This regulation feels quite frustrating to me, and several comments in this thread illustrate why.<p>This change is being promoted as a critical step in the fight against climate change. (See most news articles over the past two years covering this.)<p>But when you dig into the details, it seems like the regulation may not have much effect on climate change at all.<p>When you point this out to advocates, you'll get an <i>entirely different</i> argument, this time about personal health. I don't think the personal health justification stands up to scrutiny, for two reasons:<p>1. If you buy a home and want it to have a gas stove, why is it the state government's place to say that you can't do so, for your own health?<p>2. According to research I've seen, vented fume hoods seem to mitigate any health effects; if that's true and a state government really wants to intervene, why not spread awareness or perhaps mandate that newly constructed buildings with gas lines also have venting for fume hoods? (Incidentally, requiring venting for fume hoods would be a nice baseline for New York.)<p>I haven't seen any well-reasoned debate on this topic, possibly because the rationale for the regulation is, in fact, incoherent.
I don't often like to take a "both sides" approach when assessing specific issues, but this one just seems to highlight the stupidity, or at the very least shortsightedness, of both sides.<p>On one hand, for those pushing for a ban, this seems largely performative, a la banning plastic straws. Gas is used for 2 main reasons: for cooking, where it represents a miniscule amount of overall energy use, and for heating, where, if what all the heat pump folks say is true, gas should fall out of favor vs. heat pumps eventually anyway. On the other side, I'm tired of the constant cries of "Muh Freedom!!!" in the face of any regulation that ignores the collective impact of not having any regulations.<p>Still, even for those who are gravely concerned about global warming, this feels like it will lead to a pyrrhic victory at best by making your average Joe more skeptical of government overreach. It seems like there could have been umpteen different types of government responses (e.g. support for heat pumps) that would have been better received by most folks compared to "we're banning something that a lot of people find useful and convenient".
Berkeley attempted this and it was recently overturned: <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-overturns-berkeley-californias-gas-ban/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-overturns-berkeley-califo...</a><p>California's electric grid is in horrendous shape. We can barely keep the power on in the summertime, especially when wildfires happen. When the power is out, am I expected to start a fire in my yard to cook food? Fire up my JetBoil? My BBQ?
Only 24% of my state (Washington) has gas stoves. We have already begun the process to ban Natural Gas into new buildings. Nothing major is happening and the sky is not falling.<p>If you are curious about your state's ratio of gas to electric stoves, you can check here [PDF warning]: <a href="https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/state/pdf/State%20Appliances.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/state/...</a>
Electricity is a universal protocol - you can generate it with multiple different energy sources, ranging from gas to nuclear. I think this change future-proofs constructions, and makes our infrastructure less fragile.
The irony is most of the industrial energy used in NYC to spin the pumps and fans in HVAC and thermal energy provided for heating water in boilers / air in NYC comes from steam generation plants. I used to live next to one near w58th street. For those who don't know, these massive facilities as large as power plants (some historically protected) run on natural gas!<p>Although, it did boggle the mind how my luxury 2br apt (built in 2018) had a gas stove with only a small "suck" vent (return air of sorts that just vents to the roof)in each bathroom. If I ran the stove too long I'd set the fire alarm off from carbon monoxide and particulate in the air. So I'm actually a big proponent of doing this for indoor air quality.
The reactions to the gas hookup ban really reminds me of how insular Americans really are.<p>They can’t even imagine a world where gas does not come in pipes, when arguably that’s how the vast majority of the world lives.<p>You want a gas stove? Buy a gas stove, and get a cylinder. No one is stopping you from doing that.<p>Just don’t expect everyone else to subsidize running that gas in a pipe up to your gas stove.
Everyone is worked up about losing their gas stove, but natural gas heating is far more reliable and efficient than any electric option right now. This will create a lot of issues until heat pumps catch up. Northern New York is very cold.
