Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Wants to Paint the World White to Save Energy
LONDON - US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London.
![[US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, seen here in April 2009, said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London. (AFP/Chip Somodevilla)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/chu_whiteroofs.jpg "chu_whiteroofs.jpg")
The Nobel laureate in physics called for a "new revolution" in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
But he warned there was no silver bullet for tackling climate change, and said a range of measures should be introduced, including painting flat roofs white.
Making roads and roofs a paler colour could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said.
It was a geo-engineering scheme that was "completely benign" and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning, as well as reflecting sunlight back away from the Earth.
For people who found white hard on the eye, scientists had also developed "cool colours" which looked to the human eye like normal ones, but reflect heat like pale colours even if they are darker shades.
And painting cars in cool or light colours could deliver considerable savings on energy use for air conditioning units, he said.
Speaking at the start of a symposium on climate change hosted by the Prince of Wales and attended by more than 20 Nobel laureates, Chu said fresh thinking was required to cut the amount of carbon created by power generation.
He said: "The industrial revolution was a revolution in the use of energy. It offloaded from human and animal power into using fossil fuels.
"We have to go to a different new revolution that can severely decrease the amount of carbon emissions in the generation of energy."
78 Comments so far
Show AllHere's the (unstated) importance of what Chu is recommending:
Homeowners are constantly bombarded with offers to put solar panels on their roofs, the payout period for which is a relatively long time. In fact, for some systems it might be "forever" without the subsidy.
Local governments are losing a lot of money paying out subsidies on expensive PV units. Chu is trying to help out by suggesting a cheaper alternative to installing solar panels, which, AT THE MARGIN, would be even more effective than panels, and, since they are cheaper, could be implemented faster.
Also, note that existing roofs don't actually have to be painted. Just like solar PV panels, lightweight reflectors can be installed on top of the existing roof, and even removed during the wintertime.
Like changing over to fluorescent bulbs, this idea is insufficient by itself to make a huge difference. It takes a lot of ideas--reducing traffic is one--working in an additive fashion.
ON the supply side, the Atmospheric Vortex Engine, is the most promising renewable technology, IMO.
Good point.
However clever and possibly useful, concerning this idea the term "whitewash" leaps to mind...
The simplest solution for the US energy problem is: let's all become Amish.
No place for the horses and barns in my hood. Nobody would wear the hats. Orrrr would they?
Joe
If the US pulled back its military aggression and stop polluting the world, that's all it would take, and that's not even mentioning the burning up of the earths resources, which the U S does'nt have but uses other countries resource's.
White on roads works for some people, not for others. There seems to be a pretty large difference in how well people react to glare.
the article addresses that issue.
I can't believe we or any other country that spends 1 trillion a year on war is serious about reducing our carbon footprint. We will reduce our energy use when we don't have any other choice (i.e. we're broke). The way oil is going up again, that may be quite soon.
This sounds like a very good idea. It's simple, cheap, can't do much harm, and is accessible to anyone. We recently painted the roof white on our house. It has made a huge difference in the heat gain problem (we live in the tropics). I imagine a similar reflectivity gain would be possible on every surface exposed to the sun -- perhaps it could make a difference multiplied by the billions of dwellings, offices, and other structures around the world. "White is the new green." I saw that quote somewhere.
One other thought -- a real scientist -- what a refreshing change from the Bush administration.
Seems hard to believe that it would have such a vast effect. I wish there were more details about how it works scientifically.
Here in Portland Oregon it wouldn't work much because as soon as the sun comes out and it's over 60 degrees outside, businesses turn on the AC. That is no joke. I have to wear a sweater inside restaurants and stores in the spring/summer. I've often wondered how much cheaper the businesses bills would be if they pushed the AC thermostat up a bit.
What about window tint or passive solar measures for keeping buildings cooler?
This is a hare brained idea, which is why it's very likely to be taken seriously in the US. The heat will be reflected but only into the lower atmosphere where it will cause the atmosphere to retain more water vapour, which could increase warming. In any event, the oceans represent most of the earth's surface area and it's unlikely even Al Gore is smart enough to invent a paint that will stick to salt water.
By the way, read Ian Plimer's new book, Heaven and Earth, to get a bit of perspective on the debate.
So, by your logic ice on the poles is ineffective because it too reflects heat into the lower atmosphere....
