821–830 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth: I have a fussy gas range and I'd be peeved to have to give it up, and I don't have an opinion about whether it's good or bad to require new construction to use induction. But the racial angle on this is risible. It's evidence of bad faith argument.
[flagged]
Citation for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhhh... woe is you? Plenty of non-poor people live with gas stoves, often without fume hoods, and even prefer gas. Not once have I ever felt ill or victimized because I had to cook on gas.
> Not once have I ever felt ill or victimized because I had to cook on gas. Your comment reads like someone swearing smoking has no health impact because they never felt ill or victimized for smoking. Meanwhile, even the World Health Organization produces reports on health risks of household air pollution, where stoves are the primary pollution source. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a...
This article discusses people in developing nations cooking indoors with indoors burning wood and dung. It isn't clear that this also applies to the amateur chef using natural gas in a mini-mansion.
This regulation feels quite frustrating to me, and several comments in this thread illustrate why. This change is being promoted as a critical step in the fight against climate change. (See most news articles over the past two years covering this.) But when you dig into the details, it seems like the regulation may not have much effect on climate change at all. When you point this out to advocates, you'll get an enti…
> But when you dig into the details, it seems like the regulation may not have much effect on climate change at all. So you’re going to handwave away the justification for the main crux of your argument.
In fact, the most anyone has come up with in this thread is the number 0.0028 (or about 0.3%):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35757522
If you have more compelling data, please share it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to invalidate your point (because I have never made rotis) but this suspiciously sounds like you need better cookware.
There’s definitely a level of confidently-incorrect cringe here. Please tell me how I should do this https://youtu.be/lsI08y6jwaQ with better cookware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, the lower levels of smoking have not made the US health outcomes any better than places where smoking is at ridiculously high levels, like France.
The health outcomes for illnesses related to smoking are for sure better in the US.
It was a long time ago though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This change is being promoted as a critical step in the fight against climate change. 27 years from now, when we're supposedly going to be "net zero", do we really want to be supporting a bunch of natural gas infrastructure? Or should we start making that expensive infrastructure not necessary? 1. Most homes built now will be around in 27 years, and still in good shape. 2. Building and maintaining natural gas infra…
I'm sure we can find cities/new developments where gas lines were not run, but have we examples where existing infrastructure was finally shut down?
If you want to achieve carbon neutrality in 20 years it's ambitious and you need a plan. Phasing out the gas-infrastructure is one of them. And housing and its infrastructure is so permanent, our gas heating is as old than I am, at least it looks this way.
They also keep threatening to ban the replacement of existing gas appliances when they cannot be repaired. I will be moving my family out of state before this happens. Any of you electronauts interested in a ~5000sqft home in the middle of a picturesque village with no crime? You'll have to call the gas company about removing the hookup after you move in.
Lots of places like this don’t have natural gas. It’s often propane tanks, which have their own issues. Natural gas plumbing is not some magical, amazing thing that magically delivers a much-maligned but otherwise perfect product. It’s an explosive gas that’s piped through underground pipes with fancy pressure regulators and hopefully ends up somewhere useful. Those pipes are expensive, the regulators are complex and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not once have I ever felt ill or victimized because I had to cook on gas. Your comment reads like someone swearing smoking has no health impact because they never felt ill or victimized for smoking. Meanwhile, even the World Health Organization produces reports on health risks of household air pollution, where stoves are the primary pollution source. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a...
That’s a false equivalence. You’ve either misunderstood or deliberately linked an article that doesn’t support your claim about using natural gas cooking. “Around 2.4 billion people worldwide (around a third of the global population) cook using open fires or inefficient stoves fuelled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal, which generates harmful household air pollution.” Open fire/stove co…
"It is essential to expand use of clean fuels and technologies to reduce household air pollution and protect health. These include solar, electricity, biogas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas, alcohol fuels, as well as biomass stoves that meet the emission targets in the WHO Guidelines."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that even mean? Did you not get the whole, burning hydrocarbons is bad for the climate memo? We have to stop all net carbon emmissions in the next fifteen years or were screwed (propably already are) and twats like you keep going online spouting your 'i don't buy the climate argument' bullshit. We're literally talking about burning hydrocarbons to heat stuff, how the hell can you say that you don't buy the…
You can believe climate change is real and an imminent threat and still hold the position that banning gas stoves is a meaningless, misguided policy that will have no effect on climate change. There is no mutual exclusivity. A typical natural gas stove burner uses around 7,000 to 10,000 BTUs per hour, which translates to about 0.8 to 1.2 pounds of CO2 emissions per hour of use. This doesn't even qualify as a blip on…
And it turns out there are a lot of leaks and incomplete combustion in the overall methane supply chain. Residential hookups are a significant source of slow leaks.
So completely avoiding a hookup in the first place may have a larger climate impact than your napkin math suggests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I _rent_ a home, as do a full half of new york state residents. I'd love an electric stove. Every rental I've ever lived in has a gas stove and no fume hood. The full half of new yorkers who rent - almost 20 million people - mostly get whatever theirlandlord picked. So when I read posts like this, decrying government overreach, I wonder if you've ever been poor? Have you ever lived here? Do you know what youre talkin…
I also _rent_. I hate food cooked on electric stoves, so when I was looking to rent, anything that dint have gas stove was automatic non-starter for me. This whole argument that “you oppose a forced choice so you must hate poor people” is just a straw-man. Just because you prefer things one way doesn’t mean govt has a business telling me how I should cook my food.
Just because you theoretically have more choice in a free market doesn’t mean you actually do, depending on how desperate you are.