7 ms·

Iceland declares ocean-current instability a national security risk

• smyk1777 11mo ago
  I'm glad they took this seriously and considered it important. Maybe the world will finally notice how we're destroying the planet and ourselves, and whether anyone thinks about their children and grandchildren who may live in a world destroyed by generations.
  • avereveard 11mo ago
    Convincing the world seem the hard part. 43% of the forcing greenhouse grasses are currently coming from non amicable regimes. 53% if you include USA, but there's a chance administration is going to change. Beyond declaring what are the small countries options?
    • slashdev 11mo ago
      The same as everyone else’s options. Adapt. There’s no stopping this train.
      • dathinab 11mo ago
        climate change isn't an one/off effect but gradual every bit of improvement is a higher chance to avoid some of the most catastrophic outcomes (where the unlikely but possible worst outcome being a mass extinction chain reaction which humanity will find very very hard to survive in a functioning manner/without losing their future) so still worth fighting for any improvement even if we can't avoid a catastrophe anymore, as there is a huge margin between what we still can archive, and what we might end up with if we stop fighting and are quite unlucky
        • slashdev 11mo ago
          I agree, it's worth doing everything we can. But it's also clear, it won't be enough. Emissions are not only still increasing, they likely won't stop increasing in my lifetime (in the next 50 years.) We must adapt. The earth is going to get a lot warmer, and wetter in some parts, and drier in others, and sea levels will likely keep slowly rising for many centuries to come, if not millennia.
      • troyvit 11mo ago
        Even though we, collectively, are driving said train. As a believer in the great filter theory[1] it's a shame given how far we've apparently come, only to be brought low by our desires, our inability to believe we could screw ourselves this royally, and our collective lack of give-a-shit to fix it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
        • ifwinterco 11mo ago
          I believe in climate change but in terms of a great filter candidate it doesn't seem significant - even in a worst case scenario with a lot of warming there will be large parts of the planet that are perfectly habitable. On the other hand: nuclear war, genetic engineering, or just plain bad luck (carrington event, asteroid impact) seem much more likely to actually wipe out modern society
          • doodaddy 11mo ago
            Aside from just plain bad luck, the things you list don't happen in isolation. Humans have fought bloody wars over land for as long as we've stood upright. Do you think we'll all neatly organize into the remaining habitable land?
            • ifwinterco 11mo ago
              I agree climate change could cause wars but I don't agree with the narrative that it will somehow cause 'worse' wars because... worse than what? We've managed to have terrible wars than wipe out whole peoples, and great power competition that almost destroyed civilisation in the 1960s without any climate change required. It's hard to see how things can really get much worse on that front
          • slashdev 11mo ago
            You were downvoted for some reason I can't fathom, but I agree with you. It's not an extinction level event (not for humans anyway, it may well be for many other species.) It's not a candidate for the great filter. There will be migration, but over centuries, not a sudden exodus. There may be wars, but what's new.
    • pembrook 11mo ago
      [dead]
    • dathinab 11mo ago
      it's both true and misleading in what conclusions people might take from it e.g. if you want the true climate damage done by a country you would have to look at all the damage done by producing all the goods consumed there. This isn't very practical doable. But if you e.g. mass import Chinese goods you can't only blame China for the climate damage done in context of producing those goods (but neither can you take away all the fault from them, they still decide how to produce the goods in the end and we (west) motivate them to do so badly). This also applies to Oil producing countries etc. And some non amicable countries are so because they see no way to handle their economical situation if they tried to change it. But if countries where to work better together they might find a way forward. And sometimes innovation can fix that by itself. E.g. solar cells have gotten absurdly good to a point where sometimes they just out compete non-renewables on purely economical benefits. That is, if your government doesn't do regulations to actively prevent this (weather it's by hindering solar or by hugely subventionieren oil/coal/gas). So the situation is both better and worse then the statistics above make it look. Better as you could move production away from non amicable countries and boycott their products and "convince" some of them by giving them a economical feasible means to improve. Worse because we know this won't happen and it means its not just "their fault" but quite often indirectly partially our fault, too. Also lets be realistic thanks to corruption, short term thinking(e.g. next election) and sometimes plain stupidity many countries which try to get away from oil/coal/gas have done such horrible bad decisions that they not only completely fucked avoiding climate change but also have put their economy in a thought spot. When then is taken out of context and used by people like Trump as an example why fighting climate change is supposedly a scam.
