Albedo Accord

[Robert Chris]

Hi RobertT

I thought it might be helpful to summarise my issues about your Albedo Accord idea.

Obviously, I have no problem with the need to raise awareness of albedo and its crucial role in the climate system.  My concern is the way you are using the Montreal Protocol as a template for your Albedo Accord.

It would be helpful if you could clarify what precisely you mean by an ‘Accord’.  In yesterday’s discussion you seemed to be saying that the first step was to raise awareness of the importance of albedo, but that is far short of anything I would understand as an ‘Accord’.  An ‘Accord’ implies some form of agreement but it’s different from a Treaty.  A Protocol is something else entirely, being a supplement to a treaty.  In the case of the Montreal Protocol, that was a supplement to the Vienna Convention.

There’s a good summary of the history of the Montreal Protocol on Wikipedia.  An important similarity between the significance of ozone depleting substances and the concerns we now have about albedo, is the way in which the awareness arose from within the academic community and only once the science was largely uncontested, was it picked up by politicians and turned into an international agreement.

May I suggest that you give some further thought to the steps needed to bring albedo onto the policymaking agenda, and only then explore the most appropriate forum and format in which this might be taken forward.

Another important distinction is that the Montreal Protocol was all about protecting people from harm caused directly by ozone depleting substances.  Albedo is simply a physical attribute of the planet; it isn’t the direct source of harm.  An agreement to replace ozone depleting substances with less harmful alternatives is a structurally different proposition from one seeking to restore Earth’s albedo to some ‘safe’ level.  First, what level is safe, and second, what actions are necessary to achieve that?  For ozone depleting substances the answer is easy – replace them with chemicals that don’t deplete ozone.  For albedo restoration there’s no such simple answer.  There’s any number of behavioural changes and alternative industrial and agricultural practices, as well as technofixes, that could restore albedo.  How is an Accord going to handle all of them?

Regrettably, I don’t believe that International Affairs works in the linear and rational way that your Accord implies.  I’m not questioning the importance of what you’re trying to achieve, rather I’m suggesting that what’s needed is a more nuanced process that’s more sensitive to the realities of International Affairs.

Regards

Robert

[Robert Chris]

Hi RobertT

Further to my earlier email, you may find this paper helpful in gaining some insight into the dynamics of international climate negotiations.

I was also reflecting on your comment yesterday that you didn't agree that albedo was a wicked problem.  I'd agree that albedo isn't a wicked problem, it isn't a problem of any sort.  It's just a metric.  The wicked problem is developing a policy regime that embraces the vast multiplicity of interventions to increase albedo.  The parallel point in climate change more generally, is that the concentration of CO₂ is not a wicked problem per se but developing a timely and effective policy regime to reduce it to a safe level is.  The wickedness arises from the consequences of the actions invoked to solve the problem.  It's an attribute of the interventions not of the initial problem itself.

Regards

RobertC

---

From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:46
To: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Albedo Accord

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Thanks very much Robert.  Here is how I see it.

 

 

The Albedo Accord: Briefing Note

 

Executive Summary

Earth’s albedo layer — its reflective shield against overheating — is as vital to humanity as the ozone layer. Since 2015, satellite data show albedo, the reflection of sunlight from Earth to space, has declined by 2 watts per square meter (W/m²), driving over five times the warming effect of new CO₂ emissions (0.36 W/m²). This abrupt decline represents an immediate planetary security crisis. The Albedo Accord will enable urgent, coordinated international action to stabilise and restore planetary reflectivity. Alongside the Paris Accord on emissions, an Albedo Accord forms a twin pillar of climate security.

 

Core Principles

• Planetary Security – The albedo layer, formed mainly by clouds, ice, snow and aerosols, is as vital to human survival as the ozone layer.  Both are invisible, global, fragile and essential. Climate security is fundamental to political, economic and military security and stability.

• Biodiversity and Ecology – By slowing the speed of warming, the Albedo Accord provides vital time for ecosystems and species to adapt, directly addressing the collapse in biodiversity and protecting the ecological foundations of human well-being, and of all life on Earth.

• Urgency – Albedo decline is accelerating.  The NASA CERES satellite has measured albedo decline over the last decade running at over five times the immediate warming impact of CO2 emissions.  The precautionary principle demands action to protect albedo, to reverse warming feedback processes that have catastrophic potential.

• Practical Focus – The Montreal Protocol succeeded because of its narrow technical scope. The Albedo Accord likewise focuses on measurable and acceptable interventions that can restore reflectivity without overburdening the political process.

• Shared Responsibility – Governments, industry, researchers and civil society must jointly support albedo restoration as a complement to emission reduction.

• Effective Mitigation – Higher albedo reduces the radiative forcing that is causing extreme weather, sea level rise, biodiversity loss and systemic disruption.

• Global Thinking – Commitment to recognising our living planet as a single interconnected system, promoting peaceful cooperation to sustain Earth systems.

 

Strategic Constituencies

• Insurance and Finance – Facing escalating costs from climate-driven disasters, these sectors have a direct stake in urgent albedo action.

• Agriculture and Food Security – Farmers and food producers are already suffering from crop loss and heat stress; stabilising the albedo layer is essential for food resilience.

