Alaska climate info | whatï¿½s the weather like in Alaska, U.S.A. The climate of Alaska ( United States of America ) The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America and is separated from the mainland of the United States of America by Canada . Because of its geographical location (about one third of Alaska is situated above the Arctic Circle) Alaska is the coldest state of the United States of America. Because of the Alaska Current warm sea water flows along the southern coasts of Alaska. Because of this temperatures during the winter are higher here than you may expect from a region located this far north. However, this does not apply to the northern part of Alaska causing large differences in temperatures in Alaska. In Anchorage, Juneau and Dutch Harbor winters are warmer and shorter than in the north. In Dutch Harbor on Akmaknak Island the coldest month is January. During this month the average 24 hour temperature is just below freezing point. During the summer average daytime temperatures are 10-15 degrees Celsius (50-59 degrees Fahrenheit). The climate of Alaska can be divided into several climate zones.

The southeastern part of Alaska where the capital Juneau is situated has a moderate maritime climate (type Cfb) according to the Kï¿½ppen Geiger climate classification. This fairly wet part of Alaska can record up to 1,300 millimeters of annual precipitation. However, this is also the warmest region. The largest part of Alaska has a cool land climate (type Dfc). During the summer temperatures are above 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) here. The most northern part of Alaska has a tundra climate (type ET). During the winter it gets extremely cold here, both during day and night. During the summer temperatures rise just above freezing point and subzero temperatures during the night are not uncommon. Climate information of places in Alaska The climate information given on this page is only brief. Specific information on weather and climate can be found on the pages per region or city. The following climate information is available for Alaska: click here for the explanation of the symbols Disclaimer The information at this site was carefully composed from climate data collected by meteorological services, meteorological offices, climate experts and other sources. ï¿½More climate infoï¿½ is based on statistics, climate data and personal experience.

No rights can be derived from this site. Weather has no memory and gives no guaranties. Nothing is as changeable and unpredictable as the weather. The authors of this site feel in no way responsible for any damages caused by misinterpretation or other circumstances that may influence your holiday or trip to a certain destination. We provide information, itï¿½s up to the reader to use it to itï¿½s benefit. America and Russia locked in race control the Arctic Circle - Telegraph Follow Barack Obama was set to become the first sitting American president to visit the Arctic Circle on Wednesday night, as the United States battles to assert itself in a global race to control the region's natural resources. Melting permafrost caused by rising global temperatures has made the once impenetrable Arctic Circle increasingly accessible, sparking intense competition between Russia, the United States and China to assert control over an area that it is thought may hold as much as 40 per cent of the world’s oil and gas resources.

After meeting tribal leaders and fishermen in Dillingham, home to the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery, Obama flew into Kotzebue Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst During a three-day visit to Alaska, which has been primarily billed as a trip to highlight the urgency of Mr Obama’s ambitious climate change agenda, the president proposed speeding up the acquisition and building of new Coast Guard icebreaker ships to help secure year-round access in the nation’s polar regions. "These heavy icebreakers will ensure that the United States can meet our national interests, protect and manage our natural resources, and strengthen our international, state, local, and tribal relationships," the White House said in a statement. The American Coast Guard fleet is antiquated, and has only two fully functional icebreakers, while Russia is said to have 40 of the vessels, with another 11 planned or under construction. China is also a player in the area with one icebreaker and plans to build more. Russia has been rapidly expanding its influence in the Arctic, earmarking £2.8 billion for Arctic development over the next five years in an ambitious military and industrial development that is being personally overseen by Vladimir Putin, the country’s president.

Last March Mr Putin ordered a full combat military exercise in the area, involving 40,000 Russian troops and dozens of warships and submarines. The development highlights the stark challenges of reconciling climate policies with immediate economic necessity. Mr Obama’s visit to Alaska is also part of what he hopes will be a legacy-defining mission to cut American greenhouse emissions by almost a third. Images of melting permafrost and rising sea levels that are now forcing thousands of people to abandon their coastal homes are intended to drive home the urgency of Mr Obama’s ambitious policies to tackle global warming. During the three-day trip the president has used a mix of traditional politicking and celebrity television to get his message across. On Tuesday, the president spent the day with Bear Grylls , filming an episode of the British survival expert's programme “Running Wild” in which the pair hiked the melting Exit Glacier.

Watch @POTUS go behind the camera in Alaska to talk about the impacts of climate change: — The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 2, 2015 The president also used the trip to make a huge symbolic gesture to Native American communities and Alaskans, renaming Mount McKinley, the highest mountain in North America as Denali, its traditional name. Mr Obama was due to fly to Kotzebue yesterday, the main Arctic town in an area that is battling coastal erosion caused by rising sea levels. Residents in as many as a dozen of the surrounding villages have now voted to relocate their homes inland to more stable terrain, a move that may end their traditional way of life, but which many say is now inevitable. “In Arctic Alaska, villages are being damaged by powerful storm surges, which, once held at bay by sea ice, are battering the barrier islands where those villages sit,” the White House said, as it announced a set of local programmes designed to alleviate the pressure on the communities there. A fish relieves itself on U.S.

President Barack Obama as he meets traditional fishermen on the shore of the Nushagak River in Dillingham, Alaska Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst Mr Obama has been accused of hypocrisy by green campaigners for using Alaska to elevate his climate agenda, while only last month giving the final permission for Shell to begin exploratory drilling for oil off the state’s coast - a move with a potentially damaging impact on the environment. “The risks are incredible. Shell is being allowed to drill for oil in one of the most remote and dangerous places in the world, with none of the equipment ever having been tested,” said Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana , an environmental group. Mr LeVine said an enhanced fleet of icebreakers was a necessary part of creating an infrastructure to manage the environmental fallout of “inevitable” industrialisation of this once pristine area, but said that the current unregulated race for resources in the Arctic was a “recipe for disaster”.

The Countries of the Arctic - Arctic Territory - Documentary Series The Countries of the Arctic The Countries of the Arctic In addition to Canada, 7 other countries possess territories extending beyond the 66th Parallel: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, the United States (Alaska), Denmark (Greenland) and Iceland. In all, it is estimated that some 4 million people live north of the Arctic Circle, and its two largest cities, Murmansk and Norilsk, are both found in Russia. To favor collaboration, 8 countries of the Great North created the Arctic Council in 1996. Norway Having as its capital, Oslo, Norway is a mountainous territory situated in northern Europe, in Scandinavia. It is bordered to the north by the Arctic Ocean, and lies at approximately the same latitude as Alaska, and is thus subjected to an oceanic polar climate. About one-third of its lands lie beyond the 66th Parallel, including in its northern extremity, Jan Mayen Island and the Svalbard Archipelago. Officially annexed to the Norwegian territory in 1929, Jan Mayen Island was discovered more than 400 years ago by Dutch whalers.

