3 ms·
I am not sure we have the luxury of only going after primary emitters. I think at this point we have to do literally everything we can. Also, I read on HN a mo
by voisin 5y ago
I am not sure we have the luxury of only going after primary emitters. I think at this point we have to do literally everything we can.
Also, I read on HN a month or so ago about gas stoves making indoor air quality worse. So there is some upside there too. And if we remove gas stoves then people will probably not care to have gas brought in just for water heaters, and maybe we can avoid an entire type of infrastructure.
- oliv__ 5y agoCopying someone's comment on WSJ: "Cooking with nat gas is ~ 3% of gas use which is about 0.001% of US fossil fuel use which is about 0.001% of global fossil fuel emissions. Banning gas cooking is farcical virtue signaling if you truly want to decrease CO2 emissions."
- sixo 5y agoThat sounds wrong. Quickly googling, https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ says the US is around 13% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/where-greenhouse-gases-come-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environme... says gas is around 44% of U.S emissions. so that random WSJ comment is pretty hard to believe.
- smabie 5y agoIt's premature optimization and not worth the time to even think about.