Future of the Arctic Part I: Playing Games

4 Scenarios for a Reconfigured Future, part I

Mar 25, 2025

This is Pt. 6 of the “It’s Getting Hotter in the Arctic” series. Take a look at the previous episodes of our series: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part V. Ice guaranteed! 🧊

Our journey throughout the frozen tundras of the Arctic is coming to a close.

We have spent the past few months following the misadventures of Russian soldiers, dismayed ship captains, and one ambassador-turned-king as we tried to make sense of what the heck is going in the region. Once a paragon of human collaboration and harmony, the Arctic has turned to a scene of intense geopolitical and economic competition, where everything is made up and the points don’t matter.

Or do they?

As we wrap up our investigation into the Reconfiguration of the Arctic, it would probably be a good idea to set our sights into the future.

Over the next two posts, we will explore four distinct scenarios, using Scenario Analysis Methodology, to explore the Arctic’s future and what should we do about it.

This post will present the methodology, introduce the four scenarios, and explore two of them. The other two will be discussed in the next post along with our [in the works] Arctic Simulator.

Hope you enjoy.

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future”

The truth is: I have no idea what will happen in the future. On the other hand, neither do any of you, so I don’t feel as bad as I probably should.

At any rate, since we cannot predict the future, we’ll turn to the next best thing: Scenario Planning/Analysis, a methodology loved by analysts and consultants with usage in business, geopolitics, research and more (read about it here).

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “he’s going to bore us with lengthy descriptions of what may or may not happen”. The answer is - yes, but to help, a flurry of AI apps came to my aid.

Method to the Madness

Trying to make sense of the future of the Arctic will require us to think critically about what can actually drive change in the region and then create scenarios that will help put in a model. In other words, we need a framework.

(if you don’t care about the methodology, feel free to jump ahead!)

Setting a Horizon

For simplicity sake, we’ll set our sights to 2050. Why? It’s close enough to imagine, but far enough into the future to ~~get you off my case if in case I’m wrong~~ suspend disbelief. Can we set our sights to 2070? 2100? Sure. But it’s my blog, so I’ve decided 2050.

Mapping Uncertainties

The Arctic is a complex region with many moving parts and opposing dynamics. In the first step towards building scenarios that are helpful, we should recognize what key issues we’re just not sure about (in other words: uncertainties). I can think of a few big ones:

🌊Climate Change: How strong and fundamental will the Arctic’s climate change be? Will it be uncontrolled, rampant change or will it be more moderate and limited?
🌍Geopolitics: The Arctic’s geopolitics are impacted by the overall mood in global geopolitics. Will our future world be a chaotic, multipolar world of intense competition between blocs (think NATO vs. BRICS, etc.), or will global collaboration reign long-term?
💰Economic Development: The Arctic’s natural resources are expected to become more accessible in the future. Will we be able to resist the temptation and use resources responsibly, or will it be extraction galore?
🤼Public Perception: Will the Arctic be recognized as a place we should protect at all costs or will the general public stay apathetic about the region?

Defining Axes of Change

There are many, many more uncertainties. However, to move forward, we will focus just on the first two (largely independent) dimensions for our scenarios: Climate change and Geopolitics.

True, nothing is truly independent. After all, this substack is based in part on the premise that climate change influences geopolitics. Still, Arctic geopolitics are influenced by global geopolitics independent of climate change (I credit my lovely wife for reminding me of this).

At any rate, we’ll define the following axes:

Climate Change:
- Node I: Rampant climate change (IPCC Scenario SSP5-8.5) leads to 3.5C or higher of warming, with: ice-free summers likely by the 2030s; winter ice significantly thinner and reduced; widespread thawing of the Permafrost (up to 70%) releasing vast amounts of methane and CO₂; collapse of ice-dependent species (e.g., polar bears); increased wildfires and invasive species in tundra regions.
- Node II: Limited climate change (IPCC Scenario SSP51-1.9) leads to 1.5C of warming: seasonal ice persists with occasional ice-free summers after 2050; thawing is limited to around 20%, with reduced methane emissions compared to higher warming scenarios; limited disruption to Arctic species
Global Geopolitics:
- Node I: Intense competition: global competition between blocs is kicked into high gear dramatically fracturing global governance
- Node II: Global collaboration: world powers largly set aside their differences to solve humanity’s greatest challenges and establish extensive collaborative mechanisms to maximize global welfare (not to be confused with a utopia, where challenges are alreadly solved)

Building Scenarios

We will use our axes to build 4 stories of what can happen, each assuming a different option of the convegence of climate change and global geopolitics. Each story gives us the ability to understand what might happen.