At the poles, white is probably more effective. The atmosphere at the poles behaves unlike the atmosphere at low latitudes. The capacity of air to hold moisture doesn't change much per degree increase at temperatures below or near zero (polar areas) but is significant at temperatures like those in major urban areas. So, painting the roads white (or just not clearing the snow) in Alaska will be more effective (or less ineffective) than doing the same in Alabama.
Also, as has been pointed out by others, do the maths and it is a real Mad Hatter idea any way you look at it.
Ya know, I want to commend Chu for trying. But let's get real. The real problem is that we keep thinking we need to USE all the energy that we do... But we don't. I hope he is considering the problems of Coal fired power plants, tar sands oil and shale oil... I haven't heard him say anything about taking care of those issues. I mean, as some on this site have suggested. Do we really need to keep taking the stuff out of the ground.
In other words. Get real with the people, we just cannot live the life style that we have been. WE don't have time. The earth is screaming stopped the maddness- and what are we doing. Using a sugar pill.
Road systems in SW desert States tend to be light colored due to the local gravel and rock. Unless, of course, someone uses asphalt. Tile roofing or terracotta roofing isn't uncommon in newer constructions in CA but can get expensive.
A cheaper solution is a metal roof and is easier to install in all different light colors. However for people with flat roofs, you could opt for non-toxic, non-solvent reflective roof paints like those made by Hyperseal.
Another benefit from not using asphalt shingles and asphalt highways: securing petroleum. Concrete roads are better for night vision, and also no black ice., and also reduce fuel consumption up to 20% for trucks (Fed Highway Admin). And a concrete road is cheaper to produce and last longer before needed upkeep (try 22 years v 8 years for asphalt).
We can also use concrete utility poles instead of trees. Although concrete plants come with their own environmental footprint.
The production of Portland cement, the "active" ingredient in concrete, is very energy-intensive - mostly due to the large amount of petroleum fuel used by the the kilns.
Interesting that concrete pavements are more fuel efficient for trucks - due to their grater stiffness - especially in hot weather when asphalt pavements soften. But, better it go by intermodal rail which is far more energy efficient yet.
"Black ice" forms on concrete pavements - it just isn't "black'.
The aggregate color heavily influences the color of asphalt pavements too - especially after a bit of weathering.
Black ice meaning "invisible to the eye" not the strange notion ice doesn't form on concrete... and textured surface important.
Petro for kilns is an environmental footprint, I agree. Aggregate can be influential regardless of product. And so, yes an asphalt road could feasibly be lighter in color especially around year 8.
Problem with intermodal rail getting wider appeal is access to all locations as well as size of rail cars for commercial enterprises. Fictional Jack and Jill Inc ship outside of the rail system and want it next day. Easier for JJ Inc to put 2ton hobby horse on Pride Transport. Hard for rail to compete in current form.
"Hard for rail to compete in current form"
That's a self-fulfilling prophesy. We can say hard for democracy to compete, hard for common sense to compete, hard for justice to compete, on and on. Where does it get us?
Here's how we make trains compete with trucks: Call off the competition. Whatever perceived advantages there are to trucks, what they amount to are excuses to consume more energy/materials.
And worse, they worked awful hard abandoning and pulling up a hell of a lot of railroad (and interurban trolley) tracks to make this prophecy come true. This is especially true in the sun-belt.
There was a time when railroad short-lines went everywhere - there were sidings right behind the shops on every main street. Interurban trolleys and intercity trains formed a seamless network that went everywhere on frequest schedules. Vitually every student at Virginia Tech in the tiny town of Blacksburg got there by train - from anywhere in Virginia or West Virginia, or the US for that matter, at speeds comparable to driving today. Geology students would even travel from Blacksburg to the old field camp in tiny Saltville by train.
This is sad. I never put two and two together about all the old train and trolley tracks that are covered under the pavement in New York City, especially around the waterfront areas. Maybe there were tracks to take shipments to the main rail lines.
Joe
I think it depends on wher you live, here in Pittsburgh, I see long Norfolk-Southern trains carrying UPS semi trailers going through downtown all the time.
Paint is costly and mostly poisonous. It wasn't so long ago that everybody was praising the idea of roof top gardening. Plant vegetables on raised beds or install solar water-heating devices for the building. This "painting" idea sure smells like somebody conntected stands to make a profit. Now if all these flat topped shopping malls thought that they could make a profit by leasing the space for gardening purposes, perhaps somebody would be motivated to make a change.
Good thoughts. Especially since many malls are likely to go the way of the dinosaurs in the near future as mall chains go bankrupt one by one.
