Fifth National Climate Assessment
29. Alaska

Many Alaskans, particularly Alaska Native Peoples, have a distinct connection to and understanding of the natural environment (KM 29.5) and depend on the land, sea, and natural resources for their economic activities, food security, health, culture, and overall well-being. This close connection to local ecosystems, combined with the geographical isolation of many communities and their resulting distance from healthcare and other services, creates a population particularly vulnerable to health impacts from the local effects of a changing climate (Figure 29.3) yet also fosters self-reliance and resilience.

URL

Alternative text

The impacts of climate change on health and well-being depend on many social and environmental factors.

Figure 29.3. Well-being includes physical, mental, and spiritual health outcomes, all of which are shaped by many contextual factors, including environmental change and governance, social and behavioral characteristics and systems, and the exposure pathways that connect the changing environment to human health. All of these contextual factors are affected by climate change and occur simultaneously. Adapted from Balbus et al. 2016.⁵⁴

Climate change in Alaska highlights existing inequities confronting many racial and ethnic groups, including discrimination, lack of access to healthcare, lack of indoor plumbing, and poverty.^55,56,57 In rural Alaska especially, underserved communities often face food and water insecurity, inadequate sanitation, overcrowding in homes, limited transportation options, limited medical access, and significant geographical isolation.^58,59,60 People living in such settings are disproportionately impacted by climate change (KMs 15.2, 20.1),⁶¹ and have limited options to respond to additional disturbances.

The lack of basic household sanitation facilities (Figure 4.16) contributes to health disparities, especially in rural Alaska. The lack of indoor plumbing was a key factor contributing to the high incidence of COVID-19 cases among Tribal communities (Focus on COVID-19 and Climate Change).^62,63,64 More than 3,300 households in more than 30 Alaska communities lack in-home piped water and sewer services.^65,66 In Alaska, the lack of water and sewer services is associated with multiple adverse health outcomes.^67,68,69 Environmental factors such as permafrost thaw, river erosion, and flooding exacerbate inequitable health-related infrastructure, and climate change has created new challenges to building and supporting sanitation systems. The Portable Arctic Sanitation System, developed by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and tested in five communities to date, provides households with treated water for drinking and a handwashing sink, in addition to a waterless toilet system. These systems allow households to meet basic water and sanitation needs in situations such as damage to existing water and sewer infrastructure or community relocation.⁶⁶ While not a replacement for a piped water system, these systems are a successful example of responding to climate hazards in Alaska (KM 16.3).

Climate change in Alaska is related to a range of environmental catastrophes, which can directly impact health in significant ways that may not be well known (KM 15.1). Flooding, for example, negatively impacts physical and mental well-being, with special and persistent implications for certain populations, such as pregnant people and children.^70,71 In Alaska, these effects are compounded by preexisting disparities, such as limited access to healthcare (e.g., pregnant people in rural Alaska typically travel to urban areas for childbirth) and the lack of alternative housing options. In the aftermath of ex-Typhoon Merbok in September 2022, which resulted in widespread flooding of a thousand miles of Alaska’s coastline, people experienced loss of air travel service, multiday power outages, and damaged housing (often resulting in a subsequent need to move to a different community).⁷²

Environmental disruption due to climate change can lead to increased rates of suicidality, among other negative mental health effects (KM 15.1).⁷³ These effects, including a profound loss of connection to a landscape altered by climate change, can increase instances of mental illness and spiritual grief in affected populations and subsequent generations.^74,75,76 Forced displacement inland due to rising sea levels, coastal erosion, flooding, and permafrost thaw disrupt social networks and increase instances of homelessness.^77,78,79 Alaska Native populations already experience significantly elevated rates of suicide, especially among youth.⁸⁰ Based on research with Inuit in Labrador, Canada, Alaska Native populations whose ways of life and culture depend on subsistence activities may be particularly vulnerable to negative mental health impacts related to climate change because of their deep connection to the land, exacerbated by existing disparities in mental health services (KM 16.1).⁸¹

Various health concerns connected to climate change have been raised by Alaska residents and public health officials (KM 15.1). For example, wildfire smoke exposure is associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes among Alaska Natives and rural residents.⁸² This increased risk is thought to be due, in part, to underlying differences in rates of chronic disease, as well as access to healthcare and resources for exposure reduction (e.g., air filters).⁸² Common exposure-reduction strategies may not be an option for many households. For example, few homes in Alaska have air-conditioning. During a wildfire smoke event that occurs at the same time as a heatwave, people must weigh the risks of opening a window to decrease the heat versus keeping windows closed to minimize smoke exposure. When developing adaptation strategies for climate hazards, it is critical to consider existing health disparities within communities, the relative capacity of individuals to adapt, and the potential to exacerbate existing inequities (KMs 15.3, 20.3).

