The two headlines for gas stoves doesn’t mean one is false. No one is coming for people’s currently owned gas stoves - just like no one is coming for people’s currently owned gas vehicles. Where did anyone say that bans on new sales is not coming? Admittedly I don’t have a subscription to NYT, so maybe there is a nugget in the body of th…
The two headlines for gas stoves doesn’t mean one is false. No one is coming for people’s currently owned gas stoves - just like no one is coming for people’s currently owned gas vehicles. Where did anyone say that bans on new sales is not coming? Admittedly I don’t have a subscription to NYT, so maybe there is a nugget in the body of the article - but that tweet? Inaccurate and drumming up controversy where there is none.
No, the problem is the first headline is based on a straw man argument that the bulk of the commenters here seem to also buy into. Namely that people concerned about gas stove regulations literally think someone is coming to their house to take their stove.
In reality most of these people know how building regulations work and they simply don’t want a future where there are no gas stoves. Maybe they are wrong to want such a future, but eliminating gas cooking over time is a lot more of a problem for many people than eliminating leaded gasoline.
Reflexive strawmanning of the right will reduce y’all’s ability to reason effectively. Yes the GOP is led by idiots who generally embody the worst caricatures of rightwing thought. But whether it’s gas stoves or campus cancel culture, strawmanning objections to the authoritarian impulses of the left will not serve you well.
I’ll take the occasional authoritarian impulses of the left aimed at improving the quality of life for folks over the actual authoritarian/fascist agenda to punish and demonize people that the right is selling.
Exactly. Are gas stoves a bad idea? yes, as it turns out. Do I have one and love it? yes. Is anyone going to remove it from my house? no. Bad headlines indeed
I dunno, Charlie, I really think it's a nontroversy for all of the reasons others have given. Which isn't to say that the right wing culture warriors aren't going to make it into a thing. I mean, they were all up in arms over butch M&M's fer chrissakes.
Being a long term resident of CA, this is no different than the holy war hullabloo when we first started to implement emission controls in our vehicles. Guess what, no one had their smoking tailpipe car pulled from their cold dead hands. At some point, I even got paid $500 to voluntarily junk an old car. These things are a gradual change and nobody goes to jail or dies. So, very sorry Charlie, this is happening but is truly much ado about nothing.
Alternate theory: for new construction the cost of running gas lines might be kind of prohibitive along with potential safety concerns with that infrastructure when electric options are more than sufficient. This makes sense.
This is true. Many years ago I was staying at me grandmother's apt in Chicago. I smelled a little gas but the stove looked fine. We fell asleep. A friend of mine woke me up pounding on the door. There was a gas leek and he said you could smell outside. The building could have exploded not to mention my grandma and me aphxiated. I have never lived in a place with a gas stove since. They are a menace.
I was wrong to say there is no controversy with gas stoves - the commenting here alone supports that. A more precise statement would have been that something like this shouldn’t be controversial (or at least not at this level). It doesn’t change that the tweet established a false equivalency to push a narrative. How is it any different than leaded gasoline/paint/pipes, aluminum wiring, or asbestos as others have noted here? While I am happy to debate policy points (but please don’t ask me do it for gas stoves, I really don’t care enough to enjoy it) - that isn’t what I took issue with.
And per science-gas stoves put tons of methane (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere every year. Should we just stop trying because some people love their gas stoves?
Thank you. I was disappointed in Charlie's "But I was reliably told..." segment. It clearly says "in new buildings". He doesn't need to create a ruckus when there isn't one.
Yes, soon they’ll be coming for our fentanyl, or our Corvairs, or, lord forfend, our trans fats! Screw the whales. Save the Big Gulp! Just because some idiot runs around with a blow torch doesn’t mean you should invite him/her/them to aim it at your head. The gas stove issue has some merit, especially older models of gas stoves that develop leaks and pose a danger in poorly ventilated spaces. And, yes, there is a move afoot to discourage/prevent installation of gas appliances in new or remodeled constructions. At the same time, we continue to subsidize natural gas production and fracking. Setting our hair on fire only ensures that the solutions to our legitimate problems take longer and are less effective. Meanwhile, the selfsame agitators who are worried about gas stoves have no problem in coming for your reproductive rights. It’s enough to make one put one’s head in the oven, which may be reason enough to hang on to the gas models.
