are growing; the El Niño getting under way in the Pacific all but guarantees next year will be. Climate change is feeding on itself. The warming effects of greenhouse gases are driving processes that heat up the planet yet further. The one which is exciting—and alarming—scientists most is an unexpected reduction in an obscure but fundamental aspect of Earth: its albedo. The albedo is the fraction of incoming sunlight that a surface or a planet reflects back whence it came. High albedos, whether they are created by white roofs or ice-covered seas, keep things cool; by contrast, when albedos are low, the incoming energy stays here on Earth, raising the planet’s surface temperatures. Robust satellite measurements of Earth’s albedo have now been taken for over two decades. They show it falling with surprising speed. The oceans, which are responsible for most of the sunshine’s absorption, have been accumulating much more heat as a result. This is partly because of a scarcity of cooling clouds over the seas, a widely predicted effect of greenhouse warming. It is also owing to something else entirely. In 2006—in fact, 20 years ago this month—the late Paul Crutzen, a world-renowned atmospheric chemist, wrote an article pointing out the “policy dilemma” embedded in efforts to control emissions of sulphur dioxide. Sulphur dioxide, which comes from the burning of some fossil fuels, creates little particles in the atmosphere after it is emitted. They wreak havoc with human health. They also reflect sunlight back into space, thereby reducing the amount of energy that reaches Earth’s surface. Health agencies, Crutzen said, thought controlling the particles could save 500,000 lives a year; at the same time, by diminishing the sulphur’s cooling effect, the controls might increase global warming by perhaps 1°C (1.8°F). Both albedo-reducing trends look set to continue, adding yet more to the heat. The industrial cities of the developing world are hardly likely to sacrifice the health of their smog-choked inhabitants in order to slow warming for the world at large, so sulphur emissions will continue to fall. The climate feedbacks which reduce cloud cover will not stop while carbon- dioxide levels continue to rise. And even when the transition to renewable energy eats into the use of fossil fuels, as it is starting to do, what matters most is the cumulative level of greenhouse gases.
Around a decade ago the need to stabilise that cumulative level led lots of countries to embrace “net zero” goals. The idea’s proponents see putting no more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than you are taking out as good planetary housekeeping. They are right. But it is an unavoidably slow process. What’s more, its critics are also correct when they say that only for the largest economies does a single country’s progress towards net-zero goals have any discernible effect on the world’s overall trajectory. The idea was conceived when America was a believer in international agreements and the level of idealism needed to imagine countries spurring each other on to better things was merely high—not, as it is now, delusional. There are still places where climate change is understood to be important and where action can be co-ordinated. Being committed to net zero should buy a country a certain standing when it is negotiating other, more near-term options for limiting climate change, such as curbing methane emissions and the production of fluorinated gases used in cooling systems, both of which bring benefits faster than cutting carbon dioxide. No form of emissions reduction, though, can quickly bend the current trajectory. Endurance is what remains. Making air conditioning more efficient, cheap and widespread saves lives and fits well with other policy goals, like making clean electricity cheap to produce and consume. Ten years ago a commitment to phase out the fluorinated gases in cooling systems was reached in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. There is scope for extra international efforts to improve the machinery that uses them. This could double the cooling benefit of phasing out the gases. The most radical response is to make Earth a bit more reflective again. Crutzen’s provocative suggestion for how to resolve his policy dilemma over sulphur emissions was to replace harmful aerosols with benign ones. The brightening of cooling clouds has been tried over the Great Barrier Reef, but the technology needed to do it at scale remains elusive. An Israeli-American company, Stardust Solutions, has raised money to develop “safe” aerosols that it thinks a country or set of countries could use to cool the planet from the stratosphere. Some oppose such geoengineering fiercely; hardly anyone endorses it as a welcome path forward. But if nations can act in concert to warm the planet
—as those of the International Maritime Organisation did when they enforced new restrictions on ships’ sulphur emissions in 2020—they ought to be able to discuss the conditions under which they might cool it. Keeping silent about geoengineering does not stop someone from trying it. The more warming quickens, the sooner it may reach a point where, to quote Cole Porter again, anything goes. ■ For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//leaders/2026/07/16/its-too-darn-hot-blame-global-dimming