We should note that these scenarios are not a prediction, but rather an exploration that can help us prepare for multiple futures. They are also meant to be archetypes to help make sense of developments, and middle scenarios are also possible.

I have consulted the great AI Oracle that is Perplexity and have landed on four scenarios: Arctic Wild West, Arctic Emergency Pact, Green Resource Wars and Arctic Commons.

And now our framework is complete:

All Models Are Wrong, Some Are Helpful

Now that we have explored the methodology and built four scenarios, we can start exploring each one.

Arctic Wild West:

We will start with the first scenario, where rampant climate change meets fierce global competition.

It’s 2050, and you’re standing on the deck of your shiny new icebreaker yacht. The Arctic is a free-for-all and the Arctic Council is a ghost of its 2025 self. People call you an Arctic Pirate, but you prefer to think of yourself as an entrepreneur in the new gold rush. NATO and BRICS are vying for control, often letting their guns do the talkin’, while smaller countries fight for scraps and companies compete for permits. You’re quick on your feet and have a keen sense of smell, and you have no problems with bribing the odd Norwegian partrol ship to look the other way as that shipment to your Chinese corporate clients is making its destination across the Northern Sea Route. While you count dollars, you try not to think too much about the methane plumes in the distance.

Key Operating Dynamics:

That’s a nice story. Let’s look at the key dynamics in play:

How Did We Get Here?

In this scenario, here’s how we got from 2025 to 2050, i.e. what happened that led to the Arctic Wild West:

Yeah, it’s pretty wild, I’ll admit. But definitely not out of the question!

Who Wins, Who Loses?

👍Winners include: opportunistic, small countries that can respond quickly and extract concessions from world powers (mostly as they have resources or strategic location); shipping companies and resource-extracting companies that can benefit from conflicting governance regimes and a competition for power.

👎Losers include smaller countries without resources, indigenous communities, and, well, all of us, who stand to lose from environmental degradation. Yeah, I know, “we all lose” is a general argument used loosely, but in this case it’s real and significant.

Clues From Today:

🔎 Russia’s increased militarization of the Arctic, including hundreds of military installations like radar stations, missile systems, and nuclear submarines adapted for icy conditions.

🔎 Escalating rivalries between NATO, China, and Russia over strategic shipping routes and resource control—evident in initiatives like China’s Polar Silk Road and NATO’s expanded Arctic exercises.

🔎 Arctic governance is eroding rapidly, with the Arctic Council being slowly replaced by a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements that are not really based on consensus, while some countries ignore the council altogether.

🔎 Permafrost thawing is accelerating, releasing methane plumes visible across Siberia, while ice sheets are receding faster than projected.

Arctic Emergency Pact

After seeing what happened when global competition meets rampant climate change. Now, let’s see what happens when world countries are able to rise up to the challenge.

It’s 2050, and you’re in a tense meeting aboard an international research vessel stationed in the Arctic Ocean. The ice is long gone in the summer, replaced by methane plumes rising from thawing permafrost. The Arctic Emergency Pact, signed in the late 2030s, is your life’s work—it’s a fragile agreement between the Arctic states backed by both NATO and BRICS countries designed to stabilize the Arctic, enforce sustainable shipping practices, and extract resources responsibly. No one’s happy with this agreement, which means that it is pretty good. So far, the pact is doing its job, and even allowing for Indigenous Communities to be a part. It’s hard, but it looks like it’s working.

Lots of important people collaborating i guess