Frozen in Ice — and Microplastic

As global powers wrangle over control of the Arctic, a new and unexpected contender has quietly staked its claim: microplastic. What can be done about a pollutant that has already reached the North Pole?

A Failed Treaty, A Growing Crisis

International negotiations aimed at tackling the plastic crisis collapsed once again on August 15 in Geneva, as nations failed to agree on a binding global treaty. Meanwhile, the problem is only getting worse. Microplastics have made their way deep into the Arctic, where scientists now find them embedded in sea ice, inside animal stomachs, and scattered across the ocean floor.

What does this mean for Arctic wildlife? Why do global efforts continue to fall short? And is there still time to save the region’s fragile ecosystem? We explore these questions in this report.

The Plastic Pole

A grim illustration of the old textbook truth that “everything in nature is connected,” microplastics have now reached every corner of the planet — from the Mariana Trench to Mount Everest — and even infiltrated the human body, showing up in breast milk and sperm.

Once remote and sealed off by millennia-old ice and permafrost, the Arctic is now absorbing a modern relic of its own: plastic — an artifact that, in human terms, is practically eternal.

Traces of cigarette filters, packaging, bottle caps, fishing gear, ship paint, textiles — all of it has now been detected in the Arctic. In 2019, Russian scientists discovered microplastics in surface waters and marine organisms all along the Northern Sea Route — the flagship corridor of Russia’s Arctic ambitions.

Today’s consumerist society generates roughly 350 million tonnes of plastic waste each year, most of which ends up polluting the environment. Plastic is now the most common type of marine debris. In the ocean, it breaks down into tiny fragments under sunlight, heat, mechanical wear, and wave action — creating microplastics: particles smaller than five millimeters in diameter.

As global plastic production and disposal have surged, so has the concentration of these particles in the world's oceans — a trend that’s been accelerating over the past four decades. The Arctic is effectively inhaling plastic: it arrives on air currents and ocean flows from across the globe. Local pollution also plays a role, though a smaller one — from wastewater, landfills, shipping, fishing, oil extraction, and tourism.

“The more we look for microplastics in environmental samples, the clearer it becomes: we’re living in a cloud of plastic dust,” says Peter Ross, co-author of a study on polyester fiber pollution in the Arctic Ocean. “Wherever we look, we find microplastics... Microplastics are everywhere.”

Research shows that the Eurasian sector of the Arctic receives most of its microplastics via Atlantic Ocean currents and Siberian rivers. Scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that, during a 2023 expedition, half of the microplastics they found off the coast of the Murmansk region had originated from European countries, the United States, and elsewhere.

Today, the Arctic Ocean is the second most microplastic-polluted ocean in the world—surpassed only by the Atlantic—and the problem continues to escalate. Back in 2013, the first large-scale study of Arctic microplastics found relatively low concentrations at the ocean’s surface compared to other regions. But follow-up research flipped that assumption: the Arctic is now one of the most contaminated areas. In fact, microplastic concentrations in the Greenland Sea doubled between 2004 and 2015.

A study published this year found an average of 60 microplastic particles per cubic meter in water samples from the Bering Strait, which borders Russia’s Chukotka region. The most common plastics were polymers used in packaging and fishing gear.

Meanwhile, studies of surface waters in the Russian Arctic between 2019 and 2022 showed lower contamination levels — no more than 0.15 particles per cubic meter from the Barents Sea to the Chukchi Sea. However, Russia still lacks any official standards defining acceptable microplastic concentrations in its bodies of water.

From Albatross to Pink Salmon

The 1969 paper “Laysan Albatrosses Ingest Indigestible Materials”, which described birds from the Hawaiian Islands, is considered the first documented case of plastic found in bird stomachs. In the 1980s, scientists noted that northern fulmars — seabirds from the petrel family living in subarctic regions — were also ingesting plastic. By the 1990s, similar findings had emerged for seabirds along Alaska’s coast.

Over time, plastic has been detected in a growing number of Arctic species — including marine mammals:

• On average, researchers found 97 microplastic particles per animal in the gastrointestinal tracts of seven beluga whales hunted in 2017–2018 by the Inuvialuit people of Canada’s Northwest Territories.
• In 2017, two pieces of disposable macroplastic (larger than 5 millimeters) were discovered in the stomach of a hooded seal pup from the Greenland Sea — the only such case among the ten Greenland seals and eight hooded seals examined.
• Walrus feces collected in western Svalbard in 2018 contained an average of 34 microplastic particles per kilogram.

Tiny plastic fragments have also been detected in invertebrates, Greenland sharks, saffron cod, and commercially important fish species from the northern Pacific Ocean — including pink salmon, Pacific ocean perch, herring, and Atka mackerel.

Microplastics in the Arctic pose a direct threat not only to wildlife — but to humans.

It begins with plankton, fish, and marine mammals ingesting these particles. As they move up the food chain, microplastics can eventually reach Indigenous communities and seafood consumers more broadly.

Beyond the physical harm caused by ingesting plastic — such as internal injuries — microplastic buildup has been linked to inflammation, reduced fertility, and higher mortality rates in animals. Potential health impacts on humans may include disruptions to the endocrine, respiratory, digestive, and immune systems — ranging from abdominal pain and infertility to miscarriages and birth defects. However, scientists caution that the full extent of microplastics' health impacts on animals and humans is still not fully understood.