• Energy and Extractives – With their unique role in shaping the climate system, energy firms are called to support the Accord as part of maintaining their social licence to operate.

• Public Health – Communities everywhere face growing risks from heat stress, vector-borne diseases and food–water insecurity; protecting albedo protects health.

 

Objectives

• Awareness Mobilisation – Embed the concept of the albedo layer in public consciousness, just as the ozone layer became a household term in the 1980s.

• Coalition Building – Unite at-risk industries, scientific communities, and governments in a common cause: halting and reversing albedo collapse.

• Governance Pathways – Develop an international agreement, using the Montreal Protocol model of science-driven, technically focused cooperation, adapted for albedo.

• Effective Research – Mobilise resources to develop technology, conduct field trials to assess safety and efficacy, and advance social acceptance.

• Targeted Action – Advance specific interventions — such as cryosphere protection, marine cloud brightening, biogenic aerosol production, stratospheric aerosol injection and urban albedo improvements — within a transparent governance framework.

 

Vision

The Albedo Accord will stand as a companion to the Paris Accord. Paris aims to cut greenhouse gases over decades. The Albedo Accord aims to stabilise the albedo layer in the near term, preventing runaway heating. Together, these frameworks form the twin pillars of planetary climate security — the Paris Accord addressing the root cause of emissions, the Albedo Accord safeguarding Earth’s reflective shield.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robert Chris

Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2025 7:46 PM
To: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [HPAC] Albedo Accord

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/VI1P194MB03986EE9844F6BE82313E43AFC30A%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Robert Chris]

Hi RobertT

You've clearly put a lot of thought into this and in terms of the importance of enhancing albedo, restoring albedo, rebrightening the planet, whatever we want to call it, we're broadly in agreement.

But on the detail of how we achieve greater awareness and get it on the political agenda, we're a long way apart.  The difficulty starts with your reference to the 'albedo layer'.  As far as I know, there is no such thing because sunlight is reflected throughout the depth of the atmosphere by different agents, and also of course, from the surface.

Good luck with this. I don't think I can contribute anything further.

Regards

RobertC

---

From: rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>
Sent: 19 August 2025 13:34
To: 'Robert Chris' <robert...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [HPAC] Albedo Accord

 

[H simmens]

Robert T,

I don’t see the scientific, political,  organizational or public awareness rationale for separating albedo from the other forces that drive global heating and resultant climate change. Quite the contrary. 

(I also believe that whatever the merits of an accord may or may not be to use a term that is unknown to 99% of the population all but guarantees failure.)

Albedo decline is not some independent process unrelated to the extent speed and nature of the excess greenhouse gases already in or now entering the atmosphere. Nor is it unrelated to the extraordinary loss of vegetation and biodiversity that also contributes to global heating. 

To advocate for an entirely new accord which would require a new set of political and institutional arrangements, a new set of international meetings and negotiations independent of the COP’s and other efforts however tragically imperfect they are to address the climate crisis would result in a mass duplication of effort, and mass confusion in the eyes of activists, scientists, civic leaders and the public alike.  

All of the rationales and supporting arguments that you articulate for focusing urgently on albedo could much more effectively be made in the context of our present institutional and political arrangements. Or as I have proposed previously in the context of a new Brundtland type commission to achieve a heightened awareness of the gravity of the climate crisis and the need for a triad based approach. 

As long as the IPCC - which is for better or worse the recognized gatekeeper of acceptable scientific discourse - continues to downplay a triad based set of actions, and in particular the need for direct cooling, then why would a process to create a Climate accord be more successful than the process to get the COP’s and governments and civil society to recognize the need for albedo actions to augment greenhouse gas mitigation? 

(one bit of good news is that a leading SRM researcher Dan Visioni from Cornell was just appointed as a lead author for one of the chapters as part of Working Group 1)

The HPAC mission statement , which was just reaffirmed in our strategic planning process without any changes, calls for the world community to come up with a science based equitable plan of action that advocates safe and effective direct climate cooling, including the broad range of modalities covered under ecosystem restoration, sunshine reflection and all others. 

In addition the plan of action includes large scale greenhouse gas removals and accelerated efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate greenhouse gas emissions - The Climate Triad. 

It is a holistic approach - unlike what you are proposing - and one that recognizes that the scientific community needs to develop and test alternative combinations of the triad that can lead to the selection of an approach with the most feasible combination of political, economic, Geo strategic, technological and scientific qualities that can stabilize and ultimately reduce temperatures to well below 1° C. 

I see the albedo accord as an effort that would distract, divide and confuse the Climate community when we need to find ways to bring it together under a climate restoration banner . 

An albedo accord would in my view be adamantly opposed by mainstream climate leaders, activists and others who would see it as a little more than a get out of jail card for the carbon combustion complex. 

