How permanent is Permafrost—and what its thaw means for the world

You may have heard of permafrost, especially if you live in the northern hemisphere. If not, then a brief tutorial is probably necessary, since a significant tectonic climate change is occurring as I write this article, as you read this article, and even before, long enough ago to become a news story—though not sufficiently covered. Permafrost is soil and subsoil that remains at a temperature of 0°C or below for at least two consecutive years. It contains mixtures of soil, stones, and old organic material that has not decomposed because it remained frozen. In the Arctic, it covers about 25% of the land area of the northern hemisphere, with widespread distribution in Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and mountainous areas (e.g., Scandinavia, the Alps). Above it is a seasonal “active layer” of soil that thaws and freezes every year. Although the term describes “freezing,” this layer does not melt completely; it simply “thaws” during the summer. However, with the current global warming, the ice in the permafrost is now beginning to melt more and more, causing significant changes to the landscape and climate.

In recent years, the Arctic has been warming much faster than the rest of the planet, with measurements showing that Arctic temperatures have risen three to four times faster* than the global average. The annual average Arctic atmospheric temperature has risen by ~3°C since the 1970s, and in 2023 and 2024, the Arctic experienced sharp warm periods (heat waves), with record surface temperatures and heavy rainfall. As the air temperature rises, the frozen ground melts immediately, so that the increase in Arctic temperatures above zero has almost doubled the area of thawing ground in the northern hemisphere.

Recent studies confirm that the Arctic region has now become a major emitter of greenhouse gases. For example, international research concludes that between 2000 and 2020, the absolute absorption of CO₂ by vegetation was offset by CO₂ and CH₄ emissions from lakes, rivers, and fires, with the result that the region as a whole is contributing to global warming. In particular, the wetlands and lakes of North America and Siberia emit large amounts of methane. Even fields in Alaska, which traditionally acted as carbon sinks, are now becoming sources: in one Arctic ecosystem in Alaska, a shift from a net CO₂ sink to a source was recorded, with a parallel increase in methane emissions.

Thawing also affects other aspects of the natural environment. Large-scale thawing creates deformities in the ground (sometimes referred to as “thermokarst”), with the surface swelling or sinking into gravelly pits and swamps. It causes an increase in wet ecosystems and changes in the management of fauna and flora. At the same time, the situation is made more dramatic by the release of heavy metals such as mercury, which were trapped in frozen soils, with the risk of water contamination. In essence, the melting of frozen soil changes hydrology (more groundwater and new flows), creates summer swamps, and intensifies coastal erosion. According to a recent report, Arctic coasts are now being destroyed (eroded) more than 50% faster than at the end of the 20th century, mainly due to the loss of ice and frozen soil. This threatens not only the natural environment, but also traditional livelihoods (e.g., hunting, reindeer herding), which support the lives of local populations.

Now, on politics, worldwide, reactions range from organized initiatives to serious obstructionism. Canada and the Scandinavian countries have begun to incorporate the threat of permafrost into national adaptation policies. The EU, through the Joint Research Centre (JRC), has launched a project (FROST-QUAKE) to study how thawing permafrost in seismically active zones threatens critical infrastructure. In contrast, in countries such as Russia, planning began very late, with a national adaptation plan only being published in 2019 after the ratification of the Paris Agreement. It is characteristic that President Putin had underestimated the impact over the previous decade, believing that some would benefit (less money for furs, better harvests). However, climate disasters (e.g., in Norilsk in 2020) show that Siberian development depends on a fragile north.

At the level of international organizations, global climate plans (national CO₂ targets – NDCs) do not take into account emissions from permafrost thawing. Experts warn that this policy gap risks undermining the Paris targets, as these emissions will multiply in a warmer climate. Furthermore, despite fluctuations in international politics (e.g., the Ukraine crisis and tensions in Russia, changes in the US administration), the Arctic Council (a collective body of Arctic Circle states) is closely monitoring the issue: its latest report notes that the melting of ice and permafrost is a “matter of increasing concern” for both indigenous populations and politicians in the Arctic. Nevertheless, cooperation on concrete measures to address this risk is insufficient. An analyst at the Woodwell Climate Research Center points out that, despite the many policy options available, the US “no longer leads” Arctic research and policy responses due to geopolitical considerations.

In stark contrast, former President Donald Trump promotes the aggressive expansion of fossil fuels as a patriotic policy. Trump is known for his slogan “drill, baby, drill,” and boasted that “the United States has more oil and natural gas than any other country on the planet — and we’re going to use it,” even declaring that “energy security is national security.” The gap between these views highlights a sharp political divide: one side sees climate action as an existential moral imperative, while the other prioritizes national power through the expansion of oil and gas production. Ultimately, this battle has transformed climate policy into a clash between a global moral crusade and an aggressive energy-nationalist agenda, reflecting a deep political polarization.

And indeed, from this point onwards, the COPs seem to collapse into a cycle of declarations without any real effect: ambitious words, weak commitments, postponements for “later.” Climate crisis policy ceases to be a technical issue and becomes a purely moral and ideological one. The question is no longer whether we know what is happening to the permafrost or the climate — we do. The real question is: which side are you on? Are you with the bees or with the wolves?