3 ms·
Just let people have stoves. I’ve noticed these types of “shade” articles that are strange and boring that an org like NPR dedicates people’s time to writing t
by prepend 3y ago
Just let people have stoves.
I’ve noticed these types of “shade” articles that are strange and boring that an org like NPR dedicates people’s time to writing this.
The goal isn’t to eliminate gas stoves. They don’t matter. It seems strange that anyone cares whether I have natural gas for stoves or not.
- fragmede 3y agoReally? The natural gas pipeline in San Bruno exploded in 2010, killing 8 people, and is far from the only disaster with natural gas, and you find it strange that people care what your house uses?
- prepend 3y agoThis isn’t really relevant though, is it? I don’t think anyone claims that infrastructure doesn’t have costs. Of course it does. But the argument is that the benefits are worth the cost. Brining up a gas pipeline explosion as relevant to a discussion about stoves isn’t useful unless you quantify what portion of that pipeline went toward cooking. The argument that all gas should be eliminated because 8 people died in 2010 is too simple.
- fragmede 3y agoPeople don't want to die is too simple?
- klabb3 3y agoI’m not a gas-proponent in any shape or form but this is at the very least an insufficient response. All forms of energy and infrastructure have accidents - a cost in blood. You could argue that gas has a higher total cost of life than other energy forms, perhaps. But it’s not like installing rooftop solar, maintaining windmills or dams are free from accidents. The safest energy in terms of deaths per Wh is fission IIRC. If you’re sitting on statistics that belongs to this discussion, please share it.
- fragmede 3y agoI'm responding to the notion that it's strange that people might not want to die. I don't have stats on the number of people that don't, apologies, I hate coming from a place where I have don't have data to support my views, but still, I imagine it's common enough not to be considered strange.
- prepend 3y agoI mean the significance. People die with all infrastructure projects. Any loss of life is sad. But 8 lives is important depending on the value from their loss. If it’s 8 lives in 100 years to allow 300 million people to have gas then that may be acceptable. Just like the loss of life from building hydro dams and solar arrays and whatnot. The simplicity isn’t in the loss of life, it’s in not performing the analysis to know if it’s meaningful or not. I suspect it’s not meaningful.
- FireInsight 3y agoWell, houses with gas stoves rely on gas. Households relying on gas likely make it less likely that other uses of gas are more accepted regardless of negative consequences.