Joe
If we stopped blowing up shit in IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN & WHO KNOWS WHERE ELSE, maybe it wouldn't be so hot!!!
BUT REALLY ITS ALL JUST THE SUN SPOT CYCLE, NOT US!!!!
Sorry, but there is some denial going on here.
There is no evidence connecting climate change and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The record braking hot years of the late 1990's were during a solar minimum.
We MAY be entering a persistent, long solar minimum, which MIGHT, offset some the the effects of higher levels of grenhouse gases and melting arctic ice. But if it does happen, it is purely a fortuitous stroke of luck - not something we plan on.
KNOWLEDGE....PASS IT ON!!!!
FROM THE SITE: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
JUST SOME CLIPS: Recent research (3) indicates that the combined effects of sunspot-induced changes in solar irradiance and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases offer the best explanation yet for the observed rise in average global temperature over the last century. Using a global climate model based on energy conservation, Lane et al (3) constructed a profile of atmospheric climate "forcing" due to combined changes in solar irradiance and emissions of greenhouse gases between 1880 and 1993. They found that the temperature variations predicted by their model accounted for up to 92% of the temperature changes actually observed over the period -- an excellent match for that period. Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases
This looks like some weekend undergraduate assignment by a couple students at some unheard of state college. And it's from 12 years ago. Take your foolish misinformation elsewhere.
Hey genius peoples have been burning wood and coal for centuries with no kind of limits on pollution or carbon emissions, and the world just keeps on turning.......
Lets remember the basics TREES BREATH THE CARBON WE EXHALE......
THINK ABOUT IT....NO CARBON FOR TREES TO BREATH, & THE TREES WILL SUFFOCATE.
WE BREATH OXYGEN, THAT THE TREES EXHALE......
THEN THE TREES BREATH IN THE CARBON THAT WE EXHALE....
THEN WE BREATH THE OXYGEN THAT THE TREES EXHALE....
THEN THE TREES BREATH THE CARBON THAT WE EXHALE....
duh!! basic common since to the rescue.
Plant more trees & make less parking lots. Simple as that.
But the earth gets hot & cold based on the suns energy output. ELEMENTARY.
Try to refrain from attempting to insult people on here. Especially when you're presenting idiotic misinformation. Oh, and until fossil fuels came into use by several billion people, we were not pumping hundreds of millions of years' worth of carbon into the atmosphere in a century. Have a nice day.
I apologize for coming across insulting.
Its just that I have done a lot of research on other topics that bumped into this topic of global warming, and the scientist who didn't have any agenda based on global warming, but another topic gave good cause and information for me to believe that Humans are not causing global warming, but the sun itself.
Its just my little ole opinion, nothing to worry about.
IF WE ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.......
Question?
Why are all 9 planets warming up?
Answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab5JlovA-I8&feature=PlayList&p=C7AADE39259E9B76&index=1
Besides I already knew about the Sunspot cycle from other research I do in my free time.
The website I gave you was just one of the first that randomly showed up on a basic web search titled: Global warming caused by sunspot cycle.
Try any basic search on the topic yourself and see.........
REMEMBER WHAT IS A FOLLY: CONDEMNATION BEFORE INVESTIGATION.
you know, like how the US process people in the middle east.
GLOBAL WARMING = SUN SPOT CYCLE
GLOBAL WARMING (DOESNT =) HUMANS
We are not the cause.
I'm surprised at how many naysayers there are here on this progressive site. I thought people with an advanced understanding of science and physics, particularly earth science and the physics of climate dynamics tended to fall into the progressive camp. Sadly, many comments here fail to realize the significant gains in efficiency and the overall global warming countering strategy that Chu's plan provides.
Not only that, some comments seem to be showing the same old tired conservative disdain for scientific advancement. You know who I'm talking about Thomas More, maxpayne.
I have a fairly good understanding of science and physics. I do civil engineering for a living. Please see my post thread on 11:05.
In a hot climate, of course a white roof are a good idea. But first, turn the thermostat way up, or use a small window unit only where cooling is needed, if it is to be used at all.
But this article claims that it will have a significant effect on counteracting global warming over the entire earth. Sorry, but this claim is preposterous.
This is a just another one of thise insignificant feel-good measures.
And maxpayne, HOV lanes only reduce congestion for those who carpool or take a bus -that's the whole idea. I prefer to live and work in the city and not use a car at all.
"I prefer to live and work in the city and not use a car at all."
Ditto.