HPAC calls for the creation and ratification of what might be called Paris Accord 2.0 - a Belem Climate Accord that would reflect what our mission calls for. That’s what we need to start working on and not an even more divisive and bureaucratically cumbersome process than we have now. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Aug 19, 2025, at 8:58 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/VI1P194MB03986E9E100910B54CE80F63FC30A%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Alan Kerstein]

Herb,

The foundational insight underlying this discussion is that albedo-temperature feedback is a leading-order hazard in its own right that has little direct sensitivity to GHG concentration. I’ve chimed in concerning the implications of this, but meanwhile (under Robert C.’s tutelage - much appreciated!) I looked at the Hansen Feb. 2025 paper. Of course he does infer this feedback from the data, but curiously, he doesn’t seem to invoke it beyond using it as a diagnostic of broader metrics such as the global energy imbalance, notwithstanding his extensive discussion of policy implications. It’s a bit like the dog that didn’t bark. So I think we need to get step one done and dusted before moving on to steps 2, 3, … Some consensus within at least a segment of the scientific community that this is the real deal has to be achieved, maybe starting with Jim or other HPAC-adjacent individuals or groups.

Perhaps it will require GCM simulations showing that the feedback persists even if GHG concentrations are fixed starting at this point in time at lower than their current values. To be clear, it’s up to the scientists to determine what further evidence is needed, if any.

If this can really be nailed down and widely accepted, it will be 90% of the battle to break the anti-SRM stranglehold. It is a novel perspective as game-changing as the Arrhenius analysis and the Keeling curve. Before we grab the football and charge toward the end zone, let’s tie our shoelaces first.

Alan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/F5AD0868-B0C9-470E-923E-6AE039CE7C4D%40gmail.com.

[angel kosfiszer]

I have been spending quite a bit of time trying to understand AI, because I consider the changes it brings and will bring as important as climate change. So I asked ChatGPT how to explain to the general public the importance of climate change. I am attaching the answer because it is providing language similar to what I read  in discussions of the group.

The sad truth is that while billions are being spent on AI, little is spent on climate change. And one of the big problems of AI is the large amount of energy needed.

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAH-gPYE3h5f477%2BBf9vmA8HnCjctL0tAgKAUfTDnpk6MfY6Z3w%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Clive Elsworth]

Alan

 

> It’s a bit like the dog that didn’t bark.

We’re clear that cloud albedo loss is temperature dependent. Forgive me, I don’t see what’s missing.

 

What is missing is the lack of satellite instruments to properly measure cloud albedo in all its forms and multiple layers. As I understand it that is the source of the uncertainty driving the current dog fight between climate scientists about climate sensitivity (the dog owning spectators being the authorities, glibly watching from the sidelines and placing bets on who will win). Such instruments were requested by Jim Hansen, which he describes in his Flying Blind communication, 14 September 2023. https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/FlyingBlind.14September2023.pdf

(excerpt below)

 

Even worse, he says there’s a risk that when CERES comes to the end of its life there will be nothing to replace it. Perhaps that would be a good thing for us old codgers to campaign for? That might be easier and less controversial for the public to get behind and would give us more credibility. But like with NATO, perhaps other countries should step up to fund it?

 

Or is there a replacement for CERES already?

 

Clive

 

Excerpt

“This is crazy,” you must be saying, “why don’t you measure the aerosol climate forcing, instead of this round-about inference via detailed effect on EEI and absorbed solar energy?” Good question. The short answer is that we (the first author and others) tried, but, in career-long failure could not persuade NASA to fly a small satellite with the two instruments (a high precision polarimeter and an infrared spectrometer) needed to monitor the aerosol and cloud microphysics that define the aerosol climate forcing. The short explanation is that NASA preferred large, slow, multi-billion dollar missions as needed to support the budgets of the large NASA Centers. Throw in a climate denier NASA Administrator, who, in angry response to our persistence, struck out the first line of the NASA Mission Statement “To Understand and Protect the Home Planet.”

 

It's still worth pursuing aerosol and cloud monitoring of the required precision, but the most urgent task is assuring continuation of the CERES or CERES-like monitoring of Earth’s radiation balance. As yet there are no firm adequate plans for long-term continuation of these observations. NASA tends to think of itself as an agency that develops scientific and instrumental techniques, while long term observations should be carried on by others. However, long-term observations are the climate science. It is crucial that NASA make plans to continue these essential measurements.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAH-gPYE3h5f477%2BBf9vmA8HnCjctL0tAgKAUfTDnpk6MfY6Z3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Kerstein]

Clive,

Temperature dependence of cloud albedo doesn’t establish a feedback loop. We have dA/dt = -f(T), negative because A decreases as T increases, and dT/dt = -g(A), negative because T increases as A decreases. Suppose that f(T) and g(A) are such that one or both are approaching zero and then possibly changing sign based on current A and T values? Then we could be approaching a steady state such that the feedback is on the verge of ending. Don’t take my half-baked reasoning as factual. What matters is whether the available science and evidence is enough to convince objective experts that there is an established feedback that only direct cooling can counteract. If not, then what needs to be done? You mention some possibilities.

Regards,

Alan

[Robert Chris]

This has all been explained by Hansen and Cox in their recent utterings.

The lack of satellite data is important because it makes it difficult to determine the extent to which the recent rapid decrease in albedo is a forcing or a feedback.  If it's mostly a forcing we needn't panic; things are just bad.  If it's a feedback, we'd better panic!

Regards

RobertC

---

From: Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 21:43
To: Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Cc: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>; rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

[Alan Kerstein]

Then the data is paramount and identifies a priority on which we might focus. Thanks Robert and Clive!

[Clive Elsworth]

Alan

 

Your reasoning didn’t seem half-baked when you explained it in words.