I have a 30 year old gas cooktop that really needs to be replaced with something new. I have zero health issues after using this for 22 years (and no vent to outdoors). I have only 120 V electrical service there, so it can't be swapped out with an electric model without a big electrician bill. If they stop selling these units, I'm screwed. I guess I better hurry up.
Charlie is a conservative, or rather what a conservative used to be, so it's not surprising to see he views this differently than you and I. Frankly, being an old FDR type Dem myself, I'm surprised to agree with him on most issues he raises here. But I suspect there is a whole lot under the surface on which we would differ. But those things don't matter in the face of the threat to democracy now in front of us.
You know, I never see it that way. Charlie reports what's out there. Some of it is annoying but I don't assume he is blindly or thoughtlessly publishing ANYTHING. I expect exactly what I get and if I don't like it, he's not the one to complain to or about.
That's fair. But when he comments "But I was reliably assured..." it reminds me of the Fox News sleight-of-hand tactic. You were reliably assured, Charlie, that a gas stove/oven in your home is not going to be snatched away from you. It is also true that new buildings will not be set up for gas lines. Those two things aren't equivalent or mirror images of each other.
It's cheap and misleading, hence the right wing radio talk. He doesn't do it often, but he does do it from time to time (as does Mona). I understand that I don't have to agree with their POV, but I expect fewer cheap tactics from both of them. Old habits die hard, I guess.
...and I found that exact comment humorous. Many cheap and misleadings things are actually just jokes.
I get reprimanded a lot for taking the joke route by people who aren't looking for humor. I consider it their loss because missing a laugh? Not this ol' broad.
There really is not. I eat Triscuits by painstakingly separating each cracker into two layers with my teeth. Takes awhile, not real popular. Go figure.
I am already trembling in fear at the prospect that the Stove Police (a branch of the Gazpacho) is going to show up and rip my gas stove out of my house and leave me stove-less.
Except it is a building code thing that:
applies to future construction;
has a lot of exemptions for commercial reasons and size reasons;
and except I don't have a gas stove. Hmmmm.
There is a difference between a "tip of the spear" argument made about your choice of cooking appliance and things that concern constitutional rights. Maybe one is more important than the other?
I am far more concerned with the state of democracy, sorry.
I am Président of my co-op board. We have 106 apts in a 13th story building in midtown Manhattan. We all have gas stoves. There is no way that NYS is ever going to outlaw existing gas stoves without providing some incredible subsidies. Changing the existing pipes would be very expensive and the electric grid is not robust enough today to mandate that everyone switch to electric. Preventing installation of gas stoves in new buildings is not “coming” for anyone’s existing stoves. If someone prefers using a gas stove there are plenty of buildings like mine where they can have one. This is performative outrage.
Our Brooklyn daughter's 24 apt co-op in a 100 year old structure swapped out gas for electric because the insurance kept going up as buildings of their age blew up and burned. They retained the gas hot water furnace in the basement because the fuel lines could be maintained. Yes, it was a pain the tuchus, but also improved the units' re-sale value.
Thanks for that anecdote. We are going through many environmental upgrades - LED lighting, replacing AC - here right now. There is no way it is economically sensible for our building to switch from gas - we are bigger than your daughter’s, the building is “only” 60 yrs old and central systems are well-maintained. One day either the State or economics will require it but it is not today. I probably won’t be living here when it needs to be done - definitely won’t be co-op President!
“Sometimes it IS true”. The most recent example of that which popped into my brain, is DeSantis’s suddenly changing his restrictions on sexuality discussions in schools from third grade all the way through 12th - just as some people predicted.
Which makes me wonder if the “slippery slope” leans right or left, in factual real life.
Sarcastic. And those adults are my prediction of the group the GOP is going to want to arm next. How dare we take rights of self defense away from 18 year olds in schools?!?
Here is the thing with that: an objective observer can, on the basis of a larger body of evidence, foresee when this is going to be the case--because, usually, there is a lot of evidence pointing that way.
And it also seems to be true more often in an authoritarian context than other contexts (but that is based upon my gut feeling I can't put numbers on that ATM).
