REYKJAVIK, Iceland (AP) — As rising global temperatures accelerate the melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, it has set off a boom in ships plying previously frozen and impassable routes.
The increase in maritime Arctic traffic, which has gained increased attention since President Donald Trump pushed for the United States to annex Greenland, has come with a huge environmental cost: black carbon, or soot, that is released from ships and melts the ice faster. Several countries are making the case for ships in the Arctic to use cleaner fuels that cause less pollution at meetings with international shipping regulators this week.
Glaciers, snow, and ice covered in soot from ships have less ability to reflect the sun. Instead, the sun’s heat is absorbed, helping to make the Arctic the fastest-warming place on Earth. As a result, melting Arctic sea ice could affect weather patterns around the world.
“It ends up in a never-ending cycle of rising temperatures,” said Sian Pryor, chief adviser to the Clean Arctic Coalition, a nonprofit coalition focused on the Arctic and shipping. “We need to regulate emissions and black carbon, in particular. Both are completely unregulated in the Arctic.”
In December, France, Germany, the Solomon Islands and Denmark proposed that the International Maritime Organization require ships sailing in Arctic waters to use “polar fuel”, which is lighter and emits less carbon pollution than widely used marine fuels. The proposal includes steps to be followed by companies and the geographic area to which it applies – all ships traveling north of the 60th parallel. The proposal was expected to be presented to the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response Committee this week and possibly to another committee in April.
A 2024 ban on the use of a type of fossil fuel known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic has had little impact so far, partly because of loopholes.
Concerns about shipping pollution are overshadowed by geopolitics
The push to reduce black carbon, which studies have shown has a warming effect 1,600 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, comes at a time of conflicting interests internationally and among littoral countries in the Arctic.
In recent months, Trump’s periodic comments about the need for “ownership” of Greenland to bolster U.S. security have raised a number of issues, from Greenland’s sovereignty to the future of the NATO alliance. Pollution and other environmental issues in the Arctic have taken a back seat.
Trump, who has called climate change a “con job,” has also pushed back against global policies to combat it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt new rules that would impose a carbon fee on shipping, which supporters say will push companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify fleets where possible. Then Trump intervened, lobbying hard for states to vote. The measure was postponed for a year, its prospects uncertain at best. With that in mind, it’s hard to see the IMO making rapid progress on its current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.
Even the Arctic nations most affected by black carbon and other shipping pollution have internal tensions surrounding such regulations. Iceland is a good example. While the country is a world leader in green technologies such as carbon capture and the use of thermal energy for heating, conservationists say the country has made little progress in controlling pollution in its oceans. That’s because the country’s most important fishing industry wields enormous influence.
“The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with taxes and not involved in issues like climate or biodiversity,” said Arni Finsson, board chairman of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association.
Finson added that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also spurred resistance.
“I think the government is waking up, but they still have to wait for the (fishing) industry to say yes,” he said.
The country has not taken any stand on the pending Polar Fuel proposal. In a statement, Iceland’s Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was “positive in terms of intent and basic content”, but further study was needed. Iceland supports strong measures to combat transport emissions and reduce black carbon, the statement said.
Arctic ship traffic and black carbon emissions both increase
Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing boats and some cruise liners increasingly navigate the waters connecting Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the northern parts of the United States.
Between 2013 and 2023, the number of vessels entering waters north of the 60th parallel will increase by 37%, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of eight countries with territory in the Arctic. During the same period, the total distance traveled by ships in the Arctic increased by 111%.
Black carbon emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 metric tons of black carbon were emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel, up from 3,310 metric tons in 2024, according to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates. Studies have shown that fishing boats are the biggest source of black carbon.
It also found that a 2024 ban on heavy fuel oil would result in only a small reduction in black carbon. Exemptions and exceptions allow some ships to continue using it until 2029.
Environmental groups and concerned countries see regulation of ship fuel as the only way to realistically reduce black carbon. That’s because it would probably be impossible for nations to agree to limit traffic. The lure of fishing, resource extraction and short shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some voyages between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.
Still, the passage, known as the Northern Sea Route, is only navigable for a few months of the year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those threats, combined with Arctic pollution concerns, have prompted some companies to vow to stay away — at least for now.
“The debate around the Arctic is intensifying, and commercial shipping is part of that discussion,” Søren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world’s largest container shipping company, wrote in a LinkedIn post last month. “Our position on the MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.”
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from several private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with charities, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