 

> identifies a priority on which we might focus

We know that black carbon aerosol (soot in the air) has a warming influence, and that it has an evaporative effect on clouds. I saw the other day that black carbon aerosol over the ocean has increased (by a few percent) mainly owing to the increase of wildfires (barely at all by shipping). If wildfire soot is part of it, then cooling is needed to avoid that (potential) feedback.

 

Once again, Hansen said sea surface temperatures tightly fix global average surface temperatures, so ocean cooling would seem like a good priority on which we might focus. If so, rebrightening is needed.

 

From time to time, it’s good to check we’re on the right track.

 

Clive

[Sander Epema]

Their simulation, which ran for 2 million core-hours on supercomputers in Switzerland and California, modeled a roughly 5-by-5-kilometer patch of stratocumulus cloud much like the clouds off the California coast. As the CO2 level ratchets up in the simulated sky and the sea surface heats up, the dynamics of the cloud evolve. The researchers found that the tipping point occurs, and stratocumulus clouds suddenly disappear, because of two dominant factors that work against their formation. First, when higher CO2 levels make Earth’s surface and sky hotter, the extra heat drives stronger turbulence inside the clouds. The turbulence mixes moist air near the top of the cloud, pushing it up and out through an important boundary layer that caps stratocumulus clouds, while drawing dry air in from above. Entrainment, as this is called, works to break up the cloud.

Secondly, as the greenhouse effect makes the upper atmosphere warmer and thus more humid, the cooling of the tops of stratocumulus clouds from above becomes less efficient. This cooling is essential, because it causes globs of cold, moist air at the top of the cloud to sink, making room for warm, moist air near Earth’s surface to rise into the cloud and become it. When cooling gets less effective, stratocumulus clouds grow thin.

As far as I’m concerned, global warming is the major issue of our time.

James Kennett

Countervailing forces and effects eventually get overpowered; when the CO2 level reaches about 1,200 parts per million in the simulation — which could happen in 100 to 150 years, if emissions aren’t curbed — more entrainment and less cooling conspire to break up the stratocumulus cloud altogether.

To see how the loss of clouds would affect the global temperature, Schneider and colleagues inverted the approach of global climate models, simulating their cloud patch at high resolution and parameterizing the rest of the world outside that box. They found that, when the stratocumulus clouds disappeared in the simulation, the enormous amount of extra heat absorbed into the ocean increased its temperature and rate of evaporation. Water vapor has a greenhouse effect much like CO2, so more water vapor in the sky means that more heat will be trapped at the planet’s surface. Extrapolated to the entire globe, the loss of low clouds and rise in water vapor leads to runaway warming — the dreaded 8-degree jump. After the climate has made this transition and water vapor saturates the air, ratcheting down the CO2 won’t bring the clouds back. “There’s hysteresis,” Schneider said, where the state of the system depends on its history. “You need to reduce CO2 to concentrations around present day, even slightly below, before you form stratocumulus clouds again.”

Paleoclimatologists said this hysteresis might explain other puzzles about the paleoclimate record. During the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, the atmospheric CO2 level was 400 ppm, similar to today, but Earth was 4 degrees hotter. This might be because we were cooling down from a much warmer, perhaps largely cloudless period, and stratocumulus clouds hadn’t yet come back.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/

Beste Sander 

Op di 19 aug 2025, 23:46 schreef Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/094201dc1152%24a7ce0700%24f76a1500%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Tom Goreau]

This article is six years old, and shows just how complicated modelling clouds, water vapor, and heat transport is, and the good news is that these very complex models finally seem to be giving results similar to what we see actually happened in the paleoclimate record.

 

The webinar tomorrow night by Brian Soden will discuss these issues at the current state of the art.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CALsHBY-FKbG_1Bq%2Bj2wB4Xh5_wrkPWkzjniY-NX%3DOBaVzW0-5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Herb,

Thank you for such a vigorous challenge — this is exactly the debate we need. I’ll try to respond in the same spirit.

Scientific rationale. The case for restoring albedo is clear: since 2015, more than 2 W/m² of additional heating has come from reflectivity loss – the darkening of the Earth - compared with ~0.35 W/m² from added greenhouse gases over the same period — roughly a five-fold difference. Unlike CO₂, which locks in for centuries, albedo can be restored rapidly and relatively cheaply. Peer-reviewed work suggests an albedo investment on the order of $20B annually could cool the planet back toward Holocene norms.

Political rationale. Decarbonisation is gridlocked by economic path dependency. By contrast, albedo’s main barrier is political — the “moral hazard” objection. That makes progress on albedo possible if explained clearly, even to unlikely allies. Rather than dividing, an Albedo Accord could bring in powerful new constituencies (insurance, agriculture, energy, health) who share a direct interest in cooling.

Institutional rationale. COP and IPCC have done valuable work, but their carbon-first framing has left cooling marginalized. We will always have Paris, but — but like Casablanca’s Paris, it is more symbol than strategy.  UN climate talks lack a practical roadmap to restore climate stability and have been compromised by excessively polarised and unrealistic approaches.  A focused Albedo Accord would complement Paris and Belem by filling this gap in institutional focus. Just as Deng Xiaoping reframed China’s economic and political debate with “seek truth from facts,” an Albedo Accord would reframe climate politics around cooling as the urgent first step.