I vaguely recall a course on “change theory” when I was in nursing school in the 70s. It’s easy to imagine a recommendation, based on research, to enact change gradually. Sometimes it’s not malicious. Just necessary and effective. But maybe not in today’s paranoid climate against being “told what to do”.
The theoretical idea behind gradualism is that change requires stages and work (and getting used to). It requires getting people on board with the change, which usually means doing it in chunks.
And the RW won't give up their microwave ovens, either, because Tucker said that the tiny waves increase Aryan fertility, or something like that. I heard that on CNN. Or Newsmax. I get them confused nowadays, probably from inhaling methane leaking from the hob of my gas stove while my bougie espresso pot perks.
As someone who bought an older home a year ago, they didn’t even come for people’s lead paint when that was banned either. And I’m pretty sure the asbestos police didn’t come rushing in and start tearing out people’s fire-proofing back in the day either.
They've never come for people's aluminum wiring either. I'd compare the 'no natural gas in new construction' to the 'no leaded gas in new cars' back in the day.
This is true. However, two additional things are also true:
1. There is a legitimate "tip of the spear" argument to be made. Did you oppose the Florida "don't say gay" bill when it was just targeted through 3rd grade, for example, or did you wait until they brought it to bear all the way through 12th?
2. The distinction is too nuanced to matter. Maybe hold off on feeding the trolls at Fox fodder for their dystopian narrative until AFTER democracy is no longer under direct threat?
This is true. However, two additional things are also true:
1. There is a legitimate "tip of the spear" argument to be made. Did you oppose the Florida "don't say gay" bill when it was just targeted through 3rd grade, for example, or did you wait until they brought it to bear all the way through 12th?
I opposed it from the beginning. I thought everyone did.
Which is why they put democracy under threat so no progress on anything they don't like can be made. They win either way. They either take control or they scare the normies into appeasement. Perhaps not a big deal with gas stoves but there are plenty of other, more pressing, issues that use the same playbook.
If you don't want a gas stove ban then that is your right, but make it your own considered decision on the issue not a bone to throw the crazies or the crazy adjacent (people who can't decide between Dems and GOP right now).
I don't agree. Per my comment above, I think that because of the corner Rs have painted themselves into strategically, serious progress can be made on any issue that has widespread (70%) support. Focusing singularly on issues that meet that criterion will make progress AND demonstrate the unseriousness of the Rs.
But that is a pipe dream. There might be 70% support for such a ban in NYC. You can't prevent all local variance in priorities or variance in individual opinion expressed on social media.
That brings us back to whether this is a priority for national Democrats. It decidedly is not. If that isn't good enough for the normies then it will never be good enough.
Yeah, I don't think I'd restrict my 70% rule to the local jurisdiction. Since all politics is national now, and the point of the rule is to keep as many cudgels out of the hands of the unserious people as possible, I'd apply the rule statewide, at least, if not nationally.
There are other states that have at least considered similar proposals (CA and WA come to mind). It’s true that this specific item is just in new construction - for now. Next up, at some point, is no longer approving remodel permits for kitchens that don’t convert from gas to electric. At that point, once a critical mass of locales and / or states get there, the costs will start to go up and the market may wind up pricing most people out of gas.
To be sure, there are many benefits to getting off gas, primarily around health (climate change issues may wash out depending on sources of electricity). As you say, it may be naive to think it will just stop at new construction, but I can only muster so much outrage over this when there are higher priorities right now. I do, however, agree it is worth keeping an eye on to see how this evolves.
Important is that there are significant alternatives to gas in CA, WA, and NY, each having renewables in close/abundant proximity. I cook. The thought of being gasless causes me stress, but this is another anti-woke lede for the right who vehemently support taking away human and gender rights but whose heads explode about their BBQ.
I think we have a long, long road to pulling democracy out of direct threat territory. We can’t put everything else on hold to fight this one singular fight. By ignoring things that the government should do (like natural gas installations to address indoor air quality leading to health issues), it just feeds the narrative that government cannot help people. This will lead our democracy to crumble faster.
Exactly! Plus it won’t do a damn thing to keep the Fox trolls quiet. Their entire job is trolling. If it’s not about gas stoves or drag queens or history books, they’ll find something else to try and make Republican voters angry. They don’t have any consistent values or policy proposals. Inciting anger is the only tool they’ve got.
