Impacts and Policy Challenges from Rapid Climate Change in Alaska

This summary was produced by the Arctic Initiative following a workshop co-organized with the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate on May 8, 2023. DHS S&T published a related report, S&T/Harvard Climate Workshop: Opportunities for Improved Prevention and Response in the U.S. Arctic and Alaska.

Objectives of the Workshop

The Arctic is warming three to four times faster than the global average, transforming both opportunities and challenges in the region and climate-related impacts globally. In Alaska, the effects of this accelerated warming include widespread permafrost thaw with impacts on buildings, roads, pipelines, landscapes, and Indigenous ways of life; emissions of greenhouse gases, such as methane and carbon, which contribute to global warming; the potential release of dangerous viruses and toxins; wildfires expanding dramatically in intensity and area affected; impacts on fisheries of subsistence, sportfishing, and commercial importance; sea-ice retreat with impacts on coastal erosion, marine ecosystems, and transport; and more.

The workshop, which was co-hosted by the Arctic Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Science and Technology Directorate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), focused on the challenges posed by the impacts of rapid climate change in Alaska; how DHS and its components―including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the U.S. Coast Guard―are addressing them; and what possibilities may exist for DHS to do more and better.

Morning Session

Following introductions, the opening session continued with an overview of current understandings from relevant climate science presented by scientists from the Arctic Initiative and the Woodwell Climate Research Center. The group then heard perspectives from other researchers from the Arctic Initiative and the Alaska Institute for Justice with projects on the ground in Alaska, from Alaska Native leaders, and from U.S. officials from the White House Arctic Executive Steering Committee, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Denali Commission. The morning concluded with presentations from relevant branches of the DHS: the Office of Policy, USCG, FEMA, CISA, and the Science and Technology Directorate.

Key points from these morning discussions included the following.

Insights from climate science

Sea-ice cover and thickness in the Arctic Ocean have been declining at an unprecedented rate, allowing increases in maritime traffic and, potentially, in fisheries and exploitation of subsea resources in the region. These opportunities bring with them increased ocean environmental impacts; increased demands on in-region infrastructure for monitoring and patrol, search and rescue, and environmental cleanup; negative as well as positive impacts on coastal communities; and the potential for international disputes over access.
The reduction in sea-ice cover also contributes to increased impacts on coastal areas from tidal surges and storm waves, which increase coastal erosion and flooding and the associated harm to coastal communities and other infrastructure.
About 80% of Alaska lands are within permafrost regions, with half of that actually underlain by frozen ground. The rapid warming within the region could lead to permafrost loss of 25% or even more by 2100%. Permafrost thaw leads to subsidence, with impacts on buildings and infrastructure of all kinds; to increased erosion; and, in some cases, to the catastrophic ground collapse known as usteq.
Permafrost thaw also can release previously frozen pathogens, as well as mercury and other toxins, from soil and waste dumps.
In addition, permafrost thaw exposes previously frozen organic carbon to bacterial decomposition, leading to release of carbon dioxide and methane that adds to the global atmospheric burden of these heat-trapping gases and, thus, accelerates global warming and all of its impacts. The size of this impact between now and 2100 is quite uncertain, but, at the high end of the range of respectable estimates, the releases from permafrost could take a significant bite out of the allowable future emissions from fossil-fuel use and land-use change consistent with limiting the global-average temperature increase to 2°C.
Wildfires are increasing in frequency, intensity, and area burned across Alaska and much of the rest of the Arctic, a result of warming, drying, more dead trees, and more lightning—all due in substantial part to climate change. The consequences are risks to life, health, property, and ecosystems in the region, along with health impacts in the mid-latitudes from long-distance transport of smoke.
The accelerating transport to the ocean of Arctic land ice, which includes 75 billion tons per year from Alaska’s glaciers, is contributing significantly to global sea level rise. In Alaska, this ice loss from is also increasing turbidity and erosion in the affected rivers.
Because temperatures in the Arctic are rising faster than those in lower latitudes, the equator-to-pole temperature difference is shrinking. That difference is an important driver of ocean and atmospheric circulation across the hemisphere. The results of its diminution include ocean-current changes that, together with ocean heating, are altering the distribution and abundance of important marine species, as well as changes in the polar jet stream that contribute to increases in weather extremes in the midlatitudes as well as in the Arctic.

