[hammock]

Pretty much every argument I have read in this post boils down to "electric is better" but crucially ignores a) the idea that preferences are individual, and b) even accepting something as universally "better" doesn't mean we ought to legislate it across an entire group of people (AKA centrally plan the economy).

[mason55]

One person’s “centrally planned economy” is another person’s “managing negative externalities”

A lot of the “electric is better” posts have an implied “gas stoves are bad for people and the environment so we should get rid of them but it’s fine because electric is better anyway”.

[marvin]

Negative externalities would ideally just be handled through proportional taxation. Then market incentives work it out. Taxes are used to clean up the externalities.

[Gibbon1]

That's the standard neoliberal solution that never works vs California's experience that phase outs and bans work well.

[marvin]

It currently costs $600 to permanently remove one ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. How many percent of the United States' CO2 emissions are subjected to this level of CO2 tax, along with similar import taxes to avoid shifting emissions to locales with no tax?

This will work.

[hammock]

Using $600 per ton of co2 across a 2000mi commercial flight with 150 passengers emitting 50lbs of co2 per mile, that works out to a tax of $200 per passenger (each way). Would double the price of a typical ticket

[marvin]

Yep.

It's pretty obvious that we need to work very hard at getting this cost down.

[ClumsyPilot]

can you imagine the amount of fraud that will be happening in CO2 accounting? The carbon credit market is already fraud-galore!

[imtringued]

The problem with neoliberalism is that it is about cutting taxes like these. The FDP in Germany is basically a tax cut party and nothing else.

[turtledove]

Electric pollutes less. Electric induction has a faster response. Electric is more energy efficient. Electric doesn't require a separate line and utility run to the house. Electric boils water faster. Electric produces less greenhouse gasses.

I mean, there's subjectively better ("I prefer to cook with it") but there are objectively better traits too.

[hammock]

Imagine if someone told you you had to marry someone other than your wife, because your wife’s genes are more likely to produce disabled offspring that would place a great burden on the social safety net.

[turtledove]

Ok, I'm imagining it. Now what?

Oh wait, were you trying to say that forced divorce and remarriage is the same thing as "this other type of cooking tool should be used instead of the one you are familiar with"?

Hahahaha

[hammock]

Yeah I’m not sure. Maybe it’s better if someone with more empathy imagines it

[imtringued]

Stoves are just machines, they don't have feelings nor do they have a self preservation instinct.

[colinmhayes]

The problem with "just let individuals choose" arguments is that our population seems to be extremely opposed to taxes that counteract externalities. Of course we should let people choose, but when their choice harms others we have to either charge them more or force them into making a different choice. I'd prefer taxes, but bans seem much easier politically.

[imtringued]

It is considered "social engineering" if your tax internalizes costs. I honestly have no idea how people come up with these arguments.

Surely, secretly subsidizing harmful behaviour is twice as bad, first due to the subsidy itself and second for the harm it causes to other people.