The expanding geographic ranges of tick species and the potential implications for human health are another concern (KM 8.2). The blacklegged tick and western blacklegged tick, carriers of the bacteria that cause Lyme disease, are not established in Alaska, although the western blacklegged tick has been found on humans and domestic animals that have not reported recent travel out of the state.^83,84 Current conditions in Southeast Alaska and some portions of Southcentral Alaska are suitable for the establishment of the western blacklegged tick, and models predict an increase in the suitability of tick habitat in many areas.⁸⁴ While there have been no known locally acquired human cases of Lyme disease in Alaska, the risk of occurrence is expected to increase, especially for those who spend a lot of time outdoors.⁵⁷

Rabies is another disease that can be transmitted from animals to people, with potential connections to changing climate conditions due to shifting ranges of host species. In Alaska, rabies is found in populations of Arctic and red fox populations along the northern and western coasts. During the 2020/21 winter, there was a widespread outbreak of rabies in western Alaska, with more than 35 confirmed cases in animals, compared with an average of four to five cases each year. Changes in sea ice and prey availability may have played a role by increasing exposure of red foxes to rabid Arctic foxes and thus spreading rabies to inland areas as well as along the coast.^85,86

Climate change is also affecting the ability to dry and store food in traditional ways⁸⁷ and increasing the potential for adverse health effects from processing and consuming fish and wildlife.⁵⁷ Wetter weather inhibits drying of fish and meat, and permafrost thaw and flooding damage ice cellars.⁸⁸ Additionally, human, marine mammal, and seabird health are increasingly threatened by harmful algal blooms (HABs), which produce a toxin that can cause severe illness or death when consumed (KM 10.1).^89,90,91,92 The largest bed of resting cysts of HAB species in the world has been discovered in the Chukchi Sea.⁴ Warming ocean temperatures make these cysts more apt to hatch into massive and recurring toxic blooms.⁴

In general, there are limited conventional disease surveillance systems in Alaska for identifying, detecting, and monitoring climate-related hazards and conditions, as well as limited information on broader health impacts, such as the degree to which climate-related factors have impacted mental health. The development and sustainability of robust surveillance systems is hampered by many factors, including the state’s small population and large geographic scale, limited in-state locations with adequate laboratory and diagnostic testing, and other healthcare limitations, such as access to healthcare and disconnected health databases. To fill these gaps, several local and Tribal programs have been implemented, such the Local Environmental Observer Network, Southeast Alaska Tribal Ocean Research, and Indigenous Sentinels Network, which facilitate integration of community observations.

In addition to limited health surveillance systems for climate-related risks, there are also large disparities in healthcare access and services in Alaska. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted some of these gaps,^93,94 although some responses to the pandemic created or strengthened health partnerships and surveillance, which may support longer-term action to improve healthcare and health outcomes around the state. Because more immediate crises, such as a disease outbreak, can reduce the capacity for responding to longer-term healthcare challenges, such as those posed by climate change, continued investment in these types of improvements in the healthcare system statewide may increase resilience to climate-driven health impacts.

Close

Climate change affects all Alaska communities but in regionally distinct ways for urban areas compared with rural, predominantly Alaska Native, places. Lacking road connections, Alaska’s rural areas are more remote than rural areas in the Lower 48. About 79% of Alaskans live in urban areas.⁹⁶ This concentration creates challenges for the development and maintenance of infrastructure in rural areas where economies of scale do not exist (KM 12.2). For example, there are large disparities in exposure to the effects of climate change and inequities in access to resources and capacity for responding to those effects.⁹⁷

The limited reach of broadband internet access in the state is testament to this challenge.⁹⁸ As of 2023, 46% of Alaska communities remain unserved according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s minimum broadband standards.⁹⁹ An additional 3% are considered “underserved,” lacking internet that meets the new baseline for functional service. Many fewer communities have access to affordable internet, with some paying as much as $500 per month with usage caps. Lack of broadband and cell reception diminishes access to healthcare (via telemedicine), educational opportunities, emergency response capability, and resilience to shocks from environmental hazards and extreme weather events,¹⁰⁰ which are expected to increase with climate change.

As another example, the frequency of wildfire seasons in which more than 1 million acres are burned is increasing throughout much of western and Interior Alaska (KM 7.1; Focus on Western Wildfires). In addition to health concerns (KMs 14.2, 29.1), smoke can limit visibility and interfere with air travel. This disproportionately affects rural areas accessible only by plane, leaving Alaska Native Elders, other older adults, and those with existing respiratory ailments without a means to escape environmental stressors.³⁴

Both urban and rural communities face significant infrastructure and access challenges related to permafrost thaw and erosion (KM 29.4). Rural communities facing relocation are among the hardest hit, as are low-income populations in urban areas. In the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB), a comparison shows that the average value of residential land¹⁰¹ with shallow permafrost soil¹⁰² is about 40% the average value of residential land borough-wide. Low-income populations in FNSB disproportionately reside in homes on or near permafrost-affected soils and are thus disproportionately impacted by damage resulting from permafrost thaw.

Alaska’s population is gradually becoming more diverse (Figure 29.5). The percentage of White residents dropped 2% from 2010 to 2020.¹⁰³ The Alaska Native population increased nearly 10%, and the Black population increased 2%, but the largest growth was among residents with Asian heritage, whose population increased 32%. Much of the non-White population growth occurred in urban areas where, as in other parts of the United States, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) populations historically were subject to discrimination and exclusionary housing practices. Such discrimination continues to shape the character of Alaska’s urban neighborhoods today.¹⁰⁴ More research could illuminate the disproportionate impacts of climate change experienced by BIPOC communities in urban Alaska, which, if consistent with national trends, are expected to be substantial. Increased knowledge of the current and historic inequities in relation to climate change and other environmental factors would help inform adaptation and mitigation measures that protect and uplift vulnerable populations.

