3 ms·

> 1% or 28% of global CO2 emissions, if this statistic is even true, is huge. 1% of 28%. If we trust that number, that means that the best we can hope for from

> 1% or 28% of global CO2 emissions, if this statistic is even true, is huge. 1% of 28%. If we trust that number, that means that the best we can hope for from this change is 0.0028 (0.3%, rounding up) of global emissions. That number is a ceiling: it assumes that not only do new buildings not have gas stoves, but that all old gas stoves in the United States are removed as well. This negligible (IMO) improvement comes at the cost of 1) being vulnerable during power outages, 2) having a far worse cooking experience on a daily basis, according to many, and 3) generating significant political backlash that will hinder changes that will actually make a difference. One of my favorite climate change books is How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, by Bill Gates, in which he outlines where the biggest opportunities lie. His approach seems far more practical and likely to make a dent in the problem.

kerkeslager 3y ago
> One of my favorite climate change books is How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, by Bill Gates, in which he outlines where the biggest opportunities lie. His approach seems far more practical and likely to make a dent in the problem. This is one of your favorite books, and it literally, explicitly disagrees with what you're saying? One of the core points of that book is that reducing emissions is not enough--we have to eliminate emissions, not reduce them, and investing in reduction solutions may in fact prevent eliminating emissions. Natural gas is literally the example he gives of this. He notes that natural gas is a minor carbon emitter compared to other fossil fuels, but continued investment in natural gas means that we'll still be emitting carbon in 2050, which is his target date for eliminating carbon emissions. That reduction won't be enough--elimination is the only solution. I mean, dude, it's in the Wikipedia summary. Why would you cite this without at least putting in 30 seconds to investigate whether it supports what you're saying?
- iamdamian 3y ago
  One of the core points of the book, if I recall correctly, is that regulations should be made in practical, data-driven ways and "bring everyone along for the ride". Without this approach, we will fail. This means starting with high-impact changes that people will buy into, and prove to them that the change is worth it. Removing gas stoves is a terrible move at this stage.

kerkeslager 3y ago

> One of my favorite climate change books is How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, by Bill Gates, in which he outlines where the biggest opportunities lie. His approach seems far more practical and likely to make a dent in the problem. This is one of your favorite books, and it literally, explicitly disagrees with what you're saying? One of the core points of that book is that reducing emissions is not enough--we have to eliminate emissions, not reduce them, and investing in reduction solutions may in fact prevent eliminating emissions. Natural gas is literally the example he gives of this. He notes that natural gas is a minor carbon emitter compared to other fossil fuels, but continued investment in natural gas means that we'll still be emitting carbon in 2050, which is his target date for eliminating carbon emissions. That reduction won't be enough--elimination is the only solution. I mean, dude, it's in the Wikipedia summary. Why would you cite this without at least putting in 30 seconds to investigate whether it supports what you're saying?

iamdamian 3y ago
One of the core points of the book, if I recall correctly, is that regulations should be made in practical, data-driven ways and "bring everyone along for the ride". Without this approach, we will fail. This means starting with high-impact changes that people will buy into, and prove to them that the change is worth it. Removing gas stoves is a terrible move at this stage.