Thursday, October 29, 2009

Metal roofs can reflect more heat

I have just finished reading your editorial titled "HARC mission cannot exclude conservation." The editorial outlines HARC's dilemma in dealing with modern materials and methods of energy conservation and the integration into our historic context.

Although I agree with your conceptual direction of the writing, there are several major misconceptions and misleading points regarding metal tin roofs. You state white roofs perform better than tin roofs. You quote up to double-digit percentage improvements, and then you conclude "tin roofs = global warming." These are very misleading and incorrect statements.

Silver tin roofs actually perform better than white roofs. Coupled with the same insulation properties of a white roof, the metal tin roof could have a double-digit energy improvement. Metal tin roofs are much better in reflecting solar radiation and reducing heat gain, which then could be argued that this actually reduces global warming.

If you have any doubts, go outside with a white dinner plate and a silver cooking pan covered with tin foil. Hold both at your chest and reflect the sun into your face. Get the point? Which one reflects the heat better?

I sympathize with HARC's dilemma of constantly wrestling with the difficulty of integrating the old with the new. Metal roofs are a major element of the historic image of Key West. White roofs are a major historic image of Bermuda, and personally they just don't belong here.

Peter Pike

Key West

'Sheep-stealing' may be a blessing in disguise

A spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church has invited Episcopalians who are unhappy with the election in their church of a gay bishop to come over to Rome.

I can only imagine how Episcopalians might react to this. The knee-jerk response of some, anyway, might be that it's a blatant betrayal of one church by another. The Episcopal Church is suffering, bleeding and at the point of major schism over its continuing efforts to be more inclusive of gays. The end result for that church could be disastrous. One could view the Roman announcement as a transparent move by one church to engage in sheep-stealing from another at a time when that other church is weak and vulnerable over an issue of conscience.

But that might be too hasty a reaction. Consider that some other denominations have also been engaged in recent years in painful and very costly attempts to be more inclusive of gays, especially in regard to the issue of admitting them to the ordained ministry. These "progressive" churches include, in addition to Episcopalians, the United Methodists, the United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). (Note: Forget fundamentalists. They just flat out condemn homosexuality.)

Which suggests a possible silver lining. If the Roman church could only be persuaded to invite gay-haters from all the "progressive" churches, then imagine what it would be like if their sheep-stealing efforts turned out to be spectacularly successful! The ranks of the progressive churches would indeed be diminished, and those who had left would surely be missed. But look at the brighter side. Maybe the progressives then could not only proceed to ordain gays, but also go on to address other substantive issues that the gay-haters could have been counted on to resist. Like giving serious thought to opposing war and militarism. Or extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth and opportunity. Other long-neglected matters demanding attention from people of faith come to mind.

The Rev. Bud Klippen

Big Pine Key

Hypocrisy lurks among single-payer opponents

The same people that are telling you single-payer [health insurance] is no good for the American people, are the same people who get and love their single-payer health care. Who are they? The Congress of the United States and Medicare recipients! You cannot be this stupid to believe the insurance companies.

Anthony Bartleson

Marathon