5 ms·

We're talking about something that accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas use right now. This will have no measurable effect on CO2 emission

We're talking about something that accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas use right now. This will have no measurable effect on CO2 emissions.

D13Fd 5y ago
Sure we're about to go bankrupt, but it would really be inconvenient to give up my Starbuck's latte every morning. Don't you know how bland regular coffee is? And my Starbuck's only accounts for less than half a percent of my wasteful spending.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  I don't think that's a very good analogy. A consistent latte habit can easily cost a few thousand dollars per year, which is likely to be a significant portion of discretionary spending for anyone under threat of personal bankruptcy. In contrast, less than 3% of residential gas usage goes to cooking, according to TFA. Now, if you were to assert that poor people shouldn't even buy Starbucks once a week, that might be a more apt analogy, although I would question the effectiveness of that advice. Like I said earlier, I drive a 1995 Honda minivan, because the mileage and low upkeep probably constitute the greatest environmental impact I can make at my income level. What, if I may ask, are you do doing to minimize your impact?
  - D13Fd 5y ago
    It's not just cooking, it's residential and business natural gas use period, as stated in TFA ("phasing out natural-gas hookups to homes and businesses to reduce carbon emissions.") It sucks, but it is something that has to be done if we are going to avoid catastrophe, unless someone invents really effective carbon capture. My personal habits are irrelevant, but I'm in a deregulated energy state and pay extra for 100% renewable/carbon-offset power, and I don't have a natural gas hookup.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      Right, the article is just playing up the most inflammatory aspect of gas bans. But IMO, a better way forward would be to raise taxes on residential gas delivery such that home heating with gas becomes cost prohibitive. The extremely low cost of gas incentivizes profligate, wasteful consumption, sort of like the unmetered delivery of water in places like Sacramento, where the marginal cost of water delivery is very low, and the externalized cost of eventual resource depletion is not accounted for.
    - desine 5y ago
      >but it is something that has to be done if we are going to avoid catastrophe What sources of pollution are we allowed to keep? What is your criteria for an acceptable amount of human impact on the environment? If you also have information for acceptable levels of cobalt, nickel, and copper mining, and landfill usage (per capita per year, in cubic meters, I guess), that would be useful. Because every time I see any climate change story, I'm told that I absolutely have to give something up to save humanity, and I'm beginning to feel like no level of existence will be acceptable. I'm very eco conscious in my day to day life, more than most of the people in my social group. But I also realize we can't just eliminate every trace of our lives.
      - D13Fd 5y ago
        I'm not talking about pollution, I'm talking about CO2 emissions. The answer is that, long term, we have to balance out and only keep the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that the planet + carbon capture can absorb. It's going to be a very small number per capita. As I said, it sucks. But it is the only way to prevent serious climate change long-term.
- tylermenezes 5y ago
  I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. Using a Starbucks coffee to represent CO2 from gas ranges, your total monthly expenditures are $100M, $80M+ of which is going to a few big categories like cars. The reason you're going bankrupt is because you've convinced yourself the $5 coffee is the solution. If you want a small change that makes a real difference take the bus one day a week.
  - D13Fd 5y ago
    It's not just cooking, it's residential and commercial natural gas hookups, as the article states in the first paragraph.
    - tylermenezes 5y ago
      Which is good! Don't use gas for heating or water, that makes a much larger impact and is not as noticeable.
mgleason_3 5y ago
Right? All the can't "give up heating my beans" sarcasm makes you wonder if we've all become so bought in to our candidates that we just accept our politicians BS blindly. Does anyone fact check anything? As ylermenezes mentioned cooking accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas. So, no, we don't need to start somewhere. We need to start where it makes a difference. 60% of US electricity is generated from fossil fuels (1). 40% of that is from Natural Gas. 20% from Coal which produces almost twice the carbon as Natural Gas. And (2) says 60% of that energy is lost in conversion. So, converting from natural gas to electricity would actually increase carbon emissions in many parts of the US. So, where should we start? I'm not an expert, but just this quick analysis says decreasing the amount of fossil fuels used for US generation would be a much better choice. 1. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427 2. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436

We're talking about something that accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas use right now. This will have no measurable effect on CO2 emissions.

