“Black carbon” in the Arctic is a growing concern among other issues in the region.

The increase in maritime Arctic traffic, which received increased attention as President Trump pressured the United States to annex Greenland, has come with a huge environmental cost: black carbon, or soot, released from ships makes the ice melt even faster. In meetings with international shipping regulators this week, several countries are making the case for ships in the Arctic to use cleaner fuels that cause less pollution.

Glaciers and ice and snow covered with soot emitted by ships have a reduced ability to reflect the sun. Instead, the Arctic absorbs the sun’s heat, contributing to its rapid warming. In turn, melting Arctic sea ice could affect weather patterns around the world.

“This ends up in a never-ending cycle of increased warming,” said Sian Pryor, lead adviser at 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 to the International Maritime Organization that ships travelling in Arctic waters use “polar fuels,” which are lighter and emit less carbon pollution than widely used marine fuels, known as residual fuels. The proposal includes steps companies will have to follow that will apply to the geographic area—all ships travelling north of the 60th parallel. The proposal was expected to be presented to 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 residual known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic has had only a modest impact so far, partly because of loopholes.

“Black carbon” is exacerbating other regional issues

Efforts to reduce black carbon, which studies have shown have a warming impact 1,600 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, are coming at a time of conflicting interests both internationally and among littoral countries in the Arctic.

Recently, Mr Trump’s periodic comments about the need to “own” Greenland to strengthen US security have raised a number of issues, from Greenland’s sovereignty to the future of the NATO alliance. Pollution and other environmental issues have been left behind in the Arctic.

Mr. Trump, who has referred to climate change as an “act of fraud,” has also hindered global policies designed to combat it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt rules that would impose a carbon fee on shipping, which proponents said would incentivise companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify their fleets where possible. Then Mr Trump intervened and lobbied the nation to vote no. This measure was postponed for a year, its prospects highly uncertain. Given this, it is difficult to see the IMO making rapid progress on the current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.

Internal tensions over such rules exist even within the Arctic countries, which bear the brunt of black carbon and other shipping pollution. Iceland is a wonderful example of this. 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 regulating pollution in its oceans. This is because the fishing industry, one of the most important industries in the country, is very dominant.

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

The cost of using clean fuels or electrifying fleets has also driven resistance, Finsson said.

“I think the government is waking up, but it still has to wait for the fishing industry to agree,” he said.

The country has not taken any position on the pending polar fuel proposal. In a statement, Iceland’s Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was “positive with respect to its objective and basic content” but that further study was needed. Iceland supports stronger measures to combat shipping emissions and reduce black carbon, according to the statement.

More maritime traffic means more soot in the air

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

The number of ships entering waters north of the 60th parallel is expected to increase by 37% between 2013 and 2023, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of eight countries comprising the Arctic region. Over the same period, the total distance covered by ships in the Arctic increased by 111%.

Black carbon emissions have also increased. According to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates, ships north of the 60th parallel emitted 2,696 metric tonnes of black carbon in 2019, compared to 3,310 metric tonnes in 2024. The study found that fishing boats were the largest source of black carbon.

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

Environmental groups and concerned countries view regulating ship fuel as the only way to realistically reduce black carbon. This is because it would probably be impossible to get nations to agree to limit traffic. The allure of fishing, resource extraction and short shipping distances is enormous. Ships can save days on some trips between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.

Nevertheless, the route known as the Northern Sea Route can be crossed only a few months of the year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those threats, coupled with Arctic pollution concerns, 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,” wrote Soren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Co., the world’s largest container shipping company, in a LinkedIn post last month. “Our position on MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.”