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

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?
2025 Federal Election
Election Security Briefing Confirms CCP-Linked Operation Boosted Carney

Dan Knight
While Beijing boosts Mark Carney on WeChat, federal officials downplay foreign interference, dodge accountability, and protect the very narrative propped up by the CCP.
As Canadians prepare to head to the polls on April 28, 2025, the federal government is working overtime to project an image of preparedness in the face of growing foreign interference, digital disinformation, and mounting public skepticism.
This week’s National Election Security Briefing—one in a series leading up to the vote—was framed as a gesture of transparency and reassurance. Led by Lauren Kempton, the session brought together senior bureaucrats from Canada’s intelligence, cybersecurity, and diplomatic corps. Among them: Allan Sutherland from the Privy Council Office, Vanessa Lloyd of the SITE Task Force, Bridget Walsh from the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, and Larissa Galarza from Global Affairs.
They were joined virtually by officials from the RCMP, CSIS, and other federal agencies, forming what was presented as a united front against threats to Canada’s democratic process.
This briefing follows last week’s announcement of a new Candidate Security Program, offering private, unarmed security details to protect political candidates from intimidation. It’s a telling sign of the times—when running for office in Canada now comes with real, documented threats from foreign powers.
And if you thought foreign interference was yesterday’s problem, what came next confirmed: it’s not just back—it’s more sophisticated, more aggressive, and more deeply embedded than ever.
The WeChat Election: CCP Bots, Mark Carney, and the Digital Hijacking of Canadian Democracy
The latest federal election security briefing confirmed what many suspected but few in government are willing to say out loud: the Chinese Communist Party is actively trying to shape Canadian politics—and their current project of interest is Mark Carney.
Intelligence services revealed that a state-linked WeChat account called Youli-Youmian, tied directly to the CCP’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, launched an information operation targeting Chinese-Canadian communities. The timing was not subtle. Two major spikes in activity occurred—on March 10 and again on March 25, right in the heart of the federal election campaign. The platform used was WeChat, a messaging app with over a billion users and a long record of CCP censorship, surveillance, and narrative control.
The operation focused on Mark Carney. He was the centerpiece. The content wasn’t one-sided, but it was manipulative. It praised him for being “tough” on the United States—exactly the kind of posture the CCP likes to see in Western leaders. At the same time, it seeded doubts about his experience and readiness to lead. The strategy is transparent: elevate the figure they believe will be most useful, then control the temperature of public perception around him.
The operation was not organic. Intelligence officials described it as “coordinated inauthentic behavior”—mass posting of identical headlines across outlets, bot-driven sharing, engineered engagement. This wasn’t a handful of users with strong opinions. It was algorithmic warfare.
The bureaucrats behind the briefing bent over backwards to downplay the impact. They said the campaign was “contained to one platform” and argued that Canadians have access to diverse information, so the overall electoral process remains “free and fair.” But that’s not the point. The CCP doesn’t need to control the entire media ecosystem. It only needs to shape perception where it counts—and in targeted communities, with targeted narratives, it’s clearly trying to do just that.
The Liberal Party was only briefed on the situation on April 6—after the second spike in activity. That’s weeks after the operation had already gained traction. What happened during that time? Carney’s campaign moved forward without addressing any of it. And now we know why. Whether he’s aware of it or not, the CCP sees value in propping him up—at least in the right communities, with the right messaging. If that doesn’t send alarm bells ringing, it should.
This isn’t speculation. It’s documented. It’s active. And it’s part of a larger pattern. The same interference networks have previously targeted Conservative MPs like Michael Chong, Erin O’Toole, and Kenny Chiu. They’ve gone after Chrystia Freeland too. But the recent attention to Carney marks something new—not just an attempt to tear down opponents, but to sculpt the image of a candidate who just might serve certain foreign interests, directly or indirectly.
The Chinese Communist Party doesn’t operate on party loyalty. It operates on leverage. And this operation—whether Carney asked for it or not—is a sign that Beijing believes his leadership could be shaped to their advantage.
The Canadian government can claim “no impact” all it wants. But influence isn’t always measured by votes—it’s measured by narrative, tone, and who ends up in the spotlight looking just a little more “strong” or “stable” through the right lens. Beijing’s lens.
The CCP’s Safe Bet: Mark Carney
And now, after days of playing cleanup behind a polished podium, the government rolls out a Q&A session to assure us that “nothing’s wrong,” “everything’s under control,” and that the CCP’s operation to shape the election isn’t a big deal because—get this—it only ran on one platform.
Let’s be blunt: the CCP isn’t playing to win headlines on Twitter. They’re not interested in going viral on Facebook. They’re targeting WeChat—because that’s where Chinese-Canadian voters live, talk, and form political opinions. And in that space, Beijing amplified Mark Carney—not because he’s “tough,” not because he’s competent, but because he’s good for China.
Canada has become a proxy battleground in a new Cold War between the West and the Chinese Communist Party. And Carney? He’s the CCP’s safe bet. Let’s not forget: this is the man whose financial career includes a quarter-billion-dollar loan from the Bank of China while chairing Brookfield Asset Management. The same man who’s never disclosed his full assets, despite now leading a party that’s still pretending foreign interference is just noise on the margins.
And now, in classic bureaucratic fashion, SITE and the government tell us they “don’t speculate on intent.” They claim the CCP is just sowing discord. That their approach is “party-agnostic.” That they weren’t trying to help Carney, just “pollute the digital environment.”
Give me a break. You don’t call someone a “tough opponent” to the U.S. and a “rock star” in a state-linked campaign unless you’re trying to boost their image. You don’t run coordinated bot amplification to spread content about one candidate because you’re bored and trying to “confuse people.” This wasn’t confusion. This was elevation.
And what did the government do? They flagged the content. They told Tencent about it. And then they backed off—because they don’t require any action. The PRC is running soft propaganda on a Canadian election platform, and Ottawa’s solution is: “Well, we told them. Hopefully they fix it.”
What’s worse? When asked about it directly, the government refused to name Carney as the beneficiary. They said they don’t want to “amplify the content” by repeating it. So let’s get this straight: Beijing gets to run a pro-Carney campaign, but Canadians aren’t even allowed to know the details?
That’s not protecting democracy. That’s protecting a narrative.
The truth is, Mark Carney is not being elevated because he’s good for Canadians. He’s being elevated because he’s safe for Beijing. The Liberals know it. The bureaucrats know it. And so far, no one in power has had the spine to stop it—because China’s interference benefits the very political class that claims to oppose it.
So when they talk about “safeguarding our democracy,” ask yourself: who are they really safeguarding it from? Because right now, it’s not from foreign influence—it’s from accountability.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Bruce Dowbiggin
Bettman Gives Rogers Keys To The Empire. Nothing Will Change