    • tito 11mo ago
      Build economies around carbon removal, and investing in climate interventions like sunlight reflection to buy time.
  • JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > a world destroyed by generations This hyperbole isn’t helpful. The world won’t be destroyed. (If you promise annihilation and are visited simply by devastation, it reduces credibility in an unnecessary way.)
    • jfengel 11mo ago
      Is the credibility in question among anyone who would notice the difference in phrasing? We should always try to speak with precision, but not for the sake of people who will dismiss it no matter what you say.
    • bee_rider 11mo ago
      This seems more like informal and basically reasonable talk, rather than hyperbole. The purpose of Earth, from the point of view of most humans, is to act as a comfortable host of humans. We are destroying the Earth by making it no longer fit for that purpose. I don’t think anybody reads “destroy Earth” and interprets it as something more like, “get rid of the iron ball as well.” Unless you are one of those deep-sea vent dwelling creatures, we’re risking changes to the planet that will affect your life eventually.
      • JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > we’re risking changes to the planet that will affect your life Most people should already be seeing changes to their life in a statistically significant way. But the AMOC collapsing doesn’t mean plenty of the Earth isn’t comfortable for humans. Global temperatures peaking in their pessimistic state still leaves, for better or for worse, most of the industrialized world viable. Poorer. Less comfortable. But viable nonetheless. This is important because committing to long-term projects requires avoiding nihilism and complacency. Pitching everything as disaster tips into the former.
        • roenxi 11mo ago
          > most of the industrialized world viable. Poorer. Less comfortable. If we're trying to use precise language, the economic modelling [0] actually suggests they will be wealthier and more comfortable than they are now. Just probably not as wealthy and comfortable as they could be under other hypotheticals. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_analysis_of_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_analysis_of_climate_c...
  • Aperocky 11mo ago
    > took this seriously That assumes Iceland consider "National Security Risk" as politically charged as it is in other major countries.
  • dathinab 11mo ago
    > finally notice how we're destroying the planet and ourselves, this might sound very pessimistic but the world has noticed _very long ago_ the first calculations about the greenhouse effect where in 1896! in the 50th/60th it increasingly more clear that there might be a huge problem in the 70th it became clear that there might not just be a huge problem but most likely is one, even if there wasn't yet scientific consensus on it in the 80th scientific consensus was formed that there is human accelerated climate change and that it's a huge problem since then outside of a very small fraction (depending on year, but in general <10% of scientist) the question wasn't if it is happening or if it is quite bad, but how "exactly" it will play out and how bad exactly it will get with options ranging from quite bad, over parts of earth becomes inhabitable for human where currently up to ~1000000000 people lives, to risk of human extinction in the long run (indirectly by causing a mass extinction event from a combination of climate change being to fast in combination with other environmental damages done by humans). Sure there have been other effect overlying climate change and people have tried to use them to explain climate change away, but consistently fail, sadly only from a scientific POV and not from a convincing people they don't have to worry POV. And now in 2025 we have on of the most powerful nations of the world deciding that climate change is a scam, not based on data or analysis but based on it benefiting companies owned by some of their most influential citizens. And started systematically removing access to all public data they had previously gathered about climate change basically trying to rewrite history. And that at a time where large part of the US are currently being severely affected by long term environmental abuse. And yes abusing the environment isn't the same as climate change, but we could take a hint that if something has pretty bad effect on a local scale that then something similar done globally will probably have pretty bad effect globally. It's also not like we don't know that currently _already_ whole nations (e.g. Philippines) are in the process of sinking. Or the amount and level of extrema weather conditions has constantly increased. Or that heat related death are constantly increasing. Or that there are gigantic dead areas in the oceans (through likely not caused by climate change, but this other kind of environmental catastrophes overlap with it putting even more strain on nature). And still overall the trend of the last few years is to do less about it, not more. Because it is seen as luxury counties can't afford in a very strained world economy. And people very commonly speak about it's anyway to late why bother, when we are speaking about a gradual effect not a binary yes/no switch. I honestly don't have optimism about it anymore, there is no indication for me to believe thinks will get better until it's way way to late to prevent a catastrophe. And don't get me wrong, humanity will (probably) survive, we are quite good at that. And there most likely will be a future where children can have a nice happy live. But before that for reasons not limited to climate change things probably will go to shit for a few decades, maybe even a century. But don't worry as long as people still try to make things better, things will get better again, it just might take some time. But if I where living close by the coast or close to the equator, or in a area which already has common extrema weather, I would make sure my children grow up somewhere else. bah that was such a downer to write, but it is my take on the topic anyway
• dredmorbius 11mo ago
  Link disambiguation: <https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/15/climate/iceland-warming-current-amoc-collapse-threat https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/15/climate/iceland-warming-c...> (Cited source by dagens.com, which is / may be AI-generated to boot.)
