Paint Your Roof White and Stop Global Warming

The idea is to paint the roofs of building white to reflect sunlight:

Making roofs white “changes the reflectivity . . . of the Earth, so the sunlight comes in, it’s reflected back into space,” [Energy Secretary Steven] Chu said. “This is something very simple that we can do immediately,” he said later.

The article continues:

White roofs work because of the physics of sunlight. Dark roofs absorb and hold more than 80 percent of solar energy, while white ones can reflect 75 percent of it away. That makes a white-roofed building cooler and cheaper to air-condition.

In his talk, Chu cited new research from his former laboratory, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, which imagined the result of painting about 63 percent of the roofs white in 100 large cities in tropical and temperate areas worldwide.

It estimated that would provide about the same climate benefits as taking all the world’s cars off the road for 10 years.

Now would you be able to do that? Probably not. But it wouldn’t be a bad idea going forward to have roof’s of flat buildings be a reflective. In fact California has had this in effect since 2005. DC will follow suit next year but will also allow buildings' roofs to be covered in vegetation.

The article quoted the usual skeptics that said you would never be able to change enough roofs to make that much of a difference as described above.

But they are missing the point. There’s won’t be one silver bullet to solve the problem of global warming. It will be many many little things that make an impact. This is just one more way to make that impact. And after all, if the buildings are going to be built anyway, why not make the effort to have the roofs reflect as much sunlight as possible back into the sky.

Talking About Energy

There was a great article in the Post on Sunday about energy and how the U.S. could become energy independent. It talked about how Brazil has achieved energy independence and how Iran is on the path to it.

I think this is a very important point:

Energy independence does not mean that the United States must be entirely self-sufficient. It simply means reducing the role of oil in world politics -- turning it from a strategic commodity into merely another thing to sell.

And that's what oil has become a strategic commodity. Imagine what would happen if a regime in the Middle East decided to use oil as a weapon as was done in the 1970s. Gas prices would go through the roof and the economy would be in free fall. I don't understand why this is not being put forward as a reason for becoming energy independent. Our addiction to oil is a major threat to our national security. It's high time that that is recognized.

The article goes on to detail how Brazil invested in ethanol derived from the huge amounts of sugar cane the country has. It details how for an extra $100 or so the vehicle can be made to run on gasoline, ethanol or a combination of both. Pretty cool. And oh yes who makes those vehicles why that would be GM and Ford. Then there is the potential of methanol or wood alcohol. It's being used in China.

There are many choices but it seems there are protectionist tariffs on Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol. Methanol isn't in the mix because flex cars only run on ethanol. So we are limiting are choices even before we get started.

One of the best points of the whole article is this:

The hard truth is that real energy independence can be achieved only through fuel choice and competition. That competition cannot take place as long as we continue to put 16 million new cars that run only on petroleum on our roads every year, each with an average street life of 16.8 years -- thereby locking ourselves into decades more of petroleum dependence.

What we need is some political leadership beyond let's drill everywhere or let's wait until some magic new technology if developed. We've go the technology right now. Let's start using it.

Gas prices and energy

It seems, at least for now, the feeling is that gas prices have peaked until July and August which is when there is most demand for gas.

There are the usual cries from Democrats to investigate the oil companies to see if there is price gouging. There will be the usual investigation with the usual result. The odd thing about this is do we really want gas to be cheap. Isn't the idea to reduce our consumption of gas to help in global warming. So in fact, high gas prices should be a good thing if it makes Americans re-think their driving habits. Makes them consider taking public transportation or deciding to buy a hybrid or a more fuel efficient car.

So the question is what to do to make Americans buy more fuel efficient cars.

What to do

I've been thinking on and off about this for a long time. What steps can be taking to make America energy independent. Make America independent in a reasonable time frame not the 20 or so years that most politicians talk about.

So let’s start with some assumptions:

1. That we are indeed in a war with the Islamic terrorists. That they do indeed want to destroy us.

2. Our dependence on oil helps to fund these terrorists and the states that support them. Would Iran be doing what it is doing today in the world without its oil revenue? The answer is pretty simple. No.

3. Oil and the revenue from oil are going to be used as weapons against us. Imagine if Iran decides it’s not going to sell any more oil. Or Saudi Arabia is taking over by extremists. How long do you think oil would be flowing to the US?

4. So becoming energy independent is in reality a national security issue.

Why hasn’t a politician pitched the move to energy independence that way. Military officials have raised the issue of energy dependence being a question of national security. Perhaps because to really go after this problem and solve it in a reasonable time frame would call for some sort of sacrifice on the part of the American people. And that seems something politicians are extremely reluctant to call for. After all America is at “war” in Iraq yet the only people that this has consequences for are the members of the military and their families. The Iraq war is certainly not having an impact on the average American’s life.

Then there is the question of where to start. It is a huge problem becoming energy independent. I think the way is by small steps across the board.

Here are a few of my ideas:

Give a $15,000 tax credit for buying a hybrid car. The person would get $3,000 a year for 5 years.

Give a $10,000 tax credit for HEV (high efficiency vehicle). The person would get $2,000 a year for 5 years. Now what exactly is an HEV? An HEV would be a car that had a high EPA mileage rating. The EPA is now recalculating the mileage standards to better reflect how people drive today. Having said that I’d say an HEV would need to get somewhere between 35-40 miles per gallon to qualify for the tax credit.

