Iceland's Responsibility Towards The Environment

https://www.humantruth.info/iceland_environment.html

By Vexen Crabtree 2025

#climate_change #energy #germany #Iceland #iceland_and_the_environment #singapore #south_korea #sustainability #taiwan #the_environment

Iceland Republic of Iceland [Country Profile Page]
Status	Independent State
Social and Moral Index	14th best
Capital	Reykjavik
Land Area	100 250km²₁
Location	Europe, Scandinavia
Population	0.3m₂
Life Expectancy	82.68yrs (2017)₃
GNI	$55 782 (2017)₄
ISO3166-1 Codes	IS, ISL, 352₅
Internet Domain	.is₆
Currency	Krona (ISK)₇
Telephone	+354₈

Iceland's environmental landscape is the most heavily damaged in Europe after the actions of early settlers₉. "Most of the country's original trees and vegetation have been destroyed, and about half of the original soils have eroded into the ocean"₉. In 1965 and 1967, NASA used barren locations in Iceland to train astronauts for the moon landing₉. But its modern governments have been putting extreme efforts into rectifying the country's environmental situation. With regard to its responsibility towards the environment, Iceland is positioned 142nd in the world. This rank is computed from 21 data sets. Iceland does the best in its score on the Green Future Index₁₀. It comes in the best 20 in its forested percent change 2000-2020₁₁ and in its environmental performance₁₂. Iceland is hailed as a sucess story for its realisation of how badly it had damaged its environment, and then actively embracing counter-measures. "Iceland's government today is very concerned about Iceland's historical curses of soil erosion and sheep overgrazing, which played such a large role in their country's long impoverishment"₁₃ and for its embrace of geothermal and hydro-electric power₁₄. Iceland still has work to do. Iceland does worse than average in its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment and in reducing annual meat consumption per person₁₅. And finally, it sits amongst the bottom 20 in the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population₁₆ (one of the worst in Europe) and in energy to GDP efficiency₁₇ (the worst in Europe).

1. Iceland's Responsibility Towards The Environment

#climate_change #the_environment

Compared to Europe (2025)₁₈
Pos.		Lower is better Avg Rank₁₈
1	Switzerland	45.0
2	Denmark	50.4
3	Liechtenstein	56.8
	...
35=	Moldova	92.1
36	Malta	92.2
37	Ukraine	94.8
38=	Iceland	96.9
39	Estonia	97.0
40	Montenegro	97.3
41	Azerbaijan	101.2
42	Bosnia & Herzegovina	103.5
43	Serbia	104.8
	Europe Avg	86.45
q=48.

Responsibility Towards The Environment (2025)₁₈
Pos.		Lower is better Avg Rank₁₈
1	Sri Lanka	34.9
2	Uruguay	43.2
3	Switzerland	45.0
	...
140	Israel	95.8
141	Tonga	96.1
142=	St Kitts & Nevis	96.9
142=	Iceland	96.9
144	Laos	97.0
145=	Estonia	97.0
146	Montenegro	97.3
147	Sudan	97.8
	World Avg	84.93
q=199.

We have known for a long term that we must protect the environment from habitation destruction, over-exploitation, pollution, and the emissions that cause climate change. In 1998, Greenpeace wrote that "Environment can no longer be meaningfully separated from health, quality of life, democracy, education, economy or trade"₁₉. What countries have been doing the right thing, via legislation and national culture? All countries' current and historical approach towards the environment is gauged via 21 datasets, including multiple decades of data on its forested percent change 2000-2020, its environmental performance, energy to GDP efficiency, its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment, the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population, reducing annual meat consumption per person and its score on the Green Future Index.

The countries that do the best (Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Switzerland) tend to have avoided the excesses of early industrial countries, and have not yet repeated the same mistakes of environmental destruction - at least, not on the same scale. The regions with the best average results per country are Central America, South America and Scandinavia. The worst are Eritrea, The Vatican City and Timor-Leste (E. Timor), and the worst regions Micronesia, Australasia and Melanesia.

For more, see:

" Countries With the Best Environmental Records" by Vexen Crabtree (2025).

