Just paint your roof white and you can stop the sky falling in....good old direct action.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/painting-roofs-white-is-as-green-as-taking-cars-off-the-roads-for-50-years-says-study-7640770.html


Quote:

Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said. City buildings in warm climates with "cool coloured" surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning.

The Eco-Socialists won't promote this simple anti-global warming tactic because it doesn't undermine big corporates and redistribute income and wealth. :(

Big corporates would likely make more money out of people painting their roofs..... ;D

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Just paint your roof white and you can stop the sky falling in....good old direct action. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/painting-roofs-white-is-as-green-as-taking-cars-off-the-roads-for-50-years-says-study-7640770.html Quote: Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said. City buildings in warm climates with "cool coloured" surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning. The Eco-Socialists won't promote this simple anti-global warming tactic because it doesn't undermine big corporates and redistribute income and wealth. :( Big corporates would likely make more money out of people painting their roofs..... ;D

you don't think so? how much money is currently being spent on painting roads?  ... every main road would need to get repainted once a month for it to stay white ... takes money away from fixing the roads to painting them ... the pothole doesn't matter, we'll paint it white and no one will know it's there, end of pothole.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Just paint your roof white and you can stop the sky falling in....good old direct action. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/painting-roofs-white-is-as-green-as-taking-cars-off-the-roads-for-50-years-says-study-7640770.html Quote: Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said. City buildings in warm climates with "cool coloured" surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning. The Eco-Socialists won't promote this simple anti-global warming tactic because it doesn't undermine big corporates and redistribute income and wealth. :( Big corporates would likely make more money out of people painting their roofs..... ;D you don't think so? how much money is currently being spent on painting roads?  ... every main road would need to get repainted once a month for it to stay white ... takes money away from fixing the roads to painting them ... the pothole doesn't matter, we'll paint it white and no one will know it's there, end of pothole.

once a month?

THe standard re-painting time frame is about once every 18 months - sometime longer

No roads are re-painted on a monthly basis to my knowledge

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Just paint your roof white and you can stop the sky falling in....good old direct action. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/painting-roofs-white-is-as-green-as-taking-cars-off-the-roads-for-50-years-says-study-7640770.html Quote: Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said. City buildings in warm climates with "cool coloured" surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning. The Eco-Socialists won't promote this simple anti-global warming tactic because it doesn't undermine big corporates and redistribute income and wealth. :( Big corporates would likely make more money out of people painting their roofs..... ;D

And just like Tony Abbott's "direct action" appeal to the common man who has no clue about economics, it costs a lot more and is based on far more dubious science than the global warming he rejected until very recently.

Why are people so willing to cling to ideas they understand from a technical perspective and throw economic issues (like something as simple as what does it cost) out the window?

No carbon tax is cheaper than having a carbon tax FD.

There's simple economics there.

NO TAX = CHEAPER THAN A TAX

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

No carbon tax is cheaper than having a carbon tax FD. There's simple economics there. NO TAX = CHEAPER THAN A TAX

This is why Abbott is appealing so hard to people who do not understand economics.

The truth is, the tax itself costs nothing. If you offset it with tax cuts elsewhere, there is no increase in the overall tax burden. You can even get a decrease if you do it well.

True costs only come when there is a change in the total tax burden, and when people start spending money to reduce their GHG emissions. The great thing about a carbon tax (this is why Tony Abbott spent a lot of his career promoting it) is that without any need for direct government involvement in every little decision, companies and individuals with reduce their GHG emissions where it can be done cheaply. Direct action inevitably results in some of the most expensive options for reducing GHG emissions. A carbon tax inevitably results in the cheapest options, and there are plenty of cheap options going all the way down to zero net cost.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 1:53pm: No carbon tax is cheaper than having a carbon tax FD. There's simple economics there. NO TAX = CHEAPER THAN A TAX This is why Abbott is appealing so hard to people who do not understand economics. The truth is, the tax itself costs nothing. If you offset it with tax cuts elsewhere, there is no increase in the overall tax burden. You can even get a decrease if you do it well. True costs only come when there is a change in the total tax burden, and when people start spending money to reduce their GHG emissions. The great thing about a carbon tax (this is why Tony Abbott spent a lot of his career promoting it) is that without any need for direct government involvement in every little decision, companies and individuals with reduce their GHG emissions where it can be done cheaply. Direct action inevitably results in some of the most expensive options for reducing GHG emissions. A carbon tax inevitably results in the cheapest options, and there are plenty of cheap options going all the way down to zero net cost.

