The Other Side Of The Environmental Coin

By Scott Kriner, Green Metal Consulting

There are plenty of conferences on Global Warming, Climate Change, Energy Policy, the Environment, Solar, Wind, etc. So when a notice for yet another conference like this comes across my desk or shows up in my email Inbox, it takes a special flair to get my attention. One such event was the Third International Conference on Climate Change. I know what you’re thinking. Who wants to be spoon fed more climate change information from Al Gore’s henchmen. But the description of this conference was different. This was the other side of the coin in the scientific debate on Climate Change. Yes, I said debate. Despite Al Gore saying that the scientific debate is over, science never stops. In fact, I don’t remember even hearing the debate taking place.

The one-day conference was held in Washington D.C. and attracted an audience of well over 200 scientists, engineers, policy makers, politicians, and interested citizens. The speaker panel was an impressive collection of professors from MIT, University of Virginia, University of Alabama, James Cook University, scientists from NASA and NOAA, geologists, Congressmen and Senators, and dignitaries from Europe. The conference was hosted by the Heartland Institute and co-sponsored by 46 international organizations. The debate was not whether or not global climate change was a reality - but rather whether the change is caused by man’s activity.

The purpose of the event was to discuss science and economics about this controversial subject. It boiled down to some key questions for the day:

1. Does new research indicate that the human effect on climate is less than previously thought?
2. Has there been no warming for the past decade, and does this undermine our confidence in computer climate models?
3. What would it cost - in terms of higher prices for goods and slower economic growth- to reduce CO2 emissions?
4. Would reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the US have any effect of global temperatures?

In a nutshell, the main themes of the conference could be summed up as:

• Natural forces – not mankind- are causing climate change
• CO2 is not a pollutant
• The debate taking place in our society today is political and not based on science

My interest in attending was based on the fact that the assumption of increases in anthropogenic (human-induced) greenhouse gas concentrations is at the center of many of the current activities in regulations and legislation related to how we construct and operate buildings. If we all believe that mankind is responsible for and can influence global climate change, then stringent energy codes and standards, green building initiatives, and environmental impact assessments are in order. However, if we believe that nature, not human activity, rules the climate, then I believe we would be better served concentrating on how to adapt to the impending changes in our climate.

The Heartland Institute states that over 30,000 scientists have signed their petition project, with 9,000 of those scientists holding a PhD degree. The petition’s wording is:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

A new comprehensive report on the counter-argument to anthropogenic climate change was released at the conference. Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was written by Dr. Craig Idso and Dr. S. Fred Singer. It is a critique of the work of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Heartland Institute considers the new publication as a new chapter in the scientific debate that is not over yet. The book is the result of work done by international climate scientists who first met in Milan in 2003, and then again in Vienna in 2007 before releasing their comprehensive report.

The science that both sides can agree on includes the fact that the Earth’s temperature has warmed slightly in the late 20th Century. But the speakers at the conference quickly noted that the amount and rate of the rise is not unusual. They claim that we have seen this before. Another point made is that the IPCC report bases their claims on the 21 climate models that they developed, and yet none of those models forecasted the fact that since 2001 the Earth’s temperature has not increased despite rising levels of CO2. The Heartland Institute and the scientists who spoke in Washington strongly believe that that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas but is also a powerful plant fertilizer – and it should not be considered a pollutant. So we have a chicken and egg debate: Are higher atmospheric CO2 levels the cause of increased global temperatures OR do natural cyclic increases in global temperatures cause an increase in atmospheric CO2?

And believe it or not, in the midst of all the discussion on science and economics at the conference, we even had time to discuss cool roofing. Yes, during a Q&A session following a speech by Dr. Roy Spencer, Director of Climate Research at University of Alabana in Huntsville, a question was raised about the comment that the US Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently made about the impact of painting all roofs white to mitigate global climate change. Spencer’s answer was very interesting. He stated that he had reviewed the original paper from LBNL that Chu referred to, authored by Dr. Hashem Akbari, and he agreed in general with the calculations that were made. But Spencer did question some of the assumptions used for the model. For example, he wondered if the urban areas of the planet truly cover 1% of the Earth’s surface as Akbari assumes, and he questioned the cost/benefit analysis of painting 60% of all urban roofs with a reflective paint. However, Spencer highlighted that if a group is even postulating that climate can be changed by something as trivial as painting roof surfaces, that is an admission that the climate is indeed sensitive to changes - many changes. That opens the door for another argument or debate on what other issues can affect climate and what issues really can’t. Much of the discussion at the conference centered on the impact of fluctuations in cloud cover over centuries, and solar affects, which can affect the Earth’s climate but were not considered in any of the 21 climate models developed by the IPCC.

The question about cool or white roofs was based on Dr. Chu’s comments he made while addressing a conference in Europe in May. Chu told the London Times that the world’s carbon emissions could be significantly lowered by making paved surfaces and roofs lighter in color. When asked if governments should promote white paint as the global warming ‘solution’ he answered, “Yes, absolutely… White roofs everywhere, yes.”

The metal roofing industry has heard this proclamation before, and has questioned the cost/benefit of what LBNL proposes. More importantly, the metal roofing industry is uncomfortable with the notion of governments telling building owners what color their roofs must be, thereby taking away their choice in color and aesthetics which we know are important especially in the residential sector. But if governments can mandate the type of lightbulbs we use in buildings, can a mandate on roofing color or type be far behind?

The Waxman-Markey bill on Clean Energy and Security, currently being debated in Congress, addresses many energy and environmental issues that could result in significant added costs to our energy needs. The heart of that legislation is the framework for a Cap and Trade system that would impose higher costs to certain utilities, which presumably would be passed along to their customers. A cool metal roof will not be enough of a remedy to deal with projected added electricity and utility costs from the Markey Waxman bill.

Regardless of whether you install a cool roof to reduce cooling energy of a building or to help to reduce climate change, it is the right thing to do for a number of reasons. Saving energy is in the best interest of our national security if we can reduce our dependence on oil from unsecure and hostile nations. It helps building owners to save money on utility bills, many of which are rising as caps are being lifted. It improves the comfort of the occupants of the building. A cool roof can work in synergy with insulation to improve the thermal performance of the entire system. Metal roofing is an excellent platform for solar technologies, since the longevity of the roof material matches up nicely with that of the solar equipment being installed. The inert and smooth surface of a metal roof also provides an excellent surface from which to capture rainwater in systems that improve a building’s water efficiency. And most importantly, a metal roof is an investment in the value of a home or building by maintaining its integrity and performance over decades.

So no matter which side of the coin you are on, in the global climate change debate, you can always make a strong argument for installing a cool metal roof.

Scott Kriner is the president and founder of Green Metal Consulting Inc. He is a LEED Accredited Professional who began his career in the metal construction industry in 1981. His company is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council, the California Association of Building Energy Consultants and the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). Scott can be reached by email at skriner1@verizon.net, or by phone at (610) 966-2430. You can also visit him on the web at www.greenmetalconsulting.com. 

For more columns by Scott and a host of other contributors, click here.