2. Data Sets

2.1. Forest Area Change 2000-2020

#biodiversity #deforestation #environmentalism #forests #over-exploitation #the_environment

When Iceland was first settled, 25% of the island was forested; they cleared 80% of it within their first few decades on the island, and 96% by modern times; in 2005, just 1% of Iceland's area was forested₂₀. Iceland's government instigated tremendous effort into rectifying this, as part of efforts against soil erosion and barrenification, and from 2000 to 2010, it increased its forest cover by an impressive 50%, from 30 000 hectares to 45 000. By 2020, it added a further 15%, setting an important example for the rest of the world.

Forest Area Change 2000-2020 Higher is better₁₁
Pos.		Total₁₁
1	Guernsey	82.6%
2	Bahrain	75.2%
3	Iceland	64.7%
4	Burundi	44.2%
5	Uruguay	43.8%
6	Montenegro	32.1%
7	Malta	31.4%
8	Cuba	31.0%
9	Kuwait	28.9%
10	Uzbekistan	23.3%
11	Algeria	23.1%
12	China	23.0%
	Europe Avg	8.2%
	World Avg	-0.1%
q=234.

Iceland ranks 3rd-best in the world when it comes to its forested percent change 2000-2020.

Forests are carbon sinks, mitigating against climate change₂₁_,₂₂. Unfortunately, we are destroying over 70,000 km² of forest each year₂₃. In the last few thousand years, we've removed 30-40% of the Earth's forest cover₂₄_,₂₂, mostly to clear space for agriculture, and for logging₂₅_,₂₆. The produce from both is shipped from poorer countries to richer ones. Half-hearted government efforts and company obfuscation of supply chains makes it almost impossible for consumers to tell which foods and products are from sustainable sources, and which ones are encouraging irresponsible deforestation, meaning that there is little incentive for companies to relent.

The effects are catastrophic. 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation₂₇_,₂₅. It brings soil erosion from wind and rain which, over time, can almost-permanently stop any hope of growing food₂₈, and spreads desertification. Entire ecosystems are collapsing as a result, including ones that we depend upon₂₉. The water cycle is driven by forests, and their loss reduces ordinary rainfall, increases flooding, removes an abundant source of water filtration, and contributes to a rise in water levels.₃₀.

Some regions of the world are increasing their forest cover₂₂; the best from 2000-2020 are Scandinavia (13.8% ), The Balkans (11.0% ) and Baltic States (7.6% )₁₁. There is an overall trend that developed countries gathered their riches by using up their natural resources, and now, they pay poorer countries to use up theirs instead, whilst they can afford to slowly rebuild their natural environments. But it's not wholly that simple - some rich regions are still burning through what they've got. The regions clearing their forests fastest are Central America (-12.8% ), Africa (-9.1% ) and North America (-2.9% )₁₁.

For more, see:

"Deforestation" by Vexen Crabtree (2024).

Averages by decade for Iceland (for the ranks, lower is better):

Forest Area Change 2000-2020	2000s Average	2010s Average
Iceland:	49.7%	15.0%
World Rank:	2nd	⇣ 6th
World Avg:	0.6%	-0.7%

2.2. Environmental Performance

#climate_change #energy #sustainability #the_environment

Environmental Performance Higher is better₁₂
Pos.		2018₁₂
1	Switzerland	87.4
2	France	84.0
3	Denmark	81.6
	...
8	Austria	79.0
9	Ireland	78.8
10	Finland	78.6
11	Iceland	78.6
12	Spain	78.4
13	Germany	78.4
14	Norway	77.5
15	Belgium	77.4
	Europe Avg	69.6
	World Avg	56.4
q=180.

Iceland comes 11th-best in the world regarding its environmental performance.

The Environmental Performance Index 2018 data includes 24 indicators including air pollution, water and sanitation, biodiversity, ecosystems and environmental health, combined into a single score by country, by the Yale University Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

2.3. Energy to GDP Efficiency

#energy #sustainability #the_environment

Energy to GDP Efficiency Lower is better₁₇
Pos.		2022 Avg₁₇
1	Rwanda	0.25
2	Chad	0.26
3	Tanzania	0.31
	...
158	Mozambique	2.38
159	N. Korea	2.46
160	Laos	2.75
161	Iceland	4.01
162	Venezuela	4.18
163	Bahrain	4.19
164	Trinidad & Tobago	4.64
165	Turkmenistan	4.69
	Europe Avg	1.25
	World Avg	1.23
q=165.