Public awareness. True, “albedo” is not widely known. But that’s an opportunity. The public would be shocked to learn that the main driver of recent warming has been effectively hidden from view. With the right campaign, albedo could become as familiar as net zero, with the added benefit of delivering a workable scientific and political cooling strategy.

You are right that unity is important, and I support the HPAC mission and the proposed Belem Accord. But sometimes focus, not holism, is what unlocks action. An Albedo Accord would strengthen, not weaken, the Climate Triad by ensuring that direct cooling is treated with the urgency it deserves.

I deeply value your leadership, and I hope we can keep sharpening this debate together.

Best Regards,

Robert Tulip

 

 

From: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2025 12:37 AM
To: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: rob...@rtulip.net; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Albedo Accord

 

Robert T,

[Tom Goreau]

Can you please say a bit more about the proposed Belem Accord?

 

Who is presenting it, and to whom?

 

COP’s coming up soon, but at this point not many people may be going…..

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03d701dc11cd%249cd78490%24d6868db0%24%40rtulip.net.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Thanks very much Sander

 

The 2019 Nature article on breakup of clouds mentioned in the article you linked is attached.

 

This work shows the unacceptable risks of allowing the disintegration of tropical marine clouds.  And nothing we do about carbon can affect that.

 

A recent HPAC email discussion on clouds as tipping elements explores these themes, including the collapse of the inversion layer due to warming.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CALsHBY-FKbG_1Bq%2Bj2wB4Xh5_wrkPWkzjniY-NX%3DOBaVzW0-5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

I’m afraid it is probably much too late to be able to organize serious Government level sponsorship of a High Level Side Event to present a BELEM ACCORD cooling strategy at UNFCCC in about a month from now.

 

Many of the poorest countries, including Small Island Developing States, are calling for it to be moved or cancelled due to lack of affordable infrastructure, and may not go. When I was in Belem in 1990 for the Rio Earth Summit Preparatory Commission Meeting we had to stay in hourly rental “love motels”, because whorehouses were the only available accommodation. They were happy to get some rest and rent the beds to people to actually sleep in. Brazil says they have enough beds, but they may need rotation shifts or partners to share…………

 

Aug 13, 2025

News, Politics

Brazil insists it will host COP30 in Belém, despite accommodation worries

A document sent to COP bureau members by the Brazilian hosts says the UN talks will stay in the Amazon city of Belém and argues enough beds are available

The city park in Belém where COP30 is scheduled to be hosted, photographhed on 23 July 2025 (Photo: Rafael Medelima/COP30)

Editing: Megan Rowling

 

The COP30 climate summit will take place in the Amazon city of Belém as planned, despite a shortage of affordable rooms, the Brazilian organisers have told concerned governments which fear the problem may limit participation in the UN negotiations.

Officials from different governments elected to the 11-member COP bureau, which advises the COP presidency, asked in late July whether steps had been taken to identify an alternative location for COP30 if the accommodation crunch does not improve.

“There will be no alternate location, as COP30 will not be moved from Belém,” the COP30 Presidency replied in a document seen by Climate Home that responds to a range of questions on logistics from the COP bureau. This sentence was highlighted in bold for emphasis.

Another section of the document asks whether the COP’s annual gathering of countries’ political leaders might be moved to another city. The COP30 presidency replied simply: “No”.

Question from the COP bureau and the COP30 presidency’s response

Governments – especially from the Global South but also European countries – have expressed concern that the scarcity and high cost of rooms for the November summit would exclude many delegates, especially from poorer countries.

At an emergency meeting two weeks ago, the COP bureau asked the Brazilians to come up with solutions to the accommodation challenges. Bureau member Richard Muyungi – a Tanzanian diplomat who chairs the African group of negotiators at the climate talks – told Climate Home at the time that some delegates were questioning why Brazil does not move the COP to a bigger city.

The Brazilian presidency is due to present their response at the next bureau meeting, which was originally scheduled for August 11 and then moved to August 14 before being postponed again. It is now expected to be held on August 20, 21 or 22, sources told Climate Home.

The Q&A document suggests that the Brazilian government will not take any major measures to reduce accommodation prices other than those already announced, as it says this is a matter for the market.

The last two COP summits in Baku and Dubai were attended by 56,000 and 83,000 people respectively. The COP presidency said it expects over 50,000 people at COP30 and “53,000 beds are mapped in Belém and its metropolitan region”, without specifying whether double beds count as one bed or two.

These beds include roughly 22,000 on Airbnb, 15,000 in hotels, 10,000 in “holiday homes through real estate companies” and 6,000 aboard two cruise ships, it added.

A Flourish chart

After weeks of delay, the COP30 presidency launched a public accommodation platform on August 1, with the cheapest rooms going for around $300 a night. Climate Home identified one room in a love motel advertised at nearly 30 times its normal price.

Cheaper rooms for some countries

As previously announced, 72 governments – classified as Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States – have been offered 15 individual rooms each priced at $100-200 a night. All other governments will be offered ten rooms each for prices ranging from $200 to $600 a night.