URL

Alternative text

The racial makeup and population density of Alaska's communities vary greatly by region, creating the potential for varied exposures and disparate impacts across subpopulations

Figure 29.5. The total Alaska population estimate in 2021 was 734,323.¹⁰⁵ Urban areas account for the majority of Alaska’s population. Racial and ethnic characteristics throughout the state vary greatly by region, as do the impacts of climate change. Alaska’s urban areas are particularly diverse, and given a legacy of historic discrimination, there is still much to learn about the unique ways racial and ethnic subpopulations are impacted by climate change in Alaska and how these vary around the state. Circle sizes are proportional to population for each region. Figure credit: Northern Social-Environmental Research, Ocean Conservancy, and University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Food security is a major priority for the state of Alaska (Box 11.2).¹⁰⁶ Food prices may be more than twice as high in rural versus urban communities, with considerably less variety.¹⁰⁷ Alaska Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients receive the third-highest benefit per person in the United States, behind only Hawaiʻi and Guam. The number of households receiving SNAP benefits in Alaska increased 8% between 2019 and 2020.¹⁰⁸ The vast majority of food Alaskans purchase is grown elsewhere, arriving via long supply chains (Focus on Supply Chains). COVID-19 highlighted the fragility of the state’s food supply and serves as an analog for the potential impacts of climate-related environmental shocks. During the pandemic, backlogged ports and restrictions on overland trucking through Canada made food and other essentials difficult to obtain. Remote regions of Alaska were among the hardest hit by supply chain disruptions after a primary air carrier in rural Alaska declared bankruptcy in April 2020 (Focus on COVID-19 and Climate Change). This left many rural off-road-system communities without a commercial airline to deliver mail and freight, including medications and food supplies.

Given the high cost of food and the vulnerability of rural transportation networks, subsistence activities (including hunting, fishing, and sharing) are critical in rural Alaska. This is especially true for Alaska Native communities, as well as for many non-Native and urban residents. About 45.4 million pounds of wild food were harvested in Alaska statewide in 2017, with an estimated replacement value of $262–$523 million (in 2022 dollars),¹⁰⁹ not counting their cultural and spiritual value. Yet the success of subsistence harvests is influenced by numerous external and climate-driven factors. These include shifting distribution, abundance, and migratory patterns of fish, birds, and mammals that affect availability to hunters and fishers; rising fuel costs that increase the cost of hunting, fishing, and gathering activities; and changing weather, flooding, and dangerous ice that increase risks to those engaged in these practices (KMs 8.1, 29.3).^87,109

Climate change will have some positive impacts on Alaska food security, particularly in the agricultural sector. A longer growing season, increased number of growing degree days, and increased yields are expected to enhance the share of locally grown foods consumed by Alaskans.^110,111,112 On the other hand, pests, flooding, and ground collapse resulting from permafrost thaw will pose challenges.

Close

Many jobs in Alaska are affected directly or indirectly by climate change—through alterations in abundance and distribution of fish species, through changes in access to lands and waters dominated by permafrost and ice, and through the cascading effects of a changing economy (Figure 29.7). Sustaining healthy livelihoods and ways of life in Alaska involves more than wages and salaries. Traditional cultural practices outside the cash economy include the harvest and sharing of fish, wildlife, and berries. Climate-driven changes to lands and waters, along with societal trends such as greater adoption of mainstream food practices, can reduce opportunities for subsistence harvests and thus affect cultural, nutritional, and spiritual well-being, especially for Alaska Native communities (KM 16.1).

URL

Alternative text

Climate change is expected to have wide-ranging effects on key economic sectors in Alaska.

Figure 29.7. The figure shows examples of key sectors of Alaska’s economy that are expected to be affected in various ways by climate change. Many, but not all, of the changes are negative. Data sources: Oil and Gas;^96,119 Agriculture;¹²⁰ Tourism;¹²¹ Fishing;¹²² Subsistence.^87,109 Figure credit: Northern Social-Environmental Research, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Ocean Conservancy.

Climate impacts have severe socioeconomic consequences for Indigenous Peoples, small rural communities, and industries throughout Alaska.^{123,124,125,126} For example, the Yukon River king salmon subsistence fishery has been closed river-wide since 2020, with no expected opening date in the foreseeable future. This is the first occurrence of a year-round Yukon River subsistence king salmon closure. King salmon contribute 64% of all protein to rural Yukon River communities. A multiyear closure of the subsistence king salmon fishery due to climate change (Box 29.5) and the overharvesting of ocean king salmon via bycatch is disastrous to Indigenous Peoples’ physical, mental, cultural, and spiritual well-being.

Alaska’s commercial fisheries have also been impacted. Alaska’s seafood industry generates $6.1 billion (in 2022 dollars) in economic outputs,¹²² accounting for 60% of the volume and 31% of the value of the US fishery catch.¹²⁷ A number of fisheries have been closed or dramatically reduced due to fewer fish (KM 10.2).^{128,129,130,131} In January 2022, the US Department of Commerce declared several fishery disasters because of the extreme economic impact of their decline.¹³² Climate change has had a large role in these fishery disasters.¹³³

