Connect with us

Opinion

When black roofs cost more and most negatively affect our health, why are we installing them?

Published

7 years ago

12 minute read

We are into construction season and summer and the heat is starting to be an issue. We will have some heat waves and we will notice the “Urban Heat Island Effect”.
The city will seem hotter than the county, but we will also notice differences in temperature between light coloured vehicles and darker coloured vehicles, and even the coolness of a white fence.
During heat waves some of the most vulnerable people are those living on the top floor of a building with a black roof.
My biggest question is why are we still putting black roofs on our buildings? Black roofs do not absorb heat in the winter under a foot of white snow. They absorb heat during the hot days making it hotter.

Let’s start at the beginning, by hitting the Google button.

What is the Heat Island Effect?
The elevated temperature in urban areas as compared to rural, less developed areas is referred to as the urban heat island effect. As cities grow and develop, more buildings and people are added. The process of urban development leads to this phenomenon.

What are the Implications of Heat Islands?
Heat islands are considered a form of local climate change as opposed to global climate change. The effects of heat islands are confined to specific areas, and do not have a larger impact on climate change. Despite being confined to a certain locality, heat islands can still make a significant impact.
Of course, one of the most noticeable impacts on urban dwellers is an increase in hot, summer weather. On particularly clear and hot days, when the heat island effect is at its worst, inhabitants of larger cities will notice hotter and more uncomfortable temperatures. When people are hot, they often crank up their air conditioners. Increases in air conditioning use not only results in more heat being released into the air, this also contributes to air pollution, as more greenhouse gas emissions are discharged. This negatively impacts air quality and can also lead to a surge in urban smog.
How Can We Reduce the Heat Island?
Since the impact of heat islands is mostly negative, scientists and researchers are searching for ways to reduce and reverse the effects. Dark roof surfaces are one of the major culprits of temperature increases. One popular technique for combating the heat island effect is installing green roofs on urban buildings. Green roofs, which are lined with soil and certain types of vegetation, can actually help cities regain some of the cooling and evaporative effects that the natural landscape once provided. As this idea becomes more popular, there is more and more scientific evidence that green roofs can reduce heat in urban areas.
Dark building surfaces that absorb more heat account for some of the rising temperatures in urban areas. One simple method for reducing this effect is to paint buildings with light or white colors that do not absorb nearly as much heat. Some cities are also using paint treatments that reflect light to combat the heat island effect. White, Green or Black Roofs? Berkeley Lab Report Compares Economic Payoffs
Looking strictly at the economic costs and benefits of three different roof types—black, white and “green” (or vegetated)—Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) researchers have found in a new study that white roofs are the most cost-effective over a 50-year time span. While the high installation cost of green roofs sets them back in economic terms, their environmental and amenity benefits may at least partially mitigate their financial burden.
A new report titled “Economic Comparison of White, Green, and Black Flat Roofs in the United States” by Julian Sproul, Benjamin Mandel, and Arthur Rosenfeld of Berkeley Lab, and Man Pun Wan of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, provides a direct economic comparison of these three roof types. The study will appear in the March 2014 volume of Energy and Buildings and has just been published online. “White roofs win based on the purely economic factors we included, and black roofs should be phased out,” said study co-author Rosenfeld, a Berkeley Lab Distinguished Scientist Emeritus and former Commissioner of the California Energy Commission
The study analyzes 22 commercial flat roof projects in the United States in which two or more roof types were considered. The researchers conducted a 50-year life cycle cost analysis, assuming a 20-year service life for white and black roofs and a 40-year service life for green roofs.
A green roof, often called vegetated roofs or rooftop gardens, has become an increasingly popular choice for aesthetic and environmental reasons. Rosenfeld acknowledges that their economic analysis does not capture all of the benefits of a green roof. For example rooftop gardens provide storm water management, an appreciable benefit in cities with sewage overflow issues, while helping to cool the roof’s surface as well as the air. Green roofs may also give building occupants the opportunity to enjoy green space where they live or work.
Berkeley Lab Distinguished Scientist Emeritus Art Rosenfeld
“We leave open the possibility that other factors may make green roofs more attractive or more beneficial options in certain scenarios,” said Mandel, a graduate student researcher at Berkeley Lab. “The relative costs and benefits do vary by circumstance.”
However, unlike white roofs, green roofs do not offset climate change. White roofs are more reflective than green roofs, reflecting roughly three times more sunlight back into the atmosphere and therefore absorbing less sunlight at earth’s surface. By absorbing less sunlight than either green or black roofs, white roofs offset a portion of the warming effect from greenhouse gas emissions.
“Both white and green roofs do a good job at cooling the building and cooling the air in the city, but white roofs are three times more effective at countering climate change than green roofs,” said Rosenfeld.
White roofs are most cost-effective
The costs and benefits difference stack that has the highest net present value shows the roof type that is most cost-effective.
The 50-year life-cycle cost analysis found that even the most inexpensive kind of green roof (with no public access and consisting of only sedum, or prairie grass) costs $7 per square foot more than black roofs over 50 years, while white roofs save $2 per square foot compared to black roofs. In other words, white roofs cost $9 per square foot less than green roofs over 50 years, or $0.30 per square foot each year.
The researchers acknowledge that their data are somewhat sparse but contend that their analysis is valuable in that it is the first to compare the economic costs and energy savings benefits of all three roof types. “When we started the study it wasn’t obvious that white roofs would still be more cost-effective over the long run, taking into account the longer service time of a green roof,” Mandel said.
Furthermore while the economic results are interesting, it also highlights the need to include factors such health and environment in a more comprehensive analysis. “We’ve recognized the limitations of an analysis that’s only economic,” Mandel said. “We would want to include these other factors in any future study.”
Black roofs pose health risk
For example, black roofs pose a major health risk in cities that see high temperatures in the summer. “In Chicago’s July 1995 heat wave a major risk factor in mortality was living on the top floor of a building with a black roof,” Rosenfeld said.
For that reason, he believes this latest study points out the importance of government policymaking. “White doesn’t win out over black by that much in economic terms, so government has a role to ban or phase out the use of black or dark roofs, at least in warm climates, because they pose a large negative health risk,” he said.
Rosenfeld, who started at Berkeley Lab in the 1950s, is often called California’s godfather of energy efficiency for his pioneering work in the area. He was awarded a National Medal of Technology and Innovation by President Obama in 2012, one of the nation’s highest honours.
Rosenfeld has been a supporter of solar-reflective “cool” roofs, including white roofs, as a way to reduce energy costs and address global warming. He was the co-author of a 2009 study in which it was estimated that making roofs and pavements around the world more reflective could offset 44 billion tons of CO2 emissions. A later study using a global land surface model found similar results: cool roofs could offset the emissions of roughly 300 million cars for 20 years.
So if black roofs are detrimental to our health, contribute to the issue of Urban Heat Island Effect and costs more, why are we still building black roofs?