IMHO: The government including EPA has been hijacked by corporate interests that destroy the environment literally on an industrial scale. The same club of multinationals have expropriated our middle class and sent it to China, which is profitable in part because of the lack of environmental regulations which manages to be even worse than the hollowed out ones we enjoy here.<p>So while all this is going on we have the bullshit with straws, our printers turning themselves off constantly, and now this, as if people in their homes are the lever that needs to be pulled to fix the environment. It’s a farce and a diversion from the corruption that’s actually contributing to environmental damage.<p>Electric and gas stoves are not analogs, at all. Bet your ass the politicians pushing this for optics will NOT be using an electric stove at home.
"In addition to the environmental concerns raised by such widespread use of natural gas, some health experts have also argued that using it in the home, especially when cooking, may pose a health risk to consumers."<p>Spending a day walking around NYC is probably worse for my health than years of gas stove usage. Every time I leave the city I feel like I need a shower from all the grime and who knows what I feel caked on me.
And NPR told me that the possibility of gas stoves being banned was fake outrage: <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/01/20/1150228734/the-facts-and-strategy-behind-the-outrage-over-rumors-of-a-ban-on-gas-stoves" rel="nofollow">https://www.npr.org/2023/01/20/1150228734/the-facts-and-stra...</a>.
Very controversial. U.S. as a divided land and government (now) can't pass anything in federal court so N.Y. is banning natural gas where oil companies in Alaska can dig well right next to preservation area and burn the excess gas on site (because app. it is cheap and they don't have infrastructure to transport or store), cooking massive fireballs 24 hours a day.<p>Is this step from N.Y. a leap too far? definitely. Is it in the right direction, as opposed to drill baby drill? Also definitely. However in actual climate impact, it is more sustainable to ban petrol car, but our battery tech does not allow everyone to buy EV. Either to public transportation or go junk traffic. Those petrol car (and SUV, "light truck") causes a lot more harm than natural gas which burns into water and carbon dioxide, from asthma to smog. Domestic use of natural gas is terribly effective to be ignored.<p>I don't know right now but I think they should mandate heat pump in every new houses so minimal energy can result in great heat in winter, instead of relying on AC and failed on grid. Also, N.Y. does not have tons of renewables?
I write software for natural gas utility management and maintenance. Between this and coding AIs, I’m glad I’m approaching retirement age.<p>Of course, new government regulations (not outright bans) are a lot of what drives the need for our software.
I used to not really be for these bans but - the big issue that I find is that due to the gas lobby, we're not going to make progress on this front until hard hitting regulations come in. As long as you have a pipe that is being serviced going to your home - how many people can justify the hookup fee every month along with all the infrastructure to give you gas <i>just</i> for cooking? It's nonsensical because the amount of gas used is trivial. Therefore, the push will always be to use gas heating and other gas appliances as much as possible because the infrastructure for the building is still there. That's what the gas lobby relies on - using your emotional attachment to gas cooking (which has been a long effort by theirs for the last 50+ years) to make sure that they keep getting you to pay them money for gas for heating, drying clothes, etc. even if alternatives exist that are plenty suitable/better-for-us-all.<p>Also - this is going to be a miniscule amount of difference in the lives of us all. If you're so concerned - buy an old home. Good thing we basically don't ever build anything new. This is a non-issue.
IMHO it should say "especially stoves".<p>While gas stoves are nicer for cooking then simple electrical stoves, induction stoves have become comparatively cheap and can be roughly as good as gas stoves.<p>At the same time having gas stoves is associated with a non small number of health risk especially with subpar ventilation and also associated with a non small risk for pretty bad accidents of all kinds.<p>So a ban on gas stoves is IMHO overdue.
They also keep threatening to ban the replacement of existing gas appliances when they cannot be repaired. I will be moving my family out of state before this happens.<p>Any of you electronauts interested in a ~5000sqft home in the middle of a picturesque village with no crime? You'll have to call the gas company about removing the hookup after you move in.
I used to be very much on the side of gas stoves are always better than electric. Then I had a decent inductor stove and it changed my mind for good.<p>Much of my opinion on electric stoves was based on “folklore” passed down from my parents and on using ancient resistive stoves.<p>Get an induction hob - you will not look back.