  • jeroenhd 11mo ago
    All the news seems to be copy pasted and machine translated around. I think this is the original English language source: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/iceland-sees-security-risk-existential-threat-atlantic-ocean-currents-possible-2025-11-12/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/iceland-sees-secu...
  • dredmorbius 11mo ago
    Dang's since updated the story link, see: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46090018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46090018>.
• gnarlouse 11mo ago
  My (paranoid) unpopular take: the AI boom we’re currently experiencing is a concerted effort by the billionaires to maintain operational agency (the ability to think and do at a massive scale) once society begins to collapse due to climate change. ~~ edit ~~ Thank you for the sane responses. I’m reconsidering how much I believe this.
  • fmbb 11mo ago
    How would that work? AI cannot run if society collapses. Maintaining all that infrastructure and supplying spare parts is not going to work. Also AI cannot do anything on its own. Barely anything with support from humans.
    • ceejayoz 11mo ago
      > AI cannot run if society collapses. That doesn’t mean some idiot billionaires huffing each others’ farts can’t think it can.
    • ademup 11mo ago
      Respectfully disagree. An AI with full access to robots could do everything on its own that it would need to "survive" and grow. I argue that humans are actually in the way of that.
      • kubb 11mo ago
        I think this is a very common opinion here. I'd say at least 15% people believe that.
      • mtlmtlmtlmtl 11mo ago
        Yeah? How many robots? What kind of robots? What would the AI need to survive? Are the robots able to produce more robots? How are the robots powered? Where will they get energy from? Sure it's easy to just throw that out there in one sentence, but once you actually dig into it, it turns out to be a lot more complicated than you thought at first. It's not just a matter of "AI" + "Robots" = "self-sustaining". The details matter.
• deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
• andai 11mo ago
  So, if this happens, Iceland actually becomes Iceland...
• oldpersonintx2 11mo ago
  [dead]
• amarant 11mo ago
  I wish other countries would take it this seriously. Somewhat ironically, Iceland might be the country best suited by nature to handle the cold that would descend upon the Nordics if the gulf stream collapsed. At least they have plenty of volcanic heat they can use. My home country Sweden is not so lucky. Sure it's located a fair bit further south, but it's not clear that'll be enough to escape the cold. Yet the Swedish government seems wholly oblivious. Even the opposition is silent on this issue. Kudos to the Icelandic! I wish you well in this endeavour! Feel like I should mention the other end of this problem too: if the gulf stream stops heating the Nordics, it also stops bringing cold water from the Arctic to the gulf of Mexico. The heat waves will be absolutely epic. The Caribbeans, Florida and Mexico ought to be more worried too. In my armchair opinion, this will go way beyond nice beach days.
  • chr1 11mo ago
    The main factor reducing gulf stream is increase of fresh water runoff into Arctic ocean. So maybe we should invest into building Sibaral Canal diverting some of the water of northern rivers towards Aral sea, and by that saving both Nordic and Central Asian countries.
