Obama's climate guru: Paint your roof white!
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
ALAMY
Houses with white roofs, like these in Greece, would be able to reflect light back through the atmosphere, according to Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy
enlarge
Some people believe that nuclear power is the answer to climate change, others have proposed green technologies such as wind or solar power, but Barack Obama's top man on global warming has suggested something far simpler – painting your roof white.
Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy and a Nobel prize-winning scientist, said yesterday that making roofs and pavements white or light-coloured would help to reduce global warming by both conserving energy and reflecting sunlight back into space. It would, he said, be the equivalent of taking all the cars in the world off the road for 11 years.
Speaking in London prior to a meeting of some of the world's best minds on how to combat climate change, Dr Chu said the simple act of painting roofs white could have a dramatic impact on the amount of energy used to keep buildings comfortable, as well as directly offsetting global warming by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth.
"If that building is air-conditioned, it's going to be a lot cooler, it can use 10 or 15 per cent less electricity," he said. "You also do something in that you change the albedo of the Earth – you make it more reflective. So the sunlight comes down and it actually goes back up – there is no greenhouse effect," Dr Chu said.
When sunlight is reflected off a white or light-coloured surface much of that light will pass through the atmosphere and back into space, unlike the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's warmed-up surface, which is blocked by greenhouse gases and causes global warming. "What we're doing is that, as we put in more greenhouse gases, we're putting in more insulation for infrared light. So if you make white roofs and the sunlight comes in, it goes right through that [insulation]," said Dr Chu.
The principle could also be extended to cars where white or "cool colours" designed to reflect light and radiation could make vehicles more energy efficient in summer. "If all vehicles were light-coloured, there could be considerable savings because then you can downsize the air conditioning... and downsizing the air conditioner means more efficient air conditioning and a considerable reduction in energy," he said.
Asked about whether the US administration has any plans to manipulate the climate artificially using large-scale geoengineering programmes, Dr Chu said there were no such plans "at this time". But painting surfaces white is one geoengineering proposal that he is taking seriously.
"Now you smile, but if you look at all the buildings and make all the roofs white, and if you make the pavement a more concrete-type of colour than a black-type of colour, and you do this uniformly... It's the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years," he said.
"It's like you've just taken them off the road for 11 years. It's actually geoengineering."
The idea would even work in countries with temperate climates, such as Britain, because white-coloured roofs would help to reflect the radiated heat from homes and offices back into the building during winter months, said Dr Chu. One unresolved issue concerns the aesthetic considerations of making sloping roofs white. But with flat roofs that are not visible from the street, there should be no objection to painting them white, he said
Dr Chu is one of 20 Nobel prize-winning scientists attending a meeting on climate change at the Royal Society and St James's Palace organised by Cambridge University. He said energy efficiency will be the most immediate way of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
The white revolution: How it would work
* The idea of painting surfaces white to conserve energy is being actively pursued by the US. Earlier this month, Barack Obama's chief scientific adviser, John Holdren, received a scientific memorandum on the subject.
* Scientists estimate that making roofs and pavements white or more light-coloured would counter global warming with "negative radiative forcing" – reflecting sunlight back into space. They said that retrofitting urban roofs and pavements in tropical and temperate regions with solar-reflective materials would offset about 44 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
* The scientists said it would lower the cost of air conditioning, making buildings more comfortable and mitigate the "urban heat island" effect caused by the concentration of concrete surfaces in cities.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
However, I do wonder whether a full ground back to ground enviROI analysis for such a proposal has been carried out. Ignoring the aesthetics issues, the correct paint needs to be produced, applied... and maintained. Looking at an exterior wall to my property, after just a few years the paint is flaking, being subject to aggressive seasonable weather conditions.
So I, or blokes I hire, am to invest in regular multi-litre purchases of paint (what are its manufacture consequences?) to cover a pretty hefty area, on a regular lifetime basis? That's a lot of raw materials and man-hours.
I am also not so sure how many traditional tile materials will take to retroactive application of an alternative coating for which they were not designed.
What may be more productive is with built-in planning, whereby reflective tiles are manufactured and required to be installed with new-builds and renovations.
Equally, as they seem to dig our road up four times a year, maybe the various authorities who get excited about such box-ticking efforts might like to ponder light(er) tarmac too?
And all farmers could be required to grow only year-round, light-foliage crops? Is an all rape diet practical?
I am opting to put tiles and I have no air condition. UK also has heaters inside. Is this right. The cool wind stays in and has no escape rout. Therefore, I put another heater and paint this white. I am confused the roofs by the way on the twentieth floor are 4000 sq meters and the helicopters come and go. Shall I remove the tiles and paint this Yellow (The traffic light) I want to hide the moonlight. Therefore, if you make white roofs and the sunlight comes in, sir I need the sunlight for my birds in the cages, fishes in the aquariums, the chicken to give eggs, dog have rabies my vet told me to keep them in the sunshine. And HE IS A VET the DR.OF ANIMALS. It goes right through that [insulation]," said Dr Chu.. I want my sunshine and the moonlight to enable me to write poetries whether I need or not. I have Oxford University asking for these, as they have none.