D13Fd 5y ago

Sure we're about to go bankrupt, but it would really be inconvenient to give up my Starbuck's latte every morning. Don't you know how bland regular coffee is? And my Starbuck's only accounts for less than half a percent of my wasteful spending.

nate_meurer 5y ago
I don't think that's a very good analogy. A consistent latte habit can easily cost a few thousand dollars per year, which is likely to be a significant portion of discretionary spending for anyone under threat of personal bankruptcy. In contrast, less than 3% of residential gas usage goes to cooking, according to TFA. Now, if you were to assert that poor people shouldn't even buy Starbucks once a week, that might be a more apt analogy, although I would question the effectiveness of that advice. Like I said earlier, I drive a 1995 Honda minivan, because the mileage and low upkeep probably constitute the greatest environmental impact I can make at my income level. What, if I may ask, are you do doing to minimize your impact?
- D13Fd 5y ago
  It's not just cooking, it's residential and business natural gas use period, as stated in TFA ("phasing out natural-gas hookups to homes and businesses to reduce carbon emissions.") It sucks, but it is something that has to be done if we are going to avoid catastrophe, unless someone invents really effective carbon capture. My personal habits are irrelevant, but I'm in a deregulated energy state and pay extra for 100% renewable/carbon-offset power, and I don't have a natural gas hookup.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Right, the article is just playing up the most inflammatory aspect of gas bans. But IMO, a better way forward would be to raise taxes on residential gas delivery such that home heating with gas becomes cost prohibitive. The extremely low cost of gas incentivizes profligate, wasteful consumption, sort of like the unmetered delivery of water in places like Sacramento, where the marginal cost of water delivery is very low, and the externalized cost of eventual resource depletion is not accounted for.
  - desine 5y ago
    >but it is something that has to be done if we are going to avoid catastrophe What sources of pollution are we allowed to keep? What is your criteria for an acceptable amount of human impact on the environment? If you also have information for acceptable levels of cobalt, nickel, and copper mining, and landfill usage (per capita per year, in cubic meters, I guess), that would be useful. Because every time I see any climate change story, I'm told that I absolutely have to give something up to save humanity, and I'm beginning to feel like no level of existence will be acceptable. I'm very eco conscious in my day to day life, more than most of the people in my social group. But I also realize we can't just eliminate every trace of our lives.
    - D13Fd 5y ago
      I'm not talking about pollution, I'm talking about CO2 emissions. The answer is that, long term, we have to balance out and only keep the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that the planet + carbon capture can absorb. It's going to be a very small number per capita. As I said, it sucks. But it is the only way to prevent serious climate change long-term.
tylermenezes 5y ago
I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. Using a Starbucks coffee to represent CO2 from gas ranges, your total monthly expenditures are $100M, $80M+ of which is going to a few big categories like cars. The reason you're going bankrupt is because you've convinced yourself the $5 coffee is the solution. If you want a small change that makes a real difference take the bus one day a week.
- D13Fd 5y ago
  It's not just cooking, it's residential and commercial natural gas hookups, as the article states in the first paragraph.
  - tylermenezes 5y ago
    Which is good! Don't use gas for heating or water, that makes a much larger impact and is not as noticeable.

mgleason_3 5y ago

Right? All the can't "give up heating my beans" sarcasm makes you wonder if we've all become so bought in to our candidates that we just accept our politicians BS blindly. Does anyone fact check anything? As ylermenezes mentioned cooking accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas. So, no, we don't need to start somewhere. We need to start where it makes a difference. 60% of US electricity is generated from fossil fuels (1). 40% of that is from Natural Gas. 20% from Coal which produces almost twice the carbon as Natural Gas. And (2) says 60% of that energy is lost in conversion. So, converting from natural gas to electricity would actually increase carbon emissions in many parts of the US. So, where should we start? I'm not an expert, but just this quick analysis says decreasing the amount of fossil fuels used for US generation would be a much better choice. 1. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427 2. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436