Climate change has negatively impacted the condition, growth, survival, reproduction, population biomass, and harvest of marine fishes,^134,135,136 salmon,^{29,126,137,138,139,140} and crab.^131,141 In addition, groundfish and crab distributions have shifted northward or offshore,^142,143 following colder water, and the timing of groundfish spawning¹⁴⁴ and salmon spawning migration¹⁴⁵ has been altered (KM 8.1). Salmon are in double jeopardy because climate affects both their freshwater and marine habitats (Box 29.5). Changes in spawn timing will require changes in survey timing and stock assessments.^146,147 Changes in fish and crab distribution will require adjusting survey locations and area-based management measures.^148,149 Fishers will need to adjust the timing of harvest or switch to other harvest targets.¹⁵⁰ Local economies can be resilient through income diversification such as participating in several different fisheries.¹⁵¹ Proactive adaptive management can help in the face of rapid climate change. One recent example is the management of Prince William Sound pink salmon during the extreme 2019 drought. After detecting high mortality early in the fishing season, managers limited harvest at critical times so that fish could successfully migrate and spawn.²³

Warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns also affect the distribution of and access to terrestrial and marine mammals (KM 8.3).^152,153 Increasingly volatile storms and changing ice and water levels are of immediate concern because they threaten the availability of wild foods, as well as safe access to these subsistence resources by boat, snowmobile, or all-terrain vehicle.^153,154 Shorter durations of suitable conditions for spring marine mammal subsistence hunting in the Arctic due to loss of sea ice will require adaptation of traditional hunting practices.¹⁵⁵ On land, more frequent rain-on-snow events can increase stress and mortality for wildlife,¹⁵⁶ reducing availability. Migratory patterns for caribou and other species are also changing,¹⁵⁷ again affecting access for hunters.

Berries are of high nutritional and cultural importance to Indigenous and rural communities.¹⁵⁸ A recent survey indicated that, statewide, berry harvests have become less reliable due to declining abundance or increased variability.¹⁵⁹ Changes in precipitation and temperature are expected to continue to affect berry production,¹⁶⁰ and they may also impact pollinators.¹⁵⁹

The intersecting demands of the climate crisis and the high cost of living in Alaska have forced Alaskans to creatively address interrelated challenges related to energy and heat, crisis response, and food equity and access (KM 19.3). Union electricians and laborers, private contractors and installers, and utility inspectors are training a growing workforce in clean energy industries.^161,162 Farmers and artisans are providing local goods, training aspiring agriculturalists, and creating new employment opportunities in mariculture.^163,164 In Fairbanks, community members are working with local healthcare providers to create crisis response teams and centers that focus on harm reduction and community care, needs made greater by climate change.¹⁶⁵

Close

Power, water, and transportation infrastructure in Alaska varies from large-scale and modern in urban areas to small-scale and even rudimentary in some villages. Air transport depends on suitable weather for flying and adequate runways in the destination community. Transport by water, delivering fuel and other heavy goods to many communities, requires rivers or coastal waters deep enough for barges and adequate offloading sites or facilities. Most communities lack backup systems for water, sewer, and electricity, leaving them vulnerable to disruption. Emergency housing may be limited to the school gymnasium as the largest indoor space in the community. Many Alaskans, especially in rural areas, also depend on remote camps for hunting and fishing to produce food. These camps are vulnerable to climate-driven damage and disruption.

Buildings and other infrastructure throughout Alaska are at risk from flooding, erosion, and permafrost degradation (Table 13.1; Figure 29.9).^{167,168,169,170} More than half of Alaska's communities are at the highest threatened level according to the most recent statewide report.¹⁷¹ For example, on Alaska’s northern and western coastlines, communities face between 1 and 72.8 feet of erosion per year (KM 9.2).^172,173 Recent progress has been made to understand local flood and erosion vulnerability for Alaska communities by determining erosion rates ¹⁷³ and historical flood heights (Figure 29.15); however, these reports are not available for all communities. Given that 80% of Alaska is underlain by permafrost (Figure 8.5),^174,175 regional infrastructure damages are projected to be high.¹⁷⁶ Modeling erosion’s dependence on permafrost integrity and persistence has been an emphasis of recent research.¹⁷⁷ However, the widespread lack of permafrost presence assessments, and the degree to which local erosion depends on permafrost responses, is a key source of uncertainty in forecasts for specific Alaska communities.¹⁷⁸ Extensive coastal and riverbank erosion has also exposed old gravesites in western Alaska,^179,180 and permafrost is integral for cold storage in many Alaska Native communities and camps.

URL

Alternative text

Coastal erosion is a major threat around Alaska.

Figure 29.9. The figure shows rates of coastal erosion in selected communities (top) and coastal erosion processes in Alaska (bottom). Data are unavailable for many parts of Alaska’s extensive coastline, but erosion risk is high in much of the state (Figure 29.14). Coastal erosion processes are affected by many aspects of climate change (bottom), exacerbating the problem. (top) Adapted with permission from Overbeck et al. 2020;¹⁷³ (bottom) adapted with permission from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Arctic Observatory and Knowledge Hub.

