6 ms·

I was trying to figure out how much CO2 burning natural gas creates to get a grasp of how big of an issue this is. I found a source claiming 116.65 pounds of CO

I was trying to figure out how much CO2 burning natural gas creates to get a grasp of how big of an issue this is. I found a source claiming 116.65 pounds of CO2 per million BTU produced by burning natural gas. Even if we assume chefs have a really hot burner cooking at 20,000 BTU per hour, that's 2.3 pounds CO2 per hour. Add on a little more for the methane released (some sources say 1/3) if you want. Let's just round up to 3 pounds CO2 equivalent/hour cooking for what is likely an overestimation. If anyone has better estimates or sees an error in my math, I'd be happy to hear. Meanwhile producing a pound of beef causes 22 pounds of CO2 equivalent emissions. So, if you order a 16 oz steak that was cooked for 15 minutes on a gas stove, the stove was responsible for <3.5% of the emissions. So yeah, seems like a feel good measure that doesn't actually make much of a difference. But maybe that's the point? https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

wolverine876 4y ago
The impact of something else doesn't change the impact of what you do. If someone hands you a $1 million check, you don't say 'this is nothing compared to a $1 billion check; I'm not going to cash it'. If you create an open source project, you don't say 'it's not Linux, so I'm going to abandon it'. It's an absurd rhetorical argument. Just cut the GHG where you can. This relative impact argument is the latest FUD, IMHO. It's incredible to see whoever come up with one reason after another to resist action on climate change, and then see everyone repeat it. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.
- GoldenRacer 4y ago
  > Just cut the GHG where you can. I 100% agree and wasn't trying to discourage anyone from cutting where they can. I just think it's important to actually cut where you can and not make insignificant changes, pat yourself on the back, and call it a day. Imagine you had an employee that spent 7 hours a day browsing reddit 15 minutes a day smoking cigarettes and 45 minutes actually working. You approach them about wasting time and they respond "You know what boss, you're right. I'll cut out my smoke breaks." You'd be correct to tell them the 15 minutes of smoke breaks aren't the problem, the 7 hours on reddit is the problem! In the context of my above comment, if you really wanted to cut your CO2 production, you'd stop eating beef. Producing a pound of beans results in around 1 pound of CO2 emissions. When people start eating those instead of steak to cut their emissions, I'll start taking their desire to get rid of gas stoves seriously. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.
- al_borland 4y ago
  I think the point is that a lot of the actions being taken are more for optics than impact. This ban is only in LA, tiny localized action is more like someone handing you a check for 30 cents when you're a billionaire... you're probably not going to bother cashing that check. I'm not even a millionaire and I have often let checks for less than $1 sit around for too long, so I can't cash them. Focusing on these 30 cent checks, which distract from the million and billion dollar checks, seems to just be a means to kick the can down the road. We don't have time for that.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    I'd much rather the second largest city in the US take an initial stand that hopefully leads others to follow than sit around for 20 years waiting for Congress to fix things. The eventual legalization of marijuana at the federal level will have started with cities and states decriminalizing its possession and use. Change has to start somewhere.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      Yup. "We can't fix all of humanity's problems overnight, so let's do nothing at all." is a false dichotomy.

wolverine876 4y ago

The impact of something else doesn't change the impact of what you do. If someone hands you a $1 million check, you don't say 'this is nothing compared to a $1 billion check; I'm not going to cash it'. If you create an open source project, you don't say 'it's not Linux, so I'm going to abandon it'. It's an absurd rhetorical argument. Just cut the GHG where you can. This relative impact argument is the latest FUD, IMHO. It's incredible to see whoever come up with one reason after another to resist action on climate change, and then see everyone repeat it. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.

GoldenRacer 4y ago
> Just cut the GHG where you can. I 100% agree and wasn't trying to discourage anyone from cutting where they can. I just think it's important to actually cut where you can and not make insignificant changes, pat yourself on the back, and call it a day. Imagine you had an employee that spent 7 hours a day browsing reddit 15 minutes a day smoking cigarettes and 45 minutes actually working. You approach them about wasting time and they respond "You know what boss, you're right. I'll cut out my smoke breaks." You'd be correct to tell them the 15 minutes of smoke breaks aren't the problem, the 7 hours on reddit is the problem! In the context of my above comment, if you really wanted to cut your CO2 production, you'd stop eating beef. Producing a pound of beans results in around 1 pound of CO2 emissions. When people start eating those instead of steak to cut their emissions, I'll start taking their desire to get rid of gas stoves seriously. Meanwhile, the world is warming up.
al_borland 4y ago
I think the point is that a lot of the actions being taken are more for optics than impact. This ban is only in LA, tiny localized action is more like someone handing you a check for 30 cents when you're a billionaire... you're probably not going to bother cashing that check. I'm not even a millionaire and I have often let checks for less than $1 sit around for too long, so I can't cash them. Focusing on these 30 cent checks, which distract from the million and billion dollar checks, seems to just be a means to kick the can down the road. We don't have time for that.
- brewdad 4y ago
  I'd much rather the second largest city in the US take an initial stand that hopefully leads others to follow than sit around for 20 years waiting for Congress to fix things. The eventual legalization of marijuana at the federal level will have started with cities and states decriminalizing its possession and use. Change has to start somewhere.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    Yup. "We can't fix all of humanity's problems overnight, so let's do nothing at all." is a false dichotomy.