- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The Tennessee representative Rusty Grills says the lobbyist proposed a simple idea: repeal the state’s requirement for reflective roofs on many commercial buildings.
In late March, Grills and his fellow lawmakers voted to eliminate the rule, scrapping a measure meant to save energy, lower temperatures and protect Tennesseans from extreme heat.
It was another win for a well-organized lobbying campaign led by manufacturers of dark roofing materials.
Industry representatives called the rollback in Tennessee a needed correction as more of the state moved into a hotter climate zone, expanding the reach of the state’s cool-roof rule. Critics called it dangerous and “deceptive”.
You must log in or register to comment.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason why corporate lobbying should be legal.
Lobbying is just a group of people representing the interest of that group to their representatives. A gay rights lobby group would also be lobbying the government if they advocate for better rights for LGBT people.
The issue isn’t so much the fact that lobbying is a thing, but rather the methods (read: bribery) that some lobby groups engage in.
corporate
It was at one point illegal.
Definitely can’t have anything to do with the fact that the only people who have the power to ban it are also the main beneficiaries (other than the clients of successful lobbyists). Nope!
Everybody needs a job. :p
The world would be a better place without jobs like lobbyist and SEO.
Would a roof manufacturer specifically only sell dark roofing materials? Why would they not also sell lighter / reflective materials? This seems like a fucking stupid way to run a business.
Especially since white elastomeric roofing is more expensive (the upsell) than basic black tar.
You know I just thought about this for a second longer. Maybe you could just get them to stop by convincing them that people are more likely to replace a lighter colored roof sooner because defects and wear are more visible
Lighter coloured roofs actually last longer
That’s great, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s easier to sell a roof to a person when you can point out all of its flaws from the ground.
It doesn’t matter what colour the roof is, you aren’t seeing a commercial flat roof from the ground.
You’re right, and I didn’t notice the first time I skimmed the article that this is only mainly affecting commercial roofing, so thanks for the perspective!
I work in the chemical industry and the answer is black platics and coatings can be made way cheaper than light ones because they don’t have to be as pure and can be made from lower quality feedstocks and such. Light or clear plastics must be of a higher purity because impurities will usually show up as colored specks that look ugly. For an application like this, impurities aren’t a big deal and won’t really be hazardous, so it’s a win win since it’s cheaper for everyone. It would be a waste to make dark coatings from the same base as light coatings in an application like this because you’d need to remove colored impurities only to just add in a dark pigment anyway. If you don’t offer the lighter colored coatings or white coatings, you can manufacture your dark coatings cheaper by not having production lines with the extra purification and cleaning steps that would be required to offer those. That’s why they only sell dark materials.
Maybe they’re also selling HVAC systems lmfao
Follow the money
This wouldn’t surprise me
Actually, you’re not off track. The same oil companies that provide this tar also provide fuel for power plants. Hot buildings means more need for HVAC which means more power consumption. It’s a double win for them (and a double lose for the planet and the consumer).
The black stuff is tar, so based on crude oil. This is just oil lobbying by another name.
The answer is always money
Make them dark with solar panels
In regions where heating load (20⁰F up to 70⁰F = 50) is usually substantially more than cooling load (95 down to 70 = 25), does that negate the argument?
