Science, Technology, and Public Policy

Unlike industrial and other forms of pollution, the long-standing, pervasive problem of municipal solid waste in Arctic cities receives comparatively little attention. As rapid warming in the region compromises existing waste disposal methods such as landfills, Arctic cities will need to develop comprehensive solid waste management strategies for the health of residents and the environment.

Joel Clement describes the Leaders Summit on Climate, held on April 23, 2021, as making a strong point that the Biden administration is up to the challenge of combating climate change.

2021 Arctic Frontiers hosted a panel of young Arctic leaders alongside seasoned Arctic influencers who dove deeper into the opportunities and obstacles northern youth face now and in the future. Framed in the context of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, speakers were invited to discuss the pressing issues that they stand to inherit such as climate change, societal pressure, migration of young people to the south, and the question of whether the Arctic is facing its own cultural revolution. This session sought to build bridges between generations, borders, and disciplines to find the best solutions for a resilient Arctic.

Arctic Innovator Samuel Gant writes that by adopting world-class environmental and safety standards and creating a sovereign wealth fund, Greenland can ensure mining serves its best interests.

Arctic Innovator Bert de Jonghe, a landscape architect, proposes a virtual innovation platform that seeks to capture Greenland's public imagination to start a critical discussion that propels the future of habitation in Greenland.

Increased investment into the Arctic over the coming decades is inevitable. To respond to this, the Arctic's present international governance structures can be improved to help steer the region through these impending changes.

Over the last two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the popularity of financial sanctions as an instrument of US foreign policy to address security threats ranging from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation and terrorism to human rights violations and transnational crime. Washington’s policymakers have prized these tools for their ability to rapidly apply pressure against foreign targets with few perceived repercussions against American business interests. The problem, however, is that Washington is ignoring a growing tension between financial sanctions designed to support economic statecraft (with non-financial goals) and those designed to protect the international financial system. Confusing the two sends mixed signals to adversaries as well as allies and undermines US credibility and commitment to upholding international banking rules and norms. If Washington cannot reconcile these competing processes, it is unlikely that future administrations will enjoy the same foreign policy levers, leaving the United States at a significant disadvantage.

Although Trump did not outline his legal basis for imposing the tariffs, several analysts anticipated that he was seeking to use the authorities granted him under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—the legal basis that presidents rely on to impose financial and economic sanctions against WMD proliferators, terrorist organizations, narco-traffickers, and human rights abusers. Mixing trade and immigration policy under the guise of a national security threat, however, may end up deflating Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions campaigns against Iran and North Korea.