Pretty sure it costs a family more than the $3 per year tax cut.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Just paint your roof white and you can stop the sky falling in....good old direct action. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/painting-roofs-white-is-as-green-as-taking-cars-off-the-roads-for-50-years-says-study-7640770.html Quote: Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said. City buildings in warm climates with "cool coloured" surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning. The Eco-Socialists won't promote this simple anti-global warming tactic because it doesn't undermine big corporates and redistribute income and wealth. :( Big corporates would likely make more money out of people painting their roofs..... ;D you don't think so? how much money is currently being spent on painting roads?  ... every main road would need to get repainted once a month for it to stay white ... takes money away from fixing the roads to painting them ... the pothole doesn't matter, we'll paint it white and no one will know it's there, end of pothole.

If you read the link it recommends colouring the roads etc when it's resurfaced not as a special matter.

What about roofs?  Might look a bit bland but there's no reason why white shouldn't be the staple colour to save the world?


freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

And just like Tony Abbott's "direct action" appeal to the common man who has no clue about economics, it costs a lot more and is based on far more dubious science than the global warming he rejected until very recently.

What is dubious about the science and the cost is bugga all?

A roof paint over costs a couple of grand at the most.  Most roofs eventually need a re-coat.  When re-coated paint them white.  White is the base colour for most paints anyway.  Some councils already have local plans where colourbond fences etc have to be one colour for trendy asthetics, tweak the policy for roofs and they can do their part to save the world. :)

Direct action minimal cost, simple and effective and no unmandated taxes..... :)

If Tony's direct action plan is to paint roofs white, which will require a large labour force subsidised by the government, I know just the people to ask.....  the guys who did the pink batts scheme have been waiting for another goldern opportunity like this!

My question to Tony is though, how will we make China and the US paint their roofs white ?  Australia's roof coverage is only 3% of world roof coverage, and therefore wont make much impact on our own.

Also, the question seems to be that the white-roof  policy will only temporarily stop global warming, with co2 polution catching up to the reflective effect of white roofs within a decade or two.  What then ?

Quote:

What is dubious about the science and the cost is bugga all?

You have no clue at all what it would cost. Most roofs these days are either already light coloured metallic (think factory roofs) or unpainted tiles.

And recolouring our roads? Think about what that would do to your eyes. Think about what the consequences could be....


Quote:

Direct action minimal cost, simple and effective and no unmandated taxes.....

Sure, so long as you don't have to come up with the price tag or think about the details. Just wave your arms in the air and tell everyone you have a magic bullet that costs 'bugga all'.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 1:07pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Just paint your roof white and you can stop the sky falling in....good old direct action. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/painting-roofs-white-is-as-green-as-taking-cars-off-the-roads-for-50-years-says-study-7640770.html Quote: Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said. City buildings in warm climates with "cool coloured" surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning. The Eco-Socialists won't promote this simple anti-global warming tactic because it doesn't undermine big corporates and redistribute income and wealth. :( Big corporates would likely make more money out of people painting their roofs..... ;D you don't think so? how much money is currently being spent on painting roads?  ... every main road would need to get repainted once a month for it to stay white ... takes money away from fixing the roads to painting them ... the pothole doesn't matter, we'll paint it white and no one will know it's there, end of pothole. once a month? THe standard re-painting time frame is about once every 18 months - sometime longer No roads are re-painted on a monthly basis to my knowledge

thats because the roads currently are black ... have you ever seen a white road?

It's not Abbott's plan it's just a suggestion based upon the link Doc.