Measuring only 377 km2, it is in fact a volcano that emerged from the Arctic Ocean several thousand years ago. Virtually uninhabited, it is used as a meteorological base for Norway, which has possessed installations there since 1921. The Svalbard Archipelago, on the other hand, is a region of complex politics. Although under the administration of Norway since 1920, its islands can be freely inhabited and occupied by other nations. With its 61,022 km2, the Archipelago is covered in the vast majority by ice, and ranks among the most northerly lands of the planet. Barely 3,000 souls live here, mainly on coal mining and fishing. Norway plays a particularly important role in the Arctic, as it is the guardian of several important access seaways there. Furthermore, the Norwegian Polar Institute has earned it international recognition thanks to its scientific research on polar territories. Favoring the economic and social development of its Arctic islands, this Scandinavian country nevertheless is prepared for all eventualities and specially trains its army for any confrontations which might arise in the Arctic. Sweden Sweden is situated in northern Europe, between Norway and Finland.

Although about 15% of its territory lies beyond the Arctic Circle, it is not in direct contact with the Arctic Ocean. Thus, this Scandinavian country enjoys a rather moderate climate. Trees cover half the land, forming, moreover, one of the greatest forests in all Europe. In the very heart of this Scandinavian country, which lies north of 66th Parallel, where the polar night lasts two months, its dense forests yield to a mountainous, snow-covered landscape, devoid of any vegetation. If only a minute proportion of its territory is found in the Arctic, Sweden is nonetheless home to large herds of reindeer, an animal widespread throughout Lapland. Finland Nestled between Norway, Russia and Sweden, Finland is a Scandinavian country belonging to northern Europe. Narrow and extending over a rather long latitude, its capital is Helsinki, home to over 20% of the nation's entire population. Approximately one-third of its territory lies beyond the Arctic Circle, where a subarctic climate reigns. In the north, snow extends as far as the eye can see some 7 months a year, while summers are short and cool.

With 90% of the land covered by conifer forest, Finland is homeland to most of the Sami people, who struggle to raise wild reindeer, regrettably rapidly on their way to extinction. Russia A country of gargantuan proportions, Russia's borders extend from Europe to Asia. With as its capital Moscow, this vast land is home to some 143 million souls, and is currently struggling against significant political and economic instability. Although it is classified among the world's major powers, Russia nevertheless has difficulty in opening up to democracy. Highly industrialized, it is equally prey to severe environmental problems. Alaska (United States) Sold to the United States by Russia for the modest sum of $7.2 million, Alaska has been an American state since 1867. Far from the motherland, it is located to the northwest of Canada and is bordered by the famed Bering Strait. Although less half its total surface area is found in the Arctic territory, Alaska is characterized by a polar climate. The capital of Alaska is Juneau, although the city of Anchorage is the most well known and highly populated. Nearly half the inhabitants of this Nordic land reside there.

Alaska is equally home to several Aboriginal peoples, in particular, the Inuits and Aleuts. We find in Alaska awesome mountains, sand deserts and vast quantities of exploitable resources, principally petroleum and natural gas. This American state equally possesses an attraction of considerable size: Mount McKinley, the highest summit in all of North America. In the heart of a fragile ecosystem, just like other polar territories, Alaska was the scene of one of the greatest ecological tragedies of all time: the Exxon Valdez Disaster of 1989, when the giant tanker accidentally spilled some 180,000 tons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. Greenland (Denmark) An immense island, separating the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, Greenland extends its 2,175,600 km2 of snow-covered lands to the northeast of Canada. Most of its territory is covered with an enormous sheet of ice which forms as dome on its surface, called an icecap. A polar climate reigns over this frozen world, inhabited some 58,000 people.

Greenland was long fought over by Norway and Denmark, before officially coming under the Denmark's flag in 1953, when the colonies of Greenland were made an equal part of the Danish Kingdom, followed by the granting of home rule in 1979. Iceland Although it is located just barely on the 66th Parallel, Iceland is considered one of eight Arctic countries, due to its nevertheless elevated latitude and of polar climate. Of volcanic origin, it lies in the North Atlantic Ocean. Unusual landscapes are to be found here, including lava plateaus, thermal springs and sites of lunar appearance. The Icelandic capital is named Reykjavik, where approximately 113,000 of the 299,000 inhabitants of the island live. Life on the "Front Lines of Climate Change" in the U.S. Arctic | Center for Strategic and International Studies Life on the "Front Lines of Climate Change" in the U.S. Arctic August 28, 2015 On August 31, President Barack Obama will become the first U.S. president to visit the Arctic north of the Arctic Circle. This historic visit coincides both with the start of the two-year U.S.

chairmanship of the Arctic Council—an intergovernmental forum of Arctic states, indigenous representatives, and non-Arctic observer states—and a State Department–hosted conference to highlight the urgency of climate action four months before the December Paris Climate Change Summit (COP 21). The Arctic is increasingly on the minds of senior U.S. officials as of late: President Obama has declared the Arctic region to be “on the front lines of climate change”; and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton calls the Arctic “a unique treasure” that is “not worth the risk of drilling.” But Alaskan officials, such as State Senators Lesil McGuire and Bob Herron, have a different view: “Efforts by the [U.S.] Executive Branch to lock up our land, to stifle our ability to economically develop and adapt to new climate situations is not just a disservice to Alaskans, it is a disservice to the country. Alaskans do not live in a snow globe; we live in the United States.” Clearly, the transformative change of the northernmost environment is what draws President Obama to Alaska, as well as greater international awareness that the Arctic region is warming at a rate two to three times faster than any other location on the planet.

And while climate change is a significant part of an unfolding Arctic story, it is not the only one. There is an important and often forgotten human dimension. The Arctic region is home to roughly 4 million people, including 40 different indigenous groups. And it is their story that may be overlooked during the upcoming presidential visit. With almost one-third of the state above the Arctic Circle, Alaska is home to over 736,000 Americans. Nearly 20 percent of Alaskans reside in rural Alaska, and nearly 4 percent live in Alaska’s Arctic region. They endure harsh climatic conditions; suffer from some of the highest national suicide and alcoholism rates; enjoy limited economic opportunities; and lack basic water and sanitation infrastructure, including indoor water and plumbing, on a daily basis. For those who live on the “front lines of climate change” in Alaska, using a “honey bucket” or trekking through snow and below-freezing temperatures to collect water from a community well are standard practice. These living conditions are generally associated with underdeveloped countries, not the United States.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2010, the percentage of homes in rural Alaska with complete plumbing was equivalent to the percentage of U.S. homes with complete plumbing in the 1950s. The CDC’s Healthy Alaskans 2020 project has set the goal of increasing the percentage of rural communities with water and sewer services in individual homes to 87 percent by 2020. However, the Healthy Alaskans 2020 Scorecard indicates that the project is not on track to meet this goal. The average person in the United States uses 156 gallons of water a day, whereas the average person in rural Alaska only uses 3 gallons of water a day. Priority is given to drinking and cooking, and the lower prioritization of personal hygiene means there is a heightened risk of water-related infections in rural Alaska. The CDC has found that there have been 85 percent more pneumonia-related hospitalizations among infants without in-home water service, and serious bacterial infections were twice as high. The lack of indoor plumbing is not the only challenge that residents in the U.S. Arctic confront on a daily basis.