  • kibwen 11mo ago
    Beyond Florida, the entire east coast of the US will become not just drastically warmer if the AMOC collapses, but will experience dramatic local sea level rise (warm water is more voluminous than cold water). Think Boston with the climate of modern-day Alabama.
    • dataviz1000 11mo ago
      Both the recent Acapulco and Jamaica hurricanes had non-normal intensification as they hit the warn coastal waters. I wonder how devastating this is going to be to Florida and the Atlantic states. Every time there is a hurricane it hits the Cat 5 physical limit. Fort Lauderdale and Miami are underwater several times a year as is. The seawall at Daytona is gone. It is going to be destabilizing. As long as it doesn't affect the corn growing in Iowa.
  • 11mo ago
• joshuaheard 11mo ago
  The IPCC rates a collapse before 2100 as “unlikely but not impossible.”
  • 317070 11mo ago
    The IPCC has historically also underestimated the effect of climate change on the sea. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044...
    • dredmorbius 11mo ago
      To further clarify, this is the research (from August 2025) which is cited in the CNN story which is the basis of the Dagens AI copypasta. "Shutdown of northern Atlantic overturning after 2100 following deep mixing collapse in CMIP6 projections".
    • SilverElfin 11mo ago
      Is that true for all the metrics? Didn’t they overestimate sea level rise? I recall reading that actually levels are lower than the forecasts.
      • 317070 11mo ago
        The paper I cite is for sea level rise. IPCC models from 1990 and 2011 have made forecasts on sea level rise. When we compare those to what actually happened up to 2025, we see that we are slightly worse right now than their highest sea level prediction that was made. We're worse than their worst case scenario, so their models were significantly too optimistic. In the same paper, they also note that for temperature, the models have been accurate.
        • timr 11mo ago
          > When we compare those to what actually happened up to 2025, we see that we are slightly worse right now than their highest sea level prediction that was made. No. The paper does not show that. Figure 3 shows that recent sea level rise, accounting for measurement uncertainty, is in line with projections of any of the models (around 2mm per year). In any case, they call out explicitly that the recent data is of insufficient duration to make the comparison you’re trying to make. Temperature data in figure one is more or less exactly in the uncertainty window of the models (not shocking, considering that they’re calibrated to reproduce recent data).
• silexia 11mo ago
  See Bill Gates recent article on climate change alarmism.
  • barbazoo 11mo ago
    Not how I understood it. It was about climate “vs” health not whether the climate is breaking down.
  • ceejayoz 11mo ago
    Maybe he’s hoping for sea level rise these days. Enough to submerge a particular island.
  • skeledrew 11mo ago
    I think there's an "and" in that that article, not an exclusive "or".
  • mariusor 11mo ago
    I think in that article Gates does quite a disservice to the climate change dialogue because he does not even entertain the possibility that the most severe of the effects of climate change is going to be massive population migration due to extreme weather and agricultural failures. His comment that climate change is not going to lead to civilization collapse fails to elaborate for whom.
    • WorkerBee28474 11mo ago
      > ... most severe of the effects of climate change is going to be massive population migration due to extreme weather and agricultural failures Perhaps it's not worth mentioning that because there are existing well-tested methods of stopping population migration that are available to be deployed once supported by public opinion. Specifically, fences, warships, and machine guns.
      • mariusor 11mo ago
        Maybe such callousness doesn't spoil your, or Gates' lunch, but it does most decent peoples'.
• neom 11mo ago
  Shutdown of northern Atlantic overturning after 2100 following deep mixing collapse in CMIP6 projections - 28 August 2025 - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adfa3b https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adfa3b High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC) - 12 Oct 2025 - https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/high-resolution-fingerprint-images-reveal-a-weakening-atlantic-ocean-circulation-amoc/ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/high-... Physics-Based Indicators for the Onset of an AMOC Collapse Under Climate Change - 24 August 2025 -https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JC022651 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JC02...
  • BJones12 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    • throwaway894345 11mo ago
      Do you know the difference between a prophesy and an empirical observation? If you can’t distinguish between those basic things, why do you feel comfortable snarking so confidently?
