[glitchinc]

Why not properly educate the population on why electric stoves should be preferred over alternative stoves?

Why not incentivize buyers to buy electric stoves (e.g., tax credits) or incentivize OEMs to lower the cost of electric stoves?

As someone who’s house is intentionally and entirely designed around the premise that we lose mains power on a routine basis due to poor infrastructure and challenging environment (a mountain with dense forest), and wish to have a means for cooking food indoors without electricity, I have a propane stove. It is the only viable option as far as I am concerned, and as such, I am willing to pay a premium for one if I need to replace the unit I have. But if I can’t get a replacement propane stove in the future, what am I supposed to do? Overhaul my house at my own expense? Pay the electric company the multiple millions of dollars it would take to modernize their infrastructure to make an electric stove a viable option?

Shifting that much burden onto someone like me is absurd, as is this ban. There are numerous other ways to address the problem that the ban aims to solve.

Bans are rarely—if ever—good solutions, and should only ever be used as a measure of last resort. The situation at hand is far from one of last resort. But apparently the US is fully mired in the unfortunate “bans are the best way to score political points” phase of its history… one that I think we’d all be best served to put behind us quickly.

[nonethewiser]

> Why not properly educate the population on why electric stoves should be preferred over alternative stoves?

We have long passed treating people as adults. If people don’t see your way they are either manipulated, stupid, irrational, or malevolent.

[1letterunixname]

Manufacturing consent vs. force. People will not give up ICEs or meat agriculture willingly, even if it's killing us.

[Thorrez]

A tax would be better than a ban. The tax can increase every year. And the money from the tax could be redirected to help people transition to electric.

The downside of a tax is it's harder to implement, so there will be inefficiency in the system. A ban is easy.

[bradlys]

A tax would also affect old homes. This proposal only affects new homes.

It's really a slow phaseout. People are getting upset over nothing. You're not all buying new homes anyway.

[glitchinc]

The long term effect of such legislation, especially if replicated in other jurisdictions, is that OEMs will cease to manufacture LNG/LP appliances because of lack of demand.

If OEMs no longer sell LNG/LP appliances, vendors that make LNG/LP components (burners, orifices, combustion chambers, etc.) stop making them. Over time, appliances become unserviceable.

Then consumers must purchase electric appliances, even if they are not a viable option—because they are the only option.

You are correct; there is no cause for immediate concern for existing appliances and existing residences. But over time, only electric appliances (and parts) will be available for purchase, and that is precisely the intent.

Just as California emissions laws generally set the standard for automobiles that are available for purchase in the US, this legislation will have far reaching affects across the country.

[eesmith]

You cannot focus on only the negatives to determine if something is worthwhile.

We banned leaded fuels for cars. That made driving more expensive for people with older cars with engines designed for leaded fuel.

It also removed a lot of lead pollution.

The ban on CFCs for most air conditioning meant people had to find substitutes, and switch out cooling systems. That was expensive.

But it did not outweigh the effects of the increasing hole in the ozone layer.

People die every year from CO poisoning due to their gas furnaces.

[sp332]

If people were paying for their own healthcare, maybe we could let them take on the risk of improper fume hoods in their kitchens. But since the risk is socialized, your poor health choices could cost me money.

[eesmith]

> As someone who’s house is intentionally and entirely designed around the premise ...

Do you live in New York State? Otherwise it would seem like complaining about California earthquake construction requirements when you live on a houseboat in Georgia.

Also, these bills only concern new construction, not older houses, so wouldn't affect you.

> and wish to have a means for cooking food indoors without electricity

From earlier this year, at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/13/hochul-backs-ban-ga... , "The [replacement] proposal does not include gas stoves, according to the governor’s office."

> Pay the electric company the multiple millions of dollars it would take to modernize their infrastructure to make an electric stove a viable option?

The linked-to page says "requirements for reliable service [are] already enshrined in state law" and "A potentially major caveat on grid reliability pushed by Assembly Democrats and a major gas utility also hasn’t been finalized, leading environmental advocates to moderate their enthusiasm until they see the final wording."

That reads like NY will require the electric companies to modernize their grid, not you.

> Bans are rarely—if ever—good solutions, and should only ever be used as a measure of last resort.

Umm, housing and fire codes ban a lot of construction practices. Do you consider them a measure of last resort? Or scoring political points?

As an example, when Hurricane Andrew came through South Florida in 1992 there was a widespread realization that the building codes weren't good enough. ("South Florida building codes were completely revamped based on studies about compromised garage doors, roof structures, basically how to hold houses together, according to Gracia Szczech, FEMA Region IV director. Homes built today in the state of Florida are far stronger than pre-Andrew." - https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/lessons-learned-30-years-... )

Governor Chiles got "political points" for pushing improvements in those codes, which, yes, outright banned certain building practices.

You make it seem like that was a bad thing.

And in any case, we've known that gas furnaces result in CO poisoning deaths every year. If safer alternatives exist - which seems to be the case in NY - how many deaths do you need until you say a ban is indeed the proper last resort?