With respect to energy to GDP efficiency, Iceland ranks 5th-worst in the world.

GDP per unit of energy consumption is often called 'Energy Intensity'. It's how efficient countries are at producing GDP in terms of primary energy use. It represents primary energy consumption using the substitution method, per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). A lower value means that less energy was used to maintain the country's GDP.

Iceland's energy-to-GDP efficiency rate has been relatively stable for several decades, although very slowly declining. This, and the fact that many countries across the world improved, meant that in the 2010s it found itself to be the 2nd-least-efficient globally, on this metric.

Averages by decade for Iceland (for the ranks, lower is better):

Energy to GDP Efficiency	1960s Average	1970s Average	1980s Average	1990s Average	2000s Average	2010s Average
Iceland:	2.84	3.27	2.92	3.20	3.67	4.58
World Rank:	49th	⇣ 55th	⇣ 118th	⇣ 131st	⇣ 157th	⇣ 164th
World Avg:	2.05	2.13	2.10	2.15	1.60	1.30

2.4. International Accords on the Environment

#environmentalism #internationalism

International Accords on the Environment Higher is better
Pos.		Total Avg Rate
1	Sweden	83%
2	Canada	82%
3	Norway	81%
	...
131	Jamaica	53%
132	Mali	53%
133	Burundi	53%
134	Iceland	53%
135	Samoa	52%
136	Zimbabwe	52%
137	Suriname	52%
138	St Vincent & Grenadines	52%
	Europe Avg	62.7%
	World Avg	57.5%
q=197.

Iceland ranks 134th in the world regarding its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment.

Each country is scored using a formula that takes the date each country took up major international environmental agreements, as a ratio of maximum possible days. The agreements covered are: (1) the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, (2) the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides, (3) the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, (4) the Waigani Convention (for those countries that are eligible), (5) the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), (6) the Kyoto Protocol and (7) its successor, the Paris Agreement, (8) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), (9) the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and finally, (10) the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

For more, see:

" Countries With the Best Environmental Records" by Vexen Crabtree (2025).

Averages by decade for Iceland (for the ranks, lower is better):

International Accords on the Environment	1970s Average	1980s Average	1990s Average	2000s Average	2010s Average
Iceland:	0%	10%	49%	83%	88%
World Rank:	52nd	⇣ 102nd	⇡ 97th	⇡ 70th	⇣ 150th
World Avg:	8.5%	23.3%	45.0%	74.4%	90.7%

2.5. Rational Beliefs on the Environment

Rational Beliefs on the Environment Higher is better₁₆
Pos.		2011 %₁₆
1	Argentina	78.3%
2	Greece	77.6%
3	Brazil	77.1%
	...
137	China	15.1%
138	Denmark	14.9%
139	Libya	14.6%
140	Iceland	13.1%
141	Uzbekistan	11.3%
142	Tajikistan	11.1%
143	Haiti	10.0%
144	Albania	9.4%
	Europe Avg	33.6%
	World Avg	39.9%
q=145.

Iceland ranks 6th-worst in the world regarding the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population.

2.6. Meat Consumption

#animal_rights #animal_welfare #diet #food #health #meat #veganism #vegetarianism

Meat Consumption Lower is better₁₅
Pos.		2021 kg₁₅
1	Congo, DR	03.0
2	Burundi	03.5
3	Bangladesh	04.3
	...
151	Czechia	82.4
152	Bahrain	82.8
153	Qatar	83.0
154=	Iceland	83.6
154=	Lithuania	83.6
156	UAE	84.3
157	Panama	85.0
158	Luxembourg	85.8
	Europe Avg	71.1
	World Avg	52.5
q=185.

With regard to reducing annual meat consumption per person, Iceland ranks 154th in the world.