Good news if you like the way Rogers Sportsnet covers hockey in Canada. You’re about to get a whole lot more of it. In a move that sums up Gary Bettman’s unique broadcast philosophy the NHL has awarded the Canadian TV/ digital/ streaming rights to Rogers for the next 12 years. The price tag? 12 billion U.S. dollars (about $16.B CDN dollars).
While the pattern in modern sports broadcasting rights has been toward sharing the wealth among competing bidders— the NFL has six distinct partners— Bettman the contrarian has opted for a different notion. He’s all in with one Canadian partner, and let his critics STFU.
As opposed to the previous CDN national monopoly awarded to Rogers in 2013 this one bestows national rights in all languages across TV, streaming and digital for all regular-season and playoff games, plus the Stanley Cup Final and all special events. This extends to coverage in all regions. There are some concessions for Rogers to sell limited cutout packages, such as the Monday Night Amazon package they’ve created.
Presuming Pierre Poliievre doesn’t get his way with CBC, Rogers will likely piggyback on their time-sharing agreement for Saturday Hockey Night In Canada to get CBC’s network reach. (There remain many hockey fans who still think CBC has the NHL contract. Go figure.)
Translation: there will be no regional packages for TSN to produce Montreal Canadiens, Ottawa Senators or Toronto Maple Leafs games, for instance. But there will be regional blackouts, because nothing says we are proud of our product like denying it to a larger audience. Conn Smythe would be proud.
At the presser to announce the deal Rogers and Bettman were coy about how much they will charge consumers for the honour of being inundated by content in what now seems likely to be a 36-team league by the time the deal expires. Will costs be added to cable/ satellite packages? How much for streaming? With stories circulating that Rogers massively overbid for the package to get the monopoly it’s apparent that the phone company will be turning over every nickel to make it worthwhile.
Fans are apprehensive and over-saturated with hockey content already. For that reason, the NHL is now desperately looking for ways to lessen the tedium of the 82-game regular schedule with midseason content like the 4 Nations Cup or a World Cup format. In Canada’s hockey-mad environment Rogers will have a passionate market, but even the most fervent fans will only spend so much for their fix.
Already, Rogers is trumpeting its re-acquisition with commercials featuring Ron Maclean doing his breathy feels-like-home voice about how Sportsnet is the natural landing spot for hockey until many of us are dead. Bettman made cooing noises about Rogers’ commitment at the announcement.
But let us cast our minds back to 2013 when the last Rogers/ NHL deal was concocted. We were the sports media columnist at the Mop & Pail at the time and much was made that Rogers would be a technological marvel, re-inventing the way we watched hockey. There would be new camera angles, referee cams, heightened audio, refreshed editorial content etc.

