6 ms·

From what I can tell, gas stove bans would really just be a side effect of the broader measure, which is requiring homes to be "emission free". The measure seem

From what I can tell, gas stove bans would really just be a side effect of the broader measure, which is requiring homes to be "emission free". The measure seems to be more directly about heating/water/etc... Which makes me wonder if it might not just make sense to add some exclusions for some specific appliances for places like restaurants. I don't know the numbers, but I doubt that stoves in specific are the highest carbon emitters, even in restaurants. But I could very well be wrong. Ignoring the environmental debate, purely for your own benefit I see light-to-medium-confidence evidence that gas stoves should be avoided just because they decrease the quality of air inside your home while you're cooking. It's not something I'm willing to make a strong claim about, but if I was buying a house or redoing a kitchen I personally would not put in a gas stove, and if I was renting I would avoid an apartment that has one. Again, I'm not going to make a strong claim increased particulate count during cooking is even something that's worth worrying about in the first place, but I do think the evidence is strong enough to at least warrant additional attention, and assuming that it turns out that gas stoves really do significantly lower air quality nearby during use, I could see a somewhat reasonable argument to be made that they shouldn't be allowed in newly constructed homes just on that basis, or at least a requirement that there be better ventilation attached to them than often currently is.

gwbas1c 4y ago
I live in MA, and in my old house I heated and cooked with gas. In the summer my gas bill was $30. In the winter my gas bill would go up to about $200. One extremely cold January in 2015 nearly cost $300. So, yeah, space heating uses much more gas than cooking.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I wonder what affected your air quality more? I could see it either way.
  - Kirby64 4y ago
    Inherently gas furnaces pipe their fumes out outside, so air quality should be better for the furnace than the gas stove, even though the furnace uses way more gas. Exterior though, obviously the furnace is worse since its all going outside.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Good points. I wonder how the leakage from the relatively large amount of furnace gas compares to the leakage from the relatively small amount of stove gas. For example, if the furnace uses 10x cubic feet of gas and leaks 50% less per cubic foot than the stove, the furnace will leak 5x more cubic feet than the stove. (Completely made up numbers.) Then the next question is, how does the furnace leak in the basement affect the air quality where people typically breathe?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - CaliforniaKarl 4y ago
    Modern gas furnaces use the outside atmosphere for combustion. It helps get them high (for gas) efficiency levels! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBVvnDfW2Xo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBVvnDfW2Xo
  - gwbas1c 4y ago
    We had a Viking stove with an extremely powerful fan. In general, it sucked everything out. The furnace vented outside.
shepherdjerred 4y ago
- danShumway 4y ago
  I know, right? The nanny state is ridiculous, next they'll ban lead paint in nurseries. ---- But more seriously, regulations should be driven by the amount of harm the regulation would prevent, the costs/side-effects of the regulation, etc... I'm unsure where gas stoves fall on that spectrum without more research.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    Another huge consideration is who it harms. Does it only affect the person who chooses to engage in that activity or is it hurting someone else who cannot consent.
    - danShumway 4y ago
      This is a good point, but utility/housing bans, lead paint bans, electrical wiring standards, and so on, are often less about someone individually harming themself, and more about having a standard minimum quality/safety level for houses being sold, as well as for protection for other family members/kids. Back to the lead paint example, there's something of an argument to be made that if you want to handle lead, you should be able to. But it's nice for everyone else to not have to wonder if the house they're buying is a toxic death trap that will cognitively affect their children. Similarly, if gas stoves do significantly reduce air quality in a way that matters (again, that's an if), I don't think it's too unreasonable to impose restrictions on people renting out properties or building houses. When we talk about how much harm a regulation is preventing, we treat harm that comes from informed consent as less dire than harm that comes from uninformed action or as a result of other people's choices that an individual had no control over. A lot of building codes and standards have impacts on not just harms that come from informed consent, but also on other people as well who might just want to know that their kitchen isn't silently harming them.
Tiktaalik 4y ago
In Vancouver, where 54% of CO2 emissions is natural gas use in buildings, the City has recently banned natural gas use in new building construction, however they did leave the door open to allowing natural gas use for cooking and fireplace. I suppose the dominant amount of CO2 is coming from water heating and home heating. Perhaps there are some allowances for restaurants as well. I think that would make sense to me. I recall reading at the time when these policies were announced that home builders felt that it would be pretty bad with money for a home to pay for a gas hookup purely for cooking, so in the future the only people that would probably do it would be rich cooking enthusiasts that have money to throw away. Regular people would probably decline gas altogether. (Personally when my ancient gas stove recently broke I replaced it with a new induction stove and I'm finding it exceptionally great)
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Does that include the CO2 from power generation?
  - brewdad 4y ago
    It is far easier and cheaper to capture CO2 emissions at the generation source than at each single point of use. Longer term, we build a cleaner grid.
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    Sure. BC is 87% hydro, 5% biomass, 3% wind.
cwkoss 4y ago
Why not just apply a gradually increasing natural gas tax across the state? Wouldn't that have a similar effect to a ban-for-future construction, provide consumers with choices, and generate revenue?
- Gigachad 4y ago
  The problem with that is you end up with people who are too poor to afford to replace their gas kitchen and too poor to afford this new tax. By applying it only to new builds, you eventually phase out gas without ever putting financial stress on anyone. You can then speed it up later by paying for houses to be upgraded to electric.

