3 ms·

Consumer Reports, for one, is happy to report that "No other cooking technology we’ve tested is faster than induction." I would think a lot of the advantages o

Consumer Reports, for one, is happy to report that "No other cooking technology we’ve tested is faster than induction." I would think a lot of the advantages of induction are really obvious, so I don't think your statement that they are "inferior to gas in every way" is particularly in good faith. No gas in a building should be obviously advantageous. Reduced ability to cause burns or fires too. Reduction of use of a potent greenhouse gas.

briandear 4y ago
Why can’t people have the choice for gas or induction? Why must government tell us what kind of stove to use? If reducing greenhouse gases from stoves matters to you, you can make the choice to do that.
- danShumway 4y ago
  I think this mostly comes down to externalities. I somewhat doubt that consumer usage of gas stoves actually matters that much to emissions (though it might be important for getting rid of gas lines, possibly), but in the abstract people doing something with a negative universal externality isn't a purely private choice. It's a bit like saying, "if you care about the neighborhood being quieter, then you're free to turn off your own radio at night, but don't yell at me for blasting a boombox at 4AM, that's my choice". The greenhouse gases you let out don't stay on your property, they "trespass" onto everybody else's -- so it's more difficult for me to view pollution as a purely individual choice because air pollution is effectively dumping waste onto other people's land. Of course, sometimes there are ways we can influence outcomes without outright banning things. Maybe you're allowed to play your boombox at full volume at 4AM but have to pay an noise tax? Maybe we subsidize replacing your boombox with an iPod and some decent headphones? Policy is complicated. But even if you approach this from a pure Libertarian perspective, Libertarianism has a concept of conflicting rights and acknowledges that a recursive "right to infringe other people's rights" doesn't actually work and is reasonable in many situations to ban. I suspect that the pure Libertarian perspective would be that you can burn as much carbon as you like as long as those emissions stay entirely on your property and aren't being dumped into the collective atmosphere for everyone else to deal with.
ramtatatam 4y ago
In the past 15 years I happened to rent in many cities and use all three technologies to heat my food (that is, gas, resistive and induction) and indeed, induction heats in shortest amount of time.

briandear 4y ago

Why can’t people have the choice for gas or induction? Why must government tell us what kind of stove to use? If reducing greenhouse gases from stoves matters to you, you can make the choice to do that.

danShumway 4y ago
I think this mostly comes down to externalities. I somewhat doubt that consumer usage of gas stoves actually matters that much to emissions (though it might be important for getting rid of gas lines, possibly), but in the abstract people doing something with a negative universal externality isn't a purely private choice. It's a bit like saying, "if you care about the neighborhood being quieter, then you're free to turn off your own radio at night, but don't yell at me for blasting a boombox at 4AM, that's my choice". The greenhouse gases you let out don't stay on your property, they "trespass" onto everybody else's -- so it's more difficult for me to view pollution as a purely individual choice because air pollution is effectively dumping waste onto other people's land. Of course, sometimes there are ways we can influence outcomes without outright banning things. Maybe you're allowed to play your boombox at full volume at 4AM but have to pay an noise tax? Maybe we subsidize replacing your boombox with an iPod and some decent headphones? Policy is complicated. But even if you approach this from a pure Libertarian perspective, Libertarianism has a concept of conflicting rights and acknowledges that a recursive "right to infringe other people's rights" doesn't actually work and is reasonable in many situations to ban. I suspect that the pure Libertarian perspective would be that you can burn as much carbon as you like as long as those emissions stay entirely on your property and aren't being dumped into the collective atmosphere for everyone else to deal with.

ramtatatam 4y ago

In the past 15 years I happened to rent in many cities and use all three technologies to heat my food (that is, gas, resistive and induction) and indeed, induction heats in shortest amount of time.