Bjork, Icelandic Singer and…Venture Capitalist?
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
Tho' they have deep, deep structural problems with their economy; compared to the Icelanders the British were sensible with credit. I'd wish them luck sorting it out but they don't need it, they'll have their act together long before we do.
Edit: I had written something much more critical before, but maybe Iceland needs the morale boost. It's unclear to me how $800k is going to save Iceland's economy through feminine values and environmentalism, but maybe it could work. However, I think it's more likely that Iceland will simply be forced to compromise and pay its debt for the next several decades selling energy and toxic dumps to smelt aluminum. I hope that they can do so without sacrificing their environment and culture entirely.
I already pity the scabs the heavy foreign industry will be pressuring to emigrate to Iceland...
I'd love to emigrate to Iceland. They have the great policy of requiring immigrants to take on Icelandic names, I've wasted considerable time looking at the list and wondering what mine would be :-)
I think it's more likely they'll get loans from a coalition of Scandinavian nations and perhaps forfeit some political/economic independence rather than allow the predators in.
Nonsense. I've been there for 3 years, begged to be called Stebbie because it sounded more like my name than when they try to pronounce Esteban (they always stress the first syllable), to no avail.
Truly great place to live, though.
Ok, what do I have?
Girl power, Gaia worship, $800k, and Bjork. You have one year to make 61 billion dollars, and you can't exploit any natural resources.
Oh God...
I won't comment on the image and dignity aspects of this statement, that's not my specialty. However, the idea that green tech will be an economic winner is still magical thinking, a largely unproven assumption. Most green tech is still a money pit, and near 100% of it would be if not for massive government subsidies. And if you're not eligible for US or European subsidies, then you're probably not going to make money in green tech.
Also, Iceland has not only geothermal potential, but hydroelectric potential.
In short, Iceland is an potential industrial wonderland ---and all powered "green" tech, too. However, just because one isn't burning coal doesn't mean that industry is consequence free. The problem isn't environmental as I understand it, it's cultural. Icelanders pride themselves as an extremely educated, egalitarian nation. They don't want their nation polluted with the socioeconomics of heavy industry including unskilled labor, pollution, obvious social classes, foreign industrial oligarchs, and, yes, the non-Icelandic. To them, the heavy industry is tacky and crass, just like how McDonald's advertising on elementary school textbooks would be to us. Both are examples of "economical effectiveness," but neither are widely appreciated by people who would know better to choose otherwise.
For example, a MMO that will soon have as many paying subscribers as Iceland has inhabitants:
How much heavy industry do you really need to support a country of ~300.000 inhabitants, with a culture of work, integrity, ambition and optimism, abundance of geothermal energy sources, a healthy fishing industry and a touristically attractive landscape?
Also, you're right about economic opportunities that don't involve the environment, but "green" refers to technologies that replace or amortize polluting analogs, not just anything that doesn't contribute much pollution.