Black carbon pollution is a growing threat in the Arctic, and unless international negotiators make significant changes, it will contribute to even greater climate collapse. That’s according to a new report published by Pacific Environment, On thin ice: Why black carbon demands urgent action.
Last week, I had the opportunity to sit down with my colleague and report co-author Kay Brown to learn more about black carbon pollution, why it poses such a threat and what can be done to limit its impacts in the Arctic and worldwide. Read our full conversation below.
Kay: Black carbon is a super-pollutant characterized mainly by its high degree of warming potential as a powerful “short-lived climate forcer” — small particles with a relatively brief lifespan in the atmosphere compared to long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. But don’t let the term “short-lived” fool you into thinking that this pollution disappears quickly with little effect. On the contrary, black carbon has a warming impact up to 1,500 times greater than that of CO₂ per unit of mass. When released in the Arctic, its impact is amplified by the loss of the albedo effect — the reflection of solar energy — due to the melting of snow and ice.
Massive maritime ships that burn the dirtiest of fossil fuels travel through the Arctic emitting CO2 and black carbon from their smokestacks. This black soot falls onto white snow and glaciers, absorbing the sun’s light and heat rather than reflecting it. As these reflective surfaces melt, darker land and water are exposed, absorbing more heat and further intensifying regional warming.
Kay: At any given moment, more than 100,000 merchant ships are crossing the oceans. These ships move 90% of world trade, burn the world’s dirtiest fossil fuels and emit more than 1 billion metric tons of climate pollution a year and rising, making the industry one of the world’s top climate polluters. As Arctic waters warm from climate change, shipping lanes through this harsh region are impassable for shorter periods each year, meaning more ships are traveling through the Arctic to deliver their goods.
More ships means more black carbon. More black carbon means faster Arctic ice melt and more global warming.
Kay: Absolutely. Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter and poses acute public health risks. Inhalation of black carbon-laden air increases rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and premature mortality. In the Arctic, where communities rely on local subsistence hunting and fishing, increased black carbon and associated pollutants degrade air quality, impact traditional food sources through loss of sea ice and exacerbate existing health disparities among Indigenous and remote populations.
Some areas of the Arctic are already experiencing temperature rise at levels 2.5°C (or more) relative to pre-industrial levels. The Arctic has warmed three to four times faster than the global average since 1979 due to a combination of factors, including feedback mechanisms such as the loss of sea ice, which reduces the albedo effect.
In mid-June 2025, Alaska issued its first‐ever heat advisory as Fairbanks, Alaska, temperatures were forecast to exceed 86°F — underscoring the state’s rapid warming, its vulnerability to extreme heat and the escalating health risks posed by human-driven climate change.
Kay: They can and they should. The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization is the governing body responsible for setting emission standards for ships all around the globe. In 2024, the member nations of the IMO adopted guidance recommending a maritime Arctic ship black carbon monitoring, reporting and best practices regime. It encouraged operators to set individual ship black carbon reduction targets when in the Arctic and to share monitoring and reporting results with flag states, and eventually the IMO, in order to analyze lessons learned.
The IMO debate on Arctic ship black carbon has been lengthy, technically intense, detailed and deliberate. Although some interested parties have managed to forestall action, the worsening climate crisis is building support for immediate regulatory action. Reducing black carbon emissions from ships operating in the Arctic does not require development of new fuels or new technology and can be done with immediate effect.
Kay: The IMO mandating a switch from residuals to readily available and widely-used distillate fuels, such as DMA and DMZ, will deliver a significant reduction in black carbon emissions, slow warming in the Arctic and improve public health globally. When the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response 13 Sub-Committee (PPR13) meets in February, it must act to protect the Arctic by recommending a mandatory switch from dirtier residual fuels to “polar fuels” such as cleaner distillates. From there, a treaty decision should be taken later in 2026.
The climate risks from black carbon are real, but so are the solutions. Dive deeper into the findings and recommended actions in the full report.