Particular Challenges for Alaska Native Communities

Many of the impacts of climate change within the region fall especially hard on Alaska Native communities, many of which have populations of fewer than 1,000 people; are in remote areas without interconnected roadways and water and sewage systems; have limited access to medical care; and depend in significant part on subsistence hunting and fishing for species whose populations are declining or moving under climate change.
Climate-change-enhanced coastal exposure to powerful storms and flooding is subjecting more than 30 villages in Northwest Alaska to risks to life, health, and property, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The remoteness of most of these villages makes providing disaster assistance a challenge.
When the remnants of Typhoon Merbok pounded hundreds of miles of Alaska’s western coast in September 2022, homes were ripped off their foundations, protective berms were destroyed, and extreme flooding was widespread. In the aftermath, barriers to accessibility prevented many villages from receiving prompt assistance; and, despite a low number of applications, denial rates by the Typhoon Merbok Individual Assistance Program were high for unclear reasons.
Coastal villages at risk must decide whether the best option for their community is to invest in adaptation in place, conduct a managed retreat In which some homes and other infrastructure are moved to higher ground, to try to disperse the population to other communities in safer locations, or to relocate their village en masse.
For many coastal villages, relocation en masse may be the only option for maintaining physical coherence and community services, but this path is extremely expensive under Alaska’s demanding conditions, and relocation entails leaving behind family homes, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, sacred sites, and more.
Significant numbers of rural Alaskan villages are nonetheless likely to want to relocate eventually. Plans and policies to guide a large relocation effort are not currently in place, and it is far from clear how the high costs—far beyond the reach of the villages themselves—would be covered.

DHS Programs

DHS has been working to create a strategic framework to address the challenges posed in Alaska by rapid climate change. Writ large, the key components of the Department’s efforts are:
- Empowering individuals and communities
- Improving capacity to respond to climate emergencies
- Investing in a sustainable and resilient DHS
- Developing a climate change-informed workforce
The U.S. Coast Guard has an active, on-the-ground, and on-the-water presence in and around Alaska, with about 2,000 active-duty members who reside in the local communities in Alaska where they work.
The Coast Guard’s Climate Action Framework includes three main levels of effort (LOE):
- LOE 1: Build climate resiliency into USCG workforce, infrastructure, and assets;
- LOE 2: Plan for and respond to more frequent weather emergencies and long-term climate trends;
- LOE 3: Develop and leverage partnerships to enhance, enable, and ensure maritime safety.
FEMA’s Region 10 is responsible for the federal emergency management of 271 Tribal Nations and several states, including Alaska; Region 10 now has over 300 staff on the ground, working to build effective preparedness and mitigation efforts.
FEMA is currently in the process of improving its interagency coordination in order to improve its response efforts and create more robust risk-reduction plans. It is also working to reduce the barriers facing those who apply for Homeland Security Grants.
FEMA is prioritizing coordination with Indigenous communities to improve disaster response and put equity at the center of emergency management. The agency plans to expand its workforce in Alaska by about 60% to increase the number of tribal advisors working alongside these communities.
The White House Community-Driven Relocation Subcommittee co-led by FEMA is focusing on addressing the relocation challenges faced by communities in need that have already been identified and is working to create community-specific solutions.
The Science and Technology Directorate is developing and applying technology-based approaches for addressing challenges specific to rapid climate change; one important focus of this work is adaptive risk-management solutions (i.e., Flood Adapt), which uses the latest science and climate projections help communities develop integrated efforts to decrease their flood risks.

Afternoon Roundtables

The afternoon was devoted entirely to sequential, whole-group, roundtable sessions, allowing workshop participants to bring their diverse perspectives to an open, collaborative discussion on four clusters of topics: ocean issues, infrastructure, other human health and security issues, and cross-cutting S&T solutions.

Key points raised included the following.

