The Biden (interim) Dictator

[passranch]

This thread has taken a really weird turn today.

[sonofdaxjones]

DeflectoconsgE:  ENGAGE!

[Kat Kid]

Love the latest tactic.   

If you point out what #blueanon is doing (and lying about) then you're just trying to be a victim.   

Oh, but ya see, you don't understand nuance.  We're not trying to ban gas stoves, just not allow them in new homes (which as we all know will then creep to renovations, and then creep to just straight out banning them across the board).

I’m not afraid to say we should ban gas stoves in residential homes.

Why?

Dangerous
Bad for health
Bad for environment

[catastrophe]

You really need to quantify each of those categories somehow. Talk about paternalistic if just meeting those criteria is grounds for banning something.

[catastrophe]

Like I’m not sure why the “don’t let them buy nutritionless white bread with government money,” and the “don’t let them use gas stoves” are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

...wait so DreamWeaver69 was actually 420seriouscat69 this entire time??

[LickNeckey]

you just mumped up big time

[cfbandyman]

Chicago talking about banning gas furnaces is pretty bold. That would be a fairly significant increase to cost of living.

Well heat pumps are starting to be better/work in colder weather, so once that gets adopted in large scale no one will care. I for one am super excited for something like this bad boy:

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/147230-carrier-to-begin-field-trials-of-cold-climate-heat-pump-challenge-prototype

The other funny thing about heat pumps is once you get south of MO/KS they are pretty close to the norm, it's "up north" it's been harder to make them work, like pretty sure all FL uses them, so plenty of MAGAs live in a heat pump house.

Also, side note, fairly ok with gas being "banned." I think it's fairly extreme to "ban" it but there is no right to a gas stove, and as others outlined, there are legit concerns vs just saving the environment (CO, explosions, etc).

[wetwillie]

Banning natural gas heaters would be the ultimate shoot your own dick off move

[sys]

Dangerous
Bad for health
Bad for environment

the first one is false, i think.  probably more risk of a catastrophic event with gas, but electric is several more times likely to cause burns (this is probably not true with induction electric?).

second one is probably trivially true.  at least from when i looked at some studies a couple weeks back, the media narrative was way ahead of the data and analyses.  if i had to guess, they probably are slightly worse for health than electric, but the effect size is so small as to be meaningless.

third one is mostly true, although stoves alone are a trivial component of energy use (if you include furnaces and boilers it gets a little more significant, like in the realm of 5% of energy use)

[Rage Against the McKee]

The support for a ban on gas stoves is very strange to me, because I had never even heard it suggested until some government official in California proposed it a month or two ago. Bans on indoor smoking had a large amount of public support before governments started implementing them. Not sure why people would champion a loss of personal agency in favor of miniscule environmental impact.

[8manpick]

It has definitely been talked about in AEC industry circles for a couple of years at least

[kim carnes]

The support for a ban on gas stoves is very strange to me, because I had never even heard it suggested until some government official in California proposed it a month or two ago. Bans on indoor smoking had a large amount of public support before governments started implementing them. Not sure why people would champion a loss of personal agency in favor of miniscule environmental impact.

Pretty sure Berkeley banned them a few years ago.

[michigancat]

The support for a ban on gas stoves is very strange to me, because I had never even heard it suggested until some government official in California proposed it a month or two ago. Bans on indoor smoking had a large amount of public support before governments started implementing them. Not sure why people would champion a loss of personal agency in favor of miniscule environmental impact.

the NYC law only impacts new construction (not including commercial kitchens) is projected to reduce emissions the equivalent of 450k cars per year.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/new-york-city-is-banning-natural-gas-hookups-for-new-buildings.html

I won't look into the details but that seems like a decent amount given the limited scope. but it really might not be.

[wetwillie]

It’s saying the 13 years from 2027 to 2040 would reduce emissions equivalent to the output of 450,000 cars in one year.  So about 35k cars a year emissions in perpetuity from 2027 forward.

[michigancat]

It’s saying the 13 years from 2027 to 2040 would reduce emissions equivalent to the output of 450,000 cars in one year.  So about 35k cars a year emissions in perpetuity from 2027 forward.

You are correct on the number of cars per year but it would increase assuming it continues. But that is still pretty low

[BIG APPLE CAT]

It kinda feels like one of those things where the company with the gigantic plant that uses millions of gallons of water a day for their industrial processes says “ya know what the problem is? People not turning off the faucet when they brush their teeth”

But I mean, it’s not like it’s hurting anything to move in that direction. The government isn’t going to come kick in your door and confiscate your gas stove

[cfbandyman]

It kinda feels like one of those things where the company with the gigantic plant that uses millions of gallons of water a day for their industrial processes says “ya know what the problem is? People not turning off the faucet when they brush their teeth”

But I mean, it’s not like it’s hurting anything to move in that direction. The government isn’t going to come kick in your door and confiscate your gas stove

All of this is also correct

[sonofdaxjones]

How many cars? Yeah, uhhh let’s say 450,000, roll with that.

[wetwillie]

I’d like for the Rocky Mountain Institute to show their math on the emissions reductions, cause I think they are a bunch of dry dicks

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Well, no, you see WW, they’re buying carbon credits so like, it’s fine

[sonofdaxjones]

#blueanon:  Supreme gas lighters.

Truly the best

‘Grats you guys.

[LickNeckey]

[sonofdaxjones]

Lick in his usual full DeflectoCon role on this Friday.

[star seed 7]

Lol