      • BJones12 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        • conception 11mo ago
          Models based on observations that are adjusted as new observations come in. You know… science. Versus whatever you’re suggesting.
• DonHopkins 11mo ago
  [flagged]
• cgh 11mo ago
  It’s worth looking at this polar map to get a visual sense of the ramifications of this happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle#/media/File:Arctic_circle.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle#/media/File:Arct... Notice the red line, marking where the average temperature of the warmest month is below 10°C. Notice how low it is on the west side of the Atlantic, in Nunavut and Labrador. It’s between 50° and 60° north. Now imagine that line at those latitudes in Europe. You’d have Labrador-like conditions in the UK, a drastic situation indeed. Reykjavik would suddenly resemble Iqaluit.
  • hedora 11mo ago
    That’s an overly optimistic way to look at it. The geological record shows there were glaciers in parts of France and Germany the last time th current shut down. (When it shut down due to CO2 induced global warming.) Also, the temperature change was rapid: Somewhere between 50-100 years. If we’re in the same cycle, we’re more than a decade in already.
    • dmurray 11mo ago
      This isn't saying much. There are glaciers in parts of France and Germany now.
      • Swizec 11mo ago
        There are glaciers as far south as Slovenia. Spitting distance to the mediterranean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skuta_Glacier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skuta_Glacier Granted it’s not a very big glacier, but it’s there :D
        • tonfa 11mo ago
          Though not for long https://slovenia.si/this-is-slovenia/remnants-of-slovenias-glacial-world https://slovenia.si/this-is-slovenia/remnants-of-slovenias-g... :( (the other Slovenian glacier is almost gone as well)
        • 11mo ago
• bee_rider 11mo ago
  It is nice to see a country take it seriously of course. But, at some level I don’t love this type phrasing that has become generally accepted—it is a big deal, so we declare it a national security risk. Everything is a national security risk when we look generally enough. Climate, education, economics, cultural diversity: failing in any of these fields makes the country weaker in some abstract way and that will impact national security down the road. “This impacts the general welfare and quality of life of the people” should be the highest category of urgent problem that needs to be fixed. A healthy, happy, productive populace can solve national security as a side effect.
  • happyopossum 11mo ago
    > A healthy, happy, productive populace can solve national security as a side effect. I think many “healthy, happy, productive” societies that have been invaded by less happy and productive neighbors throughout all of recorded history would beg to disagree.
    • bee_rider 11mo ago
      IMO it would take some real study to come to a conclusion there. My opinion is mostly borrowed from the ACOUP guy: societies that are relatively developed in comparison to their neighbors rack up a lot of W’s. This is just unsurprising and not narratively dramatic so the opposite gets over-emphasized. https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/ https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...
• MrDresden 11mo ago
  This is clearly getting more reporting on than on any domestic news outlets. This is the first I am hearing about this.
  • Eupolemos 11mo ago
    Is it the first time you hear about the risks of AMOC collapsing?
    • MrDresden 11mo ago
      To clarify, no the AMOC collapse I have grown up with as a discussion point over the last 40 years. I am talking about the decision by our national security council. I had not seen any reporting on that domestically.
• ChrisArchitect 11mo ago
  Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45906226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45906226
• Tiktaalik 11mo ago
  Coincidentally at the moment the Canadian government has begun yet again pushing the idea of a new oil pipeline to serve asian markets with the justification being boosting the economy. Remains depressing that somehow no one thinks for a second of the economic instability that will be induced by the climate change that that oil pipeline would contribute to...
  • jjice 11mo ago
    Few politicians seem to want to think about what happens after their time in office. Quick, short term wins only.
  • builtawall 11mo ago
    All it took was one irrational clown seizing power to erase twenty-five years of woefully inadequate progress. Even the Green party is supporting this government. If it wasn't clear before, it certainly is now; there is no political solution to the climate crisis. When all that is left is direct action, the results aren't pretty.
• mr_00ff00 11mo ago
  Would current collapse make more than just Northern Europe colder? Or maybe they would be warmer? They seem to suggest only certain northern countries would be affected because warm water stops flowing from the south. So the southern waters would stay hotter right? Or what about across the Atlantic where the currents do the opposite (and make the winters so cold). Would Boston and New York get more temperate?