A simple way of off-setting the effect of global warming.  Mind you it might off-set it too much and we'll be ice-scating on Sydney harbour on new year's eve.... :(

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 1:07pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Just paint your roof white and you can stop the sky falling in....good old direct action. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/painting-roofs-white-is-as-green-as-taking-cars-off-the-roads-for-50-years-says-study-7640770.html Quote: Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said. City buildings in warm climates with "cool coloured" surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning. The Eco-Socialists won't promote this simple anti-global warming tactic because it doesn't undermine big corporates and redistribute income and wealth. :( Big corporates would likely make more money out of people painting their roofs..... ;D you don't think so? how much money is currently being spent on painting roads?  ... every main road would need to get repainted once a month for it to stay white ... takes money away from fixing the roads to painting them ... the pothole doesn't matter, we'll paint it white and no one will know it's there, end of pothole. If you read the link it recommends colouring the roads etc when it's resurfaced not as a special matter. What about roofs?  Might look a bit bland but there's no reason why white shouldn't be the staple colour to save the world? freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 1:49pm: And just like Tony Abbott's "direct action" appeal to the common man who has no clue about economics, it costs a lot more and is based on far more dubious science than the global warming he rejected until very recently. What is dubious about the science and the cost is bugga all? A roof paint over costs a couple of grand at the most.  Most roofs eventually need a re-coat.  When re-coated paint them white.  White is the base colour for most paints anyway.  Some councils already have local plans where colourbond fences etc have to be one colour for trendy asthetics, tweak the policy for roofs and they can do their part to save the world. :) Direct action minimal cost, simple and effective and no unmandated taxes..... :)

your kidding aren't you? the air (in the cities) is full of dust particles from exhaust sytems and general pollution, any white roof would need to be recoated every few years ... as for roads, much more often because of the rubber on the roads .  for this hair brained scheme to have a hope of working they would have to remain pure white ....

yes roofs eventually need a re coat every ten years ... but only if they are NOT white and they have been painted previously ... concrete roof tiles and colorbond roofs can go 25 yrs before needing paint, glazed tiles much much longer. Paint it white and it'll start to look sh1t house after 3 or 4 yrs at most.

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

It's not Abbott's plan it's just a suggestion based upon the link Doc. A simple way of off-setting the effect of global warming.  Mind you it might off-set it too much and we'll be ice-scating on Sydney harbour on new year's eve.... :(

You've confirmed to me that you are an idiot if  you believe this mumbo jumbo is possible.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

thats because the roads currently are black ... have you ever seen a white road

The thread is about painting roofs not roads but yeah one thing I remember about my town of origin, Lithgow, is that they had a white road (concrete) as opposed to bitumen, and lots of coal dust and soot in the air.....but the road stayed white.


Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

You've confirmed to me that you are an idiot if  you believe this mumbo jumbo is possible.

Really, are you denying that white is more efficient in reflecting heat than other colours?  Why are solar panels black Doc?



freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

Sure, so long as you don't have to come up with the price tag or think about the details. Just wave your arms in the air and tell everyone you have a magic bullet that costs 'bugga all'.

Well FD the cost is bugga-all if its just about choosing a colour when roofs are first constructed or when they are replaced.  It's not about ripping roofs up and replacing them just to change the colour.

As the linked article SAYS........


Quote:

The researchers believe that it would be cheap and easy to increase the albedo of cities by applying the reflective materials when roofs and roads are routinely resurfaced, rather than doing it as a special measure.

:o :o :o :o   

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:37pm: thats because the roads currently are black ... have you ever seen a white road The thread is about painting roofs not roads but yeah one thing I remember about my town of origin, Lithgow, is that they had a white road (concrete) as opposed to bitumen, and lots of coal dust and soot in the air.....but the road stayed white. :o :o :o :o

opps, sorry about the roads ... I got distracted and misread it ...

but a concrete road is far from being white.  It may appear white when you drive onto it from a bitumen road, but thats only because of the contrast ... drop a piece of white paper on it and then see if you still think it's white.


Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

if its just about choosing a colour when roofs are first constructed or when they are replaced

thats not what your thread title says ...

Regarding roads, I think the key here is to not worry too much about painting them, but instead make it manditory that all tyres are made of white rubber.  Eventually the roads would become white.

Quote:

Well FD the cost is bugga-all if its just about choosing a colour when roofs are first constructed or when they are replaced.

