|
||
Can White Paint, Reflective Windows and Closed Doors Save the Planet?
The fight against climate change has taken a rather low-tech turn lately.
- Obama's Energy Secretary Stephen Chu wants to fight climate change by whitewashing the world's roofs roads and pavements.
- California's air regulators are requiring automakers, beginning in 2012, to install sun-reflecting glass in the windows of new cars sold in the state to help cut cooling needs.
- And in New York City, council members passed legislation requiring businesses to close their doors when they have the AC running.
Could we paint the world white?
These measures may lack the cutting edge appeal of a solar airplane or a Tesla, but they could make a much bigger difference. Secretary Chu explained to the UK's The Times that his friend, and member of the California Energy Commission, Art Rosenfeld, had run the numbers on the effects of painting the world white. "Now, you smile, but he's done a calculation, and if you take all the buildings and make their roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of color rather than a black type of color, and you do this uniformly . . . it's the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to "all the cars on the road for 11 years".
Since light surfaces reflect up to 80% of sunlight, compared with the 20% reflected from dark ones, whitewashing is proven cooling tech (for evidence, see a video I shot of the traditional green building techniques, including whitewashed homes, in Extremadura, Spain). Rosenfeld helped push through white roof legislation in the state of California back in 2005. Since then, all flat-roofed commercial buildings have been required to have white roofs and this year, that requirement will be expanded to both flat and sloped roof residential and commercial buildings.
Rosenfeld and his colleague Hashem Akbari would like to go global with their geoengineering idea. Given that 25% of most cities worldwide are roofs and about 35% is pavement, lightening these surfaces is a "win-win-win", explained Akbari to the LA Times. "First, a cooler environment not only saves energy but improves comfort. Second, cooling a city by a few degrees dramatically reduces smog. And the third win is offsetting global warming."
Low carbon AC: heat-reflective windows
Just two weeks ago California regulators announced they were again leading the way with another example of enforcing a bit of old tech. For two decades we've had the technology to make car windows more reflective and reducing the need for AC, but the regulation by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to require automakers to use it is totally novel.
Mandating that all new cars, starting in 2012, have windows that reflect the sun's rays to reduce the need for climate control is just "common-sense", argues CARB Chairperson Mary D. Nichols. "It represents the kind of innovative thinking we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles and steer our economy toward a low-carbon future."
The lower demand for AC should also prevent about 700,000 metric tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere in 2020, what the Green Car Congress says is roughly the equivalent of taking 140,000 cars off the road for a year.
Originally CARB was pushing a "cool paint" initiative, or a requirement that all cars use heat-reflecting paints, but automakers complained that the technology, especially for black cars, wasn't ready yet. So instead, the industry will be forced to use a more proven technology -- either solar absorbing glass or infrared reflective glass -- to block at least half of the sun's rays from entering the vehicle.
This mandate -- which could mean the end of overheated cars on hot summer days -- will cost automakers just $111 per vehicle, but will save the user $16 in fuel savings per year, according to CARB estimates. The regulatory group also claims this relatively simply change will result in an average temperature reduction inside the car of 13°F. (For a visual of this technology, I recently shot a video including Renault's Z.E. Concept vehicle that sports heat-reflecting windows. As you can see, the acid-green tinted glass will definitely garner attention).
It's as easy as closing the door
It's about as low tech as you can get in the fight against climate change: stores in New York City are being told to close their doors while running their AC, or face fines.
Last year, the New York City Council passed first-of-its-kind legislation requiring stores (businesses with at least 4,000 square feet and those that are part of a chain of 5 or more New York City outlets) to close their doors while running air conditioning in order to save energy. The bill's chief sponsor Councilwoman Gale Brewer signaled the move as a part of changing times, helping to "make all of us participants in making our planet a better place."
Asking businesses to shut their doors may not sound as sexy as installing rooftop solar, but it could help make the planet a bit better place. New York City utilities provider Con Edison estimates that if 1,000 businesses keep their doors open, they are wasting 4,600 barrels of oil and releasing 2,200 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That's the equivalent -- in greenhouse gas emissions -- of taking 425 cars off the road for a year.
This is the first summer where the legislation is in effect and businesses have complained that they will lose customers if they close their doors. But the director of the UK's Close The Door Campaign, Jeannie Dawkins, who has been looking at the issue for a couple of years now, explained to me that based on internal company case studies, this "urban myth" doesn't hold up. "On investigation footfall does not equate so directly to profit as is often assumed by many managers -- profit relies on a great many other more closely related factors. Somewhat surprisingly we have not seen a single negative effect to trading". Dawkins elaborated in her email that a closed door can even help encourage customers to buy more given that the store's climate is more comfortable and the "bustle of the street" is removed. (For the full interview with Dawkins, see my story Climate control for sidewalks: making stores close the door).
