I'm not particularly invested in white roofs -- the subject of several stories yesterday, reporting research showing that painting roofs white in several major urban areas would have a surprisingly large effect on warming -- but Keith Johnson's response on Environmental Capital makes me grind my teeth:
The scale and cost of any program that would re-top all the roofs and paved surfaces in cities the size of Los Angeles, Mexico City, New Delhi, and Tokyo simultaneously makes Al Gore's plan to power America with 100% renewable energy in ten years seem cheap and doable by comparison.
This is what I call the Cost Tic. Do something big on climate or energy? But it costs a lot!
Our intuitive sense of cost is that it's basically optional. Is that bag of Doritos worth the cost? No? Well then I won't buy it.
The general public thinks lowering emissions is like a bag of Doritos. Do we want it? Well, golly, it's is noble and everything, but it's kind of expensive, and we'd rather keep the money in our pockets if that's all right with you.
But that's a distorted picture of the decisions before us. We're spending money all the time -- on transportation, goods, infrastructure -- all the stuff we're talking about changing based on climate concerns. As Brad Plumer points out, we're constantly renovating and building new buildings. Renovating and constructing all the buildings we'll need between now and 2035 is wildly expensive, if all you do is look at the dollar figure we'll spend. Which is just to say that it's a number with lots of digits. But of course it couldn't be any other way. We need buildings, and we'll get value back -- in comfort, in health, in economic opportunity. It's an investment which pays rich returns.
So too with white roofs. Yes, the money we'd spend would look big if considered as a lump sum. But every one of those buildings will save energy on cooling -- depending on climate and location, up to 30 percent -- and we will cumulatively save on the avoided destruction of unrestricted climate change. Those savings will accrue year after year, eventually exceeding the initial investment and becoming, over time, pure profit.
That's the nature of investments in efficiency. If you look at one end, it looks like big cost. If you take a longer view, it looks like a no-brainer. We've got to train ourselves to start thinking longer term again.
That's true for white roofs, for smarter electrical grids, for renewable tax credits, for public transit, for R&D -- and yes, for Al Gore's plan. Take the five or 10-year view it and it looks expensive. Take the 10 or 20-year view and it looks like a bargain. The value we'll get in return -- directly, in lower energy costs, but also in avoided warming, national security benefits, public health benefits -- will exceed the "cost" by orders of magnitude, given a payback period longer than the next business quarter.
There's nothing Very Serious about focusing reflexively on costs. It's just short-sighted. You gotta spend money to make money. You have to invest in your country if you want it to grow and flourish.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Comments
View as Flat
robertogreen Posted 9:58 am
12 Sep 2008
when i bought my prius, so many people had so many opinions about how little it mattered overall, how it was actually bad (that bit has been debunked) and so on. now, i was going to get a new car anyway, as my old one wasn't working. so rather than say how much my prius was as the measure, how much was it versus another car i might have bought. that's the real cost. if things are being done anyway, then one does them one of two ways: green or not green. the cost of green is in the difference between the two, not in the total cost of the green action.
it's pretty simple and most people don't get it.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 10:50 am
12 Sep 2008
With the exception of historical roofs of the two materials listed above and living green roofs every building in the US should be converted to thermally reflective roofing in the next 20 years.
This simply should not be optional but a matter of refusing occupancy permits to buildings that don't fit the standard. The energy savings would close several coal plants and save many billions of dollars in cooling costs.
I'm not sure why this isn't obvious to TPTB or their science aids.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 11:04 am
12 Sep 2008
just read about a corporate solar co in San Diego that will get 29 cents/kwh for all power it produces, plus the un-capped 30% federal tax credit, and RECs, which it can trade or sell, just for installing a 1 MW system (they are killing 8 acres of pristine hillside for it, isn't that "green" of them?). if you or i tried to install that same system, we would have our system size capped at below our usage, we would have our tax credit capped at $2,000 and we would give our power to SDG & E for FREE.
and people complain that rooftop solar is expensive? not for Big Solar. just for people like us, who are being played. THIS is the other big "cost" scam out there, aside from failure to life-cycle. all incentives go to Big Energy, not to regular folks trying to do the right thing. despicable, really.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 9:29 am
13 Sep 2008
Now solar panels are black. That is, they have the highest possible albedo and would create heat islands above buildings.
It would be nice to see a study showing how much heat is trapped by solar panels, and express that in CO2 added (then substract this from the CO2 saved by utilizing PV panels, so that we have a final balance).
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:44 am
13 Sep 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UITH_PnWtlQ
-David Ahlport
Permalink