_Products/index Notice they tell you all about how much you can save with their product per year, but nowhere do they tell how much their product actually costs to buy and install. This is a clue that it is not attractive in upfront cost compared to competing technologies.
Large scale Geothermal power is also real. The plants cost more than conventional power per MWh. his source is VERY optimistic towards geothermal and look at its numbers: http://www.crest.org/geothermal/geothermal_brief_economics.html
I think the entire Bu sh admin should be put on icebergs myself. See what the Icelanders do with them.
Iceland energy independent? So, what the hell does have to do with us? So is Easter Island. The human species faces probably the biggest threat in its history. Solutions must be found and the dialogue should be serious. Automobiles should all be scrapped and recycled into cars that weigh no more than 900 lbs, , are no wider than 4 ft or longer than 6 ft. Our road capacity would double, we wouldn't need any new parking lots and the back half of your garage could hold your pot farm. How about a bit of reality for a change?
"human species faces probably the biggest threat in its history"
No one has demonstrated that Climate Warming which remains within the range of natural variability as demonstrated in the geologic record of the last 2 million years will be in net, harmful to species homo sapiens.
You disagree with this statement of fact? Then produce peer-reviewed scientific proof that such warming will harm the entire species homo sapiens. I think you will be hard pressed to do this.
Don't let the haters get to you Ms. David! Capitalism is killing our planet.
Capitalism is what gave you the means to post this message.
If not capitalism...what form of social organization do you suggest?
And we are not haters!....we are healthy skeptics. I guess you just drink whatever kool-aid they hand you.
hmmm the internet was developed by money provided by the federal government, after which it was used by the private sector. so it was really a cooperative effort by government and business that made this post possible in my opinion.
Check out this article: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWZmZDg4MmZhMDhiY2M5NmUwYmUwNWQzZTZlNTFiMGE=. Evidently Iceland's economy is far from "booming," the polar bears commonly roam to Iceland during years of heavy ice, and it's easy to go geothermal when your country sits on the world's largest volcano. But don't let those truths stop you from spewing propaganda Ms. David.
The economy of Iceland is pretty good considering that like western europe it is being sucked into the economic black hole created by republican leadership in the US. There isn't any heavy ice this year, in fact this year we may see the first ice free arctic ocean. It may have been easy to get off fossil fuel for Iceland because they have lots of geothermal but the important point is that they had the foresight to shift before fossil fuel became an economic anchor. But don't let those truths stop you from swiftboating Iceland.
The G-8, dubbed the "Richest Nations" by today's NYT, issued a statement of their commitment to halve greenhouse gasses by 2050. Notably, China, India, Brazil and others are missing from this group.
There is a grossly astonishing disconnect between the statements of governments and the immediacy of the threat. First, the increasing production of greenhouse gasses by China, India, et. al., offsets by multiples any reductions that could be accomplished by G-8 nations. Furthermore, even if all of the world's developed and developing nations took this pledge, and succeeded in reaching this goal on a 40-year timeline, it would be too late.
Makes one wonder if ultimately, as water sources dry up and crop yields decrease, the G-8 will attempt economic sanctions against China and India if they don't stop building coal-fired plants (with a veiled threat of bombing them if the sanctions don't work).
Don't forget that we have exported most of the production of goods we consume to those nations (China, India). Those goods used to be produced here, and we had the pollution and CO2 production too. It's to be expected that with this global shift in production there is a shift in CO2 production as well.
It's a bit too easy for us to say that they can sell the products of their cheap labor to us but must produce them without side-effects! We wouldn't even know how...
" the G-8 will attempt economic sanctions against China and India if they don't stop building coal-fired plants (with a veiled threat of bombing them if the sanctions don't work)."
And are you prepared to take responsibility for these threats? Are you prepared to carry out these threats if the Chinese and Indians thumb their noses? If the threats are carried out, are you prepared to take responsibility for these acts of war? If the answers to these questions one, or all , are 'no', tthen you'd best not make such a proposal.
