4 ms·
Last paragraph: “Ventilation is really where this discussion should be, rather than banning one particular type of technology,” said Jill Notini, a vice presid
by mhb 4y ago
Last paragraph:
“Ventilation is really where this discussion should be, rather than banning one particular type of technology,” said Jill Notini, a vice president with the Washington-based trade group. “Banning one type of a cooking appliance is not going to address the concerns about overall indoor air quality. We may need some behavior change, we may need [people] to turn on their hoods when cooking.”
- FiloSottile 4y agoTrade groups suggesting personal behavior changes to address systemic issues with the thing they sell are such a standard playbook that I am surprised it still works.
- mhb 4y agoSo you're saying she's wrong?
- formerly_proven 4y agoThat's the point, it isn't. Just like reducing your carbon footprint is good for climate change. Is that an effective way of dealing with climate change? No.
- FiloSottile 4y agoYes. I am saying the whole concept of public health and safety (as well as information security) is based on the observation that you can't just "tell people to change a behavior". It's like saying that electrical rules in building codes are overreach, because people can just avoid touching exposed wires.
- mhb 4y agoOK. So the clause trade groups suggesting is just ad hominem noise. Maybe your point is that making cooking appliances more expensive to improve them in one dimension is worthwhile since it is greater than a person's benefits in some other life dimension.
- FiloSottile 4y agoThat's not what "ad hominem" means, and you don't seem interested in discussing any systemic dynamic. I am disengaging, have a great day!
- mhb 4y agoOK. Bye. But use the extra time to find out what ad hominem is.
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y agoBetter choice would be to ban gas stoves that don't automatically turn on the hood ventilation. Require the hood to vent outside, require the hood to work automatically, and then you've avoided needing a personal behavior change yet still addressed the issue without banning the cooking method!
- elzbardico 4y agoMost gas range manufacturers either already have induction products or can easily enter the market. The barriers of entry are really low, it is not like you are building 3nm microchips. Brand recognition and existing distribution channels favor existing manufacturers. For the investors perspective it looks like a non-brainer decision to stand behind this ban. Consider how many existing households would feel compelled to retrofit to induction, the ability to have differentiated product lines with premium features commanding premium profit margins. The idea that gas oven manufacturers would not enthusiastically embrace this change reflects a naive and moralistic world view.
- u801e 4y agoWhy wouldn't it work? If an automotive trade group suggested that one should not let their car's engine idle in a closed garage and the garage should be open while doing so, the advice would not work? Education has to start from somewhere, regardless of the source.
- janalsncm 4y agoThe bias of an industry trade group arguing against the ban of their product notwithstanding, it’s a bad argument. A natural reading of this defense quickly gets bogged down in the squishy ambiguity of corporate ipsum. Banning one type of cooking appliance will address air quality. That’s the whole point of the regulation. The most charitable reading is that it’s making the perfect the enemy of the good. It won’t solve the problem, sure, but air quality will improve if every single gas stove is replaced.
- mhb 4y agoIt's not just the most charitable reading; it's the only reasonable reading. Of course air quality will improve if you force people to buy the more expensive thing. But maybe that's not the best way for everyone to improve their lives or health compared to other ways they could spend that money. There are a zillion things you could require people buy that would make them healthier.
- janalsncm 4y agoDoing X is not going to address Y in most contexts means that X will not fix Y at all. > Eliminating materials like concrete or plastic or replacing them with alternatives is not going to address the fundamental problem with human attitudes and our unparalleled appetite for more. Eliminating plastics will not fix the problem of overconsumption at all. > However, the introduction of the reverse onus at bail is not going to address intimate partner violence and empower women, at least not meaningfully. Placing the burden of proof on accused abusers will not fix intimate partner violence at all. “At least not meaningfully” is an important qualifier because otherwise any amount of mitigation of the problem undermines the claim that X doesn’t address Y. These are the first relevant hits on Google for ‘"is not going to address" -gas’. I excluded some that didn’t seem relevant (e.g. “John Oliver is not going to address”, I am interested in X being a problem not a person). Now if we look back at the lobbyists’ statement it’s clearly a tortured construction. They are contorting it to mean that doing X will not solve Y 100%. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210520-could-humans-really-destroy-all-life-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210520-could-humans-rea... https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5245986 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5245986