  • marcyb5st 11mo ago
    North of the Alps temperature would drop considerably. South of the Alps, probably fine due to the thermal mass of the mediterranean sea. However, for the whole Europe you would see a massive drop in rainfall, since basically all the humidity comes from the Atlantic's warm air that carries a lot of it. Additionally, Carribeans, Mexico and South of the US would also be fucked since the energy wouldn't disperse and all the heat and humidity would stay there. Hurricanes would be much more violent, with way more rain, and likely more frequent. Labrador current might become weaker though, but it is not a given. Currently, the waters from the gulf stream cool down and sink to the bottom of the ocean, so they don't displace the artic waters and hence are not likely the cause of how cold north eastern US is.
    • horsh1 11mo ago
      So what countries will be the beneficiaries of this process?
      • marcyb5st 11mo ago
        None? It is not certain any country will benefit. Countries built their infrastructure and population centers according to the weather of the location. If the weather changes probably every country will have to adjust. If you are asking which area will benefit from climate change I would say Siberia as it will become increasingly important due to the northern corridor remaining ice free and because a lot of people will be displaced by weather/sea level. And that place is empty. Additionally, it has nice farming soil which right now is not used since there are easier places to farm but in a warming world this could change
• andai 11mo ago
  Nomen est omen...
  • cachius 11mo ago
    Referring to Iceland
• dang 11mo ago
  Url changed from https://www.dagens.com/news/iceland-declares-ocean-current-instability-a-national-security-risk https://www.dagens.com/news/iceland-declares-ocean-current-i..., which points to this.
• throw74849458 11mo ago
  [flagged]
• 1970-01-01 11mo ago
  Ok, it's a national security risk. Now what? What are steps 2 and 3 in combating this existential risk? I see only 1 viable option: Start digging now and move the entire population underground.
  • serial_dev 11mo ago
    Step 2, higher taxes for you.
    • markdown 11mo ago
      One would hope so. Unfortunately people are too short-sighted and selfish so it's unlikely taxes will be raised.
      • bigbadfeline 11mo ago
        > Unfortunately people are too short-sighted and selfish so it's unlikely taxes will be raised. I'm curious how the long-sighted and altruistic are going to restore the weakening currents to their best strength. Could you start with how much voluntary tax you're going to contribute, what sort of tax scheme you'd recommend for the rest and how these contributions will affect the currents? Preferably, a step by step explanation, like an llm-R model would produce.
        • afavour 11mo ago
          > going to restore the weakening currents to their best strength Wouldn’t the more likely scenario be working out how the country will weather (pun intended) the huge change rather than trying to reverse the inevitable? Either way I imagine step one there is research. Which costs money. “Don’t spend a penny until an incredibly detailed step by step plan arrives from nowhere” doesn’t strike me as a plan for success.
          • bigbadfeline 11mo ago
            > Either way I imagine step one there is research. Which costs money. To quote myself, the important part here is "how much voluntary tax you're going to contribute" and "what sort of tax scheme you'd recommend for the rest" On the flip side Quick, the sky is falling, tax everybody for "research" is going to fly like a lead balloon. Don't fret at the messenger, it's politics 101... > “Don’t spend a penny until an incredibly detailed step by step plan arrives from nowhere” "Don’t spend a penny" and "don't propose a tax increase by an unspecified amount and undefined distribution of tax load" are two vastly different statements, I did not author the first one of these. In other words, solving the problem does not start with calls for raising taxes, nor are people "selfish" for rejecting such calls.
• boxerab 11mo ago
  [flagged]
• deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
• tito 11mo ago
  Iceland has the 5th highest GDP per capita in the world. We’re about to witness what rich countries do when confronted by a changing climate.
• boxerab 11mo ago
  Our government up here in Canada collects a carbon tax, in exchange for which it promises to change the weather. So it's crystal clear what Icelanders must do : set up an ocean tax and the govt. will take care of everything.
• fat-soyboy 11mo ago
  It's over. Time to sterilise the wifey and kids