2026年2月9日 / 美国东部时间凌晨5:15 / 美联社
冰岛雷克雅未克—随着全球气温上升加速北冰洋海冰融化，原本冰封无法通行的航道迎来了大量船只。
随着特朗普总统推动美国接管格陵兰岛，北极地区海洋交通的增加受到更多关注，但这一增长付出了沉重的环境代价：船只排放的黑碳（即煤烟）使冰层融化速度进一步加快。本周，在与国际航运监管机构的会议上，多个国家呼吁北极地区的船只使用污染更少的清洁燃料。
被船只排放的煤烟覆盖的冰川、积雪和冰面反射太阳的能力下降，转而吸收太阳热量，使北极成为地球上变暖最快的地区。融化的北极海冰反过来会影响全球天气模式。
“这形成了一个不断加剧的变暖循环，”专注于北极和航运问题的非营利组织联盟”清洁北极联盟”的首席顾问西恩·普赖尔(Sian Prior)表示，”我们需要规范排放物，尤其是黑碳。目前北极地区对这两者的管控完全缺失。”
去年12月，法国、德国、所罗门群岛和丹麦提议，国际海事组织(IMO)应要求在北极水域航行的船只使用”极地燃料”——这种燃料比广泛使用的残余燃料更轻，碳排放更少。该提案包括企业需遵守的措施及适用的地理范围——所有在北纬60度以北航行的船只。该提案预计将于本周提交给IMO的防污染和应急委员会，并可能在4月提交给另一个委员会。
目前，北极地区的冰面交通增加导致黑碳排放问题更加突出。
“黑碳”加剧北极其他区域问题
研究表明，黑碳在20年时间里的变暖效应是二氧化碳的1600倍。在全球和北极沿岸国家利益冲突的背景下，减少黑碳的行动面临诸多挑战。
近几个月来，特朗普总统关于”掌控格陵兰岛以加强美国安全”的表态，引发了从格陵兰岛主权到北约联盟未来等一系列问题。北极的污染和其他环境问题被搁置一旁。
特朗普称气候变化是一场”骗局”，还反对旨在应对气候变化的全球政策。去年，IMO本有望通过对航运征收碳税的规定，支持者称这将促使企业使用更清洁的燃料并在可能的情况下实现船队电气化。但特朗普干预，大力游说各国投反对票。该措施被推迟一年，前景不确定。鉴于此，IMO要在当前限制北极黑碳的提案上取得快速进展似乎困难重重。
即使在受黑碳和航运污染影响最严重的北极国家内部，围绕这类监管措施也存在内部紧张关系。冰岛就是一个典型例子。虽然冰岛在碳捕获和热能供暖等绿色技术方面处于世界领先地位，但环保主义者表示，该国在海洋污染监管方面进展缓慢。这是因为渔业作为该国最重要的产业之一，拥有巨大影响力。
“渔业行业对利润满意，但对税收不满，也不参与气候或生物多样性等议题，”冰岛自然保护协会董事会主席阿尔尼·芬森(Arni Finnsson)表示。
芬森补充说，使用清洁燃料或船队电气化的成本也引发了抵制。
“我认为政府正在觉醒，但他们仍需等待（渔业）行业的认可，”他说。
冰岛尚未对这一待议的极地燃料提案表明立场。冰岛环境、能源和气候部在一份声明中表示，该提案”在目的和基本内容方面是积极的”，但需要进一步研究。声明还称，冰岛支持采取更有力的措施应对航运排放和减少黑碳。
航运增加意味着空气中更多的煤烟污染
随着货船、渔船甚至一些邮轮在连接冰岛、格陵兰岛、加拿大、俄罗斯、挪威、芬兰、瑞典和美国最北部水域的航线航行增加，北极地区的煤烟污染也在上升。
北极理事会（由北极地区八国组成的政府间论坛）的数据显示，2013年至2023年间，进入北纬60度以北水域的船只数量增加了37%，同期船只在北极的总航行距离增加了111%。
能源与环境研究协会的一项研究显示，黑碳排放量也在增加。2019年，北纬60度以北地区的船只排放了2,696吨黑碳，而2024年这一数字达到3,310吨。研究发现渔船是黑碳的最大排放源。
该研究还发现，2024年禁止在北极使用重质残余燃料的禁令影响有限，部分原因是存在漏洞。
尽管如此，北极地区航运管控的道路仍充满挑战。
“北极地区的争议日益激烈，商业航运是其中讨论的一部分，”地中海航运公司(MSC)首席执行官索伦·托夫(Søren Toft)上月在LinkedIn帖子中写道，”我们在MSC的立场很明确：我们不会也不会使用北海航线。”
目前，被称为”北方海航道”的航线每年只有几个月可通航，且即使在通航期，船只也必须由破冰船护航。这些危险加上北极污染问题，促使一些公司承诺暂时远离——至少目前如此。
“北极地区的航运辩论正在升温，商业航运是讨论的一部分，”地中海航运公司首席执行官索伦·托夫在LinkedIn帖子中表示，”我们公司的立场很明确：我们不会也不会使用北方海航道。”
Black carbon” in Arctic an increasing concern amid other issues in region
February 9, 2026 / 5:15 AM EST / AP
Reykjaviik, Iceland— As rising global temperatures speed up the melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, it’s set off a boom of ships taking routes that previously were frozen and not traversable.
