4 ms·

TFA states: > City carve-outs for gas cooking aren’t unreasonable, said Sara Baldwin, who works on electrifying the building sector at environmental policy fir

TFA states: > City carve-outs for gas cooking aren’t unreasonable, said Sara Baldwin, who works on electrifying the building sector at environmental policy firm Energy Innovation. But eventually, she believes that buildings will need to be fully electrified, including stovetops, to meet ambitious emissions-reduction goals, presenting an existential threat to the gas industry. So it's not quite "blaming gas stoves for climate change". The claim is there's a need to transition away from gas stoves _as a consequence_ of getting rid of gas hookups (which are presumably mostly used for heat), which would have a noticeable impact on emissions. Further driving that point home, the next sentence is: > “The gas industry really wants to make the household stovetop a wedge issue and use that to animate people against electrification as a whole,” said Charlie Spatz, a researcher at the Climate Investigations Center, an environmental advocacy group. So they know that a storm is brewing over gas stoves, because there's inherent resistance _and_ there's an large industry trying to use/abuse that fact in order to preserve their profits. To me, the reason the article focuses on gas cooking instead of gas hookups in general is for that exact reason. Gas cooking has a small impact on climate change, but the claim is it's a necessary sacrifice to get rid of the bigger problem of gas hookups and distribution, and it seems like it'll be a tough sell for opinionated people who are being amplified by a large industry trying to extract as much profit as possible on the way out. It could have spent more time on that claim that it's a necessary sacrifice though.

desine 5y ago
Still don't think it's a necessary sacrifice. Gas cooking vs electric (even induction) cooking is more noticeable but smaller impact than gas vs electric heating. Still tired of giving up every creature comfort just because Greta tells me to. Still realizing this is a never ending battle, and we're not going to live with fully electric appliances and suddenly be left alone. Humans have an impact on the planet. Deal with it. Some of the big ways we do are summarily ignored. Some of the small ways we do are easily changed and regulated by politicians. Many pats on the backs are had. Gonna fight this tooth and nail. Literally don't care that houses in Malibu are going to fall into the sea because I love grilling up some salmon and asparagus over cold ones (unnecessarily refrigerated - beer has the same effects when room temp) with the boys. Still gonna keep riding my bicycle to work when possible Still gonna keep my anti-consumerist lifestyle Still gonna install renewable energy sources on my own land
- danans 5y ago
  > Literally don't care that houses in Malibu are going to fall into the sea because I love grilling up some salmon and asparagus over cold ones Houses in Malibu fall into the sea because they are built in a coastal erosion zone, not because of your grilling - which can also be done over charcoal or propane, which don't have the huge issues of gas grid leaks and maintenance.
  - desine 5y ago
    I'm going off the argument chain that grilling produces CO and CO2, which are greenhouse gasses, which melt sea ice, which raise sea levels. And FWIW I usually use charcoal/wood.
    - jazzyjackson 5y ago
      Maybe there is room for an electric/wood hybrid stovetop?
      - kspacewalk2 5y ago
        Can we come up with regenerative cooling of the food? I'll have to eat everything lukewarm, but think of the impact on the environment!
      - b3morales 5y ago
        I can't see that being anything other than a very luxury item. Burning wood requires much better ventilation than most kitchens have. It's not easy to control the heat level, and the effort of using it is disproportionate for small amounts of cooking. And the fuel itself is cumbersome and takes up a lot of space.
    - danans 5y ago
      The problem is the global warming impact of the leaky natural gas grid, which has far more consequential impacts like damaged via sea level rise to the Gulf Coast, and the aridification of the Western US. It's a systems problem that requires system solutions, not the problem of an individual's right to cook over a natural gas flame.
throwaway24124 5y ago
Agree that it should've spent more time on the claim that eliminating gas hookups is a necessary sacrifice. I'm also surprised there was no discussion around the personal cost impact of switching from gas to electric heat. The emissions from gas heating are drastically higher than electric heating, and eliminating gas heating would absolutely have an impact on emissions. However, gas heating is significantly cheaper than electric heating, and I wish the article had spoken more about how environmental groups plan to deal with lower income residents switching from gas to electric. In Massachusetts, for example, a house that spends $1,200 in a winter on natural gas would spend over $6,000 on electric resistance heat (unless you have a newer electric heat pump, which is much closer to competing with the price of natural gas)
- dundarious 5y ago
  With a standard heat pump (excluding initial installation costs), costs should be appreciably lower than any other method, except when temperatures approach -20 or so (I may be wrong on that number, but I'm reasonably confident it's in the ballpark). And air conditioners are just reverse heat pumps, the same device can and should operate both as a heater and cooler. I live in an area where those low temperatures occur seasonally, but heat pumps absolutely can improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions, even here, especially if tied to non-air-source heat pumps, or just massively increased renewable energy production (including base load sources like geothermal). The capital/installation costs are the real problem, and it will take some toothy legislation and expenditure to get it done.
  - treesknees 5y ago
    You are a bit off on that temperature. Heat pumps are efficient until around 30 degrees F [1]. Once in that range, they start requiring more energy to operate normally. But mostly anything below 30 degrees F needs a secondary heat source such as gas. Where I live in Michigan, I could use a heat pump for some time in the fall and spring, but there's no way it would replace my gas furnace in the winter. I'd be curious to know if the cost of getting a heat pump would be worth it at that point. [1] https://homeinspectioninsider.com/heat-pump-work-subzero-temperatures/ https://homeinspectioninsider.com/heat-pump-work-subzero-tem...

