As rising global temperatures speed up the melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, it’s set off a boom of ships taking routes that previously were frozen and not traversable.
The increase in marine Arctic traffic, which received increased attention as President Donald Trump pushed for the United States to take over Greenland, has come with a heavy environmental cost: black carbon, or soot, that spews from ships and makes the ice melt even faster. Several countries are making a case for ships in the Arctic to use cleaner fuels that cause less pollution in meetings this week with international shipping regulators.
Glaciers, snow and ice covered in the soot emitted by 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. In turn, melting Arctic sea ice can affect weather patterns around the world.
“It ends up in a never-ending cycle of increased warming,” says Sian Prior, lead adviser for the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of nonprofits 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 traveling in Arctic waters to use “polar fuels”, which are lighter and emit less carbon pollution than the widely used maritime fuels known as residuals.
The proposal includes steps that companies would take to comply and the geographic area it would apply to – 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 another committee in April.
A 2024 ban on using a type of residual known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic has had only modest impacts 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 impact 1,600 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year span, is happening at a time of conflicting interests, both internationally and among the countries that have coastlines in the Arctic.
In recent months, Trump’s periodic comments about the need to “own” Greenland to bolster US security have raised many issues, from Greenland’s sovereignty to the future of the NATO alliance. Pollution and other environmental issues in the Arctic have taken a backseat.
Trump, who has called climate change a “con job,” has also pushed back against global policies aimed at fighting it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt new regulations that would have imposed carbon fees on shipping, which supporters said would have pushed companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify fleets where possible. Then Trump intervened, lobbying hard for nations to vote no.
The measure was postponed for a year, its prospects at best uncertain. Given that, it’s hard to see the IMO making fast progress on the current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.
Even inside Arctic nations, which are most impacted by black carbon and other shipping pollution, there are internal tensions around 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 energies for heating, conservationists say the country has made less progress on regulating pollution in its seas. That is because the fishing industry, one of the country’s most important, holds huge sway.
“The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with the taxes and not engaged in issues like climate or biodiversity,” says Arni Finnsson, board chair of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association.
Finnsson adds that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also prompted 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 a position on the pending polar fuels proposal. In a statement, Iceland’s Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was “positive with regard to its purpose and basic content,” but that further study was needed. The statement added that Iceland supports stronger measures to counter shipping emissions and reduce black carbon.
Arctic ship traffic and black carbon emissions both rise
Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing boats and even some cruise liners are travelling more in the waters that connect the northernmost parts of Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the United States.
Between 2013 and 2023, the number of ships entering waters north of the 60th parallel increased by 37 per cent, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of the eight countries with territory in the Arctic. In that same period, the total distance traversed by ships in the Arctic increased 111 per cent.
Black carbon emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 tonnes of black carbon was emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel compared with 3,310 tonnes in 2024, according to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates. The study found that fishing boats were the biggest source of black carbon.
It also found that the 2024 ban on heavy fuel oil would only result in a small reduction in black carbon. Waivers and exceptions allow some ships to continue using it until 2029.
Environmental groups and concerned countries see regulating ship fuel as the only way to realistically reduce black carbon. That is because getting nations to agree to limit traffic would likely be impossible. The lure of fishing, resource extraction and shorter shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some trips between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.
Still, the path known as the Northern Sea Route is only traversable a few months of the year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those dangers, combined with Arctic pollution concerns, have driven some companies to pledge to stay away – at least for now.
“The debate around the Arctic is intensifying, and commercial shipping is part of that discussion,” wrote Søren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world’s largest container shipping company, in a LinkedIn post last month. “Our position at MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.”