Alaska Native communities face an estimated $4.8 billion (in 2022 dollars) in costs to infrastructure from environmental threats over the next 50 years.¹⁸¹ These costs may be significantly underestimated due to limitations in current model-based approaches¹⁸², as well as to the omission of dispersed but culturally vital infrastructure such as fish camps. Various assessments have been completed to try to determine the cost of environmental changes to communities.^178,181 The costs of responding to climate change are unevenly distributed, with rural areas facing greater costs and few benefits, in contrast to urban areas that will realize some benefits such as reduced heating expenses and where the costs of infrastructure maintenance will be spread over a much larger population base (KMs 11.3, 12.2).⁹⁷

Communities dealing with flooding, erosion, and permafrost degradation are responding immediately as well as planning long-term adaptations, which generally include a combination of protection of infrastructure in place, raising buildings out of the floodplain or moving them out of vulnerable areas, and entire community relocation (which has been the case for Newtok moving to the new site of Metarvik) (KM 9.3; Figure 9.5).¹⁸³ As mentioned earlier, however, relocation options may be limited by the availability of land that is culturally, economically, politically, and environmentally suitable. An additional complication is that no single agency has financial responsibility for the costs of relocation.⁵²

Close

Alaska enjoys large, unfragmented marine and terrestrial ecosystems. This abundance makes possible hunting and fishing for subsistence use, cultural well-being, recreation, and commercial activities. At the same time, there are conflicts over land use and the allocation of hunting and fishing opportunities due to different land management regimes or distribution of harvest opportunities, with competing claims from traditional, commercial, and recreational constituencies.¹⁸⁹ Climate change is expected to exacerbate existing challenges by shifting the distribution and abundance of fish and wildlife and by increasing disturbance to lands and waters (Figure 29.11; KMs 8.1, 8.2). Climate-conscious management efforts can help individuals and communities adjust but cannot by themselves address the underlying changes that will continue to occur.

URL

Alternative text

Climate change has caused or contributed to extensive ecological effects throughout Alaska in recent years.

Figure 29.11. Warming ocean waters, extreme heat events, and other changes, including the events shown in Figure 29.1, are affecting ecosystems across Alaska. Some species’ ranges are expanding, including chum salmon in Arctic rivers,¹⁹⁰ moose¹⁹¹, and beaver¹⁹² in the Arctic (not shown), and white spruce in western Alaska (KM 8.2).¹⁹³ Migration timings or patterns are changing, for example trumpeter swans in Southeast Alaska¹⁹⁴ and caribou in the eastern Arctic. Marine heatwaves and reduced sea ice cover are affecting seabird, fish, and seal populations: the North Pacific “Blob” (Figure 29.1) contributed to Pacific cod collapse, the 2019 Southcentral heatwave affected Prince William Sound king salmon survival,¹³⁹ and low sea ice caused or contributed to the collapse of crab fisheries and unusual mortality events for seabirds and ice seals in the Bering Sea region (2018–2022) (KM 10.2; Figure 10.1). In 2022, Pacific walrus hauled out in record numbers in the Bering Strait area,¹⁹⁵ suggesting that the minimum population estimate may be higher than previously thought, even if the range may be shrinking. Insect distributions and outbreaks have also changed.^196,197 In Southeast Alaska, outbreaks of western blackheaded budworm and hemlock sawfly have damaged forests in the wake of the 2017–2019 drought.¹⁹⁸ The 2019 heatwave in Southcentral Alaska contributed to spruce beetle expansion in that region and extreme fire activity on the Kenai peninsula (KM 7.1; Box 7.1). Salmon runs responded variably: Yukon–Kuskokwim River king salmon runs have been decimated,¹³⁹ while Bristol Bay has had record sockeye salmon returns. Figure credit: USGS, NOAA Fisheries, and Ocean Conservancy.

Climate change has negatively impacted nearly all aspects of the life history of commercial groundfish, salmon, and crab (KMs 10.2, 29.3). Arctic seabirds and marine mammals have also experienced reproductive failure, unprecedented mortality, and changes in migratory behavior. Extreme ocean warming and record low sea ice in the Chukchi Sea are affecting the entire food web^199,200,201 and possibly transforming the ecosystem.^143,202 For example, the lowest abundance of marine zooplankton in a decade was observed in recent warm years (2017 and 2019), combined with a decline in large, fatty Arctic species of zooplankton and an increase in smaller, less calorie-dense sub-Arctic species.^203,204 In turn, fish such as Arctic cod and saffron cod, which feed on zooplankton, were not as robust.²⁰⁵ Subsequently, seabirds and marine mammals preying on these less nutritious fish experienced increasingly frequent reproductive failures and mortality. Emaciated seabird carcasses were found on beaches during extreme mortality events in the Bering and Chukchi Seas,²⁰¹ and the body condition of ice seals has declined.²⁰⁶ In addition, the ranges of ice-dependent species such as polar bears²⁰⁷ and walrus²⁰⁸ are shrinking.

Art × Climate

Pia De Girolamo
Invasion
(2020, acrylic on canvas)

Artist’s statement: My painting depicts a polar bear in the Arctic viewing a distant cruise ship. I was on such a ship, visiting the Arctic Circle in 2019. The polar bear's look is wondering and poignant; the cruise ship seems innocent, but it represents another human incursion into this place of beauty. Climate change has already affected the area; the ice that allows the polar bear to travel and find food is shrinking. Bear and boat are on opposite sides in this painting. We need to be on the same side as the bear.

View the full Art × Climate gallery.

Artworks and artists’ statements are not official Assessment products.