Hold it there pal. I'm not against scientific advancement. I just think that it's unusual that government should go out of their way and interfere where they're not wanted. I won't say that progressives or conservatives are perfect and I'm beginning to wonder if one really needs the other. "Armybrat", herself a progressive conservative seems to have proved it so. If government wants to solve global warming, they might try considering single payer healthcare, holding regular mail (not to be confused with email) spammers accountable for flooding people's mailbox with advertising bullshit which in effect means wasting too much paper, giving tax breaks and refunds to fuel efficient autos instead of gas guzzlers, expedite the development of light rails all over the country, and that. Mr. Chu might want to consider that if he cared about reducing global warming.
Painting something white doesn't appear to change squat. It's like saying that HOV lanes on the highway reduce traffic congestion and curb global warming which my wife and I see no evidence of. Not all progressives studied all sciences but if that's a requirement for being a progressive, I should have known. The only science I got stuck with was computer science. There are plenty of ways to reduce global warming and no one method is the best solution. Besides, my wife and I love our two cars, one that's black and the other that's midnight blue and no government has the right to tell us what to paint our cars. Oh, and my wife and I love to dress in jet black and navy blue, something I'm afraid the government would go against if they got successful with mandating painting white. If government wants to give a bigger tax break to those who paint white over those of us who choose dark, fine but no mandates.
"Oh, and my wife and I love to dress in jet black and navy blue"
You're psycho. I'd melt. I prefer gray t-shirts and blue jeans, but I do wear dark clothes too...not too many fashion choices in my size.
I wasn't referring to tshirts and jeans. I was referring to my work clothes. We're usually dressed up all day for work since each of our careers is strict in what we can wear to work and that includes Fridays. We're perfectly fine with it and don't mind. On the pants side I usually keep it dark but on the top, sometimes light sometimes dark. Ditto for my wife except on days she wears nylons for an odd reason she prefers to keep it dark from the knees on up except for the blouse. But I guess women can be so into fashion variety unlike most of us guys, hehe. Weekends are the only times I or my wife would consider wearing jeans and even then sometimes we still prefer cotton pants and in her case skirts as well.
A tshirt and jeans are my work clothes, I love my job :-)
That's way off. I thought jet black and deep navy blue would be better. Besides loving to wear those colors, those two absorb more heat which could in turn generate geothermal energy everywhere. Plus, wouldn't more heat making drilling for oil and natural gas cheaper and possibly minimize the environmental damage?
Telling us to paint our cars, roads, buildings, etc ... white gives me a bad feeling that he'll ask us to wear white color clothing. I love dressing in black and blue and government has no business telling us what colors to paint or dress ourselves as.
There are methods of harnessing the extreme heat in attics to use for other purposes. I saw a house that placed a standard hot water heater in the attic. The water was usually so hot from just the attic temperatures that the power never had to kick on to heat it. He placed it over the roof of the garage and had some extra protection in place to capture any water in the event that the tank leaked.
"those two absorb more heat which could in turn generate geothermal energy everywhere."
Yes, that could work if buildings set up thermal energy and water heating systems...but if not, reflecting as much heat as possible would lower building cooling costs.
And what are you talking about with the drilling?
I assumed that heat would make it easier to put pressure on getting the oil drilled out. Geology is not my forte so I could be way off. I still find the idea of painting everything white hard to fathom.
Just visualize those Progressive Insurance commercials, but without the red lipstick...
Has Limbaugh said something stupid about this yet? The Republicanderthals haven't had a new or useful idea in about a century, but you can bet they'll poke fun at this one without giving even half a thought to its merits.
I'm on Rush Limbaugh duty at work today...I'll let you know, but he's still mostly on his Sotomayor kick so far.
Edit: Yep, he just mentioned it, will be elaborating on it later...I can hardly wait.
Listening to Rush? What are you? Masochistic? Or do you just find it funny. . .
We listen to Rush so you don't have to...
http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/
Who said there are no heroes?
Joe
This is certainly not a new suggestion (My 3rd grade science fair project in 1986 examined the effects of different roof colors on house temperatures.), but I'm glad it is being revisited at such a high level.
As someone already pointed out, in cold climates, a black roof might actually be preferable, as it will absorb needed heat during the winter. In the deep south where I live, a black roof can lead to an enormous power bill in the summer. We have months were the temperature is between 90 and 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Attic temperatures can be 150 degrees or more.
The problem for many people is that they live in subdivisions that have covenants which prevent them from having anything other than a black roof. There are subdivisions that don't allow white roofs, solar panels, clothes lines . . . all for aesthetics. Many people don't like the look of white roofs, but you can't argue with basic physics.