The cost of living is much higher, particularly energy, due to many of the communities’ remote locations. Nearly 80 percent of Alaska’s rural communities are dependent on diesel fuel, and one in five rural households spends nearly 50 percent of its income on energy, more than five times in urban Alaska. At the beginning of 2015, gas prices in Barrow were $7 a gallon, compared to the average price of $2.30 a gallon in the lower 48 states. It is no wonder then that Alaskans are eager to explore and develop their state’s resources and improve their standard of living. While global attention has focused on the impact of low energy prices in energy-producing countries, such as Russia and Venezuela, it is having a dramatic impact on the Alaskan state budget, with the deficit reaching roughly $3.5 billion in 2015. Unemployment is 6.7 percent in Alaska; unemployment among Native Alaskans is much higher at roughly 11 percent. Making the Arctic exempt from sustainable economic development will not solve all of the challenges of climate change; it will, however, seriously affect the livelihoods of over half a million people who call the U.S.

Arctic their home. Perhaps there should be greater focus by Washington policymakers on investing in—rather than studying—projects and partnering with the private sector to reduce unemployment, provide clean and affordable energy, as well as running water to Alaskan communities. The Obama administration has taken important steps to improve renewable energy opportunities in rural Alaska and to reduce the use of costly and polluting diesel fuels. Alaskan communities are also leading the development of renewable and innovative energy technologies, including the installation of a “smart grid” in Kwigillingok to help its 317 residents save money on electricity. Mitigating the effects of climate change should go hand-in-hand with developing economic opportunities for U.S. Arctic residents, not come at the expense of those who depend on and call the Arctic their home. During his upcoming trip to Alaska, President Obama will have an up-close and personal view of the impact of climate change in the U.S. Arctic. He will also have the opportunity to visit with Alaskan communities in Dillingham and Kotzebue to see firsthand the living conditions (such as “honey buckets” and community water wells) that thousands of Alaskans deal with on a daily basis.

Hopefully, their story will be heard as loudly and clearly as the need to address the impact of ocean acidification, coastal erosion, and permafrost thaw as U.S. policymakers take the necessary steps to not only protect the Arctic environment, but also to ensure the protection of the needs of all Americans in the 49th state. Heather A. Conley is senior vice president for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., and Caroline Rohloff is a research associate in the CSIS Europe Program. They are coauthors of Recommendations for the U.S. Arctic Council Chairmanship: Enhancing Policy Focus on Arctic Health and Well-Being (CSIS, April 2015). Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2015 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

All rights reserved. Written By In the Race to Control the Arctic, the U.S. Lags Behind In the Race to Control the Arctic, the U.S. Lags Behind On 7/6/15 at 6:27 AM 07/17/15 COVER STORY In offshore Alaska, Royal Dutch Shell is preparing to undertake a search for more oil reserves. But the development plans have struck fear in the Inupiat, natives of the state's arid north coast, because the area is also a migration route for bowhead whales, and critical to the annual whale hunts that are a part of their ancestral traditions. Damon Winter/The New York Times/Redux Tech & Science It was just after Christmas 2012, and the Kulluk, a 250-foot-high, floating oil-drill rig, swung like a metronome in gale-force winds blowing through the Gulf of Alaska. The tug that had been towing the rig bobbed helplessly in 50-foot waves, her four diesel engines flooded with seawater as the rig’s skeleton crew of 18 drifted toward a barrier island.

If the Kulluk hit, it might split open, spilling 143,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 12,000 gallons of hazardous fluids into the water. In offshore Alaska, Royal Dutch Shell is preparing to undertake a search for more oil reserves. But the development plans have struck fear in the Inupiat, natives of the state's arid north coast, because the area is also a migration route for bowhead whales, and critical to the annual whale hunts that are a part of their ancestral traditions. Damon Winter/The New York Times/Redux Luckily, a Coast Guard helicopter team was able to swoop in and airlift the crew to safety, and, though the rig hit the island a few days later, it never ruptured. Ecological disaster was avoided, but it had been close. And no one was hurt. Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week The near accident was no surprise to environmentalists. They had warned there'd be problems if Shell, operator of the Kulluk, was permitted to drill offshore in the Arctic. The oil multinational wasn't prepared for the severe conditions in the far north, they said.

This month, Shell will try to drill offshore in the U.S. Arctic again. If it succeeds, the door flies open to wholesale American development in one of the Earth’s last pristine places, as the U.S. enters a gold rush for Arctic riches that is already underway elsewhere. But if, as environmentalists fear, another accident occurs, it might end attempts to drill in America’s high north for years. Oil extraction is one of the dominant debates in what may be the world’s newest great game, Rudyard Kipling’s term for the struggle between major powers to dominate the earth’s remote but vastly strategic places. Oil barrels line the landscape at the The Hayes Island Station on Franz Josef Land, an arctic island north of Russia. The station was abandoned in 2001 after a fire. Cory Richards/National Geographic Creative The Cold War Over a Very Cold Place The Arctic, which covers 8 percent of the Earth’s surface, is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. With all that ice melting, the region is in danger of becoming a 21st-century Wild West—a free-for-all for power and riches opening up at the top of the planet.

“The Arctic is emerging on the world stage, and it is not yet settled whether businesses, governments and other operators can fully manage the risks,” said a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report released in May 2015. Ice is disappearing so fast that the U.S. Navy predicts the entire Arctic Ocean may be totally ice-free in summers by 2050, with ships able to traverse the top of the North Pole. Newly open waters are already multiplying security and rescue concerns for the U.S., says Rear Admiral Daniel Abel, who runs Coast Guard forces in District 17, a massive 3.8-million-square-mile area encompassing 44,000 miles of coastline and parts of the Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. So much ice has disappeared since the 1970s that “just the amount of new open water I have to deal with is the size of 45 percent of the continental U.S.,” Abel said. There are no deep-water harbors in the U.S. Arctic, so as ice melts, emergency missions will have farther to go from bases to the south. Ship sinkings in dangerous Arctic seas are a real possibility.

In recent naval war games, representatives of all the U.S. military service branches planned responses to possible near-future scenarios, including terrorists seizing a ship in Arctic waters, enemy vessels carrying nuclear weapons north of Alaska and, if oil companies drill offshore, dealing with a massive spill. Warmer conditions are also opening up once-blocked trade routes and areas for drilling or mining, and with so much at stake, Arctic nations hope the current peace will keep but are arming up, planning for a harsher outcome, with Russia making the most aggressive moves. In March, it launched massive military maneuvers in the high north, involving 38,000 troops, over 50 ships and 110 aircraft. “Russia has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic priority, restoring Soviet era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets,” the CFR reported. Recently, Russian military planes called “bear bombers” resumed buzzing U.S. airspace off the Alaskan coast, a practice last seen during the Cold War. Navies and shipping companies hungrily eye shortcut trade routes opening up as ice disappears.

