this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
73 points (97.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5239 readers
559 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you want to ban gas for residential heating because heat pumps are better, why are you banning it for comercial cooking which is a much smaller source of emissions, and lacks a good electrical replacement?
Three reasons:
Heating is irrelevant for commercial kitchen gas usage.
You’re just trying to yoke this terrible idea to a more sensible one for residential heating.
No, it's relevant for the cost of distributing the gas. It's not cost-effective to run a gas distribution system just to commercial kitchens without the much larger distribution going to heating.
If that’s right, you don’t need to ban gas cooking, just ban residential heating and let the market take care of it.
Y’all just want to tear shit down to pat yourselves on the back.
Definitely could do it that way. But everybody is better off if we do it in a planned way instead of leaving people to deal with that kind of a mess.
So whats the plan to replace gas in commercial kitchens? Oh wait there isn’t one.
Two options right now:
Propane doesn't offer the benefits you seem to think it does. It's more expensive and the distribution system for it likely has as many issues as the natural gas does. Going after natural gas distribution while we still have larger and more significant sources of emissions is a minuscule bandage solution at best. At worst it solves a very minor source of emissions problems at a major cost in both money and convenience.
Those commercial and residential emissions - those are largely about the fuels burned in buildings. 14% of the total is enough to matter — and when we're running out of time to get emissions to zero, we need to cut it all to zero, not pick and choose.
What evidence do you have that it would be cost-ineffective to pipe natural gas to only businesses? The only thing they do these days when someone opts out of using natural gas is turn off the valve at the street. The gas still flows to other businesses and neighbors. It doesn't matter what Berkeley does because Oakland, Richmond, Hayward and every other town or city around Berkeley is not going to ban the use of natural gas. It's a non-starter. It's pointless to do.
There has been a ton of modeling on how declining numbers of ratepayers cause methane gas prices to skyrocket. If you actually get rid of almost all the people buying it, the last few are left paying a fortune for what was once common infrastructure shared by many people.
Right. And once it gets rolling, the disconnect (electrification) rate will undoubtedly increase. The sooner folks understand this, the sooner we can all get along to managing the wind down of the gas infrastructure in an intelligent way.
I'm not saying it's pointless but uh...https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime
There are only tiny numbers of billionaires, and we need to get emissions to zero to stabilize temperatures, so we're all going to need to pitch in, even if that means something like "change how we heat and cook" instead of "switch to sailboats instead of diesel mega-yachts and private jets"
Oh for fucks sake. Get off your high horse.