I think this is a good observation. However, which narrative do you think contributes to the crumbling of democracy more:
1. Government can't help people.
2. Those ivory tower liberals want to "help" you into a socialist worker's paradise by taking away even your most basic freedoms in the name of "health" and "safety". Shouldn't YOU be the one to decide if a gas stove is healthy or unhealtly? For you and your family? They are coming for your GAS STOVES!!! What ELSE will they take away if you let them take power? You can take my stove when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
In my view, the second one is way more pervasive and pernicious among the people that still need to be persuaded. I believe that focusing on #1 to the exclusion of #2 has helped the extreme right erode the trust Americans used to have in their government.
To earn back that trust, focus on positions that are supported by 70% of people. If you want to do something about gas stoves, get 70% of people on your side first. There are lots of these issues. Abortion rights (up to a certain point), voting rights, Ukraine, even sensible gun restrictions are pretty popular. Dems are doing a pretty good job hanging the Rs on these issues, IMO.
Any issue you decide to take on, Ted Cruz and his ilk will reflexively take the other side of it. They have painted themselves into that corner. Hang them with it. Make them take the 30% side of every issue in existence. This is the way to demonstrate to skeptical swing voters that the Rs are unserious, irresponsible, and authoritarian leaning.
Giving them red meat like this gas stove thing isn't worth it. Win today's fight, and then take on more marginal issues like this.
Stopping anything deemed “socialist” is what they want and at this point - everything the government does outside of the military/police/prison industrial complex is “socialist” in their mind. I agree that democracy is the most important issue, but that should not come at the sacrifice of everything else. I want to be clear - I don’t care about the gas ban itself. It was a false equivalence in the tweet to rile people up. Would I as a Governor made that my focus? No. But I am going to call bullshit where I see it.
You're 100% right. The false equivalence is bullshit. But it works. And when attack is a chyron (or tweet), and the defense is this nuanced discussion, the issue is lost.
The shortest argument that has resonance wins in the social media age.
Except it doesn’t work. If by work you mean changing the minds of voters. This is a local law in a blue state that doesn’t affect them except to reinforce their priors. Does it give “red meat” to people who think “libs are socialists who want to force their views about climate change & public health on everyone else!” Yes. It probably does...but if NY hadn’t passed it, they would believe that *anyway*.
Think about the converse - something like Tennessee banning drag shows”. Did it give “red meat” to people who think that “Republicans don’t have any policy proposals for fixing real problems and just want to force their strict religious based morality on everyone else!” Yes. It probably did. But if they hadn’t, they would probably believe that anyway. I know I definitely would.
Most of the other issues you mentioned that have broader support among Republicans and Democrats alike are either national issues that state legislatures have no control over or local issues that politicians in blue states like NY already support. They’re not the ones who need to be convinced to focus on important issues like abortion and gun regulation that most Americans support instead of focusing on pet issues that are usually more popular among more extreme voters.
I feel the same frustration you do, however this isn't in effect until 2026 and 2029. If democracy is not the headline today, everyday, then this may be moot.
It’s so easy to get the rubes riled up, even if they don’t have gas appliances they’ll fight for their rights of self determination and damn the needs of societal survival.
I don't see an end of gas-fired boilers in large buildings, so those pipes will stay there.
Electrical work is one of the leading cause of fires.
Kitchen fires are the leading type/room of origin, and induction stoves are less likely to be a source of ignition than gas or electrical coil/radiant stove tops. But as long as people leave pizza boxes in ovens there will continue to be fun times.
I don't know about a statewide ban, but I thought that's why the city wide bans in new builds made so much sense. In multifamily units it's almost impossible to get proper ventilation, and the air quality of one unit affects the air quality of other units. It's not like apartments are hermetically sealed.
The idea of banning gas stoves from multifamily new builds makes a lot of sense to me.
The idea of banning gas wholesale from a northernly state with the 3rd biggest rural population in the US seems like playing with fire (pardon the pun). Maybe Buffalo and Syracuse can get their grids in shop for the transition, but can Canandaigua or Watertown, or the mostly-seasonal towns in the Adirondacks? That's what worries me.