gwbas1c 4y ago

I live in MA, and in my old house I heated and cooked with gas. In the summer my gas bill was $30. In the winter my gas bill would go up to about $200. One extremely cold January in 2015 nearly cost $300. So, yeah, space heating uses much more gas than cooking.

wolverine876 4y ago
I wonder what affected your air quality more? I could see it either way.
- Kirby64 4y ago
  Inherently gas furnaces pipe their fumes out outside, so air quality should be better for the furnace than the gas stove, even though the furnace uses way more gas. Exterior though, obviously the furnace is worse since its all going outside.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Good points. I wonder how the leakage from the relatively large amount of furnace gas compares to the leakage from the relatively small amount of stove gas. For example, if the furnace uses 10x cubic feet of gas and leaks 50% less per cubic foot than the stove, the furnace will leak 5x more cubic feet than the stove. (Completely made up numbers.) Then the next question is, how does the furnace leak in the basement affect the air quality where people typically breathe?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CaliforniaKarl 4y ago
  Modern gas furnaces use the outside atmosphere for combustion. It helps get them high (for gas) efficiency levels! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBVvnDfW2Xo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBVvnDfW2Xo
- gwbas1c 4y ago
  We had a Viking stove with an extremely powerful fan. In general, it sucked everything out. The furnace vented outside.

shepherdjerred 4y ago

danShumway 4y ago
I know, right? The nanny state is ridiculous, next they'll ban lead paint in nurseries. ---- But more seriously, regulations should be driven by the amount of harm the regulation would prevent, the costs/side-effects of the regulation, etc... I'm unsure where gas stoves fall on that spectrum without more research.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  Another huge consideration is who it harms. Does it only affect the person who chooses to engage in that activity or is it hurting someone else who cannot consent.
  - danShumway 4y ago
    This is a good point, but utility/housing bans, lead paint bans, electrical wiring standards, and so on, are often less about someone individually harming themself, and more about having a standard minimum quality/safety level for houses being sold, as well as for protection for other family members/kids. Back to the lead paint example, there's something of an argument to be made that if you want to handle lead, you should be able to. But it's nice for everyone else to not have to wonder if the house they're buying is a toxic death trap that will cognitively affect their children. Similarly, if gas stoves do significantly reduce air quality in a way that matters (again, that's an if), I don't think it's too unreasonable to impose restrictions on people renting out properties or building houses. When we talk about how much harm a regulation is preventing, we treat harm that comes from informed consent as less dire than harm that comes from uninformed action or as a result of other people's choices that an individual had no control over. A lot of building codes and standards have impacts on not just harms that come from informed consent, but also on other people as well who might just want to know that their kitchen isn't silently harming them.

Tiktaalik 4y ago

In Vancouver, where 54% of CO2 emissions is natural gas use in buildings, the City has recently banned natural gas use in new building construction, however they did leave the door open to allowing natural gas use for cooking and fireplace. I suppose the dominant amount of CO2 is coming from water heating and home heating. Perhaps there are some allowances for restaurants as well. I think that would make sense to me. I recall reading at the time when these policies were announced that home builders felt that it would be pretty bad with money for a home to pay for a gas hookup purely for cooking, so in the future the only people that would probably do it would be rich cooking enthusiasts that have money to throw away. Regular people would probably decline gas altogether. (Personally when my ancient gas stove recently broke I replaced it with a new induction stove and I'm finding it exceptionally great)

wrycoder 4y ago
Does that include the CO2 from power generation?
- brewdad 4y ago
  It is far easier and cheaper to capture CO2 emissions at the generation source than at each single point of use. Longer term, we build a cleaner grid.
- freeone3000 4y ago
  Sure. BC is 87% hydro, 5% biomass, 3% wind.

cwkoss 4y ago

Why not just apply a gradually increasing natural gas tax across the state? Wouldn't that have a similar effect to a ban-for-future construction, provide consumers with choices, and generate revenue?

Gigachad 4y ago
The problem with that is you end up with people who are too poor to afford to replace their gas kitchen and too poor to afford this new tax. By applying it only to new builds, you eventually phase out gas without ever putting financial stress on anyone. You can then speed it up later by paying for houses to be upgraded to electric.