These tax credits would apply to new or used cars that meet the criteria.

Ok so there are tax credits for hybrids. There are actually tax credits now for hybrids. There not nearly as much as my proposal. More importantly just about no one knows about them.

So the word needs to get out about this. The government should go out to Hollywood and ask Mr. Lucas and Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Coppola and Mr. Scorsese etc to direct commercials about the hybrid and HEV tax incentives. At the same time ask Mr. Pitt and Mr. Damon and Mr. Clooney and Ms Roberts and Ms Sarandon etc to appear in the commercials. Once they are done the government goes to the commercial networks and says the eight hours the Academy Awards are on there will be one of these commercials on every hour. And one every hour that the Super Bowl is on. In fact every hour during prime time there will be one of these commercials on each of the broadcast networks. If they have problems with say we are at war and if you don’t like it then will pull your licenses. The media blitz would not just be on TV. It would be on radio. There would be attempts to put it on the cable stations. There’d be billboards and adds on buses and trains and subways. Those annoying ads you have to sit through when you go to movies they’d be there too. It would be a campaign that everyone would know about.

The federal government would make a commitment to increase the number of hybrids and HEV that it leases. The goal would be over five years to have 50% of the leased vehicles be hybrids or HEVs. This could apply to state and local governments as well. You could also encourage such actions as making all taxis hybrids as is being done in New York City. The goal in New York City is to have all cabs be hybrids by 2012. This would easily be duplicated in cities across the country. The hybrid technology is perfect for taxi cabs as stated in one story:

Automakers said hybrids are uniquely well-suited to be taxis. Many of them, like the Ford Escape, run solely on battery power while stopped or at low speeds, so they don’t cough exhaust while navigating through city traffic. At higher speeds, the gas-powered drive system kicks in and the two work together.

Then there is what I call the gas guzzler tax. There would be a minimum mileage threshold. I would put it at 20 miles per gallon. Any vehicle that did not reach that threshold would have a tax of $1,000 added to the price for each mile per gallon it was below the threshold. Take a Hummer which gets 11 miles to the gallon. It falls 9 miles per gallon below the threshold. The sticker price would go up $9,000. The money would go into the social security fund or better yet the Veteran’s Administration. Now for small businesses buying trucks there would be an exemption.

The final aspect of the plan is regarding the price of gas itself. No serious change in American driving habits is going to happen unless the price of gas is address. The problem is that it is too low. Fuel efficient cars will never catch on unless gas costs more. I’m not for putting a 50 cent tax on each gallon of gas. I think a better way to do this is to set a floor for the price of gas and to raise that floor over time. Let’s say the floor is set at $2.00 a gallon. The price of gas would never go below that level. If for some reason it did, a tax would kick in that would raise the price to $2. Any money made from this tax would go to either social security or the VA. Each year the floor would be raised by 10 cents. I’m not sure how practical this would be but there has to be some sort of stick to force people to use more efficient cars.

This again would be just a first step. There are many other areas to explore. But it seems to me what politicians are proposing today just aren't enough to really do much to solve the problem. I think I've come up with a pretty good first step.

Gas prices

Gas prices reach a record high. There are now higher than they were after Hurricane Katrina.

On the same day the Bush administration announced a plan for reducing gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years. This is in response to the recent Supreme Court decision that EPA does have the power to action to reduce pollution.

Bush signed an executive order directing federal agencies to craft regulations that will “cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.” He ordered the agencies _ the departments of Transportation, Agriculture and Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency _ to have the rules in place by the end of 2008.

Wow a whole 20% in 10 years. Now that might be a little hasty after all. Maybe we should only make it 10% or even that might be too much of a burden. Maybe we should let the “market” solve this problem. What a joke. What a spineless worthless plan.

Let’s review a few facts here. This administration has said over and over again that we are in a global war against terrorism. After 9/11, irregardless of what is now happening in Iraq, I think we can all agree that that is what is happening. The debacle in Iraq is only making the situation worse. How are the terrorists able to operate the way they do? Because countries and individuals are supporting them with money. Where does that money come from? From oil. How is Iran able to fund Hammas, develop a nuclear program, and help insurgents in Iraq? Oil.

You want to really wage a war against terrorism then the first thing on the agenda would be to cut off their source of revenue. And that chief source comes from oil.

So becoming energy independent is not about less pollution or global warming or the environment in general it’s about national security. And reducing our consumption of gas by 20% over 10 years is pathetic. But then again the notion that we are at war is just that a notion.

A good long hard look has to be taken at our addiction to oil especailly foreign oil. Our lives may very well depend on it.

Same old story

Gas prices go up. Record levels reached. The news leads with the story.

There is the inevitable interview of someone at the pump filling up their tank bitching about the price. Ever notice how many times the vehicle being filled up is an SUV.

I think the question that should be asked to the person bitching is: “you realize of course the fact that you have a fuel inefficient vehicle is adding to the cost of gasoline.” If you’ve bought an SUV you shouldn’t be allowed to bitch about the price of gas.

No one held a gun to these people’s heads when they were in the car showroom and said you will buy the gas guzzler or else. The EPA ratings are printed in huge type on the car sticker. There’s no way you could not notice them unless you were blind.

I think, instead of asking them how they feel about the high price of gas, they should get a swift kick in the ass for contributing to the problem.

And we also sound like whinny brats because gas is much more expensive in Europe or Japan or New Zealand or . . .