Trump’s Easiest Deliverable in Alaska – a Win-Win for the World on Permafrost

The eroding coastline of a permafrost covered Nunivak Island on the Bering Sea. Photo: Juho Karhu

While President Trump pitches this week’s Alaska summit as a chance to arrest the war in Ukraine, clever diplomacy could also deliver an easier win-win of immense global, long-term consequence. It would require the simple act of restarting some scientific collaboration between American and Russian Arctic scientists.

It is perhaps prescient that the summit takes place on the edge of the Arctic region the two nations share; a region Mikhail Gorbachev aspired to turn into the ‘international zone of peace’. The Soviet leader’s dream didn’t count on Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which froze collaboration across the geopolitical divide, even on science. The ensuing interruption of scientific connections did not serve to punish any single country, but instead caused mutually-damaging consequences for the region and the world.

Since returning to the White House, President Trump has taken a liking to the Arctic. He could make a difference there very quickly, by restoring US-Russian scientific cooperation, at least on urgent issues. This would considerably benefit not only the US, but all Arctic states and the rest of the world; and could be achieved without prejudice to sanctions linked to Russian aggression.

The fallout from Russia’s war in Ukraine has been far-reaching, extending to mutual limitations on joint research, data-sharing and collaborative problem solving, all of which are essential to addressing important global challenges. This makes it virtually impossible to track – in a circumpolar manner – the pace of environmental change, monitor threats to biodiversity and biosecurity, or assess the risks of accelerating permafrost thawing, a process that causes grave damage to the Arctic and well beyond. Clearly, the politicisation of science brings universal harm that disregards national borders.

Permafrost is the ground that remains at or below freezing temperature for at least two consecutive years. It covers some 24% of the northern hemisphere’s land surface, including 80% of Alaska and 60% of Russia. The warming of the Arctic at four times the global average has accelerated permafrost thaw, which releases significant volumes of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere (northern permafrost soils store up to an estimated 1,700 billion tons of carbon). Worse, there is a sinister feedback loop: the released carbon contributes to further warming, sea-level rise and more permafrost thawing. Also, the ensuant drying of the soil and reduction in relative humidity across the Arctic will likely intensify wildfires.

Without Russia (which constitutes half the Arctic coastline), it is impossible to properly monitor or address the consequences of permafrost thaw. These have already included serious disasters, like the 2020 Norilsk fuel spill, with a promise of more to come. Such dangers – to the Arctic and beyond – will not wait for Russia’s war to end nor a geopolitical consensus to emerge. They require urgent, coordinated attention.

Even purely from an economic perspective, the cost is considerable; permafrost degradation is undermining the structural integrity of pipelines, railways, roads, and buildings, particularly in Alaska, Russia and Canada. Much of this critical infrastructure was constructed assuming that the ground beneath would remain frozen. Recent studies project that by mid-century, 44% of roads, 34% of railroads, and 17% of buildings in the Arctic will be affected, with an estimated cost of $276 billion.

Recalling the global Covid-19 trauma, it is worth also pondering the global health impacts of failing to grasp the threat of permafrost thaw. Scientists have identified ‘zombie viruses’ – some thousands of years old – emerging from thawing permafrost. More study is needed to draw conclusions about this threat, but that also requires collaboration between the Russian and western Arctic to improve detection and provide a fuller picture, in turn allowing for better planning. President Trump can set this in motion, even while continuing other sanctions related to Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine.

Whatever they conclude on Ukraine, Trump and Putin should agree that science is not the arena for geopolitical tit-for-tat. For the sake of humanity, there is an urgent need to resume scientific cooperation in the Arctic – which Arctic states legally committed to under the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation.

With this in mind, since 2022 the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, a Swiss peace foundation, has discreetly led talks between high-level experts from all Arctic states. Participating Western and Russian experts agree that the best hope for rebuilding some trust is through science diplomacy. Indeed during the Cold War, science diplomacy led, among others, to the eradication of smallpox and closing of the hole in the ozone layer, despite acute tensions elsewhere. Decades on, an easy ‘win’ for Trump would be to restore some level of scientific collaboration, at least on the most pressing questions.

Addressing these problems demands comprehensive, cooperative approaches. Astute diplomacy would recognise the urgency and apply the easy fix – renewed cooperation on shared problems of global import. This may just be the most meaningful, enduring and globally impactful result that President Trump can attain in Alaska.

Paul Dziatkowiec is an experienced conflict mediator and former diplomat. He is currently Director of Mediation and Peace Support at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, where he has launched and leads a number of discreet dialogue processes, including on the Arctic, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Asia.