There are five key arguments in favour of vegetarianism which accrue even from partial adoption: (1) Vegetarian diets have notable health advantages over carnivorous diets, especially for heart and cardiovascular issues₃₁_,₃₂_,₃₃. (2) It is morally better to avoid killing or harming animals. (3) Plant-based diets use much less water than carnivorous ones, to the extent that agricultural and water management scientists urge governments to encourage people to switch₃₄. (4) Vegetarian food production uses substantially less land₃₁_,₃₅_,₃₆. And, (5) vegetarianism is better for the environment than meat-production for emissions, sewerage, pollution and chemicals usage.₃₁_,₃₅. A plant-based diet causes 75% less greenhouse gas emissions than a typical carnivorous diet₃₆. The global food industry causes about 1/3 of all planet-heating emissions, and so "to slow the worst climate effects, the United Nations has called for a drastic reduction in meat consumption"₃₆. Despite this, "reducing appetites for carbon-intensive meat and dairy is incredibly hard"₃₇ and as countries get richer, they tend to eat more meat.

After crops failed due to over-exploitation of the soil, they relied more on sheep. Not understanding how delicate the soild was, they over-grazed its grass, making Iceland suffer intense and long-lasting soil erosion and barrenification of increasing portions of the island₉. The switch to sheep and meat diets became a solid part of Icelandic culture, making it hard to rectify past mistakes. In the 2010s, meat consumption per person in Iceland was well above the global average (of 49kgs per year)₁₅, putting unnecessary strain on water supplies and the environment.

On average throughout the 2010s, Iceland's rate was 86.9.

2.7. Green Future Index

#climate_change #energy #sustainability #the_environment

Green Future Index Higher is better₁₀
Pos.		2023 Score₁₀
1	Iceland	6.7
2	Finland	6.7
3	Norway	6.4
4=	Sweden	6.3
4=	Denmark	6.3
6	Netherlands	6.2
7	UK	6.1
8	S. Korea	6.0
9	France	6.0
10=	Spain	5.9
10=	Germany	5.9
12	Belgium	5.8
	Europe Avg	5.6
	World Avg	4.8
q=76.

Iceland ranks best in the world regarding its score on the Green Future Index.

The Green Futures Index (GFI) has been running since 2021, and looks at 23 data sets for over 70 countries, with a focus on effectiveness, policy and planning 'for a low carbon future. It is complementary to existing goals and frameworks for sustainable development'. Datasets include qualitative appraisals and quantitative measurements on carbon emissions across multiple sectors, renewable and nuclear energy, recycling capabilities, green technologies used in building and construction, transport, scientific and industrial green innovations and patent quantities, climate action and climate policies. Each country is then ranked by their final score.₃₈.

The 2023 edition of the Green Futures Index found Iceland to have done more than any other country recently to reduce its carbon emissions and to transition to cleaner energy sources. It's also amongst five countries who are doing the best at recycling, alongside Germany, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) and scored 2nd-best for green transport.₃₈

3. Iceland's Story From Unregulated Over-Exploitation to Farmer Cooperation

#deforestation #environmentalism #iceland #overpopulation #sustainability

Iceland's delicate soil forms only slowly from volcanic sources, and was used unsustainably by northern Europeans who were used to soil that regenerated almost without effort. They over-exploited it, deforested it and then as crops failed, over-grazed the grass, making Iceland suffer intense and long-lasting soil erosion and barrenification of increasing portions of the island₉. In this situation, the combination of overpopulation, poor knowledge and lack of cooperation between groups to act sustainably led to complete societal collapse₃₉. But Iceland managed to turn things around:

“When the settlers finally realized what was happening [with soil over-exploitation, they] cooperated in jointly making decisions critical for preventing erosion, such as [when] in spring the grass growth warranted taking the sheep up to communally owned high-altitude mountain pastures for the summer, and when in [autumn] to bring the sheep back down. Farmers sought to reach agreement on the maximum number of sheep that each communal pasture could support, and how that number was to be divided among sheep quotas for the individual farmers.”
"Collapse" by Jared Diamond (2005)₂₀

The process was "flexible and sensitive" and these actions led to Iceland being used by Jared Diamond in "Collapse" (2005)₁₄ as a rare success story.