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 2 hours ago

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Premier Smith says Auto Insurance reforms may still result in a publicly owned system

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Alberta fiscal update: second quarter is outstanding, challenges ahead

Alberta

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.

The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.

For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).

And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.

In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.

This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.

Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.

Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.

Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.

When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.

According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.

Author:

Tegan Hill
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Michael Nevradakis of The Defender

The Center for Countering Digital Hate, authors of ‘The Disinformation Dozen,’ faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), authors of the “Disinformation Dozen,” faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on Nov. 7 subpoenaed CCDH  as part of an ongoing congressional investigation, launched in August 2023, into the nonprofit’s censorship-related activities.

The subpoena requests all communications and documents “between or among CCDH, the Executive Branch, or third parties, including social media companies, relating to the identification of groups, accounts, channels, or posts for moderation, deletion, suppression, restriction, or reduced circulation.”

The subpoena also requests all records, notes, and other “documents of interactions between or among CCDH and the Executive Branch referring or relating to ‘killing’ or taking adverse action against Elon Musk’s X social media platform (formerly Twitter).”

 

CCDH previously included Kennedy on its “Disinformation Dozen” list, published in March 2021, of the 12 “leading online anti-vaxxers.”

Leaked CCDH documents released last month by investigative journalists Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi revealed that CCDH sought to “kill” Twitter and launch “black ops” against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“Black ops” are defined as a “secret mission or campaign carried out by a military, governmental or other organization, typically one in which the organization conceals or denies its involvement.”

A subsequent report by Taibbi and Thacker showed that CCDH employed tactics it initially developed to help U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the U.S. Democratic Party, to target Musk, Kennedy and others.

CCDH used ‘explicit military terminology’ to target speech

Thacker told The Defender the leaked documents “definitely spurred” Jordan’s subpoena.

Sayer Ji, the founder of GreenMedInfo, was also listed among “The Disinformation Dozen.” He said the leaked documents were “chilling” and that CCDH’s efforts were part of “the largest coordinated foreign influence operation targeting American speech since 1776.”

Ji told The Defender:

The leaked documents confirm what we experienced firsthand: CCDH wasn’t just targeting 12 individuals – we were test cases for deploying military-grade psychological operations against civilians at scale.

Just as the British Crown once used seditious libel laws to silence colonial dissent, CCDH’s operation expanded to silence hundreds of millions globally, from doctors sharing clinical observations to parents discussing vaccine injuries.

Ohio physician Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, also on “The Disinformation Dozen” list, told The Defender, “The exposure of the manipulation that went on behind the scenes to silence us is what we suspected, and now we know … We have the sad last laugh against their attacks. They are the ones with blood on their hands.”

Ji said CCDH’s internal communications reveal not just bias, “but explicit military terminology – ‘black ops,’ ‘target acquisition,’ ‘strategic deployment’ – coordinated between Five Eyes networks and dark money interests to target constitutionally protected speech.”

Writing on GreenMedInfo, Ji said, “CCDH’s ‘black ops’ approach includes coordinated media smears, economic isolation, and digital censorship.” Ji said CCDH’s activities represent “a new level of institutionalized power directed at civilian targets, often bypassing constitutional safeguards.”

Thacker said Jordan’s investigation should expand to include CCDH’s “black ops.”