Importantly, in some polar regions, microplastic contamination in animals remains low or absent. No traces have been found so far in seals, walruses, or polar bears in the Canadian Arctic, nor in Arctic foxes on Norway’s Svalbard. This suggests there’s still time for the global community to protect certain populations — if action is taken soon.

A Global Deadlock?

Yet progress in solving the global plastic crisis remains slow. On August 15, 183 countries concluded another round of negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland — a summit some observers described as “deeply flawed” and “an abject failure.”

Although several international agreements include provisions related to plastic waste (such as the 1972 London Convention, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the 1989 Basel Convention), experts agree that the world urgently needs a dedicated, legally binding treaty. They argue it must cover the full life cycle of plastic — from production to disposal — and include enforceable targets for pollution reduction.

To that end, in 2022 the UN Environment Assembly established the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC), which has held five negotiation rounds so far. The goal was to finalize a treaty by the December 2024 session in Busan, South Korea. But talks have stalled — largely due to lobbying pressure from the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, since plastic is a petroleum byproduct. This year’s round in Geneva saw at least 234 registered lobbyists in attendance.

After eleven days of intense discussions, delegates still failed to produce a draft agreement. Even extended sessions and closed-door negotiations couldn’t bridge the divide between oil-producing nations and members of the so-called High Ambition Coalition. The parties failed to reach agreement on whether the treaty should place limits on the exponential growth of plastic production and introduce legally binding mechanisms to regulate toxic substances used in the manufacturing process.

“The core problem is that countries just can't agree,” a Russian circular economy and waste management expert, speaking to Arctida on condition of anonymity, explained.

“Roughly 100 countries are pushing for high ambition — advocating for measures to control the exponential growth of plastic production, and for transparency and restrictions on hazardous chemicals,” the expert said. “On the other side are mostly oil-producing countries and the petrochemical industry, which argue the treaty should focus only on better waste management, recycling, and reuse.”

Russia, for its part, has opposed what it calls “excessive global regulation,” citing concerns about food security and economic development. At the same time, the Ministry of Industry and Trade says Russia “fully supports” the fight against the plastic crisis and is working to build a circular economy at the national level. Yet, according to the environmental group Break Free from Plastic, countries like Russia, the U.S., and Saudi Arabia actively obstructed consensus during the Geneva talks.

In the end, delegations from nations supporting a strong treaty — including Norway, Australia, and Tuvalu — and civil society representatives left Geneva disheartened. While the current treaty draft, to be revisited in future negotiations, falls short of many expectations, the Russian expert believes it still provides a viable foundation for the next round.

“The way these negotiations are structured needs improvement — especially the decision-making procedures. The world needs a treaty that truly protects both people and the planet. But when negotiating positions are this far apart, you can’t keep repeating the same process and expect a different outcome,” the expert concluded.

A Global Problem Requires Systemic Solutions

Meanwhile, global production of virgin plastic continues to rise — and is on track to triple by 2060. In addition to polluting the environment with microplastics, this growth is exacerbating the climate crisis: plastic production currently accounts for about 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Even if plastic production were to stop today, the waste already in the ocean would continue breaking down into microplastics, worsening the pollution for decades to come. In the Arctic, the situation could become even more acute than in other parts of the world — due to expanding shipping and tourism, the melting of sea ice and glaciers, and the slower degradation of plastic in cold climates.

Recognizing the severity of the crisis — and its impact on the Arctic’s fragile ecosystems — is especially urgent in light of Russia’s plans to develop the Northern Sea Route, scale up infrastructure projects in the region, and possibly expand commercial fishing operations.

To reduce marine pollution, Russian scientists have proposed several measures:

• Stricter control over plastic waste discharge and lost fishing gear from vessels;
• Incentives for fishing companies to responsibly dispose of used gear;
• Enhanced treatment of domestic wastewater to filter out synthetic fibers and microplastics.

Russian authorities have acknowledged the problem. By 2030, they aim to process 100% of municipal solid waste and halve the amount going to landfills. In May 2025, President Vladimir Putin ordered a ban on non-degradable plastic tableware and packaging in the Lake Baikal region. Starting September 1, the country will also prohibit the production of certain types of colored and multilayer plastic bottles that are difficult to recycle.

Still, these steps fall short of what’s needed. Solving the plastic crisis requires deeper, more systemic change. It’s not just about recycling waste — it’s about tackling the root of the problem: waste generation itself.

That’s where the circular economy comes in — a model focused on minimizing waste and pollution by maximizing the use and reuse of materials across their entire life cycle. To be effective, this approach must be integrated at every stage: design, production, consumption, and disposal. Key strategies include:

• Smart design: creating products that are easy to reuse, repair, and recycle;
• Preventing industrial plastic discharges by improving resource management and introducing cleaner production technologies;
• Setting caps on the production of virgin plastic;
• Developing new business models that eliminate the need for disposable packaging — such as refill stations for water, dry goods, cosmetics, and household cleaners;
• Banning specific single-use plastic items (e.g. straws, bags, cotton swabs, glitter) where reusable alternatives exist;
• Encouraging consumer shifts toward plastic-free products;
• Improving consumer awareness through labeling that shows recycled content — paired with large-scale educational campaigns.

Judging by the disappointing outcome of the Geneva talks, many of the world’s largest polluters remain unwilling to commit to these kinds of systemic reforms. For now, dividing the Arctic’s natural resources seems to matter more to them than sharing responsibility for preserving its future.