One question, is the rural gas you are referring to propane (which is delivered by cannister?) or natural gas, delivered by a pipe in town. propane is different and greener. Most truly rural gas use is propane - and the proposals don't seem to refer to propane.
I'm really not sure. But in the Western part of the state, closer to PA there are tons of natural gas wells so I think it does potentially become an issue. Probably less of an issue in the Adirondacks.
The lines are underground in my subdivision but they are fed by above ground lines elsewhere so we lost power for three days during a hot spell last summer. Fortunately the house I bought a couple of years ago has a whole house backup generator so it was only a minor inconvenience. There were only a few things it didn't pick up.
But getting back to the issue at hand, in spite of what I said about predictions, I think the future is electric. The car companies know that. Even the oil companies know it. It's going to take a considerable investment in infrastructure but its pretty surely bound to happen.
The two headlines for gas stoves doesn’t mean one is false. No one is coming for people’s currently owned gas stoves - just like no one is coming for people’s currently owned gas vehicles. Where did anyone say that bans on new sales is not coming? Admittedly I don’t have a subscription to NYT, so maybe there is a nugget in the body of the article - but that tweet? Inaccurate and drumming up controversy where there is none.
No, the problem is the first headline is based on a straw man argument that the bulk of the commenters here seem to also buy into. Namely that people concerned about gas stove regulations literally think someone is coming to their house to take their stove.
In reality most of these people know how building regulations work and they simply don’t want a future where there are no gas stoves. Maybe they are wrong to want such a future, but eliminating gas cooking over time is a lot more of a problem for many people than eliminating leaded gasoline.
Reflexive strawmanning of the right will reduce y’all’s ability to reason effectively. Yes the GOP is led by idiots who generally embody the worst caricatures of rightwing thought. But whether it’s gas stoves or campus cancel culture, strawmanning objections to the authoritarian impulses of the left will not serve you well.
@jeff but why not neither?
I’ll take the occasional authoritarian impulses of the left aimed at improving the quality of life for folks over the actual authoritarian/fascist agenda to punish and demonize people that the right is selling.
Exactly. Are gas stoves a bad idea? yes, as it turns out. Do I have one and love it? yes. Is anyone going to remove it from my house? no. Bad headlines indeed
Sorry. It is controversial. And there is a real controversy here. Pretending it doesn't exist is not an argument.
I dunno, Charlie, I really think it's a nontroversy for all of the reasons others have given. Which isn't to say that the right wing culture warriors aren't going to make it into a thing. I mean, they were all up in arms over butch M&M's fer chrissakes.
Being a long term resident of CA, this is no different than the holy war hullabloo when we first started to implement emission controls in our vehicles. Guess what, no one had their smoking tailpipe car pulled from their cold dead hands. At some point, I even got paid $500 to voluntarily junk an old car. These things are a gradual change and nobody goes to jail or dies. So, very sorry Charlie, this is happening but is truly much ado about nothing.
Alternate theory: for new construction the cost of running gas lines might be kind of prohibitive along with potential safety concerns with that infrastructure when electric options are more than sufficient. This makes sense.
This is true. Many years ago I was staying at me grandmother's apt in Chicago. I smelled a little gas but the stove looked fine. We fell asleep. A friend of mine woke me up pounding on the door. There was a gas leek and he said you could smell outside. The building could have exploded not to mention my grandma and me aphxiated. I have never lived in a place with a gas stove since. They are a menace.
I was wrong to say there is no controversy with gas stoves - the commenting here alone supports that. A more precise statement would have been that something like this shouldn’t be controversial (or at least not at this level). It doesn’t change that the tweet established a false equivalency to push a narrative. How is it any different than leaded gasoline/paint/pipes, aluminum wiring, or asbestos as others have noted here? While I am happy to debate policy points (but please don’t ask me do it for gas stoves, I really don’t care enough to enjoy it) - that isn’t what I took issue with.
Clearly, Charlie, you stepped in it with the inclusion of the gas stove tweet. Please don't become part of the false equivalency posse.
And per science-gas stoves put tons of methane (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere every year. Should we just stop trying because some people love their gas stoves?
Thank you. I was disappointed in Charlie's "But I was reliably told..." segment. It clearly says "in new buildings". He doesn't need to create a ruckus when there isn't one.