These rooms “are not intended to accommodate” countries’ leaders, the COP30 presidency says in the new document, adding that separate arrangements will be made for them and their entourages later this month.

In response to the bureau’s fears about the safety of delegates who will stay on on two cruise ships being brought in to host them at a nearby port, and as they commute back to their rooms late at night, the Brazilian government said police and private security will patrol the area, while two warships and smaller security vessels will be stationed on the river.

If rooms booked through the official COP30 online platform are not available or differ from what is advertised, the Brazilians say “immediate measures will be taken to offer another room similar to the one advertised”.

Questioned about the capacity of the Amazon city’s airport, the COP30 presidency says Belém International Airport has long-distance flights to and from Lisbon in Portugal and Fort Lauderdale and Miami in the US state of Florida – as well as to major Brazilian cities and neighbouring Guyana and Suriname.

It adds that Brazilian law does not allow the government to interfere with airlines’ pricing, but efforts have been made to increase the number of flights to and from Belém during the COP and to spread out demand to avoid expensive peaks. The airport has been improved, the document says, with an upgraded air conditioning system, modernised signage and infrastructure and expanded terminals and taxiways.

Unlike previous COPs, the leaders’ summit will be held before the main COP negotiations and accompanying side events start. This move was designed partly to flatten the peak in demand for accommodation.

·        

Aug 11, 2025

News

Brazil set to weaken environmental controls despite Lula’s intervention 

·        

Aug 11, 2025

News

Deadlock in UN plastics talks raises fears of watered-down deal

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49947C3891802B6702F0B10ADD33A%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Tom

 

HPAC had a discussion on the proposal for a Belem Accord, presented by Dennis Garrity, but it is very difficult to get wider traction on albedo, which is at the core of the proposal.  The public recording of the discussion is at this link.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiUmoJou8ag

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

[Tom Goreau]

Thanks for this! I missed that webinar and will try to listen to the link you sent below, before a very relevant webinar on this subject by Dr. Brian Soden that will be held  in less than 12 hours.

 

Please be sure to raise the need with him today for a global agreement that effectively cools the planet, instead of one with a misplaced focus on just one of the driving forces that can’t act fast enough (not because we don’t know how to, but because our naked emperors are too corrupt and stupid to stop their filthy habits).

 

.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/00e801dc124b%24567e57c0%24037b0740%24%40rtulip.net.

[Robert Chris]

Hi RobertT

I want to respond to your latest comments on your proposed Albedo Accord specifically in regard to its framing in terms of the Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting substances (ODS).  First, I want to be absolutely clear that I totally agree with your underlying motivation that awareness of albedo as a climate issue needs to be at least on a par with that of CO₂, if not higher.  My issue is whether framing this in terms of the Montreal Protocol (MP) helps or hinders.

In the sense that MP stands out as probably the most successful global environmental treaty, it provides a gold standard for global treaties in other environmental areas.  In this aspirational sense it is to be hoped that concerns around Earth’s loss of albedo might be addressed with similarly effective action.  However, in terms of the structure of MP and the process through which the science relating to the emission of ODS was converted into an international agreement, the parallels are relatively few.

I refer you to a piece written by Steve Rayner, the text of a speech he gave in Australia for the 2006 Jack Beale Memorial Lecture on Global Environment (I’ve attached my copy because I can’t find a link from which it can be downloaded).  He notes that ‘People thought [it] was a really good idea to copy that model [by which MP came into being] for climate.  The only trouble is, it’s actually a very, very poor analogy’.  He then explains in some detail why the specifics of MP do not translate across to climate policy more generally.  He doesn’t refer to albedo as a separate issue as it was not then ‘an issue’, but insofar as albedo is an intrinsic emergent property of planetary physics and chemistry, his remarks apply equally in that regard.

He refers in this talk to Jerry Ravetz and his ‘postnormal science’ (PNS).  If you’re not familiar with this, his insights are certainly worth exploring.  Ravetz developed (see here), and Rayner uses in this talk, a chart that illustrates where PNS comes into play.

In my book, I explain how Funtowicz and Ravetz developed the notion of PNS to describe situations where science is a central element of social policymaking, yet the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and action is urgent.  Rayner is invoking PNS to highlight his view that dealing with ODS was, in Rittel and Webber’s terms, a ‘tame problem’, in contrast to climate change (in which by extension I would include albedo) which is a ‘wicked problem’.

I’ve also explained at length in other postings on HPAC the insights of Collingridge in relation to the science/policy interface.  I won’t repeat those points here, but they are relevant and worth revisiting in this context.

MP is a very specific list of legally enforceable targets for a set of named ODSs.  That is not achievable for albedo because reflectivity occurs in innumerable ways and places that cannot operationally be listed with specific enforceable targets.

That said, I agree that an albedo target would be an important and desirable piece of public and political awareness.  Perhaps the Albedo Accord should be fashioned on the Paris Agreement.  This is often referred to as an ‘Accord’.  It is not legally binding and all it does is set a desirable target for one climate parameter, namely post-industrial global surface air warming.  In the same way, there could be an agreement to set a non-legally binding target to restore albedo to some agreed level.  Such an agreement would place a moral obligation on nations to include albedo in their climate policies and would provide a platform for the public debate of albedo that is currently so sorely lacking.