Russia’s northern sea route, the Northeast Passage, became ice-free in summers in 2007, shortening the distance between Asia and Europe by as much as 30 percent, which saves fuel, cuts carbon emissions and helps shippers avoid the pirate-filled waters off the coast of Africa. Five cargo vessels sailed the new route in 2009; 71 did it in 2013. Russian President Vladimir Putin says he wants the Bering Strait, between Alaska and Russia, to become the next Suez Canal, and U.S. naval planners have taken to calling the waters between Russia and Alaska “the Bering Gate.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has ramped up military exercises and air operations in the arctic, at times using tactics not seen since the Cold War, such as buzzing U.S. airspace in Alaska. Alexey Panov/AFP/Getty It’s a new kind of geopolitical cold war, and the U.S. is in danger of losing. “We’re not even in the same league as Russia right now,” Coast Guard Commandant Paul F. Zukunft says.

“We’re not playing in this game at all.” In the Arctic, the only way to move around on the surface of the sea in even thinner summer ice—to do search and rescue, lead other naval or commercial ships, or conduct heavy research—is often on icebreakers. The U.S. has only two, both old and “there’s no money for new icebreakers,” reports Fran Ulmer, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. Ulmer says an icebreaker can cost up to a billion dollars, and “it takes years to get one built.” Russia operates 27 icebreakers, and China, which is not an Arctic nation but has aspirations in the area, will have two by next year. Tourist ships have also begun journeying into the U.S. Arctic, through the formerly iced-over Northwest Passage—the 900-mile sea route over Alaska and northern Canada, and the shortcut between Europe and Asia that Western explorers had sought for centuries. For centuries, that ship graveyard crushed vessels with ice, killing crews with starvation, sickness or cold.

In the most famed tragedy, crews of the British Erebus and Terror were trapped in ice in 1848—they walked off in search of rescue and ended up eating each other. Those horror scenes are a far cry from the passage now, as German cruise ships routinely carry vacationers through it. In 2016, the huge luxury liner Crystal Serenity is scheduled to sail from Seward, Alaska, to New York City, carrying as many as 1,000 passengers in its lounges, bars and staterooms. Cheapest tickets: $21,455. Even private yachts have begun showing up off Barrow, at the top of Alaska, and neither the Coast Guard nor locals are alerted that they are coming, so unlike international travelers arriving elsewhere in the U.S., they simply land, unvetted. The adventurers on two such boats, Norwegian and Russians, told me they were surprised that when they transited through U.S. Arctic waters, they never had to show a passport or answer any questions. “We just walked ashore,” one man said. With Barrow’s airport less than a mile from the beach, any disembarking sailor with a U.S.

driver’s license could buy a ticket on a daily commercial flight to Anchorage and be anywhere else in the United States the next day, with no one the wiser. Snow-Globe Syndrome Russia and China are bullish on the high north for more than its lovely vistas and money-saving trade routes. They also believe that there’s an astounding treasure pile of resources there. Beneath the Arctic waters, projected oil and mineral finds—in particular, potential new hydrocarbon reserves thought to lie off Russia, Norway, Greenland and Canada—have triggered an undersea land rush. All Arctic oceanfront nations currently own mineral rights beneath the waters of their continental shelves, an "exclusive economic zone" extending out from shore for 200 miles. But under a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), any coastal nation can now claim an additional 200 miles of sea bottom if it proves to a committee of U.N.-based scientists that the area is part of its continental shelf. Russia and Norway have already put in claims. Glaciers line the northwest passage near Greenland. David Lefranc/Corbis During recent summers, the U.S.

icebreaker Healy has hosted scientists mapping and taking samples of the sea bottom off northern Alaska, in preparation for the U.S. making a similar claim—it could potentially gain new territory twice the size of California. But unlike other Arctic nations, the U.S. currently cannot make claims, because it’s the only one that hasn’t ratified the treaty, despite support for it from both the Bush and the Obama administrations, the military, shippers, oil companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and environmental groups. Republican senators have blocked UNCLOS for years. They object to a provision authorizing the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to oversee deep sea mining, believing that any oversight of ocean issues by international bodies will diminish U.S. sovereignty—this despite a 1994 revision giving the U.S. effective veto power over any ISA decisions, should the U.S. join up. The last time the treaty came up in the Senate, in 2012, 34 Republican senators pledged to vote against it, effectively killing it, since a two-thirds majority is required for ratification. After years of watching other countries more aggressively move into the Arctic, Washington has been more focused on the region in recent months.

In January, President Barack Obama issued an executive order to coordinate federal efforts under a national Arctic strategy. His administration has also encouraged greater communication between federal agencies responsible for oversight or permitting of offshore Arctic drilling, which Shell says has been a big help. And in April, the U.S. assumed chairmanship of the Arctic Council, a diplomatic body of eight Arctic nations designed to cooperatively deal with development and environmental issues in the region. So far, council states have agreed on search-and-rescue response protocols and marine oil-pollution preparedness. But, says Ulmer, “money hasn’t started flowing. Other Arctic nations have been more focused.” Perhaps because the lower 48 states are not attached to Alaska, “the U.S. does not self-identify as an Arctic nation,” she says. “Getting the public support necessary to achieve funding is a tough battle.” In May, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the secretary of defense to detail a military plan for the Arctic. "It's one thing to talk about these issues but another to have a forced posture that reaffirms our strategy," he says. "It's the snow-globe syndrome.

Americans in the Lower 48 see us as something they see in a glass. It makes them feel good. But they don't take us seriously.” Of course, Shell Oil and other companies that have purchased leases north of Alaska take the Arctic very seriously. But despite the financial stakes, those other companies aren’t plunging into chilly waters yet. They want to see what happens to Shell first. ”Shell leads with their chin,” one ConocoPhillips executive told me. And if Shell succeeds, a huge development push is likely to follow, Arctic concerns will accelerate, and the Lower 48 may, after years of inattention, start to focus on the American High North. The Eskimo and the Oil Man In 2008, Shell paid a record $2 billion for the Burger prospect—a collection of oil and gas leases in the Chukchi Sea, which lies between the De Long Strait and Point Barrow. Ironically, Shell was buying back from the government the right to drill in areas it had paid for in 1989 and 1990. Those old leases lapsed after Shell drilled but found no oil.

Other companies were also unsuccessful—35 wells were drilled in offshore Arctic waters between 1981 and 2002, but none hit oil. “We found gas but weren’t interested in gas,” says Ann Pickard, Shell’s executive vice president for the Arctic. “We walked away.” But by 2008 the situation had changed. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a report predicting that 13 percent of all undiscovered oil on earth and 30 percent of all natural gas lies above the Arctic Circle, most of it underwater. “The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the…largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum on earth,” it said. At the same time, Alaskan land-based oil—which once supplied 25 percent of all U.S. needs—was drying up; the state’s pipeline was carrying only one-third of peak flow. Shell decided to take a fresh look at the old sites, using newly developed 3-D seismic techniques and computer modeling. Shell agreed with USGS estimates: There were, it thought, 27 billion barrels of oil to be had beneath the Chukchi and Beaufort seas off Alaska.