Yes, soon they’ll be coming for our fentanyl, or our Corvairs, or, lord forfend, our trans fats! Screw the whales. Save the Big Gulp! Just because some idiot runs around with a blow torch doesn’t mean you should invite him/her/them to aim it at your head. The gas stove issue has some merit, especially older models of gas stoves that develop leaks and pose a danger in poorly ventilated spaces. And, yes, there is a move afoot to discourage/prevent installation of gas appliances in new or remodeled constructions. At the same time, we continue to subsidize natural gas production and fracking. Setting our hair on fire only ensures that the solutions to our legitimate problems take longer and are less effective. Meanwhile, the selfsame agitators who are worried about gas stoves have no problem in coming for your reproductive rights. It’s enough to make one put one’s head in the oven, which may be reason enough to hang on to the gas models.
Re: putting one's head in the oven
That recalls a scene from Bye Bye Birdie where a character's mother sticks her head into the oven to kill herself. "Ma, it's an electric oven."
I have a 30 year old gas cooktop that really needs to be replaced with something new. I have zero health issues after using this for 22 years (and no vent to outdoors). I have only 120 V electrical service there, so it can't be swapped out with an electric model without a big electrician bill. If they stop selling these units, I'm screwed. I guess I better hurry up.
Yeah - I expected better from Charlie. His old right wing talk radio days come back from time to time.
Charlie is a conservative, or rather what a conservative used to be, so it's not surprising to see he views this differently than you and I. Frankly, being an old FDR type Dem myself, I'm surprised to agree with him on most issues he raises here. But I suspect there is a whole lot under the surface on which we would differ. But those things don't matter in the face of the threat to democracy now in front of us.
I have no problem with disagreement, whatsoever. It's cheap tactics and verbal sleight of hand I have a problem with.
You know, I never see it that way. Charlie reports what's out there. Some of it is annoying but I don't assume he is blindly or thoughtlessly publishing ANYTHING. I expect exactly what I get and if I don't like it, he's not the one to complain to or about.
Weird how we see him so differently.
That's fair. But when he comments "But I was reliably assured..." it reminds me of the Fox News sleight-of-hand tactic. You were reliably assured, Charlie, that a gas stove/oven in your home is not going to be snatched away from you. It is also true that new buildings will not be set up for gas lines. Those two things aren't equivalent or mirror images of each other.
It's cheap and misleading, hence the right wing radio talk. He doesn't do it often, but he does do it from time to time (as does Mona). I understand that I don't have to agree with their POV, but I expect fewer cheap tactics from both of them. Old habits die hard, I guess.
...and I found that exact comment humorous. Many cheap and misleadings things are actually just jokes.
I get reprimanded a lot for taking the joke route by people who aren't looking for humor. I consider it their loss because missing a laugh? Not this ol' broad.
Well, there's no accounting for taste. Kidding.
I hear you. I don't want to come off as a humorless scold, I just find that tactic too familiar to be amusing.
There really is not. I eat Triscuits by painstakingly separating each cracker into two layers with my teeth. Takes awhile, not real popular. Go figure.
Muscle memory.
I am already trembling in fear at the prospect that the Stove Police (a branch of the Gazpacho) is going to show up and rip my gas stove out of my house and leave me stove-less.
Except it is a building code thing that:
applies to future construction;
has a lot of exemptions for commercial reasons and size reasons;
and except I don't have a gas stove. Hmmmm.
There is a difference between a "tip of the spear" argument made about your choice of cooking appliance and things that concern constitutional rights. Maybe one is more important than the other?
I am far more concerned with the state of democracy, sorry.
A chilled Gestopo can be refreshing on a warm summer evening.
I am Président of my co-op board. We have 106 apts in a 13th story building in midtown Manhattan. We all have gas stoves. There is no way that NYS is ever going to outlaw existing gas stoves without providing some incredible subsidies. Changing the existing pipes would be very expensive and the electric grid is not robust enough today to mandate that everyone switch to electric. Preventing installation of gas stoves in new buildings is not “coming” for anyone’s existing stoves. If someone prefers using a gas stove there are plenty of buildings like mine where they can have one. This is performative outrage.