I strongly support the idea of raising awareness of albedo but I do believe that linking it to the Montreal Protocol creates unnecessary obstacles to that happening.

Regards

RobertC

---

From: rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>
Sent: 19 August 2025 13:34
To: 'Robert Chris' <robert...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [HPAC] Albedo Accord

 

Thanks very much Robert.  Here is how I see it.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Thanks very much Robert for your response.  I agree that emission reduction as a climate policy is thoroughly wicked, in view of the complex and insoluble economic, social, political, material and environmental problems raised by current proposals for energy transition.   However, prioritising albedo can remove this wickedness.

 

The wickedness of the IPCC agenda is reflected in this commentary: “The consensus is clear: Rapid transformations across all sectors and systems is the only way to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis.”  As is abundantly clear, this “rapid transformation” is not going to happen. Indeed, calling for it as the “only way” has provoked the crazed backlash against science by Trump, Farage, etc.  Their reaction is motivated by a desire to demonstrate the real balance of political and economic power relations to the scientific community, ie that capitalism rejects such revolutionary demands.  The lesson from this debate is that the science community should humble itself and work out a practical and non-revolutionary way to slow global warming. 

 

The “only way” ideology of decarbonisation is unscientific, and should be dumped as a climate policy.  Bruce Parker’s analysis at the HPAC meeting today explained in simple terms that decarbonisation is utterly marginal to climate, but this is a scientific message that the Thunbergian ‘follow the science’ crowd refuse to hear.

 

An Albedo Accord can cut the Gordian Knot of this paralysed confusion.  An Albedo Accord would put transformation on pause, while offering a practical incremental evolutionary way to restore cohesion and direction and to overcome the polarised political and cultural division over climate, through the goal of a fast, cheap and safe path to climate stability. 

 

The goal of rebrightening the planet can radically simplify climate policy by rejecting the false IPCC consensus on “rapid transformation of all sectors and systems.”   To simplify a wicked social problem requires the identification of a practical solution that can be implemented without facing insurmountable barriers.  The similarity of an Albedo Accord to the Montreal Protocol is that albedo depletion can be treated as a narrow technical problem like ozone depletion, without demanding rapid transformation of all sectors of the economy as proposed by the IPCC’s call to accelerate decarbonisation.  A Gantt Chart, presenting the critical engineering path to a cooler planet, should start with strategic mobilisation of corporate alliances to lobby for an Albedo Accord.

 

Yes, albedo is a bigger problem than ozone, but it could readily be solved with $2 billion to set up a fund to study governance and research priorities.  David Keith argues that such a fund would have a benefit cost ratio of 5000 to 1.  The only wickedness regarding this proposal is the sheer immorality of the false consensus opposed to it.  These people in the IPCC have mass extinction on their hands, holding the planet hostage to their revolutionary opinions.

 

I read the Rayner speech on wicked problems that you cited.  The comment there that I found most relevant to the Albedo Accord proposal was on water policy, “the NGO movement - the environmental non-government organisations - who try to drive the water issue up towards the top right hand corner of this graph [on Post Normal Science] so that they can have a big discussion about how society ought to be organising and what’s morally right to do about water use and so on.”  The point here is that the wickedness of a problem can be solely generated by political hostility and misunderstanding, by people seeking to use the real problem to promote unrelated agendas, not by the intrinsic qualities of proposed solutions. 

 

An Albedo Accord would decouple climate from energy, recognising that cooling the planet is far more important than subsidising the commercial interests of the renewable energy sector.  The cooling resulting from restored sunlight reflection would provide the breathing room for sensible scientific discussion about carbon, including a path to the necessary goal of removing more carbon than is emitted.  The medium-term goal of a return toward Holocene conditions can be achieved without holding this critical path hostage to unrealistic political demands.

 

Best Regards

 

Robert Tulip

[Robert Chris]

Hi Robert

I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It seems that you're misunderstanding the meaning of 'wicked' when used in reference to public policy issues.  It is all about the nature of the problem and its amenability to 'a solution'.  It has no ideological, moral or judgemental content.  Perhaps look out Rittel and Webber's original paper.

I wouldn't put any weight on Bruce's analysis from Thursday because he was using too short a time horizon to show any meaningful differences between different policy options.

If by Albedo Accord you mean some widely accepted understanding of the importance of albedo and that it should be factored into climate policy, I'd agree.  But if you are intending some international agency to be set up to do for albedo what is being done for ODS, I disagree.

Regards

Robert

---

From: rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>
Sent: 31 October 2025 11:11

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Robert, you seem to have misread my reply.  I understand the meaning of wicked problems.  I argue that emission reduction fails to either solve the climate problem or create a path to doing so, whereas albedo restoration provides an initial stabilisation and creates a momentum that can lead to a stable climate, recognising the other factors at play.  That means climate change only remains a wicked problem while emission reduction is the only offered response.  You have not engaged that argument, but rather just lumped albedo restoration under climate policy in general.  It is true there is a lot of ignorant political opposition to albedo restoration, but this is not enough to make it a wicked problem.  

 

You are right that I extend the argument to see rejection of albedo restoration as wicked in a moral, ideological and judgemental sense, recognising this is a different meaning of wicked.  I thought this double meaning was reasonably clear, so apologies if that was not conveyed.  Given that the literature contrasts wicked to tame, I suspect a clearer term than wicked would be wild.

