In the Arctic, the major climate threat of black carbon is overshadowed by geopolitical tensions

PETER PRENGAMAN
Mon, February 9, 2026 


FILE - An Icebreaker makes the path for a cargo ship with an iceberg in the background near a port on the Alexandra Land island near Nagurskoye, Russia, May 17, 2021. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)


REYKJAVIK, Iceland (AP) — 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 U.S. 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,” said 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 show they are using cleaner fuels and the geographic area it would apply to — all ships traveling north of the 60th parallel. The proposal was expected to be presented this week to the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response Committee 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 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 U.S. 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,” said Arni Finnsson, board chair of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association.

Finnsson added 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 traveling 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%, 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%.

Black carbon emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 metric tons of black carbon was emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel compared with 3,310 metric tons 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.”

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.


Scientists 'surprised' by findings from new Arctic study on polar bears: 'People don't see it ... people don't care'

Calvin Coffee
Thu, February 19, 2026 
TCD


Photo Credit: iStock

A new study of polar bears in Norway's Svalbard region found that despite rapid sea ice loss, many bears have improved body condition by shifting their diets to alternative prey.

A new study of polar bears in Norway's Svalbard region has left scientists conflicted. While the bears appeared healthier despite rapid sea ice loss from rising global temperatures, researchers warned that these findings aren't good news.
What's happening?

Research published in Scientific Reports analyzed over two decades of data from nearly 800 adult polar bears in the Barents Sea from 1995 to 2019. The team expected to see worsening body condition as sea ice declined, as the area has lost ice faster than most polar bear habitats, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Instead, they found that after an initial decline in the late 1990s, the body condition of many bears improved from around 2000 onward.

"I was surprised," Jon Aars, the study's lead author and scientist at the Norwegian Polar Institute, told Vox. "I would have predicted that body condition would decline. We see the opposite."

Aars noted that the bears appeared heavier even as ice-free days increased by 100 days a year during the study period.

Scientists believe the bears may be adapting by shifting their diets. They're relying more on alternative prey such as reindeer, walrus carcasses, more seal species, or coming into closer contact with humans — like one encounter caught on video in Svalbard last year — when traditional hunting conditions deteriorate.
Why is this shift concerning?

While the findings complicate the narrative around polar bears and ice loss, researchers stress that the broader trend remains troubling. Polar bears still depend on sea ice to hunt, travel, and reproduce. Other populations across the Arctic, including Canada's Hudson Bay, have seen sharp declines in survival and more underweight bears as ice disappears.

The concern around ice loss extends beyond these bears. Loss of sea ice accelerates ocean warming, disrupts the base of food systems, and threatens coastal communities that rely on stable Arctic seasons and ecosystems. Other Arctic animals, like multiple kinds of seals and whales, struggle to adapt to rapid ice loss, with population shifts harder to detect.

"Many of those are more at risk than polar bears," Aars told Vox. "There are also changes in Svalbard, in the sea, that are much more profound than what we see on land with polar bears. But people don't see it, or people don't care."
What's being done about this?

The study's authors emphasize the importance of continued monitoring across different regions rather than drawing broad conclusions from a single population of polar bears. They warned that Svalbard's bears may only be temporarily resilient in an unbalanced ecosystem and could face sudden declines if alternative prey populations decline.

Ultimately, protecting Arctic ecosystems requires reducing pollution driving global temperature increases and ice sheet loss, safeguarding endangered habitats, and expanding conservation efforts that support a stable future for all.