The Beaufort leases cost Shell $84 million.But buying oil leases in the U.S. does not automatically give a company the right to drill. Shell still had to apply for over 30 permits from a range of regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Shell might have weathered that process, but it made a strategic mistake: It failed to consult local Iñupiat Eskimos, who feared that drilling would frighten off whales and other marine mammals—which the Iñupiats depend on for food. "The ocean is our garden," said Edward Itta, the then-mayor of North Slope Borough, the Wyoming-sized county that makes up the top of Alaska. “Subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering are in our DNA. It’s who we are.” The Shell project would tie into the existing Alaska pipeline extending south from BP's Prudhoe Bay facility, shown here. Damon Winter/The New York Times/Redux Borough lawyers started the legal challenge. Quickly, other Eskimo and environmental groups joined in.

They took Shell to court, charging that the Mineral Management Service—the Department of Interior's federal agency responsible for permitting drilling at that time—failed to conduct the scientific research that would prove whether the Beaufort drill plan would harm sea mammals and discharge dangerous air and water pollution. The court ruled against Shell, so it began modifying its drill plans. But year by year, the lawsuits multiplied, with more environmental groups joining in. The federal agencies grew more frightened of suits, and the permit process grew more complex. The application for the clean-air permit alone ran 1,400 pages, weighed 7 pounds and took Shell staffers months to compose. By 2012, Shell had sunk $4 billion into studies, applications, leases and preparation without ever drilling. Most Iñupiat legal opposition dropped away that year after Shell shrank its plans and promised to stay away during whale hunting weeks. Shell finally drilled that summer, briefly, but did not hit the expected oil reserves. Then the Kulluk ran aground on that barrier island, and Shell shut down operations again, despite the fact that, as Pickard points out, “the actual drilling in 2012 went well.

The Kulluk accident happened when the season was over—and not even in the Arctic. It happened after we left.” Nevertheless, the near disaster triggered federal investigations along with charges of mismanagement and incompetence. So Shell reworked its plans yet again. Finally, on May 11, 2015, the Department of Interior’s Office of Environment ruled that Shell’s offshore plan will cause “no significant impact” to waters off northern Alaska or the wildlife there. Precautions include a tapping cap to stop spills (modeled after the one that ended the Gulf of Mexico Macondo spill in 2010); employing two tugs instead of one for the massive submersible drill rig Polar Pioneer, which lacks its own engine; and having federal observers on rigs 24 hours a day. There will also be stricter oversight of private contractors, whose negligence in 2012—unreported engine stoppages and failure to notify the Coast Guard of hazardous conditions aboard the drillship Noble Discoverer—resulted in a plea agreement and $12.2 million in fines and community service payments.

Shell has also agreed to consult with Iñupiat elders regarding any effects the project may have on marine mammals, and to keep away during Iñupiat whale hunts, as it did in 2012. Protesters with the ShellNo flotilla float near the Polar Pioneer oil drilling rig during demonstrations against Royal Dutch Shell on May 16, 2015 in Seattle, Washington. Environmentalists in Puget Sound were angered over the presence of the first of two Royal Dutch Shell oil rigs bound for the arctic from the Port of Seattle. David Ryder/Getty In June, Shell’s ships started gathering in Dutch Harbor in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, where volcanic peaks protect a deep-water anchorage, over 1,000 miles from the eventual drill site. And in July, the 30-vessel fleet—including two oil rigs, supply barges, icebreakers, worker housing and even an oil tanker to collect any spill—is scheduled, if final permits come through, to make the journey along the Aleutian chain and turn north into the Bering Strait, where the U.S. and Russia lie only 40 miles apart.

Later in July, the fleet will reach the Chukchi Sea, where the Shell team will begin sinking two exploratory wells. The company has now invested $7 billion in its Arctic project, and it’s yet to pull a single resource out of the undersea land. “We believe that area is a potential Gulf of Mexico,” says Pickard. “We see future production of over 1 million barrels a day.” But environmentalists fear the project will end in disaster, even if Shell strikes black gold. “If the worst happens, there’s no way to clean or contain an oil spill in ice,” says Erik Grafe, an attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization. “Even the best-prepared companies are not up to conditions in the Arctic.” In early June, Earthjustice and a consortium of environmental groups filed suits contesting Shell’s venture. Though the eskimo whaling captains didn’t join in these new suits, they remain wary. Last month, Harry Brower Jr.

of Barrow, a whale hunter and president of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, sat in his office, at the northern tip of America, 320 miles north of the Arctic Circle and across the street from a black-sand beach and the Chukchi Sea. Spring whaling season had just ended. The view, black water and white ice, was not so different from what his ancestors had looked at 4,000 years ago. The bowhead whales had migrated past Barrow recently, on their way to their summer feeding grounds off Canada. Glaciers line the Northwest Passage near Greenland. Years of ice melt have made the once-blocked route more viable for shipping. Pat Keough/Rosemarie Keough/Corbis “We have a lot of unanswered questions,” Brower said. "We don't know how the sound [of drilling and ships] will affect the sea animals. We don’t know what happens if there's an oil spill. Cleanup technology may prove inadequate. Oil cleanup has been tested in calm seas.

I'm not sure that knowledge would apply in 40 mile-per-hour winds and 13-foot seas." Pickard says that if Shell finds the hoped-for bonanza this summer, the company will still need to begin a whole new process of applications before being allowed to extract it. Shell would have to build a new Alaska pipeline across the tundra, to carry the undersea oil and link up with the existing pipeline, which runs from the land-based fields at Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. New construction would require "the world’s biggest environmental impact statement," says Pickard, adding that “the earliest actual production could begin would be between 2025 and 2030.” The barriers nearly drove Shell to give up, she admits. “We came to the edge of walking away more than once. The biggest argument against that was, if we do not develop these resources, somebody else will. If Burger works, it will open up the whole area.” The fate of Shell’s Arctic project this summer and over the next few years will be one key indicator of whether the U.S. can juggle the tasks of maintaining influence, exploiting commercial opportunities and protecting the environment in one of the last unspoiled places on earth.

Pickard will retire after the Alaska operation whether or not it is a success, she says, but she still feels the pressure. "As I travel to other Arctic countries, other governments say to me, The whole world is watching you. Make sure you are successful. If you're not, it will hurt us in other parts of the Arctic. I think this summer is historic. A historic burden." Midnight Sun Midnight Sun Even Southcentral Alaska experiences long days near summer solstice. Sunshine at midnight. Alaska receives more sunlight in spring and summer than any other state and many other parts of the world. Does your home area have midnight sun? In Barrow, the state’s northernmost community, the sun does not set for more than two and a half months—from May 10 until August 2. (The contrast is from November 18 to January 24, when the sun never rises above the horizon!) The real boundary of the midnight sun is the Arctic Circle, latitude 66 degrees, 33 minutes north.

That imaginary line marks the lowest latitude at which the sun remains above the horizon for a full 24 hours during summer solstice (June 20 or 21) and below the horizon for a full 24 hours during winter solstice (December 21 or 22). At the equator, the sun rises straight up from the horizon and sets straight down to it. In Alaska, the sun travels in a slanting 360 degree circle in the sky, so even if it's below the horizon, it's barely below it for a long period. This means that even though the sun isn't visible, we still receive very bright twilight that can last for hours or until the sun rises again. For example, Fairbanks, which is below the Arctic Circle by almost 200 miles, still receives 24 hours of light for a long period in the summer. Conversely, in winter, the sun may only be above the horizon for a few hours, but there are many more hours of visible light due to the very low arc the sun travels across the horizon. Nearly one-third of Alaska lies above the Arctic Circle, but Alaskans are fairly informal about claiming they live with the midnight sun.