Sorry I thought you were describing this as some kind of magic bullet solution that would do more than taking all the cars off the roads.


Quote:

but yeah one thing I remember about my town of origin, Lithgow, is that they had a white road (concrete) as opposed to bitumen

Do you realise how much more expensive concrete is? Do you realise that concrete releases enourmous amounts of GHGs?


Quote:

Regarding roads, I think the key here is to not worry too much about painting them, but instead make it manditory that all tyres are made of white rubber.  Eventually the roads would become white.

You should tell that to Tony Abbott. He has a spare $10billion to waste on hair brained schemes.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:21pm:

Do you realise how much more expensive concrete is? Do you realise that concrete releases enourmous amounts of GHGs?

Yes I do FD, but I was asked the question "have you ever seen a white road?" by John Smith and I answered yes I have in Lithgow and yeah it's not actually 'white' just a lot lighter shade than normal bitumen.

Just having a policy of having white roofs going forward would be much easier.  Uni of Melb did a study for the City of Melb.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Sustainability/CouncilActions/Documents/Cool_Roofs_Report.pdf

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/WhiteRoof.jpg

Easy, no real significant extra costs so begs the question why this is not being put forward?

Could it be because it's 'direct action' and doesn't reduce CO2 emissions? 

Your greeny comrades don't promote it because it doesn't suit their eco-socialist political agendas maybe....? :(

I don't think deluding ourselves about grand schemes (Tony Abbott style) is going to help anyone swagman. This is from your opening post. You even highlighted the claim about taking all the cars off the road:


Quote:

Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found.

Like I already pointed out, most metal roofs these days are already light coloured. Some even have a highly reflective metallic finish. Most of the rest are unpainted roof tiles. Having a reflective roof downhill from you on a slope can be incredibly annoying and can make verandahs unusable. It might be a good idea in some situations, but once you start considering cost those situations are going to be very limited.

Having reflective road surfaces is a really bad idea.

Stuff the Carbon Tax..Exactly, stuff in a bucket then deep six it to the deepest part of the sea, where it belongs.

This onerous tax has helped close down businesses and it is a cross  society doesn't want and doesn't need. Come September Tony Abbott Prime Minister will kick its sorry arse into oblivion.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

I don't think deluding ourselves about grand schemes (Tony Abbott style) is going to help anyone swagman. This is from your opening post. You even highlighted the claim about taking all the cars off the road: Quote: Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found

Yes the reduced CO2 emissions would be from the reduced heating demands so that is an added benefit and it is not a "grand scheme" but a simple one.


freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

Having a reflective roof downhill from you on a slope can be incredibly annoying

Might I suggest you get some sunglasses... 8-)


freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

It might be a good idea in some situations, but once you start considering cost those situations are going to be very limited.

The cost as pointed out earlier is minimal if implemented at time of initial construction or replacement.

A simple cost effective method to off-set global warming and reduce CO2 emissions (as you pointed out) :)

So, limiting it to cost effective situations, how much difference  can it make? Enough to "stuff the carbon tax"?

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

So, limiting it to cost effective situations, how much difference  can it make? Enough to "stuff the carbon tax"?

Remember this..........it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found.

That's a bit of a dent......and the carbon tax is stuffed anyway.... :D

Stuff the carbon tax. There will be a whole other theory coming soon. Very soon. Co2 will be on its death bed.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Stuff the carbon tax. There will be a whole other theory coming soon. Very soon. Co2 will be on its death bed.

Will this be before of after Pickering puts up his evidence of Gillards guilt? That was 'coming soon' too wasn't it?

Trying to 'morph' the subject are we John?

red baron wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

Trying to 'morph' the subject are we John?

what subject? paint all the roof white? thats about as likely as Abbotts "dig canals from the north to central Australia to move the water down' plan ... never going to happen.

Progs' comment sounds familiar, I'm sure he used almost the exact same words every week for about 4 months when Gillards phantom fraud was the hot topic of the day .. I'm just wandering if this is what I can expect for another 4 months?