“I don’t want to speculate on what CCDH was doing with ‘black ops’ against Kennedy,” Thacker said. “I think that should be explored by a congressional committee, with CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed put under oath,” Thacker said.

CCDH facing multiple lawsuits, possible Trump administration investigation

Jordan’s subpoena is the latest in a series of legal challenges for CCDH. According to GreenMedInfo, the organization faces several lawsuits and government investigations.

Following last month’s CCDH document leak, the Trump campaign said an investigation into CCDH “will be at the top of the list.”

The campaign also filed a complaint against the Harris campaign with the Federal Election Commission, “for making and accepting illegal foreign national contributions” – namely, from the U.K. Labour Party.

This followed the release of evidence indicating that the Biden administration coordinated with the U.K. Foreign Office as part of what GreenMedInfo described “as a systematic censorship regime involving CCDH and affiliated organizations.”

A lawsuit Musk filed against CCDH in July 2023 for allegedly illegally obtaining data and using it in a “scare campaign” to deter advertisers from X will likely proceed on appeal. A federal court initially dismissed the lawsuit in March.

Discovery in the Missouri v. Biden free speech lawsuit may also “shed further light and legal scrutiny on the critical role that CCDH played in allegedly suppressing and violating the civil liberties of U.S. citizens,” according to GreenMedInfo.

CCDH, others flee X in protest

Earlier this week, CCDH deleted its account on X, the platform it wanted to “kill.”

Writing on Substack, Ji said CCDH’s departure from X, during the same week Trump nominated Kennedy to lead HHS, represents a “seismic shift” and marks “a watershed moment, signaling the unraveling of entrenched systems of control and the rise of a new era for health freedom and open discourse.”

Several other left-leaning organizations and individuals, including The Guardian and journalist Don Lemon, also said they will stop using X, after Trump tapped Musk to lead a federal agency tasked with increasing government efficiency.

According to NBC News, many ordinary users are also fleeing X, citing “bots, partisan advertisements and harassment, which they all felt reached a tipping point when Donald Trump was elected president last week with Musk’s support.”

But according to Adweek, X’s former top advertisers, including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Lionsgate Entertainment, resumed ad spending on the platform this year, but at “much lower rates” than before.

“Elon Musk’s ties with Donald Trump might spur some advertisers to think spending on X is good for business,” Adweek reported.

Thacker said CCDH’s deletion of its X account was “aligned” with the departure of “other organizations and ‘journalists’ aligned with the Democratic Party.” He said it appears to have been a “coordinated protest.”

Ji said organizations like CCDH view X “as an existential threat.” He added:

Having experienced both Twitter 1.0’s AI-driven censorship system and X’s more open environment, I understand exactly why CCDH sees X as an existential threat. X represents what Twitter 1.0’s embedded censorship infrastructure was designed to prevent: a truly free digital public square.

Under Musk’s commitment to free speech, their tactical advantage disappeared. They’re not leaving because X is toxic. They’re leaving because they can’t control it.

Online censorship ‘may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny’

According to GreenMedInfo, CCDH’s departure from X “appears to reflect an internal recognition that their operational model – characterized by critics as a US-U.K. intelligence ‘cut-out’ facilitating  unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties – may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny.”

In recent months, several mainstream media outlets have corrected stories that relied upon CCDH reports claiming “The Disinformation Dozen” was responsible for up to two-thirds of vaccine-related “misinformation” online.

According to Thacker, this reflects an increasing awareness by such outlets that readers are turning their backs on such reporting.

“The outlets that promoted CCDH propaganda are being investigated by their own readers, who are fleeing in droves. Readers are voting against this type of propaganda by refusing to subscribe to these media outlets,” Thacker said.

Yet, “many outlets continue to host these demonstrably false narratives without correction,” Ji said.

According to Ji, these false narratives resulted in medical professionals fearing the loss of their licenses for expressing non-establishment views, self-censorship among scientists “to avoid career destruction,” suppression of “critical public health discussions” and the labeling of millions of posts as “misinformation.”

“This isn’t just about suppressing speech. It’s about establishing a new form of digital control that echoes the colonial-era suppression our founders fought against,” Ji said.

“CCDH has polluted political discourse by pretending there is some absolute definition of the term ‘misinformation’ and that they hold the dictionary,” Thacker said. “That’s nonsense. They spread hate and misinformation to attack perceived political enemies of the Democratic Party.”

Ji called upon Congress to investigate “The full scope of those silenced beyond the ‘Disinformation Dozen,’” the “systematic suppression of scientific debate,” “media organizations’ role in amplifying foreign influence operations” and “dark money funding networks” supporting such organizations.

Thacker said Congress should examine possible CCDH violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “We need to also look at how much foreign money they took in and whether we as a nation are comfortable with foreign influence trying to alter the law and political discussions.”

“The fight isn’t just about correcting past wrongs or personal vindication. It’s about preserving fundamental rights to free speech and scientific inquiry in the digital age,” Ji said. “If we don’t address this systematic abuse of power, we risk surrendering the very freedoms our founders fought to establish.”

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading

Trending

X