All parts of the state enjoy long daylight hours in summer, even Ketchikan, the state’s southernmost population center, where there are more than 17 hours of daylight on June days. Where to See Alaska’s Midnight Sun Many tour companies operating out of Fairbanks offer bus, van, and airplane tours in summer to the Arctic Circle and beyond. On summer solstice, the longest day of the year, you can join local residents to watch the sun from traditional high-elevation viewpoints on Alaska highways. On the Steese Highway, good viewpoints are at Cleary Summit, 25 miles northeast of Fairbanks and Eagle Summit, 108 miles northeast of Fairbanks. Northwest of Fairbanks, on Sheep Creek Road, good viewpoints are Murphy Dome and Ester Dome. On the Taylor Highway from Tetlin Junction, views are good from several high points on Mount Fairplay. Many communities hold late-night celebrations—including a baseball game, fun run, and Midnight Sun golf scramble in Fairbanks.

Hours of Sunlight Above the Horizon in Alaskan cities America in the Arctic | Center for Strategic and International Studies America in the Arctic June 4, 2015 In April, the United States assumed the two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council – an intergovernmental forum of eight Arctic countries and six indigenous organizations -- at a moment of great change and challenge for the Arctic. The average American may not realize that the United States is an Arctic nation thanks to the state of Alaska when, in 1867 the United States purchased 586,412 square miles of land from the Russian Empire for $7.2 million. Many ridiculed this extravagant purchase (2 cents per acre!) as President Andrew Johnson’s “polar bear garden” and Secretary of State William Seward’s “ice box” and “folly.” But in reality, the Alaska Purchase was a strategic transaction that effectively halted Russian expansion in the North Pacific, increased the territorial size of the United States by nearly 20 percent, and greatly enriched the country with its natural resources. The Arctic has always been a region where the United States has pursued its strategic interests.

From the daring exploration and gold rush of the 1800s to the energy boom of the 1900s, Arctic economics have been a key driver of circumpolar development. Defense and security concerns in the region have been equally important. The United States constructed the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line in Alaska and the Soviets deployed nuclear weapons in the Arctic. The collapse of the Soviet Union figuratively melted the Arctic’s geostrategic ice cap, allowing international cooperation to flourish in the region for nearly two decades as evidenced by the creation of the Arctic Council in 1996. But that was then; this is now. Much has changed since the United States last chaired the Arctic Council from 1998 to 2000. For example, in 1998, the minimum extent of Arctic sea ice was 12 million square kilometers; in 2014 it had shrunk to 5 million square kilometers. The average Arctic temperature today is one degree Celsius higher than it has been over the past 30 years.

The United States had two functioning heavy icebreakers in 1998, but in 2015 it only has one and a half: one heavy icebreaker and a medium-strength research vessel. And in 1998, Boris Yeltsin’s Russia had just joined the Group of Eight (G8) countries, while in 2014 Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been suspended from the group and Arctic Council members have imposed sanctions on Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea and ongoing aggression in Ukraine. The next two years will challenge Arctic Council members like no other moment in its nearly 20-year history. Here are four important Arctic trends to watch during the U.S. Arctic Council chairmanship. Welcome to the Global Arctic . First, the future of the Arctic will not be solely determined by the eight Arctic Council states and indigenous representatives. Increasingly, countries that are located far from the Arctic want a greater voice in Arctic matters. China, South Korea, India, Japan, Singapore, and many other countries are becoming more involved diplomatically and economically in the Arctic.

For instance, China – a new observer to the Arctic Council -- is currently constructing its second icebreaker and is seeking to enhance its scientific research presence in Norway, Iceland, and Canada. The evolution of a “Global Arctic” means that global, rather than regional solutions are needed to reduce Arctic pollutants, such as black carbon and carbon dioxide emissions which often originate beyond the Arctic’s borders. A “Global Arctic” also requires that Arctic Council states develop new strategies to integrate non-Arctic states into Arctic Council structures and activities. Economic Boom and Bust . The second trend is the waxing and waning of Arctic economies and its implication for future Arctic development. When global commodity demand is great and energy prices are high, the Arctic becomes more appealing to both Arctic and non-Arctic states for resource extraction, mining, and shipping. But when global demand weakens and oil prices are low (having fallen by nearly 50 percent), enthusiasm for Arctic development dissipates. Reports of an Arctic oil bonanza and a race for resources have been replaced by news that lucrative Arctic energy deals have been postponed and vessel transits through the Northern Sea Route have declined. The dramatic change in the global energy landscape -- fueled in large part by the U.S.

unconventional energy revolution and Western sanctions targeting Russia’s Arctic energy ambitions -- has recalibrated Arctic economic interests. Ice-Free Does Not Mean Permanently Ice-Free . Third, an increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean does not mean that the region will be completely ice-free and permanently navigable. As the Arctic’s multi-year ice pack diminishes, ice floes become more unpredictable and the intensification of Arctic storms make the region more dangerous. Last fall, Super Typhon Nuri pummeled the Barents Sea and Alaska with sustained winds of 125-180 mph for a 24-hour period. Registering one of the lowest barometric readings ever recorded, this storm was so powerful that it altered the course of the North Pacific Jet Stream. With only 8 percent of the Arctic Ocean hydrographically mapped to international standards, maritime accidents will likely increase, yet Arctic search and rescue capabilities are remarkably scarce. Will the Arctic Experience a Geopolitical Re-Freeze ? Finally and perhaps most troublingly, the United States and other Arctic nations have taken international cooperation in the Arctic largely for granted since the end of the Cold War.

We do not know -- nor have we contemplated -- how the United States and international community would respond should Russia or the West cease to cooperate in the Arctic. Recent actions taken by Russia do not instill confidence that the Arctic will be exempt from geopolitical tensions. The Kremlin continues to hold unannounced military exercises in the Arctic which engage significant numbers of forces, demonstrate increasing complexity, and simulate the use of nuclear weapons. Moscow’s authorization of the use of military force to protect Russian interests in the Arctic (as stated in its updated December 2014 military doctrine), the planned reopening of over 50 Soviet-era bases along Russia’s Arctic coastline, and Russia’s recently Unified Arctic Command, as well as Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin’s pronouncement that “the Arctic is Russia’s Mecca” have all raised serious questions regarding Russia’s intent in the Arctic. Urgently, the United States and the other seven Arctic nations must rapidly develop new methods to enhance transparency and confidence-building efforts with Russia as it pursues its Arctic military activities and before a tragic accident or miscommunication occurs. Because there are no forums or existing international mechanism that can address security challenges in the Arctic today, new solutions must be found quickly. Whither the U.S.

