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.
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.
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
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