Reykjavik, Iceland – Rising global temperatures are accelerating the melting of the Arctic Ocean, triggering a boom in ships taking routes that were previously frozen and impassable.
Increased shipping traffic in the Arctic, which received increased attention when President Donald Trump pushed for the United States to take charge of Greenland, has come at a high environmental cost: the black carbon, or soot, that comes off ships and causes the ice to melt even faster. Several countries are advocating that ships sailing through the Arctic use cleaner, less polluting fuels at meetings this week with international shipping regulators.
Glaciers, snow and ice covered in soot emitted by ships are less able to reflect the sun. Instead, they absorb heat from the sun, 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 an endless cycle of increased warming,” says Sian Prior, senior adviser at the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of nonprofits focused on the Arctic and shipping. “We have 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 to the International Maritime Organization that ships sailing in Arctic waters use “polar fuels,” which are lighter and emit less carbon than widely used marine fuels, known as residual fuels. The proposal includes the steps that companies would take to comply with the regulations and the geographical area to which it would apply: all ships that sail north of the 60º parallel. The proposal was scheduled to be presented to the IMO Pollution Prevention and Control Committee this week and possibly to another committee in April.
1/8 | Climate alert: this is what the accelerated melting of ice in Greenland looks like. The World Weather Attribution scientific network warned on Wednesday that the ice in Greenland melted 17 times faster than the historical average between May 15 and 21, as a result of a record heat wave that also affected Iceland. – Google Maps
The ban on the use of a type of waste known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic in 2024 has so far had only modest effects, partly due to existing loopholes.
Geopolitics overshadow concerns about maritime pollution
The push to reduce black carbon, which studies show has a warming impact 1,600 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, comes at a time of competing interests, both internationally and among countries with Arctic coastlines.
In recent months, Trump’s periodic comments about the need to “own” Greenland to bolster US security have raised many questions, 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 “scam,” has also opposed global policies aimed at combating it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt new rules that would have imposed carbon fees on shipping, which supporters say would have pushed companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify fleets where possible. Then Trump intervened, pushing hard for countries to vote against it. The measure was postponed for a year and its prospects were uncertain at best. In view of this, it is difficult for the IMO to move quickly on the current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.
Even within Arctic nations, those most affected by black carbon and other pollution from shipping, there are internal tensions over these regulations. Iceland is a good example. Although the country is a world leader in green technologies such as carbon capture and the use of thermal energy for heating, conservationists say it has made less progress in regulating the pollution of its seas. This is because the fishing industry, one of the most important in the country, exerts enormous influence.
“The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with taxes and doesn’t address issues like climate or biodiversity,” says Arni Finnsson, chairman of the board of the Icelandic Association for Nature Conservation.
Finnsson added that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also caused resistance.
“I think the government is waking up, but it still has to wait for the (fisheries) sector to say yes,” he said.
The country has not commented on the pending proposal regarding polar fuels. In a statement, Iceland’s Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was “positive in terms of its purpose and basic content” but that it needed to be studied further. The statement added that Iceland supports stronger measures to counter emissions from shipping and reduce black carbon.
Arctic ship traffic and black carbon emissions increase
Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing vessels and even some cruise ships travel further into the waters connecting the northernmost parts of Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the United States.
1/12 | Resistance in the Arctic: thousands march in Greenland to demand its sovereignty. US President Donald Trump’s insistence on annexing the island continent of Greenland as a colony of the United States keeps its citizens on alert, and they strongly oppose it. – Evgeniy Maloletka
Between 2013 and 2023, the number of ships that will enter waters north of the 60th parallel increased by 37%, 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 traveled by ships in the Arctic increased by 111%.
Black carbon emissions have also increased. According to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates, 2,696 metric tons of black carbon were emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel in 2019, up from 3,310 metric tons in 2024. The study concluded that fishing vessels were the largest source of black carbon.
It was also found that banning heavy fuel oil in 2024 would only lead to a small reduction in black carbon. Exemptions and exceptions allow some vessels to continue using it until 2029.
Regulating ship fuel is seen by environmental groups and affected countries as the only realistic way to reduce black carbon. That’s because getting nations to agree to limit trafficking would likely be impossible. The lure of fishing, resource extraction and shorter shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some voyages between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.
However, the Northern Sea Route is only passable for a few months a year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. These dangers, combined with concerns about Arctic pollution, have led 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,” Søren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world’s largest container shipping company, wrote in a LinkedIn post last month. “Our position at MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.”
This story was translated from English to Spanish with an artificial intelligence tool and was reviewed by an editor before publication.