Okay sir. I want the sun and I am planting lots of trees on the roofs to get the carbon dioxide to get oxygen in the night. Do I get the PhD. please I am sending cash vie tall transfer.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Global warming stopped 10 years ago. The Earth has been cooling for 8 years, and that is predicted to continue for the next 20 to 30 years.
This proposal will probably cause problems of over exposure for Google Earth's cameras.
The problem is, that there is justifiable doubt as to what we are doing to our planet is healthy in the long run. Not just a tiny little bit stupid, but big time stupid. In effect, we are gambling like major imbeciles with the future of this planet.
AGW isn't going to be exposed as a hoax. Be sure of that.
AGW is one of the possible schemes. The other one is a new ice age. Both seems to be plausible considering the available data. I know of no scientist, no credible research, no publication accepted by a majority of scientists that can present a conclusive argument either way.
Your assertion that there is no AGW is a debilitation of the discussion. You just don't seem to understand the basic axioms of modern science.
It really doesn't matter whether AGW is a fact or not. Because we just cannot know whether or not it is a fact before it is way too late to do anything about it.
The study of our climate has revealed several obvious thruths:
-climate depends on a multitude of factors
-this multitude of factors is inter-related by complex feedback systems
-in order to describe the complete system of inter-related feedback systems you need a certain amount of data
-mankind is not even close to being capable of doing relevant calculations on a sufficient set of data allowing precise predictions of how climate will develop
The bottomline: any assertion as to how global climate will develop is basically flawed, or rather, to use more powerful language, a lie, insanity, propaganda etc....
The lunatics you are referring to, are people like you, who seem to know more than "us", ordinary scientists who respect data and methodology.
Our concern, however, has little to do with lunacy.
There are a multitude of reasons why sensible people would want to make a speedy conversion to renewable sources of energy.
We want a stable world, where also poor countries have access to reliable and cheap sources of power. Sources that don't depend on the whims of the free market. Thereby allowing them to develop their societies in their own ways, their own speed, respecting their traditions.
CO2-emissions are a game of chance. If we find out they avoided a new ice-age we will wellcome the hundreds of new coal-based powerplants in China, India etc.
But if it turns out AGW is a fact after all - and I'd put my money on it - we threw away a unique opportunity to convert to solar and geothermal energy.
And regardless of what their initial costs may be, we know they would be viable in the long run. There are plenty examples of excellent performance of these sources!
A subordinate point of concern -one we don't hear too much of- is the fact that CO2 is a biologically active substance. Increasing CO2-levels in the atmosphere might be beneficial, but it might also be catastrophical. It might cause micro-organisms to flourish like never before. Bacteria, viruses and other microbes might multiply at a much higher rate than before, causing catastrophical pandemics.
I would like to add, that future technologies might be dependant on access to cheap sources of carbon. Burning them up now, while there are better alternatives, is just plain stupid.
Your wish to deny AGW is legitimate in its own way, but obviously, you are completely wrong. Think agan, think deeply and start thinking like a scientist. Not like an infant being angry at the big bad world denying him the pleasure of infinite gratification.
There was an article in the Times just recently by Prof Sir Muir Gray of the Campaign for greener healthcare, that said man made global warming was the cholera of our era! Thankfully Dr Paul Reiter has condemned the piece as "a rehash of a similar load of garbage unloaded in 1996, plus other writings of the past, including, I suspect, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.)" Reiter is a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris and a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control.
He was originally an expert reviewer for the IPCC. But he was so appalled at IPCC processes that he threatened legal action to get his name removed from its reports.
I applaud Mr Chu for having the cojones to put forward a suggestion that must have met with howls of mirth from the gallery. Sure beats the hell out of doing nothing.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
For the last million years the Earth's climate has been predominantly an Ice Age. The Ice Age lasts approximately 100,000 years and are punctuated by short warm periods known as interglacials. The Ice Age ended as quickly as it began and about 10,000 years ago the temperature in Greenland rose more than 50 degrees fahrenheit. The fact of the matter is that Nobody knows what causes Ice Ages to begin or end.
Carbon Dioxide constitutes 1 molecule to every 3,000 molecules of the atmosphere and human emissions of carbon dioxide is 1 part per 100,000 parts of the atmosphere. And this paper keeps on writing that it is this 1 molecule to every 3,000 molecules of the atmosphere that will lead to the destruction of mankind.
I am all for environments and many are with me. First let us look what we are to do.
The Bush era ought to have signed the Kyoto Protocol. They did not. Obama comes fresh in 100 days want to fight the economics, population Gitmo, and the new appointment in many fields. He has little time to look at any more paints.
Al Gore is better then both as he was practical, went to Scotland and did what he could and still on this.
Talk of pints, Al Gore would know better as he is more in this then Dr. Chu.