John Smith wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

red baron wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 3:20pm: Trying to 'morph' the subject are we John? what subject? paint all the roof white? thats about as likely as Abbotts "dig canals from the north to central Australia to move the water down' plan ... never going to happen. Progs' comment sounds familiar, I'm sure he used almost the exact same words every week for about 4 months when Gillards phantom fraud was the hot topic of the day .. I'm just wandering if this is what I can expect for another 4 months?

The subject was "will gillard be exposed". Yes she was. To all Australians. Now she is being investigated. Job done.

Dont worry to thank me. I know you do.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 3:24pm: red baron wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 3:20pm: Trying to 'morph' the subject are we John? what subject? paint all the roof white? thats about as likely as Abbotts "dig canals from the north to central Australia to move the water down' plan ... never going to happen. Progs' comment sounds familiar, I'm sure he used almost the exact same words every week for about 4 months when Gillards phantom fraud was the hot topic of the day .. I'm just wandering if this is what I can expect for another 4 months? The subject was "will gillard be exposed". Yes she was. To all Australians. Now she is being investigated. Job done. Dont worry to thank me. I know you do.

I believe your favourite comment was 'Pickering to post evidence tomorrow'.... must have seen you say that at least 50 times, yet to see the evidence though .... are you still waiting progs or have you figured it out?

Swagman wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 12:47pm: So, limiting it to cost effective situations, how much difference  can it make? Enough to "stuff the carbon tax"? Remember this..........it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. That's a bit of a dent......and the carbon tax is stuffed anyway.... :D

So whenever we talk about costs, you insist that you are only talking about very limited scenarios. And when we talk about results, you go back to painting everything white. It's like these discussions with you only go back one post.

John Smith wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 3:24pm: red baron wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 3:20pm: Trying to 'morph' the subject are we John? what subject? paint all the roof white? thats about as likely as Abbotts "dig canals from the north to central Australia to move the water down' plan ... never going to happen. Progs' comment sounds familiar, I'm sure he used almost the exact same words every week for about 4 months when Gillards phantom fraud was the hot topic of the day .. I'm just wandering if this is what I can expect for another 4 months? The subject was "will gillard be exposed". Yes she was. To all Australians. Now she is being investigated. Job done. Dont worry to thank me. I know you do. I believe your favourite comment was 'Pickering to post evidence tomorrow'.... must have seen you say that at least 50 times, yet to see the evidence though .... are you still waiting progs or have you figured it out?

We all know what you believe is a big wank fest.

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Just paint your roof white and you can stop the sky falling in....good old direct action. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/painting-roofs-white-is-as-green-as-taking-cars-off-the-roads-for-50-years-says-study-7640770.html Quote: Painting roofs white and using light-coloured materials to surface roads and pavements would not only make cities cooler in summer, it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways of engineering the urban environment to cope with global warming is to increase the reflectivity of the cityscape so that more of the incoming sunlight is directed back into space, scientists said. City buildings in warm climates with "cool coloured" surfaces that reflect infra-red radiation would also be cooler than traditional buildings and so would conserve energy – and carbon – that would otherwise be used on air conditioning. The Eco-Socialists won't promote this simple anti-global warming tactic because it doesn't undermine big corporates and redistribute income and wealth. :( Big corporates would likely make more money out of people painting their roofs..... ;D

At the very least they should do the following:

They should neutralise the area of urban heat island. In other words, part of the planning process should be that they take a heat sink like roads and offset its heat sink with xxxxx amount of roofs that are painted white or xxxx amount of shade given to heat sink or xxxxx amount of .................

All to offset unnatural heat sinks created within the area. To neutralize the human behaviour of changing the landscape. They should measure the areas heat signature and keep that balanced all the way through development.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 2:05pm: freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 12:47pm: So, limiting it to cost effective situations, how much difference  can it make? Enough to "stuff the carbon tax"? Remember this..........it would save the same amount of carbon as taking all the cars in the world off the roads for 50 years, a study has found. That's a bit of a dent......and the carbon tax is stuffed anyway.... :D So whenever we talk about costs, you insist that you are only talking about very limited scenarios. And when we talk about results, you go back to painting everything white. It's like these discussions with you only go back one post.

Ok FD lets discuss "costs".