Ocean acidification is harmful to some Arctic phytoplankton and zooplankton.^209,210 Laboratory studies have shown that the early life stages of commercial fishes such as northern rock sole,^211,212 walleye pollock, Pacific cod,^213,214,215 and salmon^140,216 are sensitive to more acidic waters and to resulting food web changes.^135,211 Laboratory experiments suggest that Alaska commercial crab species are also highly vulnerable.^{141,217,218,219,220,221} Although no studies of the impacts of ocean acidification on crabs in Alaska have been conducted, a study of Dungeness crab off California showed that shell dissolution was observed in areas of high acidification, reducing growth.²¹⁰ Finally, seals, walrus, and marine birds may be affected by the vulnerability of their prey.²²²

Climate changes and extreme events are also contributing to terrestrial changes, affecting species distributions, habitats, resource availability, and human access (KMs 2.2, 29.4; Focus on Compound Events). Moose and beaver are colonizing previously inhospitable Arctic areas,^191,192 in part due to temperature-driven increases in shrubs, and there is evidence salmon are colonizing streams where they were previously rare or absent,¹⁹⁰ presumably due to warmer waters. Ongoing warming is also associated with rapid changes in vegetation. Alaska residents are also noting unusual plants.²²³ Decreases in berry production have been noted by communities in Alaska, related to multiple climatic drivers (e.g., Herman-Mercer et al. 2020¹⁶⁰). Exceptionally high midsummer tundra productivity (“greening”) has been observed on the North Slope of Alaska, but lower productivity (“browning”) has continued in Southwest Alaska due to drying.²²⁴ In 2019, the rapid expansion of a spruce beetle outbreak in the Susitna Valley (ongoing since 2016) caused extensive spruce mortality over 1.6 million acres (Box 7.1),¹⁹⁸ due in part to warmer temperatures increasing beetle development rates. In Southeast Alaska, hemlock sawfly outbreaks caused defoliation and mortality on more than 500,000 acres of forest, and a developing western blackheaded budworm outbreak is affecting Sitka spruce.¹⁹⁸ Both are plausibly²²⁵ related to the unprecedented 2017–2019 drought in the region.

Landscape changes due to fires, permafrost, and their effects on other processes are climatically driven and increasing. Projected fire-driven transitions from conifer- to deciduous-dominated boreal forest²²⁶ appear to be manifesting at regional scales. Wildfires in 2019 (Southcentral Alaska)³⁹ and 2022 (Southwest Alaska)²²⁷ burned large areas in places where fire was rare or with atypical severity, as has been seen in other parts of the western US (Focus on Western Wildfires).⁴⁰ Overwintering fires, or “zombie” fires, which occur when uncharacteristically severe burning in hot, dry summers results in burning the following fire season, may also be increasing in the Arctic²²⁸ and Alaska.⁴⁰ Permafrost thaw, including thermokarst (ground slumps or cave-ins)^229,230 and lake drainage,^{231,232,233,234} is accelerating due to warming (e.g., Douglas et al. 2021⁴⁹), particularly with recent wildfires^235,236 and uncharacteristically warm precipitation events.²³⁷ These changes are projected to affect Arctic ecosystems and hydrology in important ways.²³⁸ Across central and northern Alaska, changes in disturbance, vegetation productivity, and permafrost will affect the region’s role in the global carbon cycle.^239,240 Current evidence suggests that carbon emissions from thawing permafrost²⁴¹ will exceed the carbon captured by increased vegetation productivity.

Close

Security entails a sense of well-being and safety that is protected from or resilient to disruption. It is a combination of many interests and perspectives and reflects values such as a nation’s sovereignty and integrity (KM 17.1) or a community’s reliance on livelihoods and food sources that enable its people to thrive (KM 29.3; Box 11.1). Different interests are prioritized at the national/homeland, state, and community levels. Security actors at the national, state, and community level may face increasing demands for security services while also confronting the additional costs of climate change on physical infrastructure and operations, creating a double burden and making decisions even more challenging.

The Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security are impacted by climate change.²⁴⁷ For example, coastal erosion, degrading permafrost, wildfire, and other climate effects will continue to impact DoD installations in Alaska (Figure 29.13).^248,249 At the state level, increasing wildfire risk and climate impacts to infrastructure increase management costs to the state.¹⁷⁶ Coastal erosion and thawing permafrost are affecting many coastal villages, reducing community security (KMs 9.2, 16.1, 21.3, 22.1, 29.4). Beyond Alaska, national policy responses to climate change, such as reducing dependence on fossil fuels, may impact energy sources, prices, and industry in Alaska, with potential effects on employment, household budgets, and environment.

URL

Alternative text

Climate change poses risks to military assets in Alaska.

Figure 29.13. (a) The bar charts display climate risk for selected Department of Defense (DoD) sites in Alaska, based on the higher emission scenario for 2035–2064 data from the DoD Climate Assessment Tool. The y-axis is the weighted order–weighted average (WOWA) score of each site’s exposure to aggregated climate hazards. For the Interior and Southcentral Alaska sites, drought and energy demand are the top climate hazards. At Fort Richardson, there is notably higher exposure to the riverine flooding climate hazard. In general, the scores are lower for the Southcentral region, indicating lower exposure to climate hazards. (b) Selected DoD sites in Alaska and projected reduction in frost days, illustrating the scale of the risk statewide (frost days are defined here as days with a minimum temperature at or below 32°F). The average annual number of frost days over the modeled baseline (1950–2005) ranges from 140–180 days in the Aleutian Islands to 260–290 days in the Brooks Range. In a higher greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCP8.5), this will be reduced by about 20% in the Brooks Range and by over half in the Aleutians in 2070–2099. This will result in a longer ice-free season on the coast, leaving coastal communities vulnerable to storm surge more of the year. Portions of this figure include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. Figure credit: USACE and DoD.

