Melting Permafrost in Siberia is Threatening Russia’s Energy Industry
Permafrost and Climate Change
As the world becomes increasingly warmer due to anthropogenic climate change, the effects of climate change grow more apparent. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and livestock farming, have led to irreparable damage to our climate. One such result is the melting of permafrost. Permafrost is a frozen layer of soil, gravel, and sand bound together by ice that remains at or below 0ºC (32º F) for at least two years, primarily found in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions of the globe. This ‘permanent frost’ acts as a carbon sink, storing up to 1,500 billion metric tons of organic carbon, almost twice as much as is currently in the atmosphere. These layers contain high concentrations of carbon as the permanently low temperature prevents dead animals and plants from decomposing. Unlike regular frozen ground, permafrost reaches from one meter up to more than 1,000 meters deep. With a heavy reliance on Arctic resources, as rising global temperatures accelerate permafrost thaw, the release of greenhouse gases, infrastructure collapse, and economic instability pose environmental and geopolitical challenges for Russia.
Permafrost and Russia’s Energy Sector
Two-thirds of Russia rests on permafrost, namely in the northern province of Siberia. However, as climate change causes global temperatures to rise, permafrost thaws, releasing stored greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Methane, in particular, is more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, resulting in higher ground temperatures. The release of GHGs exacerbates global warming, which furthers permafrost thawing—creating a dangerous positive feedback loop. Thus, Russia is warming 2.5 times faster than the rest of the world, contributing to devastating climate disasters in the region.
Siberia, whose infrastructure is built on the now-thawing permafrost, is experiencing the consequences of this process. As layers of ice melt, large underground puddles form, creating sinkholes and instability for any infrastructure built above. The buckling ground leads to damaged roads, slumped telephone poles, and even collapsed buildings. Furthermore, Russia has built much of its energy infrastructure atop permafrost. Nearly 70% of said infrastructure in Russia’s Arctic region is at risk, including major oil and gas fields, pipelines, and mines. Unlike other countries with varying terrains and seasons, the frozen ground has offered a stable base to support heavy industries such as storage tanks, pipelines, and drilling rigs for exporting Russian natural gas and oil. As temperatures rise, the once-predictable terrain melts unevenly, portending serious consequences for the infrastructure. As the ground rapidly adapts to the warming climates, Siberia’s pipes are experiencing bending, warping, and ruptures. The potential effects of a rupture are devastating: even a slight crack in these crude oil or natural gas pipelines can cause leaks or explosions.
In May 2020, this worst-case scenario occurred when a fuel tank at a Nornickel power plant in Norilsk collapsed due to the instability of the thawing ground. The collapse resulted in over 21,000 tons of oil being released into the Ambarnaya River, turning it bright red and contaminating the surrounding area. Clean-up efforts in Norilsk cost almost 150 billion rubles (nearly 2 billion USD) to remove contaminated soil and waterways and compensate for the damage caused to the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem. This was one of the worst environmental disasters in the Arctic in over 30 years. For example, the environmental nonprofit organization Greenpeace compared it to the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. Siberia’s warming climate and thawing permafrost increase the risk of further disasters threatening Arctic wildlife and ecosystems.
The rapid thawing of permafrost places a strain on both the environment and Russia’s economy. In 2019, Russia’s minister for Arctic development predicted, “The economic loss is 50 billion to 150 billion rubles ($2.3 billion) a year.” Much of the cost of climate change would also fall on the oil and gas companies tasked with reinforcing existing pipelines and storage facilities. However, in some cases, the environmental changes call for a complete relocation or infrastructure rebuilding, which is time-consuming and expensive for major fuel companies such as Gazprom, Rosneft, and Transneft. Relocating most infrastructure to previously undeveloped land would further damage the environment. The instability of the fuel industry poses a threat to the Russian economy, where fossil fuel revenue makes up around 20% of the nation’s GDP and relies on the Siberian and Arctic natural reserves. These added costs come at a time when Russia already spends heavily on the third year of its war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, strict sanctions from the European Union, the United States, and their Western allies have reduced Russia’s influence in the global energy markets. The combination of climate change adaptation, the cost of infrastructure failures, a reduction in energy exports, and the cost of war threatens to accelerate the Kremlin’s financial and geopolitical decline.
Russian Response and Strategies for Mitigation
The thawing permafrost in Siberia is rapidly turning into severe economic, geopolitical, and environmental consequences for the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin, who once dismissed global warming, joking that Russians would save money on coats, has shifted his stance to the looming threat to his country. Russia formally accepted the Paris Climate Agreement in 2019, pledging to reduce its emissions by 30% by 2030 (relative to 1990 levels). However, as the fourth largest emitter of GHGs, its climate policies remain inconsistent, and the country’s reliance on Arctic oil and gas impedes meaningful progress.
Despite Russia’s interest in exploring renewable energy alternatives, it lacks a clear roadmap for implementation. Plans to introduce stricter environmental regulations and incentivize companies like Gazprom to modernize their infrastructure with initiatives such as the Comprehensive Environmental Program aimed at reducing pollutants face uncertain enforcement. Following the Ukraine conflict, Europe’s efforts to reduce reliance on Russian energy resulted in the loss of crucial investment needed for infrastructure updates. Additionally, as Russia’s dominance over Europe’s energy sector declines, global markets are shifting, forcing the Kremlin to find alternative buyers such as China or India.
At the same time, other Arctic nations, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, are looking to claim a stake in the region by investing in offshore drilling, Liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, and strengthening their military presence. The accumulation of Russia’s permafrost degradation, crumbling infrastructure, and economic turmoil threaten its dominance over the Arctic resources and further weaken its geopolitical position in the region. As warming temperatures worsen the permafrost crisis in the Arctic, Russia is racing against time to implement sustainable solutions to prevent irreversible damage. The Kremlin must decide whether to adapt to the devastation of its environment and infrastructure or continue down an unsustainable path, which risks further weakening its geopolitical position and exacerbating the climate crisis.