▲ 363 ▼ DeSantis Rejected $350 Million in Climate Funding Before Hurricane Idalia | Now his state is suffering from a storm fueled by climate change. (newrepublic.com) submitted 3 years ago by silence7@slrpnk.net [M] to c/climate@slrpnk.net 33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (2 children) I'm curious, what could Florida do to reduce ocean temperatures with this money? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Kage520@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I just saw a video that showed it's possible the pollution that cargo ships were emitting were actually seeding enough clouds to somewhat limit the sunlight that hit and warmed the ocean. This effect stopped recently when they were ordered to stop emitting so much of that pollution. If it's true they were actually helping accidentally, we could spray ocean water and the salt could actually seed clouds in the same way. If it works, it would be like a bandaid on climate change to keep the ocean temps a few degrees cooler for awhile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago That's an interesting idea, but not something I would expect Florida to have much say in. permalink fedilink source parent [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 3 years ago* (3 children) They can limit their own greenhouse gas emissions, by doing things like subsidizing the conversion of homes which currently use fossil fuels for heating, hot water heating, and cooking to not do so, as well as subsidize solar panels on home roofs. This won't lower temperatures from where they are now, but it does reduce the future increase. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 3 years ago Also, it let's people know the issue is serious. If places like Florida that are suffering the effects of climate change already don't take it seriously, when it's to their benefit now, why should other places do anything when it doesn't affect them yet. Of course they should, and it will. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) In all honesty, it sounds nice and I am not against the idea, but I really have a hard time seeing it having any measurable effect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 2 points 3 years ago Each tiny drop on its own raises the water level an imperceptible amout. Together they fill a lake permalink fedilink source parent [–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) If they would extract heat from the air or even the water, it would actually help. Not by leaps and bounds but it would at least be carbon negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Not to any meaningful degree: the heating from CO2 emitted when your burn coal for energy is about 100000x more than the heat produced from the burning. That's why the big action which needs to happen is to stop burning fossil fuels. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I was thinking about heat pumps. 300% efficiency They are electric and could be carbon negative depending on the source of electricity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 1 point 3 years ago Unless it's BECCS, the best they're going to be is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's better than burning stuff, but not actually removing CO2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I just saw a video that showed it's possible the pollution that cargo ships were emitting were actually seeding enough clouds to somewhat limit the sunlight that hit and warmed the ocean. This effect stopped recently when they were ordered to stop emitting so much of that pollution. If it's true they were actually helping accidentally, we could spray ocean water and the salt could actually seed clouds in the same way. If it works, it would be like a bandaid on climate change to keep the ocean temps a few degrees cooler for awhile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago That's an interesting idea, but not something I would expect Florida to have much say in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago That's an interesting idea, but not something I would expect Florida to have much say in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 3 years ago* (3 children) They can limit their own greenhouse gas emissions, by doing things like subsidizing the conversion of homes which currently use fossil fuels for heating, hot water heating, and cooking to not do so, as well as subsidize solar panels on home roofs. This won't lower temperatures from where they are now, but it does reduce the future increase. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 3 years ago Also, it let's people know the issue is serious. If places like Florida that are suffering the effects of climate change already don't take it seriously, when it's to their benefit now, why should other places do anything when it doesn't affect them yet. Of course they should, and it will. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) In all honesty, it sounds nice and I am not against the idea, but I really have a hard time seeing it having any measurable effect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 2 points 3 years ago Each tiny drop on its own raises the water level an imperceptible amout. Together they fill a lake permalink fedilink source parent [–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) If they would extract heat from the air or even the water, it would actually help. Not by leaps and bounds but it would at least be carbon negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Not to any meaningful degree: the heating from CO2 emitted when your burn coal for energy is about 100000x more than the heat produced from the burning. That's why the big action which needs to happen is to stop burning fossil fuels. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I was thinking about heat pumps. 300% efficiency They are electric and could be carbon negative depending on the source of electricity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 1 point 3 years ago Unless it's BECCS, the best they're going to be is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's better than burning stuff, but not actually removing CO2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 3 years ago Also, it let's people know the issue is serious. If places like Florida that are suffering the effects of climate change already don't take it seriously, when it's to their benefit now, why should other places do anything when it doesn't affect them yet. Of course they should, and it will. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) In all honesty, it sounds nice and I am not against the idea, but I really have a hard time seeing it having any measurable effect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 2 points 3 years ago Each tiny drop on its own raises the water level an imperceptible amout. Together they fill a lake permalink fedilink source parent
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 2 points 3 years ago Each tiny drop on its own raises the water level an imperceptible amout. Together they fill a lake permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) If they would extract heat from the air or even the water, it would actually help. Not by leaps and bounds but it would at least be carbon negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Not to any meaningful degree: the heating from CO2 emitted when your burn coal for energy is about 100000x more than the heat produced from the burning. That's why the big action which needs to happen is to stop burning fossil fuels. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I was thinking about heat pumps. 300% efficiency They are electric and could be carbon negative depending on the source of electricity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 1 point 3 years ago Unless it's BECCS, the best they're going to be is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's better than burning stuff, but not actually removing CO2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Not to any meaningful degree: the heating from CO2 emitted when your burn coal for energy is about 100000x more than the heat produced from the burning. That's why the big action which needs to happen is to stop burning fossil fuels. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I was thinking about heat pumps. 300% efficiency They are electric and could be carbon negative depending on the source of electricity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 1 point 3 years ago Unless it's BECCS, the best they're going to be is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's better than burning stuff, but not actually removing CO2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I was thinking about heat pumps. 300% efficiency They are electric and could be carbon negative depending on the source of electricity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 1 point 3 years ago Unless it's BECCS, the best they're going to be is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's better than burning stuff, but not actually removing CO2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 1 point 3 years ago Unless it's BECCS, the best they're going to be is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's better than burning stuff, but not actually removing CO2 permalink fedilink source parent