At the national level, DoD installations face a range of climate-associated hazards. For example, wildfire is a constant concern for military installations. Climate-driven drought, wind, and fire can affect operations, training, assets, and wildfire-suppression activities for DoD installations in a variety of ways.²⁴⁸ The Alaska Fire Service and the US Army have recently been partnering to conduct springtime prescribed burns on military training lands in Alaska to reduce fire danger around military training targets.²⁵⁰

Climate impacts also generate national security concerns by altering maritime traffic in Alaska. Reductions in sea ice in Alaska waters enable more maritime activity. Changing and difficult-to-predict ice conditions, however, may require search-and-rescue activities that affect US Coast Guard presence and missions, as well as DoD civil support and military missions. Increasing maritime traffic in the Arctic²⁵¹ intersects with the broader geopolitical context of competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and tension with Russia. The Russian government has been building (and rebuilding) military capability and capacity across its northern border, including sites near Alaska such as Wrangel Island.²⁵² The PRC has expressed interest in Arctic governance, resources, shipping lanes, and climate science.²⁵³ In Alaska, recent concerns include PRC and Russian naval operations in the US exclusive economic zone; illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing especially in the Bering Sea; and marine debris.²⁵⁴

Rising concern about climate change and increased geopolitical competition in the Arctic are reflected in recent Arctic-specific military strategy documents (e.g., DHS 2019; DoD 2019; USAF 2020^248,255,256). In Alaska, the DoD is developing new capabilities and capacities in response to these changes. For example, as of spring 2022, Eielson Air Force Base has 54 F-35 aircraft, the largest concentration of the most technologically advanced airpower in the world.²⁵⁷

The state of Alaska faces direct and indirect climate change impacts to security with regard to crime, economic impacts (KMs 19.1, 19.3, 29.3), environmental impacts (KM 29.5), and state capacity to respond to such security challenges. Climate change is also increasing costs for the state, from firefighting to infrastructure maintenance (KM 29.4), with potential adverse ramifications for the state’s ability to balance its budget and meet the needs of its citizens.¹⁷⁰

At the community level, concerns center on food and environmental security (KM 29.2), as well as the safety of small boat operators and hunters navigating increasingly unpredictable and crowded marine and riverine environments (KM 15.1).⁸⁷ Changing sea and river ice conditions are increasing the physical risks for hunters and travelers. Climate change may also drive intensification of human offshore activities, such as increased commercial shipping, that generate additional risks such as accidents or spills.²⁵⁸ Cultural practices are vital to well-being and security throughout Alaska (Box 29.3) but are often overlooked or minimized in fisheries management and in research on climate change and ecosystems.⁷⁵

Close

In recent years, Alaska has emerged as a leader of climate adaptation initiatives in the Arctic,²⁶¹ many of which have been implemented by regional entities and municipal, community, and Tribal governments.^262,263 Together, these efforts address climate change and intersecting societal challenges in ways that begin to lay a foundation for a just and prosperous Alaska. A wide variety of adaptation efforts has been undertaken statewide, from trainings and workshops to the implementation of hazard mitigation and climate action plans.^262,263,264 Despite widespread impacts (Figure 29.15), support for climate adaptation varies among communities,^263,265,266 and adaptation has not been a consistent priority for the state government (KM 31.1).^263,267,268 For many Alaskans, the ability to adapt to current and projected climate impacts is shaped by social and political factors such as food and water security, economic opportunity, and the capacity of governance systems (KM 31.4).^{45,269,270,271}

URL

Alternative text

Statewide assessments show extensive climate-related threats throughout Alaska.

Figure 29.15. The map shows threats to Alaska Native villages from permafrost thaw, flooding, and erosion. Many communities face multiple threats, compounding the challenges they face. Adapted from GAO 2022.²⁸⁶

Many of Alaska’s Tribes have completed or are currently engaged in efforts that increase their ability to adapt to a changing climate (KM 16.3). These include applying for federal funding for climate resilience,²⁷² conducting risk assessments,²⁷³ collaborating with researchers to bridge Western climate science and Indigenous Knowledge,²⁷⁴ and developing and implementing community- and regional-level adaptation plans.^76,275,276 These activities are bolstered by the accumulated knowledge that has enabled Indigenous Peoples of Alaska and the Arctic to innovate and adapt to their changing environment for millennia.^270,277,278 The traditional values and practices of Alaska Native cultures focus on well-being, cultural continuity, and a holistic, integrated worldview (Figure 16.3).^75,270,279 They are often tied to components of adaptive capacity, such as environmental stewardship, communal pooling of subsistence resources, and mobility.^{280,281,282,283,284} It is important to emphasize, however, that Alaska Native Peoples’ ability to adapt does not mitigate the impacts of unprecedented environmental hazards or reduce the need to address the causes of climate change.

To achieve widely needed climate adaptation, communities must navigate a complex system of siloed federal agencies (Figure 29.16).^285,286,287 Overlapping local, borough, state, and federal jurisdictions can create confusing or conflicting policy directives and impede local adaptation efforts (KM 31.4).^277,288 Complex governance and resource management systems, many of which are imposed on Tribes through colonization, create challenges to adaptation efforts, which are most effective if they are timely, equitable, and community led. Also, the high adaptive capacity and self-reliance of Indigenous Peoples continues to be eroded by the ongoing impacts of colonization, including barriers to social networks and the transfer of Indigenous Knowledge.^{277,279,289,290} Tribes are sovereign nations that require government-to-government consultation. Communities with strong collaboration among governing entities, including through coproduction of knowledge (research based on equitable and respectful partnerships), may be better able to respond to the adverse impacts of climate change through partnership and flexible management of natural resources.^279,281,285 Targeted coordination among and between federal, state, and Tribal entities would help build resilience to environmental threats.²⁸⁶

URL

Alternative text

Adaptation is a complex process, requiring expertise and engagement with multiple entities.