The increase in marine Arctic traffic, which received increased attention as President Trump pushed for the United States to take over Greenland, has come with a heavy environmental cost: black carbon, or soot, that spews from ships and makes the ice melt even faster. In meetings this week with international shipping regulators, several countries are making a case for ships in the Arctic to use cleaner fuels that cause less pollution.
Glaciers, snow and ice covered in the soot emitted by ships have less ability to reflect the sun. Instead, the sun’s heat is absorbed, helping to make the Arctic the fastest warming place on Earth. In turn, melting Arctic sea ice can affect weather patterns around the world.
“It ends up in a never-ending cycle of increased warming,” said Sian Prior, lead adviser for 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 that the International Maritime Organization require ships traveling in Arctic waters to use “polar fuels,” which are lighter and emit less carbon pollution than the widely used maritime fuels known as residuals. The proposal includes steps that companies would take to comply and the geographic area it would apply to – all ships traveling north of the 60th parallel. The proposal was expected to be presented to the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response Committee this week and possibly another committee in April.
A 2024 ban on using a type of residual known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic has had only modest impact so far, partly because of loopholes.
An Icebreaker makes the path for a cargo ship with an iceberg in the background near a port on the Alexandra Land island near Nagurskoye, Russia, in May 2021. Alexander Zemlianichenko / AP
“Black carbon” exacerbating other regional issues
The push to reduce black carbon, which studies have shown has a warming impact 1,600 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year span, is happening at a time of conflicting interests, both internationally and among the countries that have coastlines in the Arctic.
In recent months, Mr. Trump’s periodic comments about the need to “own” Greenland to bolster U.S. security have raised many issues, from Greenland’s sovereignty to the future of the NATO alliance. Pollution and other environmental issues in the Arctic have taken a backseat.
Mr. Trump, who has called climate change a “con job,” has also pushed back against global policies aimed at fighting it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt regulations that would have imposed carbon fees on shipping, which supporters said would have pushed companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify fleets where possible. Then Mr. Trump intervened, lobbying hard for nations to vote no. The measure was postponed for a year, its prospects at best uncertain. Given that, it’s hard to see the IMO making fast progress on the current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.
Even inside Arctic nations, which are most impacted by black carbon and other shipping pollution, there are internal tensions around such 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 energies for heating, conservationists say the country has made less progress on regulating pollution in its seas. That’s because the fishing industry, one of the country’s most important, holds huge sway.
“The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with the taxes and not engaged in issues like climate or biodiversity,” said Arni Finnsson, board chair of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association.
Finnsson added that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also prompted resistance.
“I think the government is waking up, but they still have to wait for the (fishing) industry to say yes,” he said.
The country hasn’t taken a position on the pending polar fuels proposal. In a statement, Iceland’s Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was “positive with regard to its purpose and basic content” but that further study was needed. The statement added that Iceland supports stronger measures to counter shipping emissions and reduce black carbon.
More sea traffic means more soot in the air
Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing boats and even some cruise liners are traveling more in the waters that connect the northernmost parts of Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the United States.
Between 2013 and 2023, the number of ships entering waters north of the 60th parallel increased by 37%, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of the eight countries with territory in the Arctic. In that same period, the total distance traversed by ships in the Arctic increased 111%.
Black carbon emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 metric tons of black carbon was emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel compared with 3,310 metric tons in 2024, according to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates. The study found that fishing boats were the biggest source of black carbon.
It also found that the 2024 ban on heavy fuel oil would only result in a small reduction in black carbon. Waivers and exceptions allow some ships to continue using it until 2029.
Environmental groups and concerned countries see regulating ship fuel as the only way to realistically reduce black carbon. That is because getting nations to agree to limit traffic would likely be impossible. The lure of fishing, resource extraction and shorter shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some trips between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.
Still, the path known as the Northern Sea Route is only traversable a few months of the year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those dangers, combined with Arctic pollution concerns, have driven 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 Søren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world’s largest container shipping company, in a LinkedIn post last month. “Our position at MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.”
发表回复