REYKJAVIK, Iceland (AP) — As rising global temperatures accelerate the melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, it has sparked a boom in ships taking routes that were previously impassable because they were frozen.

The increase in shipping traffic in the Arctic, which received increased attention after U.S. President Donald Trump pushed for the U.S. to seize Greenland, has come at a huge environmental cost: carbon. black, or soot, that emanates from ships and further accelerates the melting of ice. In meetings this week with international shipping regulators, several countries are advocating for ships to use cleaner fuels that emit fewer pollutants into the ocean.

Glaciers, snow and ice covered in soot emitted by ships are less able to reflect sunlight and, on the contrary, absorb more of the Sun's heat, contributing to making the Arctic the fastest-warming place on Earth. In turn, the melting of sea ice in that region can affect weather patterns in various parts of the world.

“This leads to an endless cycle of increasing warming,” warned Sian Prior, senior adviser to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of nonprofit organizations focused on the Arctic and shipping. "We need to regulate emissions, particularly soot. 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 fuels,” which are lighter and emit less soot pollution than widely used marine fuels, known as residual fuel oils. The proposal includes the measures that companies should adopt to comply and demonstrate that they use cleaner fuels, as well as the geographical area in which it would apply: to all ships that sail north of the 60th parallel. The proposal is expected to be presented to the IMO's Pollution Prevention and Response Committee this week, and possibly to another committee in April.

The ban on the use of a type of residual fuel oil known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic – effective from 2024 – has had a modest impact to date, partly due to loopholes.

Geopolitics overshadow concerns

The push to reduce soot, whose impact on global warming is 1,600 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to studies, comes at a time of conflict of interest, both internationally and among countries with Arctic coasts.

In recent months, Trump's periodic comments about the need to "own" Greenland to bolster security of the United States have unleashed questions on various topics, from the sovereignty of that enormous island to the future of NATO. Meanwhile, pollution and other environmental problems in the Arctic have been relegated to the background.

Trump, who has called climate change “a hoax,” has also opposed global policies aimed at combating it. Last year, the IMO was scheduled to adopt new regulations that would have imposed carbon fees on shipping, which supporters say would have prompted companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify their fleets if possible. Then Trump intervened and pushed hard for nations to vote against it. The measure has been postponed for a year, and its prospects are uncertain at best. Therefore, it is difficult for the IMO to move quickly on the current proposal to limit soot in the Arctic.

Even in nations bordering that ocean—which are the most affected by black carbon and other types of pollution from shipping—there are internal tensions over these 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, environmentalists say it has made less progress in regulating pollution in its seas. This is because its fishing industry, one of the most important in the nation, has enormous influence.

“The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with taxes, and not involved in issues like climate and biodiversity,” said Arni Finnsson, chairman of the board of the Icelandic Nature Conservation Association.

Finnsson reported that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also generated resistance.

“I think the government is waking up, but they still have to wait for the (fishing) industry to say yes,” he added.

The country has not commented on the pending proposal on 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 further studies were required. The statement added that Iceland supports stronger measures to counter shipping emissions and reduce soot.

Marine traffic and soot emissions increase in the Arctic

Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing boats and even some cruise ships sail more frequently through the waters connecting the northernmost parts of Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, the number of ships that entered waters north of the 60th parallel increased 37%, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of the eight countries bordering that ocean. In that same period, the total distance traveled by ships there increased 111%.

Soot emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 tons of black carbon were emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel, compared to 3,310 tons in 2024, according to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates, a consulting company to develop solutions to challenges where energy use and the environment come together. The study concluded that fishing boats were the biggest source of soot.

It also found that the 2024 ban on heavy fuel oil would only result in a small reduction in black carbon. Exceptions and exemptions allow some ships to continue using it until 2029.

Environmental groups and interested countries believe that regulating ship fuel is the only realistic way to reduce soot. This is because getting nations to agree to limit trafficking is likely impossible, as the lure of fishing, resource extraction and reductions in shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some trips between Asia and Europe by crossing through the Arctic.

However, the so-called “Northern Sea Route” is only passable for a few months of the year, and even then the ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those dangers, coupled with concerns about Arctic pollution, have motivated some companies to commit to staying away from the ocean, at least for now.

“The debate around the Arctic is intensifying, and commercial shipping is part of that discussion,” wrote Søren Toft — CEO of the Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world’s largest container shipping company — in a post on LinkedIn 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 several private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. See AP's standards for working with philanthropic organizations, a list of sponsors, and funded coverage areas at AP.org.