As hockey fans now know Rogers dabbled in the brave new world briefly, blanched at the cost of being creative and largely went back to doing hockey the way it had always been done. Taking no risks. On some regional casts that meant as few as three or four cameras for the action.
But if you were expecting dashboard cameras and drone shots you were sadly disappointed. Similarly there was a brief stab at refreshing the pre-, mid- and postgame content. Hipster George Stromboulopoulos was brought in as a host to attract a larger female audience.
But pretty soon Strombo was gonzo, replaced by the anodyne David Amber (whose dad was once the leader of the journalist union at CBC). Women like former player Jennifer Botterill were brought in to change the gender balance on panels. They then acted pretty much like guys, chalk-talking viewers into numbness. Appointment viewing has become a fallback choice.
The move away for anything controversial came in 2019 with Rogers’ axing of Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner in a flap over the former coach’s continuing ventures into political or cultural content. Maclean slipped the knife into his meal ticket and continued on the show. After time in limbo, doing location shoots, he was returned full-time to the desk.

As we wrote in June of 2022, the one exception to the standard “serious, sombre, even a touch grim” tone is former defenceman Kevin Bieksa. “Bieksa has been a moveable feast. His insouciance with media has become his ragging on the fellow panelists during intermissions that used to be as much fun as skating in July.” His banter with “insider” Elliotte Friedman is now a lone concession to wit on the show.
Intermissions are numbingly predictable, and Rogers’ stable of analysts and play-by-play announcers outside of HNIC is unchallenging to the orthodoxy of PxP being a radio call over TV pictures. Name one star beside Bieksa that has been produced by Rogers’ “safe” broadcast style since 2013. They’d fit in perfectly in a 1980s hockey broadcast. Now compare it with the lively Amazon broadcasts hosted by Adnan Virk and Andi Petrillo.
This leaves a lingering question. What happens to TSN? Many prefer the editorial and studio profile of TSN on Trade Deadline Day or Free Agent frenzy. TSN locked up its stars such as James Duthie and Bob McKenzie when the last deal was signed. But there isn’t enough live content this time to support keeping a full roster anymore. Who will stay and who will go? (TSN’s president Stewart Johnson is the new commissioner of the CFL).
And with Rogers taking full control of MLSE (Maple Leafs, Raptors, Argos, Toronto FC) TSN is left with the CFL and packages of NFL, golf, tennis, some auto racing and international soccer. Is that enough on which to float a network? There have been rumours that Bell, owner of TSN, is interested in divesting itself of the high cost of sports broadcasting. Should that happen— who has the money to replace them?— the effect will be seismic in Canadian broadcasting.
For now, watch how much pressure the NHL puts on Rogers to up its game. More importantly what will happen when Bettman finally retires and the league has a new vision since 1992? Rogers has sewn up its end. Will the audience go with them?
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
-
Business1 day ago
Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs
-
Podcasts15 hours ago
The world is changing – Trump’s Tariffs, the US, Canada, and the rest of the world
-
Alberta13 hours ago
Province introducing “Patient-Focused Funding Model” to fund acute care in Alberta
-
Alberta2 days ago
Is Canada’s Federation Fair?
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos
-
2025 Federal Election15 hours ago
Mark Carney Comes to B.C. and Delivers a Masterclass in Liberal Arrogance
-
2025 Federal Election14 hours ago
Poilievre to invest in recovery, cut off federal funding for opioids and defund drug dens
-
Business14 hours ago
Trump threatens additional 50% tariffs on China, urges ‘patience’