Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 614 posts

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#381

Post by __turbobrew__ »

dynm wrote: post #318

This article is all about climate change and cooking. But in case anyone is interested, I got interested in the health effects of gas stoves vs. induction a few months back. I was frustrated that no one seemed to give the magnitude of the harm. My conclusion was that using a gas stove for your entire life rather than an electric cooktop plausibly creates enough enough NO2 to reduce life expectancy by a couple of mont…

Gas stove usage may cause a few months shorter lifespan, but it really is low in my list of health related concerns.

Eating a wholesome non-processed diet and staying active are going to be much more impactful on my health. Worrying about micro optimizations like gas stoves just seems like small potatoes when people are eating processed junk food and are horribly out of shape.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#382

Post by clawlor »

agentdrtran wrote: post #372
colin_mccabe wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems questionable to evaluate what happens when you cook without any ventilation. You need ventilation to avoid smelling like food later on. Poor ventilation also has other bad consequences.

I have never lived anywhere, in my entire life, that vented stove air outside — it just "filters" it through a filter nobody ever replaces and blows it back at you, if you're lucky.

Most of the places I've lived have vented stove air outdoors. I've had the kind you're referring to as well, but outdoor venting hasn't been uncommon in my experience. Maybe it's a regional thing; I'm on the east coast FWIW.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#383

Post by s1artibartfast »

guerrilla wrote: post #337
s1artibartfast wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every example of corporate CO2 emission is in service of consumer needs. The consumer is obviously accountable too. You can't sit and eat a mail order stake from japan and say you have no carbon footprint, but the airline and ag industries do. The obvious answer has always been cap and trade, but it is dead on arrival because consumers don't want to pay more for their CO2 intensive goods.

> Every example of corporate CO2 emission is in service of consumer needs. They have no power over how such things are produced. Markets are not democracies. Everything those corporations are doing can be done in a sustainable way, but they choose not to for the sake of growth. You're also forgetting all the manipulative advertising and propaganda driving people to consume more for the sake of growth. Anyway, even if…

Every molecule of CO2 produced goes into a good that consumers purchase.

I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint.

>[consumers] have no power over how such things are produced.

Consumers have 100% of the power. If they dont purchase a good, it wont be produced. The whole reason Industries dont move away from carbon is because consumers refuse to pay more for it.

For example, carbon free airlines are technically feasible today but Dead on Arrival because no one will pay for the ticket.

Regulations can have an impact, but the only reason they work is because they take the option to buy cheap and dirty products away from Consumers.

Like I said above, cap-and-trade is a simple solution but consumers don't want it because they know prices will get past along. 1 million little Industrial regulations will also pass the costs along, but consumers are more okay with them because they erroneously think the cost won't be passed to them. They have a downside that bad are rarely logical and have unintended and sometimes counterproductive consequences.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#384

Post by Hello71 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #207
fulafel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just the korean BBQs. Wood, or other biofuel that gets you a flame.

How is that better than natural gas for climate change and air quality?

biofuel is carbon-neutral. it might cause some particulate pollution, but if it's minimal enough for use in a restaurant dining area, then the environmental impact is probably negligible.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#385

Post by spaetzleesser »

seoaeu wrote: post #136
spaetzleesser wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you think that "the dirty industry" are just emitting carbon for the fun of it?" Yes, for fun and profit.

Profit from whom? All these industries ultimately sell the resulting end products to people. This idea that Exxon Mobile is solely to blame for gasoline emissions or that a factory owner is the only one responsible for the emissions from their factory, rather than the person who purchases and uses those products is quite frankly absurd.

They profit from producing pollution and not having to pay for the clean up.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#386

Post by hammock »

pao wrote: post #288

Seems like a lot of the interest in these bans is coming from new research like this [Stanford study]( https://news.stanford.edu/2022/01/27/rethinking-cooking-gas/ ) showing gas stoves emit more methane than previously thought. They say all residential stoves in the US emit GHG equivalent to 500,000 cars. There are 276 million cars in the US. So, this problem is about 1/500 of the car problem. If you eliminated all s…

Pretty much every argument I have read in this post boils down to "electric is better" but crucially ignores a) the idea that preferences are individual, and b) even accepting something as universally "better" doesn't mean we ought to legislate it across an entire group of people (AKA centrally plan the economy).

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#387

Post by jcranberry »

vkou wrote: post #371
jcranberry wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should be approaching the problem from all avenues, so I agree. But this campaign that ordinary people shouldn't arsed to do anything because it won't make a difference is absurd.

I can't be arsed to do it, not because it won't make a difference, but because I have no ability to know that an alleged lower-carbon product is actually lower-carbon, and not just marketing bullshit and accounting trickery. Encoding it in cost is the only metric that the manufacturer won't be able to game. It's the only honest, guaranteed signal for any product. Making purchasing decisions based on it is the whole p…

Most likely there are trustworthy certifications which you can look for depending on the product. But I agree it isn't always easy.

You can also participate in the used/2nd hand market. That makes a bigger difference than people often account for.

Otherwise there's changing to clean energy providers for your home, switching to electric vehicles, and eating less beef and dairy.

But I'm still all for the carbon tax.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#388

Post by MiddleEndian »

BeetleB wrote: post #321
sroussey wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t want a lack of gas line. Those that care can turn their own gas off, yet sell to someone that does care.

Do we have statistics on people's preferences? Anecdotes: I've yet to live in an apartment/house that actually had a gas stove. No one I know made gas a criterion when house/apartment hunting. They use whatever the place has. When leaving a place with a gas stove, none of them cared if the new place would be electric or gas. On the flip side, I know quite a few people that exclude places with gas stoves when hunting…

My preference for electric (although not a dealbreaker, my condo has a gas stove) is solely because they're so much easier to clean. Having an entirely flat stovetop is very relaxing.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#389

Post by linsomniac »

jklinger410 wrote: post #369
linsomniac wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you and the parent both have much more demanding needs than we do. My wife and I a pretty serious home cooks, and have been quite happy with our Samsung Chef Collection induction range. We pretty much home cook all of our food, but don't go so far as to make anything where we need to the degree PID feedback temp control. Not saying there isn't a need for it, just trying to figure out what percentage of…

> It sounds like you and the parent both have much more demanding needs than we do Okay but devil's advocate, bringing it back to the original topic, wouldn't restaurants also have more demanding needs than the average person?

Sure, and as I mentioned above, that's a question I'm curious about. Michelin Star places, certainly. Fine dining, probably. 80%ile and 50%ile, I wonder. Certainly more likely to take advantage of precise control than the average home, because they are at it all day every day. Do they need more precision than the average induction can give? I'm curious but ultimately don't have the answer.

Re: What a gas stove ban means for restaurants

#390

Post by linsomniac »

kkfx wrote: post #264
linsomniac wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you and the parent both have much more demanding needs than we do. My wife and I a pretty serious home cooks, and have been quite happy with our Samsung Chef Collection induction range. We pretty much home cook all of our food, but don't go so far as to make anything where we need to the degree PID feedback temp control. Not saying there isn't a need for it, just trying to figure out what percentage of…

I do cook on indution since years, simply I have to say that it does work but it's not on par nor better than gas in cooking terms , for me suffice, I like the ability to move most electric appliances around also, I like the easiness to clean the induction plate BUT I understand people who don't, that's is. Having built a new home I do not have gas at all and I have a p.v. system so no interest in gas "extra comfort/…

Just curious: what about induction is not up to par? What sorts of foods does it fall short at?
Post reply on HN