Global greenhouse gas emissions continue in stark contrast to the emissions reductions needed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Indeed, planetary warming has accelerated so much that many scientists warn that key components of the earth’s system are approaching “tipping points” that will trigger additional climate feedback loops that further fuel and exacerbate climate disruption if they are exceeded.

Green hydrogen is often portrayed as a key component in the green energy transition, since it is produced with renewable energy through electrolysis – the splitting up of freshwater into hydrogen and oxygen – and it does not emit carbon dioxide when combusted. Yet green hydrogen’s huge potential for the decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors (e.g. steelmaking and production of fertilizers) as well as maritime shipping and aviation are not the only promises that it harbors. Green hydrogen’s use as an energy storage solution makes it particularly promising for remote and sparsely populated areas with an abundance of renewable energy resources such as the Norwegian Arctic.

The Arctic is ground zero for climate change. Warming in the region is occurring at three times the rate of the global average and September Arctic sea-ice is now declining at a rate of 13 percent per decade. However, the reverse is also true. The complex changes taking place in the Arctic are having profound effects on the rest of the world, and major economies are taking note. 

 

“It seems incumbent upon the Arctic policy community to identify the most pressing issues to address in the region while simultaneously, effectively and creatively communicating their complexities and interrelated nature,” writes Mike Sfraga, founding director of the Wilson Center’s Polar Institute, in a new Wilson Center monograph, Navigating the Arctic’s 7Cs. Policy priorities in the Arctic boil down to climate, commodities, commerce, connectivity, communities, cooperation, and competition, writes Sfraga. The “7Cs” provides a framework that policymakers can use when engaging in Arctic affairs.

“We are so few, we have no one to lose,” said Christina Henriksen, the president of Saami Council, during an interview on Coronavirus in the Arctic. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the vulnerability of Arctic residents and the longstanding challenges related to the lack of sanitization, social infrastructure, and health service capacities. The impacts of the pandemic are coupled with the potential negative effects of climate change, including a 3-5 °C temperature increase projected over the Arctic Ocean by 2050. 

When the United States purchased Alaska from Russia, Americans considered the “frozen wasteland” to be a reckless, wasteful acquisition. What could ice possibly offer? 

In fact, polar ice is a critical resource for the Earth. The summer and fall of 2020 marked the lowest sea ice extent ever recorded in the Arctic Ocean, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says contemporary September sea ice extents are so low that they are unprecedented in at least 1,000 years. Moreover, collapses in the ice shelves of West Antarctica, Canada, and Greenland raised concerns in 2020. The immediate effects of climate change in the polar regions are merely the tip of the iceberg—ultimately, they have profound effects on climate and communities around the world.

Truth, trust, and transparency are key aspects to sound and sustainable governance of the Arctic, said Ulf Sverdrup, Director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. He was one of a panel of experts who spoke on Nov. 30 at “The Arctic in a Post-Election World,” the first event in a two-part series sponsored by the Wilson Center’s Polar Institute.

The United States is in the midst of a maternal health crisis. Indigenous and Alaska Native peoples are 2.3 times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than their white counterparts. In Alaska, unequal socio-economic status, lack of access to hospitals and quality health services, systemic racism, and a history of colonization drive these disparities in maternal health outcomes. “Weathering”—the deterioration of communal health outcomes caused by persistent socio-economic disadvantages—contributes to many poor maternal health outcomes for Alaska Native women. On top of these systemic problems, climate change impacts threaten to widen the existing disparities for Alaskan Native women.