Dr Chu is one of 20 Nobel prize-winning scientists attending a meeting on climate change at the Royal Society and St James's Palace organised by Cambridge University. He said energy efficiency would be the immediate way of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. We want more of how to sell the carbon we have. Then we know who is buying and who is selling. Do we have any data on this? The Noble prizewinners were. The new generations demand more of everything, the bike that gives carbon and they worry about how to reduce the carbon. However, painting the roofs white, is a unique idea? How much too much is little known in this arena .Who is making these paint. Is this available to all, at the reasonable price?
You see the role is, we have many voices and many vices that keep us puzzled and no solution and we keep on blowing in the wind thinking that the bird of the night will come out in the day. THEY WILL NOT.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Please tell me how this would inconvenience anyone in any way?
I personally think it would be quite hilarious to see new york painted white, even if it is to curb climate change
He wants us to paint our roofs white so that the energy from the sun is reflected back into space, whilst we burn fossil fuels to generate... um.. yes, energy.
Better solution is to put investment into creating more efficient and cheaper solar panels that can be placed onto each roof.
Highly polished stainless steel roofs would be even better but think of the expense. I wonder if he has factored in the effect of producing paint on this scale would have on the environment? If you work out the roof area of human buildings as a percentage of the surface of the earth, it would need some very, very sensitive instruments indeed to even be able to detect the difference. I wonder what Steven Chu is paid for this stuff? Is he buying shares in paint companies?
And somehow the bullish globalwarming deniers find issue. I don't know if the Earth is warming up due to man's activities, but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss it.
Global warming aside, tell me, do you believe our fossils fuels are running out? If so, how can saving some fuel be a bad thing?
Climate change. It's a scam designed to fleece tree-hugging neo-hippies
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
You're quite right, black does absorb light and heat, that's why it appears black. But it works both ways. Heat inside a house will be absorbed and conducted to the exterior more efficiently by a black surface.
White reflects heat and light, so it appears white to us. Again this works both ways, it will reflect heat away from a house, but it will also reflect heat back into a house (insulation).
Oh i'm sorry, I didn't see that wee link to that reliable information source you posted. Yes, I see now, it is all a scam. Moron.
If you have ever lived in a city, you know that the temps are increased anywhere to to 10 degrees by virtue of the buildings and dark paving.
Every little bit helps. Raspberries to the naysayers!
See, for example, illustrations at the bottom of page 1 showing a bifacial photovoltaic module.
http://us.sanyo.com/dynamic/LinkListing
Strange the solution couldn't have been brought to reality at the time when we were warming. Now we are cooling the crackpots want us to cool more. Would it not be prudent to wait until the temperature turns around again, scientists guess that's anytime between 2025 and 2100, rather than waste all that public money on yet another loopy green idea?
Where to get the money for the paint, the labour and the subsidies if the nutters get their way? Take it from the high cost - zero benefit climate research funding, high cost - zero benefit UN funding, high cost - zero benefit WHO funding and all the other high cost - zero benefit misanthropic NGOs we pay for.
Let's all paint our skin white, dye our hair blonde, drive only white cars and own only white houses with white roofs.
I guess this means "Black" skinned people" contribute MORE to Global Warming, as do dogs and cats that are not White.
Gore may think he invented the INTERNET, but he is nothing more than a Mad Scientist .... a GREEDY Mad Scientist, with the DEMON-crats trying to capitlized on the stupidity of Americans that believe this crazy science fiction farce.
Would the DEMON-Crats suggest that Black people are bigger contributors to Global Warming than Caucasians.
This is INSANITY as only the GOREOBAMANIACS could contrive. Will they start taxing dark roofed, dark-haired, dark-skinned folks to add money to their kitty.
WHOM the GODS would destroy......they first make MAD.
http://greenhellblog.wordpress.com/2
Perhaps a special green fund for Jacko style skin lightening...
The most obvious, cheap and aesthetically pleasing solution to urban heat is parks and ponds. See the pic here:
http://clothcap.livejournal.com/1342.ht
White or shiny rooves, at a personal level, how much to clean and maintain them?
Has anyone considered a cost-benefit assessment of the research into the effects on local climate of a sudden change in albedo and consequent reduction in temperature that would have to be funded before such a plan is implemented? Tourists don't like it cold and white/shiny sends the heat away in winter too.
And don't forget it is easier for the planet to lose heat energy than it is to keep it, almost all last century's heat gain went in less than 2 years.
African style huts? They make them from dung in some parts. The West has more than enough BS.
"Just say no" was her proposal. This helped a small percent who abstained. But unfortunately we still have that problem and the number of people with AIDs is rapidly growing. Similarly painting you roof white will reflect a percent of the sun rays' energy and save some Air conditioning expenses. This will be a small per cent( perhaps a fraction of one percent) of the energy that a person in a developed country requires.
Like Mrs Reagan's suggestion Mr Obama's suggestion will help a little bit. But if he wants to make a substantial energy saving (using enviromentally clean energy alternatives) he has to look at harnessing solar and wind energies