DeSantis Rejected $350 Million in Climate Funding Before Hurricane Idalia | Now his state is suffering from a storm fueled by climate change.

newrepublic.com DeSantis Rejected $350 Million in Climate Funding Before Hurricane Idalia

The Florida governor rejected millions in climate funding. Now his state is suffering from a storm fueled by climate change.

You're viewing a single thread.

31 comments

Cause that funding would have prevented that hurricane...
- It can help limit how hot the water gets, and therefore how quickly future storms intensify.
  
  Oh, i got that. Wasnt saying that we shouldnt be working towards fixing the issue, was more a comment on the wording of the article like it would have prevent this particular storm lol. Was sarcasm mostly.
  
  It's really hard to be sarcastic in a way that doesn't come across as the denial crowd. I tend to avoid it for that reason.
  
  I'm curious, what could Florida do to reduce ocean temperatures with this money?
  
  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.
  
  That's an interesting idea, but not something I would expect Florida to have much say in.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  I was thinking about heat pumps. 300% efficiency
  They are electric and could be carbon negative depending on the source of electricity
  
  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
  
  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.
  
  Each tiny drop on its own raises the water level an imperceptible amout. Together they fill a lake
  
  It can help limit how hot the water gets
  Huh?
  
  Greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere are what is causing warming:
  
  Spend money on avoiding the need to burn stuff to generate electricity, heat homes, heat water, or cook, and you can prevent them from being added to the atmosphere, preventing some of the increase in temperature.

31 comments