Chairmanship ? Despite these ongoing trends, the United States has announced, and Arctic Council members have agreed, that it will largely focus its two-year efforts on climate change mitigation, ocean stewardship, and improving the well-being of communities that live in the North. All are worthy initiatives but do they take meaningful steps to address any of these issues? Working closely with the state of Alaska, Washington must take urgent steps to ready itself for profound change that is happening in the Arctic today. First, the United States must budget resources to enhance U.S. maritime domain awareness and maritime infrastructure now. No more studies; implement a procurement plan. Secondly, the U.S. agenda is largely silent on Arctic economic development with the exception of a newly formed Arctic Economic Council. The people who live in the Arctic Circle need livelihoods to support themselves and Alaskans in particular are feeling the brunt of the change in global energy patterns. For decades, Arctic peoples have managed to find the balance between development and stewardship; today, they need help to diversify and enhance economic and educational opportunities.

Finally, the United States, along with the other Arctic nations, must engage in an immediate and direct conversation with the Kremlin to enhance transparency and confidence-building measures regarding Russia’s Arctic military exercises in order to ensure the safety of all Arctic actors. For many years, the Arctic was largely an afterthought for U.S. policymakers. Thankfully, Washington is turning its attention to its Arctic strategies; however, the emphasis remains on pointing to the Arctic to emphasize the United States’ global climate change policies. While slowing down the effects of an increasingly warming Arctic and focusing on climate resilience must be a top priority, it cannot be the only policy pursuit. Tough, national decisions about Arctic readiness should have been made years ago and assessments must be made about the Arctic’s future security environment. There is not a moment to lose. Heather A. Conley is senior vice president for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic, and director of the Europe Program, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary.

CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2015 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved. Written By Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe Program Media Queries Mark Brzezinski: U.S. Arctic Policies and Priorities — Arctic Deeply Read time Approx. 10 minutes One year ago, President Barack Obama issued an executive order to create the Arctic Executive Steering Committee. The move was an attempt to coordinate the many agencies in charge of Arctic programs. “Over the past 60 years, climate change has caused the Alaskan Arctic to warm twice as rapidly as the rest of the United States,” Obama said in the order , “and will continue to transform the Arctic as its consequences grow more severe.” A few months later, the U.S. took over the leadership of the Arctic Council, the intergovernmental forum of Arctic states and observer nations that focuses on environmental protection and sustainable development.

In August 2015, Mark Brzezinski was appointed to serve as the executive director of the Arctic Executive Steering Committee, which oversees the implementation of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region . He had previously served as U.S. ambassador to Sweden from 2011 to 2015, working closely with the Swedish government during its chairmanship of the Arctic Council (2011–13). Brzezinski agreed to answer some questions by email about U.S. priorities in the Arctic. Arctic Deeply: The Arctic is not a priority for many Americans. Why should it be important to Americans? Mark Brzezinski: America is an Arctic nation, thanks to the great State of Alaska and the people who live there. The Arctic is part of our national identity and pride, culture and heritage, and national opportunity. In this way, Americans are an Arctic people and Arctic issues are American issues. The impacts of climate change in the Arctic present simultaneously a strategic challenge and a human challenge.

As President Obama stated following his trip to the Arctic in September, “the looming crisis in the Alaskan Arctic is a tangible preview of the looming crisis of the global condition.” A direct interaction exists between what happens in the Arctic and what happens in the rest of the world. For example, temperature increases and loss of sea ice in the Arctic are altering weather patterns across the globe, particularly at mid-latitudes in North America, Europe and Asia. The Arctic Executive Steering Committee (AESC), operating out of the White House, along with the Arctic Council, under the U.S. chairmanship, are focusing on the health and welfare of Arctic communities, in addition to Arctic ocean safety, security, stewardship and the impacts of climate change. We are proactively listening to and learning from the people of the Arctic about their concerns and needs, and working every day on their behalf. Arctic Deeply: What kind of work is the Arctic Executive Steering Committee doing? Mark Brzezinski: We are looking for opportunities to solve problems. Take for example the challenge of clean drinking water in the Arctic. For some communities in rural Alaska, access to clean drinking water is a day-to-day struggle due to lack of infrastructure.

To help address this issue, in October 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided a construction grant (with matching funds from the State of Alaska) to support the construction of drinking water and wastewater systems in nine Alaska Native villages to help provide access to drinking water. Access to reliable, affordable energy is also a challenge for many communities in the Arctic. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently announced the availability of $10 million in funding for USDA High Energy Cost Grants to Alaskan communities to address this energy challenge. These are examples of the work the AESC is undertaking during its first year. With the participation of 25 federal agencies in the AESC, the AESC has become the central hub for coordinating federal activities in the Arctic. The AESC is positioned to continue this important work in its second year and beyond, in continued consultation with state, local and Tribal entities in America’s Arctic. A tour boat visiting Kenai Fjords National Park outside Seward, Alaska. (The White House/Chuck Kennedy) Arctic Deeply: What are the U.S. priorities for Arctic policy and why?

Mark Brzezinski: The Arctic Region has enormous and growing economic, environmental and national security implications for the United States. The U.S. government’s “National Strategy for the Arctic Region” identifies our strategic priorities for the Arctic, and those priorities inform our nation’s policies across the range of challenges and opportunities. Our national priorities in the Arctic include national security, sovereign rights and responsibilities, maritime safety, environmental stewardship, scientific research, management of natural resources and preservation of indigenous culture and language. A central principle informing our work is: While the Arctic provides a preview of future impacts of climate change, it also offers an opening for a collective and effective response. President Obama initiated the strategy to position the United States to meet the challenges and opportunities arising in the Arctic. In understanding our strategy, it’s important to know that it is based on three “lines of effort” that guide policymaking. The first line of effort is to advance U.S. security interests. Our highest priority for the United States remains protecting the American people, our sovereign territory and rights, and our natural resources. The second line of effort is the pursuit of responsible Arctic region stewardship.

This includes environmental protection and conservation, resource development, economic opportunities, reliable and affordable energy for Alaska and the preservation of indigenous people’s culture. As an Arctic nation, the United States will continue to protect the Arctic environment and conserve its resources. We are conducting additional charting of the Arctic region to enhance marine transportation safety and enhancing our capabilities to prevent, contain and respond to hazardous material spills and conduct search and rescue missions. We are establishing and implementing an integrated Arctic management framework and employing scientific research and traditional knowledge to increase our understanding of the Arctic and the changes taking place. Third, we are continuing to play a leadership role in the Arctic while striving to strengthen international cooperation on the future of the region. The Arctic presents a historically unique challenge, and a collective response to these challenges is the most effective response. The GLACIER Summit in Alaska in August 2015, attended by representatives from 21 nations, created a platform to generate a collective understanding of the Arctic’s unique role in global climate change and the actions needed to address the impacts of climate change in the Arctic. Another example of enhanced international cooperation is the creation of a new Arctic Coast Guard Forum in October 2015.

