Volcanic eruptions are mesmerising. The glowing red lava, explosive power and widening fissures serve as reminders that we stand and build not on static ground, but on a very dynamic Earth. For the Icelandic port of Grindavik, the escaping magma is less of a marvel and more of a nightmare. For the rest of the world, it should be a lesson that preparing for natural disasters is ever more important during the climate crisis.
Grindavik was evacuated for the second time since November earlier this month, hours before an eruption created deep cracks in the ground and sent lava flowing over roads. As of last Wednesday, the volcanic activity had ceased, but not before inflicting considerable damage on the fishing town's infrastructure. Dangerous crevasses are appearing and growing across the area. Molten rock has destroyed three houses.
It's the first time in half a century that a volcanic eruption has affected a residential area in Iceland, but it probably won't be the last: After being quiet for 800 years, scientists started noticing increased volcanic activity on the Reykjanes peninsula around 2020. At a Grindavik residents meeting on Tuesday, Kristin Jonsdottir from the Icelandic Meteorological Office said repeated eruptions could be expected from the fissures north of the town.
Scientists reckon that the two eruptions in the area -- one in December, and this one in January -- aren't isolated events but likely part of a new phase of volcanic activity, meaning the region could suffer similar blowouts, without much warning, for decades. That's particularly problematic as the peninsula at the centre of the action is the most densely populated corner of Iceland.
Volcanoes are embedded into the very bones of the country. Situated on the boundary between the Eurasian and North American plates, which are slowly moving apart, the island owes its very existence to the confluence of plate tectonics and a pocket of magma called the Iceland plume.
As a result, Icelanders have plenty of experience in managing the risks that come with inhabiting one of the world's most active volcanic regions. A combination of smart scientists, effective communicators and reliable data from an array of monitoring technologies helps make the country an exemplar of good practice, says Matthew Watson, professor of volcanoes and climate at the University of Bristol.
Consider how much worse the Grindavik event could have been. Homes have been destroyed, but there have been no confirmed deaths. (One worker is missing after falling into a fissure.) The barriers built to protect areas from lava flows largely did their job, and people were evacuated in time, thanks to the diligence of those monitoring the risks and effective communication to a public familiar with volcano dangers. Similarly, Japan was able to limit the damage from the earthquake that struck on New Year's Day largely because of systems and codes implemented following earlier disasters, as my colleague Gearoid Reidy has pointed out.
There are lessons for the rest of the world, as governments everywhere are faced with the task of adapting to intensifying natural hazards because of human-caused climate change. Though managing the risk of volcanic eruptions is different from guarding against extreme heat and flooding, for instance, there are also some similarities: Long-term planning reduces vulnerability, well-funded research and risk reduction agencies are vital and timely decisions, and public education go a long way to mitigating the dangers.
Unlike Iceland and Japan, though, many nations aren't meeting the challenge, including the UK. An interim report into London's climate resilience found that the capital -- and the country as a whole -- is ill-prepared for extreme weather, with flooding and heat posing lethal risks to vulnerable communities.
Iceland's challenge will not only be learning how to adapt to a new trend in volcanic activity but managing the future of Grindavik. Another adaptation strategy which is gradually gaining credence is a managed retreat. Faced with rising sea levels, coastal communities and governments in the likes of the US, Fiji, and New Zealand are working through what exactly leaving home for good looks like.
Iceland might have to consider the practicalities of this rather soon. The main concern among many of the residents is what happens to their homes, which may now be too dangerous to live in and impossible to sell. The Iceland Review, an English-language magazine about the country, reported that one homeowner said seeing her house had survived was the worst day of her life because it meant her insurance wouldn't pay. "If my house had burned down, I would have gained financial independence," she said at a meeting. "I would be able to start a new home, and this noose around my neck would be gone." She got a standing ovation from the other residents.
Katrin Jakobsdottir, the prime minister of Iceland, said that the aim is to "make it possible to live in Grindavik". Workers have been trying to restore hot water to homes, for example. Only time will tell whether that's possible. But officials and residents alike may have to face up to a devastating truth: Sometimes adaptation means knowing when to leave. ©2024 Bloomberg
Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change.