Let's assume a new house or a new commercial property is under constructrion or an existing roof is being recoated / re-surfaced. You tell me what the difference in cost would be for someone to choose to buy white roof tiles or white colourbond roofing instead of a dark colour? :-?

Factor in a blood sucking bureaucrat at local govt level (although it should be easily handled by existing blood sucking zoning bureaucrats)  :(

Now lets talk results.

A bit more difficult but this link has plenty of data

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Sustainability/CouncilActions/Documents/Cool_Roofs_Report.pdf

A snipit


Quote:

There have been several studies using both field measurement and computer simulations that document the energy savings from increasing the solar reflectance properties of buildings, combined with an increased thermal emittance. It is now widely accepted that the higher reflectivity a roof colour is, the lower solar energy is absorbed and the lower surface temperature will be (Kiehl & Trenberth 2010). Akbari and Konopacki (2005) have calculated the cooling energy savings due to the application of heat island mitigation strategies (application of cool materials and increase in vegetation cover) for 240 regions in the United States. It was found that for residential buildings the cooling energy savings vary between 12% and 25%, for office buildings between 5% and 18%, and for commercial (retail stores) buildings between 7% and 17%.

Fairly significant results IMO and at very little actual cost.

Quote:

You tell me what the difference in cost would be

It's your story. You tell it.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

Quote: You tell me what the difference in cost would be It's your story. You tell it.

No probs...

Eff-all + Blood sucking bureaucrat fee = Insignificant Cost to Significant Benefit.

:)

I painted a roof of a house I had with insulpaint.
An insulating reflective paint, it was very effective.

Painting roads would be impractical, too much glare and would look very ugly

The moral here is that individuals of the left persuasion (eco-socialists) are not interested in direct action to reduce CO2 emissions?

The AGWT issue is just a political tool for their socialist antienterprise agendas.  In other words they don't give a rat's rectum about 'climate change' just the damage they can do to big business with their commie plans.... :(

Swagman wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

The moral here is that individuals of the left persuasion (eco-socialists) are not interested in direct action to reduce CO2 emissions? The AGWT issue is just a political tool for their socialist antienterprise agendas.  In other words they don't give a rat's rectum about 'climate change' just the damage they can do to big business with their commie plans.... :(

I'm not sure how you can make that claim when you've been all over the place on this thread .. first you say paint it white then you say use white only on new builds, if it was as easy as you claim, why have you been struggling to just tell us what the concept is? is it that you don't know and keeping it vague prevents people from questioning it ????

You must be a student of Master Tony.

John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

I'm not sure how you can make that claim

I can make that claim because it's true Jonathon.


John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

, why have you been struggling to just tell us what the concept is?

"Struggling" why yes, but I'd say that's got something to do with the thickness of your skull my lefty friend..... ;D

Swagman wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2013 at 9:50am: Quote: You tell me what the difference in cost would be It's your story. You tell it. No probs... Eff-all + Blood sucking bureaucrat fee = Insignificant Cost to Significant Benefit. :)

LOL, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it.

I want to say that good information's which you share above I also want to ask something about painting I want to paint my house and I confused that which color collection is best and I'm not have any collection if anyone have then share here....

Cemmon00 wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

I want to say that good information's which you share above I also want to ask something about painting I want to paint my house and I confused that which color collection is best and I'm not have any collection if anyone have then share here....

The concept is based on roofs but light exterior colour would also be cooler one would assume.  You should just discuss with your local paint store proprietor or contract painter.... :)

Swagman do you have anything beyond your silly platitudes to back up your position? Evidence perhaps? Even sticking to same position would be a good start.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

Swagman do you have anything beyond your silly platitudes to back up your position? Evidence perhaps? Even sticking to same position would be a good start.

I did post a link from the Uni of Melbourne...........

Do you dispute that lighter colours absorb less heat than darker colours?

Part of the Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) T H E O R Y   is that retreating ice caps results in a reduced albedo effect.  (That is that white ice reflects heat and therefore less ice will reduce in less heat reflection)

Do you deny this?

Quote:

Do you dispute that lighter colours absorb less heat than darker colours?

;D No wonder you have such trouble with concepts like cost-effectiveness. Is it all too complicated for you?