Figure 29.16. Climate adaptation typically requires a wide range of expertise as well as engagement of those who are affected together with other entities, including but not limited to those listed in this figure.²⁸⁶ Alaska Native corporations were created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.²⁹¹ Local priorities are holistic, involving integrated environmental and social issues. However, institutions on multiple levels are often siloed with specific priorities, which can lead to duplication of efforts and hamper local efforts. Figure credit: University of Alaska Fairbanks and Ocean Conservancy.

Although there are various sources of state and federal funding and technical assistance available to support municipal and Tribal climate adaptation in Alaska, the effectiveness of such efforts is hindered by institutional barriers and limited capacity across various levels of government (KMs 31.4, 31.6).^261,292 In both rural and non-rural communities, some residents have reported that climate adaptation has been impeded by a lack of local leadership or political will.^265,266,293 Many communities and organizations have stepped up to lead mitigation efforts and address the inequities compounded by climate change in the absence of consistent municipal and state action. At least four municipalities (Anchorage, Homer, Sitka, and Juneau) have adopted climate action plans,²⁶⁴ with Fairbanks also currently at work on theirs. Seven Tribal governments from the Nome Eskimo Community to the Central Council of T’lingit and Haida have adopted climate action or adaptation plans.²⁶⁴

Community renewable energy initiatives like Thermalize Juneau and the Solarize initiatives in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, Mat-Su, and Palmer help residential and commercial property owners install solar capacity.^294,295,296 Local utilities such as Golden Valley Electric Association, Alaska Energy Light and Power, and Chugach Electric Association have worked on several renewable energy projects.^297,298,299 Juneau Electric Vehicle Association specifically has worked to electrify public and personal transport in the region.³⁰⁰ Many communities around the state are building local community-supported agriculture markets, shared gardens, and supply boxes to supplement neighborhoods farther away from urban grocery stores.³⁰¹ Tribal governments in Interior and Southwest Alaska delivered salmon to residents impacted by the Yukon–Kuskokwim salmon crash.³⁰²

Climate change can lead to divergent goals. While there are potential economic opportunities of a warming Arctic, such as increased marine traffic, growth in tourism, and resource extraction, considerations of relevant climate-related risks are not consistently incorporated into regulatory and planning processes.^266,269 For example, across coastal Alaska, communities are increasingly reliant on hard structures, such as seawalls and shoreline reinforcement. These structural adaptations can provide a sense of security, but they lack the flexibility, long-term sustainability, and cost effectiveness of regulatory and ecosystem-based approaches.³⁰³

Climate impacts are being experienced within the larger context of social, political, and economic change in the Arctic (KM 20.2).²⁸¹ Non-climate stressors such as food insecurity (KMs 29.1, 29.3, 29.5), limited employment (KM 29.3), substandard housing (KM 29.1), aging infrastructure (KM 29.4), limited access to healthcare (KM 29.1), the high cost of living in remote areas (KM 29.2), and limited search-and-rescue capability (KM 29.6) can affect a community’s capacity and ability to pursue climate adaptation.^269,304,305 By identifying and addressing the intersections of climate risk and social and economic vulnerability, decision-makers can develop and implement adaptation initiatives that are scalable, innovative, and/or transformational.²⁶⁶

The need to center adaptation actions around and support Indigenous and local values, knowledge, and priorities has been widely identified as a critical component of community-based adaptation (KM 16.2).^{45,269,270,285,289,306,307,308} In addition to integrating multiple knowledge systems and building workforce development and Tribal capacity for climate resilience,³⁰⁹ climate adaptation efforts can be strengthened by fostering partnerships among diverse groups and supporting community-based leadership and monitoring.^45,267,285 This need is recognized in White House guidance to federal agencies.³¹⁰

Education for many audiences has long been an essential component of adaptation in Alaska. Numerous educational efforts in Alaska are bringing climate change information and understanding to K–12 students, undergraduate and graduate students, educators, and community members. The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program has engaged more than 1,400 rural and urban Alaska teachers and over 20,000 students in climate change learning and citizen science in a culturally sustaining way since 1996.^311,312,313 Scientists have used Alaska students’ GLOBE data.^314,315 The Arctic and Earth STEM Integrating GLOBE and NASA project braids Indigenous and Western science to engage formal and informal educators, community members, and youth in projects relevant to their communities³¹⁶, in partnership with the Association of Interior Native Educators. Other community/citizen science projects related to climate change focus on Alaska berries, freshwater ice, snow depth, and coastal community observations and knowledge.³¹⁷ Climate education efforts for adults include an online course exploring climate change in Arctic environments, community training in the Alaska Tribal Resilience Learning Network through the Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center, and peer-to-peer learning and knowledge exchange in the community-led relocation, managed retreat, and protect-in-place coordinator cohort. The Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning provides downscaled climate data, while the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy provides climate and weather webinars, graphics, and tools. New initiatives are also being developed.³¹⁸

Close