desine 5y ago

Still don't think it's a necessary sacrifice. Gas cooking vs electric (even induction) cooking is more noticeable but smaller impact than gas vs electric heating. Still tired of giving up every creature comfort just because Greta tells me to. Still realizing this is a never ending battle, and we're not going to live with fully electric appliances and suddenly be left alone. Humans have an impact on the planet. Deal with it. Some of the big ways we do are summarily ignored. Some of the small ways we do are easily changed and regulated by politicians. Many pats on the backs are had. Gonna fight this tooth and nail. Literally don't care that houses in Malibu are going to fall into the sea because I love grilling up some salmon and asparagus over cold ones (unnecessarily refrigerated - beer has the same effects when room temp) with the boys. Still gonna keep riding my bicycle to work when possible Still gonna keep my anti-consumerist lifestyle Still gonna install renewable energy sources on my own land

danans 5y ago
> Literally don't care that houses in Malibu are going to fall into the sea because I love grilling up some salmon and asparagus over cold ones Houses in Malibu fall into the sea because they are built in a coastal erosion zone, not because of your grilling - which can also be done over charcoal or propane, which don't have the huge issues of gas grid leaks and maintenance.
- desine 5y ago
  I'm going off the argument chain that grilling produces CO and CO2, which are greenhouse gasses, which melt sea ice, which raise sea levels. And FWIW I usually use charcoal/wood.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    Maybe there is room for an electric/wood hybrid stovetop?
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      Can we come up with regenerative cooling of the food? I'll have to eat everything lukewarm, but think of the impact on the environment!
    - b3morales 5y ago
      I can't see that being anything other than a very luxury item. Burning wood requires much better ventilation than most kitchens have. It's not easy to control the heat level, and the effort of using it is disproportionate for small amounts of cooking. And the fuel itself is cumbersome and takes up a lot of space.
  - danans 5y ago
    The problem is the global warming impact of the leaky natural gas grid, which has far more consequential impacts like damaged via sea level rise to the Gulf Coast, and the aridification of the Western US. It's a systems problem that requires system solutions, not the problem of an individual's right to cook over a natural gas flame.

throwaway24124 5y ago

Agree that it should've spent more time on the claim that eliminating gas hookups is a necessary sacrifice. I'm also surprised there was no discussion around the personal cost impact of switching from gas to electric heat. The emissions from gas heating are drastically higher than electric heating, and eliminating gas heating would absolutely have an impact on emissions. However, gas heating is significantly cheaper than electric heating, and I wish the article had spoken more about how environmental groups plan to deal with lower income residents switching from gas to electric. In Massachusetts, for example, a house that spends $1,200 in a winter on natural gas would spend over $6,000 on electric resistance heat (unless you have a newer electric heat pump, which is much closer to competing with the price of natural gas)

dundarious 5y ago
With a standard heat pump (excluding initial installation costs), costs should be appreciably lower than any other method, except when temperatures approach -20 or so (I may be wrong on that number, but I'm reasonably confident it's in the ballpark). And air conditioners are just reverse heat pumps, the same device can and should operate both as a heater and cooler. I live in an area where those low temperatures occur seasonally, but heat pumps absolutely can improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions, even here, especially if tied to non-air-source heat pumps, or just massively increased renewable energy production (including base load sources like geothermal). The capital/installation costs are the real problem, and it will take some toothy legislation and expenditure to get it done.
- treesknees 5y ago
  You are a bit off on that temperature. Heat pumps are efficient until around 30 degrees F [1]. Once in that range, they start requiring more energy to operate normally. But mostly anything below 30 degrees F needs a secondary heat source such as gas. Where I live in Michigan, I could use a heat pump for some time in the fall and spring, but there's no way it would replace my gas furnace in the winter. I'd be curious to know if the cost of getting a heat pump would be worth it at that point. [1] https://homeinspectioninsider.com/heat-pump-work-subzero-temperatures/ https://homeinspectioninsider.com/heat-pump-work-subzero-tem...