The Coast Guards of eight Arctic nations will leverage collective efforts to foster safe, secure and environmentally responsible maritime activity in the Arctic. We will strengthen our international partnerships bilaterally and through existing multilateral fora, including the Arctic Council, which we now chair, and pursue new arrangements for cooperating on environmental and other issues of mutual interest or concern. Arctic Deeply: The U.S. is not a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. How does this affect the activities and actions of the U.S. in the Arctic? Mark Brzezinski: Significant national security, economic and other interests of the United States as both a coastal state and a major maritime power are advanced and secured by becoming a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. The convention remains a key piece of unfinished treaty business for the United States. We need to become a party in order to protect fully our navigational rights and freedoms, economic rights and other ocean-related interests. Past administrations, both Republican and Democrat, the civilian and military leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces and leading industry and non-governmental organizations have all strongly supported the United States joining the convention.

Each of the five states surrounding the Arctic Ocean – Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark (via Greenland) and the United States – has an extended continental shelf. The Arctic coastal states are proceeding in an orderly manner to define their continental shelf limits according to the provisions set out in the Law of the Sea Convention. While the United States has a significant amount of extended continental shelf in the Arctic, as a non-party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States is at a disadvantage relative to the other Arctic Ocean coastal states. Becoming a party to the Law of the Sea Convention would help the United States maximize international recognition and legal certainty regarding the outer limits of the U.S. continental shelf, including off the coast of Alaska, where our extended continental shelf is likely to extend out to more than 600 nautical miles. U.S. accession is a matter of geostrategic importance in the Arctic (where all other Arctic nations, including Russia, are parties). The administration remains committed to acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention as a high priority. Arctic Deeply: How can Arctic science, such as the monitoring of Arctic change and wildlife populations, be improved and where does the U.S.

fit into improving the quality and/or quantity of Arctic research and data? Mark Brzezinski: The time is right to accelerate international cooperation in Arctic research, and a huge amount of scientific cooperation is needed to address the challenges in a rapidly changing Arctic. There is also ample opportunity today to boost scientific cooperation with our international partners in the Arctic, with whom we share a mutual interest and common purpose. International cooperation will enhance our ability to monitor and understand phenomena such as greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost, the impacts of sea ice reduction on marine ecosystems and long-distance weather links between the Arctic and mid-latitudes. The August 2015 GLACIER Conference created a platform as a means of engaging both Arctic nations and other nations with interests in the Arctic in enhanced scientific collaboration. The greater our scientific understanding of fundamental Arctic ecosystems and changes occurring in the Arctic – the better we are able to forecast the impacts of climate change before they occur – the better suited we will be to adapt to new realities. A good model is seen in the “Distributed Biological Observatory,” (DBO) a U.S. partnership with Japan, South Korea, Korea, Canada and Russia.

This project exemplifies international collaboration in Arctic observing in the Pacific Arctic region by collecting and sharing sampling from various national and international research platforms to demonstrate the value added of an international shared-data approach. DBO is organized by the Pacific Arctic Group (PAG), a subgroup of the International Arctic Science Committee, and receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Another example is NOAA’s Arctic Report Card , an annual publication that synthesizes a range of environmental observations throughout the Arctic. It highlights continued physical and biological changes occurring in the Arctic environmental system. These changes include the minimum sea ice extent and impacts of sea ice retreat on ice-associated marine mammals such as walruses. This is an opportune time for U.S. leadership to strengthen scientific partnerships with other countries to deepen our understanding of the impact of changing temperatures and retreating sea ice on Arctic wildlife populations. We are also exploring ways to develop and implement a more integrated Arctic observing system and enhance international data sharing to better understand Arctic system dynamics and the impacts that changes in the Arctic are having on the rest of the globe. Ambassador Brzezinski and actor Felix Herngren visiting the Swedish Arctic High North.

(US Embassy Sweden) Arctic Deeply: How has your experience in the Arctic shaped your view on the Arctic and the potential impact of U.S. policy at the international level? Mark Brzezinski: I come to the Arctic issue as someone passionate about the environment from a very young age. I was raised in a family where the outdoors was a central part of growing up. I grew up in Northern Virginia, and I remember winters in the 1970s when the Potomac froze more than it does now. I loved to go to the Chesapeake Bay as a kid. Today, climate change is contributing to increasing numbers of harmful algae blooms in coastal waters, and that affects the coastal fishing industry. I first went to Alaska after college, when I traveled through parts of the state with my brother, through Glacier Bay National Park, visiting Mendenhall Glacier among many other sites. I was awestruck by their natural beauty but also by human society that exists in harmony and balance with these delicate ecosystems. That’s the passion I brought to the U.S. embassy in Sweden when I was posted there by President Obama as U.S. ambassador.

I was in Sweden for almost four years, and spent a significant amount of time above the Arctic Circle visiting with the Saami people, listening to how their society and culture may disappear because of the impacts of climate change. During my time in Stockholm, which included the period of Sweden’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council, I worked closely with the Swedish government on a wide range of Arctic issues. Under my leadership, the U.S. embassy developed new partnerships with governments and diplomats, businesses and the environmental and NGO communities, with emphasis on how developments in the Arctic are linked to what is happening in the rest of the world. In so doing, I saw the capacity of the U.S. government to elevate awareness and mobilize national and international action to address a vital issue like the Arctic. In my first month in my new position as executive director of the Arctic Executive Steering Committee, I was able to participate in President Obama’s historic visit to Alaska, where the president made history by becoming the first U.S. president to put his two feet in the Arctic. The president was clear that his visit was the beginning, not the culmination, of high-level U.S. government engagement on the Arctic.

The president’s visit to Alaska’s remote Arctic reflects his deep commitment to pursue a responsible way forward. In his speech at the GLACIER Conference in Alaska, Obama said, “Remind yourself that there will come a time when your grandkids – and mine, if I’m lucky enough to have some – they’ll want to see this. They’ll want to experience it, just as we’ve gotten to do in our own lives. They deserve to live lives free from fear, and want, and peril. And ask yourself, are you doing everything you can to protect it. Are we doing everything we can to make their lives safer, and more secure, and more prosperous?” His visit served as a clarion call for specific actions by the international community, not just by the United States. If we are able to enhance our understanding of the Arctic to better predict future impacts in the Arctic and elsewhere, and engage in unprecedented cooperation with other nations to respond to the huge challenges we face, our children’s children will be better off. Top image: President Obama visiting with students in Dillingham, Alaska, during his September 2015 trip to the Arctic.

(The White House/Pete Souza) About the Author Hannah Hoag Hannah Hoag is the managing editor of Arctic Deeply. She has covered climate change, science policy, energy and health for more than a decade, reporting for a wide range of publications that include Nature, Discover, Wired, New Scientist, Maclean’s and the Globe and Mail. She is a contributor to The Science Writers’ Handbook: Everything You Need to Know to Pitch, Publish, and Prosper in the Digital Age, and served as deputy editor for the book’s website. Before turning to journalism, Hannah studied rare genetic diseases, but she decided reporting on science and its impacts might be a more exciting career. It also offered more adventure: Hannah has reported from an ice floe in the Beaufort Sea, a rainforest in Guyana and a canoe drifting across a northern Ontario lake. Never miss an update. Sign up for our newsletter to receive weekly updates, special reports and featured insights as we cover one of the most critical issues of our time.  Subscribe

Question: Over one third of which state of the USA is in the Arctic Circle?
Answer: Alaska