Donald Trump’s blind alley America’s president looks bereft of good options for solving the stand-off in the Gulf July 16th 2026 WHEN DONALD TRUMP proposed peace with Iran, he could hardly have offered better terms. In return for Iran opening the Strait of Hormuz and forswearing all ambitions for a nuclear bomb, America held out the prospect of hundreds of billions of dollars of income and investment in an economy ravaged by sanctions and war. The horrified reaction of Iran hawks in America and Israel tells you that no other American leader would have surrendered so much. The bleak message from the upsurge in fighting over the past week is that, for Iran, money alone is not enough. The hardliners are in charge. They want
something more, and it cannot be good—be it revenge, control over the strait, regional dominance or a nuclear programme. America must not yield. The memorandum of understanding (MoU), signed a month ago, allows 60 days to bring peace. Halfway through, it has itself become the focus of conflict. It asks Iran to “make arrangements to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels free of charge for 60 days”. Iran takes that to imply it is in charge; for America it means that Iran must not restrict sea traffic. The two sides are exchanging missile and drone strikes, and tankers are wary of sailing even with American offers of protection. Thankfully, these military exchanges have so far stopped short of a return to war. But the oil price is creeping back up. Meanwhile, there has been no progress in talks on tricky matters, including nuclear materials and Iranian efforts to enrich uranium. After decades of hostility, trust between America and Iran is in desperately short supply. But America was honouring its side of the MoU, by allowing Iranian oil to be sold on international markets. If ever the two countries might have been able to put relations on a more steady footing, this was the moment. Moderates in Tehran (a relative term) are said to grasp what a favourable offer they had. But the hardliners won the argument. The new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, remains unseen, but his pronouncements are hardline, too. Either he agrees with squeezing America for more, or he is under the thumb of those who want war. Mr Trump seems to have no plan. This week he said America would itself start levying tolls on ships in the strait, until wiser heads in the administration pointed out how foolish that idea was. Thankfully he reversed it. He has also issued more threats to destroy Iranian bridges and energy plants. But a return to all-out war does not hold much promise. After all, the intense fighting in February was supposed to topple the regime, but ended up strengthening its hardliners. The president also drops hints about sending in troops to seize Kharg island, the export terminal for almost all of Iran’s oil.
American forces on Kharg would be a sitting target for Iranian missiles and drones. Giving Iran what it wants would be terrible, too. Acquiescing to its control of international waters in the Gulf would not only be bad in itself, but would set a dire precedent. Abandoning Gulf countries to Iran’s predations would be against America’s direct interests and send a bad signal to allies everywhere. And Iran’s nuclear programme poses a real danger that needs close monitoring and control by international inspectors. The options are not good, therefore. All of them involve demonstrating to Iran’s hardliners that America has the resolve to impose a sustained blockade on Iranian oil exports—even if that raises the price of petrol before the midterm elections in November. America has restored the embargo against Iran, which is a start. To show its will, it should also continue to match Iranian strikes. Mr Trump made a foolish mistake by starting this war. However much he twists and turns, he now has little choice but to stick it out. ■ Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//leaders/2026/07/15/donald-trumps-blind-alley
China’s rulers have a woman problem Antagonism between the sexes does nothing to address China’s demographic problems July 16th 2026 CHINA HAS no direct translation of the word “manosphere” but it is plagued by one nonetheless—indeed, the abuse of women on social media is every bit as poisonous there as it is in democracies. The difference is that, in a country where censors rush to silence posts they dislike, the authorities tolerate the manosphere’s vitriol and instead focus their energy on women. The cyberspace regulator’s crackdown on harmful content specifically lists “extreme feminism”, including posts that promote singledom. This is just one symptom of a much broader problem that China’s old, male rulers have with the opposite sex. Unlike Asia’s other two big powers, Japan and India, China has never been led by a woman in modern times. As