Now, where in the quote did you dfvine a veiled threat of bombing anyone? I only read about economic sanctions, which do not, and never have worked, except against South Africa.
"It can be done. They proved it!' -- Yes, it can be done. In Iceland. Probably Hawaii too. But the rest of us?
I've been following Iceland's move to energy independence for a few years, and I'm hoping my native home of Hawaii can follow their example. The key for both, however, are their unending supplies of geothermal energy and water. Most of the rest of us lack those resources, and our ability to tap other renewables is not nearly as efficient as the use of geothermal. For us, it will be a much slower trek as we transition from coal to renewables.
Geo Thermal is possible anywhere I think. My understanding is that if you drill a very deep whole into the Earths Crust you'll hit magma which is a heat source that can help create steam to power turbines that produce electricity.
But then again growing up I heard that if you dig a deep whole you'll hit China
In the U.S., geothermal would be possible only in places where magma is relatively close to the surface, otherwise the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the endeavor become serious issues. Aside from Hawaii, there is also the Yellowstone caldera (unlikely to be exploited due to its NP designation), the Long Valley caldera in California, various locations in the Cascade range and in Alaska (the Wrangell Mountains and the Aleutians). Of these, the most likely candidates to be developed would be Long Valley and Hawaii. What sort of electrical capacity is available I don't know, but it would be good to at least explore the options.
Other countries that could possibly develop substantial geothermal energy are Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, Russia (Kamchatka region), New Zealand, Chile, Peru, and Mexico. All happen to lie on the Pacific 'Ring of Fire'.
Oh, I know you'll hit heat no matter where you drill if you drill deep enough, but you'll notice the other necessary element is water. If I'm surrounded by an ocean and it's being turned to steam anyway, I'm all for tapping that power source. It becomes less practical when you're talking about dumping fresh water down a miles long hole.
environmental terrorism knows no bounds
And neither does idiocy, apparently...
was that meant to be some type of witty retort, or just some ill-placed scorn?
rwe -
Spoken like someone who's been - or was once targeted by eco-terrorists.
You are right on!
Wow a nation of 316,000 people (smaller than how many US cities) and an area of 103,000 km2 is able to provide all of its energy without coal or nuclear plants.
And your point is? We can take what they've learned and start applying it to cities. Is there a reason not to try?
There is no reason not to try, but we should drill too. Do it all so we don't have to be dependent on the middle east for oil
Well, let's see. If you can figure out a way to transform the entire geology of the US then maybe we can "apply" what they learned in Iceland. Laurie conveniently neglects to mention that Iceland enjoys unique and numerous geological advantages (volcanoes, hot springs, steam fields, glacial rivers, and waterfalls) that their tiny population can exploit. Contrary, to Laurie's claims, this does not "prove" anything regarding the efficacy of using renewable energy to solve the energy needs of the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US-geothermal.gif
Here's a geothermal map of the US. Start picking out cities. I call Las Vegas.
Assuming my link posts (frequently they don't) you'll need to cut and paste the whole thing. Huffpo breaks it because of the colon in the middle.
And you're saying that the USA doesn't have the know-how or capability to do the same? How un-American!
Kennedy said, we will put a man on the moon and it was done. If we had the leadership from the top, we would have this nation powered by geothermal, wind, solar, etc within a few years. I'm embarrassed to hear people say that the USA isn't capable of doing this.
If you can show me where I said that, go for it.
And how many of those U.S. cities have accomplished the same?
I thought so...
We've become a "can'd do" nation whose only discernable product is excuses.
Is "not seated on top of a geothermal hot bed" an acceptable excuse? Look if you somehow want to figure that a tiny unpopulated country being able to use geothermal energy means that the USA should be able to snap its fingers and have magic energy generating machines delivered via stork that's great.
Things the US should be doing include expansion of distributed wind and solar. But that's not how Iceland did it, so is it acceptable?
Aunt Sally:
How many of those cities are sitting on the mid-ocean ridge?
Oh, why fuss about those details?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
