[lkbm]

> But most does not. So, this seems like putting the cart before the horse. Why not focus on improving how we generate electricity before we tear out all the gas?

What percentage should be from renewables before we start switching? What if it takes 10 years to get 90% of stoves replaced? It's surely not a "wait until the grid is 100% clean" situation.

Then add in the fact that induction stoves (and I believe electric stoves) are significantly more efficient than gas. With gas stoves, a ton of the heat just goes out into the kitchen, whereas induction gets much more directly into what you're cooking.

There's also the climate impact of unburned gas leaking into the atmosphere, though I don't know how significant this is. Ideally, we want to get to a place where we don't have to build gas transmission infrastructure to every building. This will take ages, so if it's important, we should start now, not after everything else is in place at the generation side of things.

Outside of climate concerns, there are also some significant negative health effects of gas stoves. e.g., much higher rates of asthma in households with gas stoves[0]

I have a strong preference for cooking with gas, mostly due to familiarity, but there are major downsides to the technology.

[0] https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/gas-stoves-hazardous-as...

[kmtrowbr]

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. It does make sense that most of the heat from a gas stove does not go into the cooking vessel. In fact I often use the electric kettle to speed cooking by pre-boiling water, then adding it to the cooking pot. And I also can see that the unvented exhaust from the combustion of the gas is unhealthy. And also, that leaks of gas into the atmosphere from poorly maintained pipes adds significant further greenhouse gases, as we know natural gas is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

Regarding, the timing of it all, I guess at the root my attitude here, is one of frustration, where ... we have known about this for literally 100 years, but we just don't care. Now we make theatrical laws, but current events are more of the same: warmongering and blowing one another up is more interesting than actually addressing our biggest problem: climate change.

But by all means I am all for whatever we can do and I agree we should do all the helpful things ASAP.

My concern with the law was that I honestly wasn't entirely convinced it's actually the right thing to do. But I certainly appreciate those three points you made above.

Do you feel this law makes sense as well for colder areas that require homes to be heated?

[lkbm]

My initial reaction to the gas stove thing when NYC started on it a few months ago was definitely "this is not the big culprit in climate change". There are clearly other laws and policies that are more important that we're not doing, and that's frustrating.

But gas stoves, much as I love 'em, are a problem, so we should be addressing that. I do think it's the right time to start shifting people over to electric/induction stoves. I'd favor taxing natural gas or gas stoves rather than outright banning, (and ideally we'd just do a "carbon tax" that covered all greenhouse gases), but political realities might mean the ban is the best we can do.

As for heating in colder climates, from what I understand, heating is also almost always more efficient using a heat pump, so in general I think it holds true that we should be weening off of natural gas everywhere.

[golemiprague]

Somehow it looks to me like it will take much more time to rump up our electricity production, especially from renewable sources, than switching at some stage to electric stoves and cars. Not that I mind improving the situation in all fronts but it certainly not the main issue that we need to focus on. I don't even believe climate change is such an issue but I also don't mind trying some improvements to appease people who are worried, it is just that we need at least to focus on the main problems and make it in a way that will not be too costly and bankrupt us all.