Scientists in Alaska will raise the vexed issue of methane and “black carbon” pollution as they discuss tipping-point dangers posed by global warming in the Arctic.

A crucial meeting of the Arctic Council, in Anchorage, comes amid evidence that the polar region is warming faster than any other place on Earth and that sea ice coverage there has shrunk by nearly a third since 1979. Researchers now fear that new threats to climate stability are about to be unleashed in the Arctic. Warming in high latitudes is causing permafrost in Siberia and northern Canada to thaw and release plumes of methane stored there, they say. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and these releases threaten to trigger secondary rises in global temperatures.

In addition, researchers warn that black carbon – ultra-fine particles produced by factories and farms and deposited thousands of miles from emission points – could be significantly reducing the brightness of snow and icefields. With less solar radiation reflected back into space, the region will warm up even faster, leading to a longer melt season and even greater reductions in ice.

“The sources of black carbon and methane emissions affecting the Arctic are the oil and gas sector, waste, domestic burning, shipping and other modes of transportation, agricultural burning, other industry and agricultural sources, and natural sources including wildfires and wetlands,” said Jon Kahn, director of the ministry of environment and energy in Sweden and an Arctic Council delegate, in a recent blog.

Kahn has played a key role in setting up past Arctic Council investigations of the dangers posed by methane and black carbon to the region. Crucially, Kahn noted that the US, which has just assumed presidency of the council, has agreed to maintain this interest and, in particular, to look more closely at flaring, the burning of natural gas that cannot be processed or sold, and which has been linked to the release of secondary climate pollutants such as black carbon.

The Arctic Council is made up of representatives of the main north polar nations – Canada, Denmark (through its dependencies of Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. In recent years, its work has come into sharp focus as the Arctic has warmed up and its sea ice cover has shrunk, exposing once inaccessible oilfields and sea routes.

Russia has been particularly aggressive in claiming rights over newly exposed territories, while US president Barack Obama recently triggered controversy by giving the go-ahead to Shell to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea.

However, the US administration has since made significant retreats over its oil drilling policy in the Arctic and last week announced new curbs on oil and gas exploration in Arctic waters off Alaska’s northern coast. This has raised hopes that it will use its presidency of the Arctic Council to try to strengthen measures that will protect the fragile polar environment. The Arctic suffers by comparison with its southerly counterpart, the Antarctic, which is controlled by an international treaty that bans all mining, oil drilling or the presence of the military, and which strictly controls all environmental hazards. By contrast, the Arctic is owned by nations who have very different ideas about how to run the place. It is the task of the Arctic Council to reconcile these differing aspirations.

For its part, the United Kingdom, which has strong interests in both Arctic and Antarctic research and exploration, has permanent observer status at the council and uses its scientific expertise and knowledge of the region to optimise its political leverage at debates.

The UK has been criticised for its lack of ambition in Arctic debates. A House of Lords report, Responding to a Changing Arctic, recently warned that the UK does not always take a full role in Arctic discussions. In the report, peers recommended that the post of UK Arctic ambassador be created. However, the government has since dismissed the idea, arguing that such a post is unnecessary. “We already have a strong influence and certainly do not need honorific posts with grand titles to make our presence felt,” said one UK Arctic expert.

This year, the UK natural environment research council said it would spend an extra £16m on Arctic research in order to better understand how climate change there is likely to affect wildlife, fish stocks and the environment.