I'll be burying a 1000 gallon propane tank, for propane heating and two propane ranges (I have an apartment I've constructed) within the next year, with a propane generator to help during power outages, while I still can. I'll be heating/cooling primarily with a heat pump, but it simply cannot be relied upon for safety.<p>This is ultimately performative, as it doesn't really help reach carbon targets, and politically it seems like suicide with something like 70% of homes having a gas appliance. Even weirder, the governor is from Buffalo. I'm not sure that this is the hill to die on in the northeast. But I guess it would be good for property values of previous construction.
In Russia (despite one of the the cheapest gas prices for consumers) they are already ignoring gas for years. I think 95% of new buildings during the past 20 years or so were built without gas. So you end up with electrical stove and oven. The reason? It’s just cheaper and simpler for construction companies. There are a lot of regulations coming in if you decide to use natural gas in a new building, thus resulting in more expensive project, longer construction time and much more difficult acceptance procedures. Construction companies just prefer to ignore all these problems and use electricity instead.
If you have to use the coercive power of the state to make people use X instead of Y, it means Y is better in more ways for more people. You're just being an authoritarian and crushing individual liberty. The justification (correct or incorrect) doesn't matter. If it were really better, people will gradually switch to electric cooking equipment on their own. Like how government never had to ban horse drawn carriages and force everyone to buy an automobile.
Housing developers themselves often prefer not to run expensive natural gas plumbing into new buildings in addition to electricity. As an example, consider 461 Dean St, which besides being the largest modular skyscraper in the US, is fully electric [1].<p>This ordinance will just probably just push electrification from exclusively at the high-end out to the entire new housing stock.<p>1. <a href="https://461dean.com/" rel="nofollow">https://461dean.com/</a>
Isn't it obvious that we've just been through this exact same conversation for climate change, renewables, EVs, heat pumps?<p>It follows the exact same format of FUD, JAQ-ing, denial, illogic, intentional misunderstanding and avoidance of factual information.<p>Fool me once, shame on you.<p>Start what is effectively a religion to defend the financial interests of those burning fossil fuels at the expense of everyone else, shame on you even more.
I have a gas range and love the idea of an induction cooktop. Plenty of power and control without the difficult cleanup. But heaven help you if you’re stuck with 208V service as many do in condos and apartments where the building is serviced with 3 phase 480V. The reduction in wattage for a 240V appliance is significant and easily noticed.
As someone who worked professionally as a line cook in my younger years the benefits of cooking over a flame are primarily in fine and quick control over temperature. Moving the pan, lifting the pan, adjusting the temperature, etc, are key to a good number of dishes. You lose that fine-grained control with the various electric stovetops.
Given one of the health-deleterious of gas cooking come from the nitrogen in the atmospheric gasses used for combustion: maybe it would make sense to have stoves that used a pure oxygen source alongside the methane. This would be more expensive and hazardous but as a result lead to stronger controls over the combustion process.
Gaz stove have almost no upside compared to induction stove in most cases. Some elements of answer about why the adoption of induction is behind in the USA:
<a href="https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54</a>
More virtue signaling in the fight against climate change.<p>This will have zero impact on climate change and will only mean people can't feed themselves when the power goes out.
This is a good idea in general… eventually all of this gas infrastructure will be incredibly expensive to maintain just to send energy when you could send that through wires.
I'm frankly amazed at how dogmatic the argument around gas stoves is. How does this happen? How have people been educated about an issue like this so quickly?
Why not ban, or at least seriously curtail the emissions of the organization responsible for the most toxic pollution & whose mission is literally to kill people, the military, instead? How about the multitude of other government agencies responsible for pollution?
Will this also prohibit the installation of propane or other one-off gas cooking options at summer homes in the Hamptons? Are all those personal chefs going to have to make do with induction ranges?
How about facts for a change?<p>How many new housing units are built in the State of NY per year?<p>I'll call it 20K.<p><a href="https://furmancenter.org/news/press-release/new-york-built-185000-units-of-multifamily-housing-from-2010-2020" rel="nofollow">https://furmancenter.org/news/press-release/new-york-built-1...</a><p>Let's go with the moonshot proposal of 50K per year (good luck):<p><a href="https://www.bdcnetwork.com/new-york-city-advances-plan-build-500000-new-housing-units" rel="nofollow">https://www.bdcnetwork.com/new-york-city-advances-plan-build...</a><p>How many housing units in NY State?<p>Approximately 8 million.<p><a href="https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/new-york/housing-statistics" rel="nofollow">https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/new-york/housing-statis...</a><p>How many housing units in the entire nation?<p>Approximately 140 million.<p>What percentage of CO2 does the US contribute to the planet?<p>Approximately 14%.<p>Look for the pie-chart about half-way down.<p><a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions" rel="nofollow">https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...</a><p>First conclusion:<p><pre><code> If the US evaporated from the planet tomorrow,
CO2 production would only decrease by 14%.
