President Joe Biden met with both U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and then King Charles this week to discuss climate change, and action on the Arctic should have been at the top of the agenda since the melting of Arctic sea ice is rapidly destabilizing the climate more powerfully than any other immediate cause.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the Arctic\u2019s reflective sea ice continues to melt, more and more heat is absorbed by the darker ocean underneath, disrupting the world\u2019s weather and inflicting punishing and hugely expensive climate impacts in the U.S., U.K. and around the globe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The loss of sea ice also is rearranging geopolitical power in very dangerous ways for the West, as Russia and China cooperate on newly opened Arctic sea lanes and plot to jointly exploit oil, gas and other minerals made more accessible as the ice disappears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But there is still a choice: temporary riches from oil and gas for a few, or planetary safety for all. This should be an easy call. But it doesn\u2019t seem to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The U.K. is struggling to import more oil and gas as its own supplies peter out. The government seems to think that more oil and gas from the Arctic will help. It\u2019s not clear what the logic is, especially given the spectacular success of clean energy<\/a>, including on cost. What is clear is that the U.K. is not doing enough to help protect the Arctic\u2019s reflective sea ice, which is the key to global climate stabilization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A good place to start would be to face the catastrophic consequences of losing the climate protection the Arctic\u2019s reflective ice shield provides. Under current policies, the Grantham Institute<\/a> at the London School of Economics estimates that \u201cthe total cost of climate change damages to the UK [will] increase from 1.1% of GDP at present to 3.3% by 2050 and at least 7.4% by 2100.\u201d Simply on domestic economic grounds, the U.K. should save Arctic sea ice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the Grantham Institute goes on to warn that \u201cthe greatest risk to the U.K. under current policies is from catastrophic disruption to the global economic system.\u201d And catastrophic disruption is exactly what losing the Arctic sea ice will bring when climate feedbacks push the planet past a series of non-linear tipping points on the way to a hothouse future in which half the population will live in places too hot for human survival. The Grantham Institute<\/a> and McKinsey<\/a> calculate that the loss of the Arctic ice will have severe impacts on the British economy and energy security as extreme weather strains the U.K. system and causes thousands of excess deaths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That may be an understatement: According to last week\u2019s analysis from Exeter University, climate modeling in financial services is significantly underestimating climate risk<\/a> by excluding the most severe impacts, such as sea-level rise, heat stress, and climate tipping points, where warming becomes self-perpetuating as in the loss of Arctic sea ice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The bottom line Is that the U.K. cannot protect itself unless it protects the Arctic. Nor can the United States. The Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average<\/a> in a phenomenon called Arctic amplification, which is leading to the loss of snow and ice and its reflective benefit at a continental scale. As the ice shield melts and darker water absorbs more heat, this is causing a self-amplifying climate feedback loop that is already contributing to extreme weather events<\/a> around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Arctic is the weakest link in the chain of climate resilience, one that could be broken in 10 to 15 years, according to the latest science. <\/strong>We\u2019ve already lost half of the summer Arctic sea ice<\/a> as measured in September, with the risk that the month of September will be ice-free within 10 to 15 years<\/a>. The strong multi-year ice is down to less than 5%. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In a terrifying calculation, scientists explain that when all of the Arctic sea ice is lost for the sunlit months, it will add the warming equivalent of 1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, or 25 years of climate emissions<\/a> at today\u2019s rate. Loss of the Arctic\u2019s land-based snow would likely double the amount of warming<\/a>. Yet, the rate of loss of Arctic ice could be further accelerated if Russia is allowed to implement and expand its Arctic development strategy<\/a>. Arctic warming is also starting another unfortunate feedback as permafrost starts to thaw, releasing ancient stores of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a key member of the Arctic Council and NATO member, the U.S. has a crucial role in Arctic protection. So does the U.K. as a council observer and NATO member. But rather than leading the charge, the U.K. so far is prioritizing short-term economic opportunities over climate safety as it promotes development in the Arctic in its \u201cLooking North<\/a>\u201d policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further development and commercialization in the Arctic threaten the U.K.\u2019s energy security and increases climate and security risks. TheU.K. should take the lead on ambitious climate action and global collaboration to conserve the world\u2019s critical reflective ice shield. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Swift, coordinated action is needed by the Arctic Council and NATO members, led by the U.S. and U.K., to enact ambitious fast-acting climate policies, starting with targeted reductions of methane emissions. Cutting methane and the other super climate pollutants \u2014 hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, tropospheric ozone, or smog and black carbon soot \u2014 can cut the rate of Arctic warming by two-thirds and help ensure the preservation of a frozen Arctic and the strategic interests of NATO members. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.K.\u2019s conservative government, in particular, however, remains reticent to take more ambitious steps to protect the region through its domestic Arctic policy and its international and multilateral commitments. While the U.K. did sign the Global Methane Pledge<\/a> and could reduce its methane emissions by 43% by 2030<\/a> if it chose to do so \u2014 exceeding the pledge\u2019s goals \u2014 it\u2019s only on track to cut them by 14% and has rejected joining<\/a> the pledge\u2019s methane finance sprint<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S., U.K. and NATO leaders and others around the world must recognize that climate protection in the Arctic has become the ultimate national and global security and economic issue. In fact, action on it will determine whether countries and peoples across the globe can live in safety during this century and beyond \u2014 or suffer unimaginable destabilization, poverty, starvation and the breakdown of global order. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In short, climate is the world\u2019s leading security and economic priority, and it requires saving the Arctic. It\u2019s time for the United States and Great Britain to use their special relationship to act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00adPaul Bledsoe<\/em><\/a> is a professorial lecturer at American University\u2019s Center for Environmental Policy, a strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former Clinton White House climate official.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n