3 ms·

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

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.

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.