Ocean Issues

Infrastructure to support maritime activities around Alaska is limited compared to that in many other Arctic countries. A DHS focus on applied science and technology, exercised in collaboration with the Department of Interior, will be critical in the effort to design and help support acquisition of the expanded infrastructure that’s required.
As the ability for transit within these areas increases, so does the need for technology that can monitor the presence of the vessels. The U.S. Border Patrol capabilities for Alaska are small, and the ability to transit Alaskan coastlines bordering the Bering Straits and Chukchi Sea is increasingly important. Substantial innovation and investment will be needed to increase these capabilities.
Planning for an “ice-free” Arctic is imperative. As maritime traffic increases in this region, many of the associated activities will involve extracting resources (i.e., copper, oil, gas, fish); this factor and the reality that much of the Arctic Ocean remains unmapped will complicate Coast Guard enforcement of the Polar Code.
The U.S. government is seeking to establish more Marine Protected Areas, but this push is often controversial in Alaska because fishing is such a significant economic driver there.
President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau met earlier this year, and their dialogue included a focus on bilateral approaches to address Arctic issues. An effort is underway to develop co-management plans with each country’s Indigenous communities.

Infrastructure

Efforts to develop new infrastructure must account for what relevant mechanisms are or are not already in place in the targeted areas. FEMA assistance to communities has sometimes foundered because needed resources—particularly connectivity—weren’t in place. The Denali Commission has established an effort to try to link communities with Starlink as an interim measure, while other mechanisms are being created.
Some rural communities still have limited access to basic necessities (i.e., running water, sanitation, internet access). Facilities for providing these ingredients require significant often require substantial amounts of energy, beyond what the existing energy infrastructure in these communities can provide.
The cost and accessibility of getting proper equipment for this region are challenging because of the remote nature of the communities and the extremely low temperatures. But the cost of repairing and rebuilding infrastructure in Alaska will be even higher later if needed investments are not made now.
As new infrastructure is developed in these communities, there needs to be a focus on generating local employment and training individuals to be able to aid in the management and maintenance of the new facilities.
With respect to relocation of infrastructure necessitated by climate change, the DHS should help develop a relocation model that would assist moves within existing community boundaries.
When rebuilding infrastructure that has been damaged or destroyed by climate impacts, simply rebuilding what was present before must be avoided if the infrastructure is not to be destroyed again by future extreme weather events.
Much of the Federal government’s influence on these matters is based on protocols established in the Stafford Act; its effectiveness needs to be re-examined in light of the problems described here.

Other Human Health & Security Issues

Permafrost thaw is releasing pathogens and toxins and, in its subsidence and coastal erosion impacts, is impacting community resources for sanitation and health. This amounts to a slow-moving infrastructure and public health disaster.
Wildfires in Alaska are becoming more frequent and more intense, and they are devastating ever larger areas. Smoke inhalation from these fires is yet another major health hazard. In addition, when the fires reach rural communities, the inhabitants often have no choice but to try to protect their homes using buckets, with the further risks this entails. Most rural communities do not have fire stations or other response mechanisms in place.
Many of the communities most affected by permafrost thaw, increasing coastal erosion, and expanding wildfires rank low on most metrics of individual well-being, including health, running water, sanitation, and employment. Additional health strains such as increased suicide rates, drug addiction, and human trafficking all sap the ability of these communities to cope with current and future climate-linked impacts.
Currently, FEMA only responds to sudden crises; its protocols require reported start and end dates, which does not fit slow-onset disasters from, e.g., permafrost thaw. And, while a single storm or fire might qualify for FEMA assistance, the harms that extend over months and years following such events fall outside the current FEMA guidelines.
The Stafford Act and other relevant policies should be reviewed to determine where responsibilities for dealing adequately with slow-moving disasters belong and what policy changes are needed to remedy current gaps and shortfalls.

S&T Crosscut

Interagency collaboration is essential to fill the many gaps that currently exist in Federal responses to the challenges of rapid climate change in Alaska. More efforts are needed to integrate social- and natural-science dimensions, to standardize data, and to reframe capacity building in terms of risk assessment and adaptation.
Local and Indigenous knowledge needs to be integrated with science and technology to assist in the development of community-based adaptation mechanisms.
In DHS, closer communication and collaboration across the Science and Technology Directorate, FEMA, CISA, the US Coast Guard, and other components of the Department should be implemented.
Better communication between DHS and other Federal and State agencies is likewise required in order to devise interagency responses that draw on all the relevant capabilities, as well as on local and Indigenous information and experience.
Response plans need to be tested through drills in realistic settings both large and small, under the widely varying seasonal conditions typical of Alaska.