Someone also mentioned relying on trees to shade your roof, rather than paint it white. Well, it is good to plant shade trees, but for all the new building developments I see around here, the land is completely clear cut before building. It takes a number of years for trees to get to a size that they will provide adequate amounts of shade. By all means, do plant them, but why not do both?
I would suggest that if you already have a black roof and it is new and in good condition, it might be wise to keep it. The effects of throwing out all the good shingles and installing new ones would be expensive and wasteful of the resources already in place. When you need to replace the roof, then choose lighter roofing materials.
First, a few points.
Somehow, before the 1960s, civilization somehow thrived just fine - even in Georgia or whereever you might live, without air conditioning - black roofs or white. So is air conditioning that necessary for human survival?
As far as housing tracts without trees, no one should be living in such places. There are planty of places to live in older parts of town that do have shade trees.
Some neighborhoods where I live are 60% vacant lots - many with trees.
Compared to other things you should be doing, this white roof stuff is petty insignificant. Try moving where you can reduce or even eliminate car use for starters.
In the 60's architects in love with "modernism" started designing office buildings with windows that can't open. Later some apartment buildings followed suit. It's an awful idea since most of the year is moderate enough to get fresh air from open windows.
Joe
But since air conditioning became widespread, many buildings were built with it in mind, rather than with natural cooling in mind.
I think it still goes further than that. I live in a city where most buildings and houses are pre-1960's, but AC is uesd heavily in all of them. Many homes and businesses are heated to 72F in winter, but cooled to 65F in summer. Houses still have openable windows, but where I live many neighbors never open them. The AC runs full time from April through September. The average July-August high temperature wher I live is about 83F, the low, about 62F. Rare days - one or two a year, may jsut raach 90F. No one needs AC in such a climate.
I have come to the conclusion that air conditioning is form of addiction - it seems to lead to a unhealthy psychological intolerance of even the mildest feelings of warmth and perspiration - requiring even more AC - in a vicious circle. I think it odd that someone hasn't studied this effect.
A little sweat of course is healthy.
Following automobile use (itself terribly addicting), curtailing AC use is the single personal choice that can do to help address the potential climate catstrophe. Painting the roof white isn't going to cut it.
Why not just put white tarps over the roofs in warm climates and during warmer seasons? Still get the dark rooftop for the winter, and lessen heat absorption during the summer. And way cheaper and simpler than repainting or reshingling roofs.
I was thinking about that too. But what about putting extra insulation on / in the roof with white paint over it? Then you are done for summer and winter. All the effort and chemicals involved in painting a roof twice a year seems wasteful.
How does this compare with the idea of green plants on the roof to provide oxygen and natural cooling, and maybe some food? Are green roofs still so popular in Europe?
Joe
Whitewash (calcium) and blackwash (carbon) are probably cheapest. These are used on barns. Purest white for hottest summer, purest black for coldest winter, and everything in between. Just mix the pigments. Paint twice a year.
I've thought about this idea too. It does seem like a good solution, but there may be some resulting problem I haven't thought about. In theory, it makes sense.
Securing the tarp and keeping it from flapping in the wind or breaking loose in a storm.
Integrating it with the downspouts so they still work.
It would trap moisture against the roof - leading to expensive mold and rot.
Securing it would be easy, many homes drill hooks in the side of the roof to string up Christmas lights, right? Shouldn't be hard to do it with hooks strong enough to hold down a tarp. And I'm sure there is a material (maybe canvas?) that would reflect the light and also allow for evaporation of any moisture beneath it.
As usual, foolish statements uttered without thinking the issue through. Very discouraging.
I wonder how he thought he was going to persuade everyone to paint roofs white? A law? Not likely. You cannot dictate this type of thing.
Its this type of declaration that is costing support for important items like single payer....that have already killed it.
I don't think anyone in this administration knows what "leadership" is. You can't just pass laws to suit yourself, they are soon removed. You need the support of the majority.
"You cannot dictate this type of thing"
Yes, you can. The German government annually inspects residential heating systems, and if one fails the inspection, the government fixes it and bills the owner.
Ban drunken driving? Yes.
Ban energy gluttony? Yes.
Ban irresponsibility? Yes.
There is no rational argument for irresponsibility.
Like the majority that favors keeping marijuana illegal?
Exactly elainem. We are in this situation because of the cumulative effect of unintended consequences. No one decided to have global warming -- it (and most of our big problems) is the result of a long term trend of short term thinking.