While these types of lower-tech responses to global warming may not get the PR boost of a Prius, but they're much easier -- and cheaper -- to implement and anyone can become a campaigner. "The customer's voice and demands are very important -- if made politely they have great effect," says Dawkins. "We have found many instances of polite complaints filtering up to head offices from stores, where they are invariably taken seriously."
So this summer, consider painting your roof white, using sunshades on your car windows (an even lower tech option before we all switch to sun reflective glass) and telling a store manager to "close the door", in a polite way of course.
Follow Kirsten Dirksen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kirstendirksen
Bennet Kelley: The GOP's Road to Perdition
Even life-long Republicans like Waldport and Oregon Mayor Herman Welch have left the party, citing the Beltway's Republicans placing of "worn out ideology," over the interests of the country.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The simple answer is "no" and if you dare (and care) to do the back of the envelope calculations, you will know why it won't work.
Great
Did anyone think of how this will affect our eyes? You will need darker sunglasses. Ever walked across a field covered in snow when the sun is shing?
You should be wearing darker sunglasses with the proper optical properties to begin with for the obvious reasons. And no, you're wrong. It's not the same thing. The surface of a house is not as smooth as the surface of snow covered flats and slopes. Obviously you haven't been to the Mediterranean. There, virtually every house on the beach is snow white for decades if not centuries, again, for the obvious reasons.
" . . .and if you take all the buildings and make their roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of color rather than a black type of color, and you do this uniformly . . . it's the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to "all the cars on the road for 11 years". . ."
This statement is basically meaningless without a time frame included. Does this mean 11 years of traffic carbon is avoided for each YEAR the world is painted white? I assume so, but it would be nice not to have to assume.
yes, driving on roads where the snow won't melt off them the whole winter will be fun!
then we'll run into the forest and paint all the trees white too
whoooooopeeeeeeeeee
and then when global cooling comes around we'll paint everything black!
Just because your mother insisted you were smart doesn't make it so.. she was just being nice
It does seem to raise the question - is this a one of hit saving carbon of 11 years worth of traffic (and thats if you could paint everything which is not feesible). Surely plants and large carbon sinks as well a reducing the amount put into the atmosphere is the answer - its amazing how many people still think that trees grow from nutrients in the ground and not carbon pulled from the air.
Dear Gewyne, you are on right direction but, please keep in mind next:
Tim Flannery book “The Weather Makers,” 2006:
1. “ Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation”.
2. “Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are.”
We have a living roof which has some nice flowers and grass on it, there are insects and bugs as well as lots of butterflys and ladybirds in the special boxes we put on it. We are thinking of putting some nesting boxes up there as well. It may not cool the earth like a white roof, but it looks nicer and helps with the diversity of the neighbourhood where there is almost nothing but concrete and the odd garden... witht he shallow angle of the roofs here we could have 1000's if not 10'000s of small habitats for little costs - it seems to be catching on a little but still most people do not care or are to lazy.
Energy saving measures have been achieved in a low-tech manner ever since power companies began delivering electricity to homes. Just ask your grandmother. There's a reason why she has all of the blinds pulled on the south side and the widows cracked just right to get a nice breeze running through the house. Simple and inexpensive things can make a big difference when it comes to saving energy. From sealing windows and doors to changing a/c filters to closing the vents in that spare bedroom when nobody is using it - simple things go a long way. Here are some good tips on how you can do simple things to save energy: http://www.sierraclubgreenhome.com/videos/weatherization-home-energy-audit/
IT IS ALWAYS CHEAPER TO GROW TREES FOR WATER VAPOR AND WOOD PRODUCTION, THAN PAINTING.
Water vapor will cool the air better and cheaper than painting.
Wood will provide the cheapest source of energy, All GHG from oven could be solved in water to watering these trees. Together with ash it will be the best nutritions to grow forests.
We could produce energy with ZERO EMISSION AND WITHOUT ANY BATTERIES AS IN CASE OF WIND, OR SOLAR CELLS ENERGY.
Our Government, Democrats and Republicans, mass media are blinded by science of Global warming. Science of Global warming is blinded by political wills.
they are doing this all over the south right now
that alone will be a help. white shingled or stainless colored metal rooftops reflect almost all the suns energy back into space. also specially coated rooftop mounted solar panels can absorb only the light spectum needed & reflect the rest back into space.
proof. go to a car dealership lot, sit in a white or silver colored auto then in a black one of the same exact model & compare.