Global CO2 would continue to increase at the same rate.
The net effect on climate would be zero.
</code></pre>
Second conclusion:<p><pre><code> The proposal is to force 0.6% of NY State housing
units to use electric stoves.
The proposal is to force 0.04% of US housing units
to use electric stoves.
Electric stoves are NOT zero-emission devices.
Less, yes, not zero.
Even assuming zero emissions, the net effect on US CO2
contribution will effectively be zero.
</code></pre>
Third conclusion:<p><pre><code> This proposal is empty and ridiculous.
It has no foundation in evidence of any kind.
It does, however, serve to garner votes from those
who believe in this stuff blindly and follow politicians
like they actually know and care about any of this stuff.
</code></pre>
Wait!<p><pre><code> Wait a minute! You are only considering one year?
How about 50 years?
</code></pre>
Right. So, the US continues to contribute CO2 to the world at a rate likely exceeding 14% of the total contribution and, somehow we are going to save the plante by not cooking using gas for half an hour per day?<p>What do you want to bet that the act of constructing 50K new housing units per year will generate far more CO2 than those 50K gas stoves will generate for their entire useful lifetimes?<p>Seriously! Is anyone even interested in science and evidence any more?<p><pre><code> But, but, health?
</code></pre>
Seriously? With eight billion people around the world, millions must be dropping dead every day because they cook for half an hour per day using fire. The horror!<p>This thing has become a blind belief system, not a subject people can discuss based on facts-based hypothesis that allow anyone to reproduce the results and confirm the conclusions.<p>A couple of potential definitions of the term:<p><pre><code> Believing something in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
or...
A strong belief in a supernatural power in support of a conclusion.
or...
Magic.
</code></pre>
Believing that forcing 0.6% of the stoves in NY State per year will have an effect on climate change is a belief so ridiculous that, in a rational society, it would be summarily laughed off the stage.<p>Yet, this isn't a rational society. It is a tribalized society based on blind beliefs of all kinds promoted through social media and mercilessly used by politicians to get the unthinking masses to vote for them.<p>Blind belief is a powerful tool.<p>With help, it seems to be a LOT easier to get the masses to believe in absolute nonsense than to actually work hard and deliver tangible results that actually benefit society. This is particularly true when the politician can take advantage of complicit actors in society who also stand to benefit from the nonsense they want to sell or the power they aim to acquire.<p>People, companies, are making money and gaining power with this belief system hand-over-fist. It is amazing to watch this happen as an objective observer. It is frustrating to yell out loud "The emperor has no clothes" only to be met with blind belief and ignorance of facts, as if it were a virtue.<p>This proposal is like claiming that banning birthday candles and fireworks will save the planet. It's ridiculous, idiotic, demonstrably false and anyone who can add 1 + 1 and get 2 should see it as such.<p>Hold on. Here come the attacks...
As always, follow the money and give no heed to virtue signaling politicians who claim to care about climate change while living in multiple homes, flying around on private jets and rarely spending any time in nature.
This seems like a risky bet.<p>The monoculture could come and bite hard NYC. A city already a hot target for terrorism... now exposed to the unknown (tiny ?) probability, of 1 EMP, one solar flare, one major blackout via hack or mechanical failure....and its millions without basic heating, and who knows for how long ? an entire winter ?
This is a stupid idea for rural NY. Way to increase the cost of living here…<p>Like, this is why people in rural areas hate big cities. This is completely fair for NYC. Not for the rest of NY. Not without a lot of investment from the government.<p>You’re effectively left with oil, wood, and electric heat. All three have a lot of their own problems and difficulties.