I already have white roofing material on my house for that very reason. We had a choice between white or black and that was a no-brainer.
But if we go around painting everything white I wonder if there might be a nasty side effect to that. I mean, blacktop is black because it's made primarily with tar. There's no such thing as white tar as far as I know. Any paint that would stick to it would have to have some serious chemicals.
Unintended consequences and all that.
A no-brainer for you and I, however in 2006 surveys showed only 10-15% of the US consumers considered energy consumption effects of roof color, orientation of house, auto color and fuel mileage, etc. when making a purchase. I have lived all over the US and the hot southwest deserts are the only area that many car owners where concerned about light colors. I remember a melting a credit card in the glove box of a dark colored car on a summer day in Yuma.
While I don't believe anything should be repainted, reconsidering color when replacing roofing, vehicles, etc. will end up saving a lot of energy. Keep in mind that low slope commercial roofs have a liufespan of 10 to 20 years, so there is a lot of replacement taking place each year. Unshaded residential roofs tend to have shorter lifespans than lighter colors because the added heat build up in the attic wears the roofing out faster. More frequent roof replacements equal more energy usage.
Kudos to Chu for shining light on this issue.
"Kudos to Chu for shining light on this issue"
Kudos to elites? The people don't need elites.
Many of us live in climates where heating in winter is much bigger source of carbon emissions than cooling in summer. So I'd prefer a dark roof. Being fairly well-insulated and the heat kept low, snow stays on the roof for the coldest periods, but on banance, I am still ahead with a dark roof. When the trees leaf out, they shade the roof in summer.
I don't even use my house's central AC except for the 3 or 4 hottest/humidest days of the year. AC is far, far over-used. But we live in an era where even suggesting, much less mandating (as Carter did) reasonable thermostat settings is out of the question.
However, I find it hard to believe that painting roofs and even suburban parking lots and roads white could be effective. The percentage of the earth's surface covered by urban areas - especially the US-style areas with large area parking lots and big-box buildings is very small.
Sound's like one more instead-of-action gimmick. The paint and roofing materials industry will love it.
"we live in an era where even suggesting, much less mandating (as Carter did) reasonable thermostat settings is out of the question"
There is in fact a silent war on, the elites' war on people, one key elite campaign being to stifle conservation, and promote consumption gluttony in the USA, in energy and materials, to maintain the empire's economic/political power/influence over the planet. Kind of like Count Dracula's power/influence over Van Helsing and the gang.
"The percentage of the earth's surface covered by urban areas - especially the US-style areas with large area parking lots and big-box buildings is very small."
I remember reading in the 1960's that there was an area paved in the United States the size of Indiana. (Of course, anytime that was said, people would ask in disbelief "WHERE in the United States?")
The area must be quite a bit larger fifty years later. So it is not an insignificant area.
Earths surface area = 510,072,000 Km^2
Updated paved area in US - equal to USAn State of Georgia = area 95,700km^2
Pro-rate per-capita for global population (probably way conservative)
95,700 * (6000/300) = 1,914,000 km^2
Reduce by at least 50% to account for vastly greater per-capita car ownership and paved area in US -still very conservative = 957,000 km^2
Conservative percent earth that is paved = 957/510,072 = 0.19 percent - probably more like 0.10 percent.
Therefore, compared to other land-use factors - forestry, ploughing of farmland, melting of arctic ice, clouds in atmosphere, the effect of pavement areas on the earth's albedo is not significant.
A look at the google maps imagery (false color infrared) - zoomed out so all of N. American continent shows cities are not visible at all.
The paint roofs and pavements white (and buying white cars (!!!)) is a gimmick.
People, it is not going to be that easy!
I don't know about roads...the light reflecting up would hurt the vision of drivers, wouldn't it?
In areas where they do not use salt, there are many white concrete roads and it does not seem to be a problem.
Plenty of concrete roadways in areas that use salt too.
Hmm. Even just walking or biking on concrete sidewalks, when it is very bright out the reflection often blinds me...my graduation present of prescription sunglasses were a godsend, I assure you. Maybe it's different viewing it from a tinted windshield, I don't drive.
I think this is a very cool idea. I can think of a lot of very hot surfaces that could be made much cooler by replacing the heat-trapping black tar, and other dark colors. Make the freeways a pretty blue and we can pretend we're stalled in traffic on a cool river or lake because we wouldn't have all that heat radiating up from the pavement to make the experience even harder to bear.