'run the numbers on the effects of painting the world white.'equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to "all the cars on the road for 11 years".
Who knows where that figure was pulled from- but it's worth remembering that more energy by far is used in heating than cooling worldwide. And in most cases, having a white roof would increase energy needs. Fuel for heat is also one of the main drivers of deforistation in poorer countries.
The larger point is that if we were to pick an ideal ave. temp. for the Earth, it would be 2+ degrees higher than now, even IPCC acknowledges this.
Dear RichZ, "white roof would increase" reflection of direct sun radiation and reduce IR radiation from house.
Saying that I do not ask to go in very expensive painting exercise, but Physics is Physics.
Only if we need forests we will grow them. Growing forests for wood as cheapeast and closest to customer of electrical plants is good motivation as for energy as for nature.
Increasing temperature 2+ degree will increase risk of melting ice on mountains.
Hello Mioffe,
Agree on the expense
-the 'expense' is something ignored by environmentalists, they are generally young, middle class, supported by their parents etc. Their view is that there is an unlimited supply of money from evil old rich people to fund any ideological fancy their righteous minds may have.
But correct me if I'm wrong the amount of warming needed to start seeing negative effects is above 2 degrees.- far beyond the direct capability of our Co2's .3 Watts per sq M. on top of the Sun's 1366 watts
Why is melting ice on mountains a problem?
Dear RichZ, if ice on mountain of Canada, Greenland, Russia will melted it will be rise of oceans level worldwide and for some estimation 400,000,000 must be evacuated.
In my opinion it is not only CO2 responsible for GW.
Tilling of land, roads, cities deforestation change evaporation, reflection of direct sun radiation, power of wind and their direction, clouds formation, and their summary effects could melt ice in mountains even in case some Global cooling.
Have you heard of the idea of smart grids? Check out the Washington Monthly article last month on it. I found it fascinating. Actually, check out Washington Monthly's entire magazine last month, I passed it around to several of my friends.
Back when I was a kid, critical reasoning was described as a fundamental skill. We were given statistics in the classroom on the truth of newspaper and television news reports, demonstrating absolutely that you cannot take the truth of what you read and hear for granted. If we really wanted to understand anything rather than being fooled, it was up to us to find the facts and think for ourselves.
Today’s schools present political propaganda films like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, “skeptics” are described as evil beings out to destroy the earth, and students are routinely punished for questioning global warming orthodoxy – whichever version of it is currently in the hands of their teachers. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on fake science, scientists and bureaucrats have been punished for questioning it, and media moguls have delighted in hyping it. It’s yet another in a continuously growing list of case studies in Big Lie politics.
Critical thinking is believing that tens of thousands of independent scientists and organization (around the world with no common nationality and no linking thread) have gotten together to conspire against you and fake global warming, fake the melting of the polar caps, and fake the melting of glaciers that predate civilization? That does not sound like critical thinking but tin foil hat thinking. It's not just Al Gore, it's the UN, it's American, it's Chinese, it's German, French, Australian, Japanese, and Russian scientists and they have all conspired together to take your tax money? This you all believe because a couple of paid henchmen of Exxon and Rupert Murdoch told you too? Wow you guys make the fake moon landing, area 51, JFK, and 9-11 conspiracy theory buffs look sane.
Critical Thinking involves understanding cause, effect and significance. How do you get from anthropogenic CO2 to a catastrophically warming climate? All the talk of melting glaciers is an EFFECT of warming. Before we spend a dime reducing CO2, we should understand that it is really the CAUSE. As far as I can see it, an increase in CO2 would only affect the CO2 greenhouse contribution at small ranges of wavelength adjacent to the the 15 um absorption peak - a VERY small slice of the Earth's outgoing IR spectrum. Not significant.
I know many believe I should loosen the strap on my tin hat and listen to my betters... But that wouldn't be Critical Thinking...
Historical and climatological facts do not support the threat of Global Warming.
During the last "Climatic Optimum", from 700 to 1200 AD, the planet was much warmer
than it is now. This led to a population explosion in Scandinavia (which gave rise to the Viking Age)
Later, during the "Little Ice Age" of 1400 to 1800, Norse settlements in Greenland were wiped out
and Iceland nearly followed.
Dear RomeoMD25, what are you writing contradict with your statement: "Historical and climatological facts do not support the threat of Global Warming."
Are you really want to be wiped by GW if it reason not man activities, but natural?
You are assuming humans can control the climate, and that the changes were are experiencing will result in a 'wipe out'. Big assumptions. Nothing but dodgy computer models to back it up.
NO.
don't forget to replace the albedo that the soot took away..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soot+melting+ice&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