 

I do not understand your reasoning in asserting no new institution is needed to focus on planetary albedo restoration.  No existing institution is capable of governing albedo restoration in a fast, safe and acceptable way.  You still have not engaged with the argument that the institutional model of the Montreal Protocol could achieve this result through the establishment of an international Albedo Accord.

 

In the classic Rittel–Webber sense that you cite, deep emissions reduction is a textbook wicked problem.  Rittel and Webber present the failure to formulate precise achievable goals as a key indicator of wickedness.  They give a powerful quote about goals: “"We must learn to look at our objectives as critically and as professionally as we look at our models and our other inputs."  Net Zero By 2050 is the classic muddy goal with thoroughly confused objectives and means.  Most people don’t realise it could be achieved by 100% GGR and zero emission reduction, or vice versa, or anything in between, or that the 100% GGR option would present a pathway to the necessary net negative whereas 100% emission reduction would not.  These are simply proven statements that are not understood in the public debate.  The absence of any practical strategy to achieve net zero compounds the wickedness and wildness of the current policy confusion.

 

By contrast, a narrowly targeted albedo restoration lever has a precise narrow goal – to restore lost planetary albedo, now 2.1% this century according to data cited in the 2025 state of the climate report (link).  Due to this scientific precision, and the availability of technological and governance mechanisms to achieve it, albedo restoration can be made far more tameable.   Geoengineering governance has seemingly wicked aspects, in terms of legitimacy, consent and distributional effects, but these can be tamed through a Montreal-Protocol-style regime, building on the global experience in removing ozone depleting substances.

 

An Albedo Accord changes the problem type. It sets a narrow, measurable objective—restore planetary reflectivity to safe ranges—and a bounded mandate: explain, support, fund, govern, research, test, deploy, all under transparent oversight. Success is judged by observed energy imbalance and reflected shortwave, not distant carbon inventory numbers. Levers are adjustable on short timescales, effects are monitored by satellites and ground sensors, and interventions can be ramped, paused or reversed. That shifts climate policy from a sprawling social transformation project to a focused international coordination task in planetary security.  The wickedness in deploying geoengineering is not the physics; it’s who decides, how much, where, with what safeguards, and who gets compensated—i.e., governance design.

 

Agreement to establish an Albedo Accord on the model of the Montreal Protocol presents a clear process to resolve these questions.  Guidance like the Oxford Principles and the US National Academies Sunlight Reflection governance recommendations exist to achieve this task.  The Montreal Protocol (MP)is the right institutional analogue.  It provides practical experience of the clear scope, science–policy panels, binding schedules, trade measures and funding mechanism needed for an Albedo Accord.

 

Obviously, the albedo problem is very different from restoring ozone, but the similarity is strong enough to guide architecture. This is a central theme in the governance literature from Parson & Ernst onward.  An Albedo Accord patterned on the MP would have the goal to return net planetary energy imbalance to within a democratically agreed range while minimising regional harm, with a reversible, stage-gated approach.

 

Suggestions for definitions, scope, metrics and reporting are in the 2021 National Academies Reflecting Sunlight Study.  Scientific & Technical Panels can mirror MP’s assessment machinery.  Stage-gated R&D is the prerequisite for pilot field tests and then for operations, gradually expanding as safety and efficacy are demonstrated.    Monitoring, reporting and verification can be delivered from satellite and ground-based methods. Adjustment mechanism can enable rapid rule updates (as MP does) as evidence evolves. A Multilateral Albedo Fund (MP’s Article 10 analogue) can finance participation, compensate harms, and support adaptation in adversely affected regions.

 

Such a narrow, adjustable service is far more “tame” than system-wide decarbonisation, because outputs are monitored and the knob can be turned. The governance still has wicked aspects, around values, consent and winners/losers. But an MP-style treaty sharply reduces degrees of freedom, speeding decisions and building legitimacy via science panels, industry support, trade levers and a fund—precisely the ingredients that made ozone governance fast and effective.

 

Cutting emissions is a classic wicked problem: sprawling, value-laden and often impossible. Albedo restoration isn’t wicked in that sense; it’s a narrow control with rapid feedbacks whose governance—while morally contested—can be made tractable by a Montreal-style accord: clear scope, binding rules, science panels, trade teeth, and a fund to ensure fairness.

 

Rittel and Webber argue that reason and feeling are two contradictory approaches to social problems.  This incompatibility need not be the case.  My own research has focused on the integration of faith and reason, for example in this talk I gave last week, in ways that point toward resolving such perceived conflict of view. This points to the large and complex philosophical debates surrounding the climate problem.  That is all very interesting, but should not derail efforts to find the simplest arguments to build constituencies of support for an Albedo Accord, notably around the need for cooling.

 

Removing the wickedness from the climate problem requires that warming be treated as far as possible as a problem of natural science rather than social science.  An Albedo Accord is the way to deliver this objective, removing the excess heat caused by radiative forcing in the most safe and effective way possible. That in turn can create space for the dialogue needed to address the undoubtedly wicked social problems that surround climate policy.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/VI1P194MB03980711438E19012609C922FCF8A%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.