Our Brooklyn daughter's 24 apt co-op in a 100 year old structure swapped out gas for electric because the insurance kept going up as buildings of their age blew up and burned. They retained the gas hot water furnace in the basement because the fuel lines could be maintained. Yes, it was a pain the tuchus, but also improved the units' re-sale value.
Thanks for that anecdote. We are going through many environmental upgrades - LED lighting, replacing AC - here right now. There is no way it is economically sensible for our building to switch from gas - we are bigger than your daughter’s, the building is “only” 60 yrs old and central systems are well-maintained. One day either the State or economics will require it but it is not today. I probably won’t be living here when it needs to be done - definitely won’t be co-op President!
Just remember... "First, they came for the stoves and I did nothing because I had an electric range." :)
The gas stove thing is a classic case of the slippery slope fallacy, which makes it a very popular means of right wing disinformation.
The slippery slope fallacy is effective because:
1) Sometimes it IS true (or at least appears to be true); and
2) It is natural narrative cause/effect sequence that fits neatly into human psychology and "common sense."--but that is true of many fallacies.
(Disclaimer: I used to teach argumentation, public speaking, and reasoning/critical thinking ')).
“Sometimes it IS true”. The most recent example of that which popped into my brain, is DeSantis’s suddenly changing his restrictions on sexuality discussions in schools from third grade all the way through 12th - just as some people predicted.
Which makes me wonder if the “slippery slope” leans right or left, in factual real life.
I was 'reasonably assured' they wouldn't ban discussions of sexuality from adult citizens in public schools.
Guess I'll have to just rethink all those rosy thoughts I had about today's GOP.
You’re right; many high school seniors are legal adults.
I feel pretty confident that your rosy thoughts about today’s GOP were imaginary! Or sarcastic .
Sarcastic. And those adults are my prediction of the group the GOP is going to want to arm next. How dare we take rights of self defense away from 18 year olds in schools?!?
Here is the thing with that: an objective observer can, on the basis of a larger body of evidence, foresee when this is going to be the case--because, usually, there is a lot of evidence pointing that way.
And it also seems to be true more often in an authoritarian context than other contexts (but that is based upon my gut feeling I can't put numbers on that ATM).
There’s always life experience.
I vaguely recall a course on “change theory” when I was in nursing school in the 70s. It’s easy to imagine a recommendation, based on research, to enact change gradually. Sometimes it’s not malicious. Just necessary and effective. But maybe not in today’s paranoid climate against being “told what to do”.
Gradualism
Oh good, it has a name. I was just thinking that motive comes into play; is gradualism done in the name of progress, or deception?
Yes.
Depends on who is doing it and why.
The theoretical idea behind gradualism is that change requires stages and work (and getting used to). It requires getting people on board with the change, which usually means doing it in chunks.
Yep, a handy tool.
It's a conspiracy to keep you from heating your tomato soup.
It's the honest truth about the fearsome Gazpacho Police. They will send the cattle cars if you heat your soup. So sayeth MTG.
Next they're going to take away our jewish space lasers!
Heck, I use the microwave for that!
The only rational response is you must be a Marxist commie liberal elitist.
And something something George Soros.
And the RW won't give up their microwave ovens, either, because Tucker said that the tiny waves increase Aryan fertility, or something like that. I heard that on CNN. Or Newsmax. I get them confused nowadays, probably from inhaling methane leaking from the hob of my gas stove while my bougie espresso pot perks.
Thanks for the chuckle.
As someone who bought an older home a year ago, they didn’t even come for people’s lead paint when that was banned either. And I’m pretty sure the asbestos police didn’t come rushing in and start tearing out people’s fire-proofing back in the day either.
They've never come for people's aluminum wiring either. I'd compare the 'no natural gas in new construction' to the 'no leaded gas in new cars' back in the day.
Also... no lead piping and no coal stoves either. (Jeez! What an oppressive government with all of its building codes!) /s
I would love if the asbestos police would come and rip all of the asbestos out of my old house.
Is there a list I can get on?
Be careful what you wish for; the bill would have your name on it.
Not too mention it's old news.
This is true. However, two additional things are also true:
1. There is a legitimate "tip of the spear" argument to be made. Did you oppose the Florida "don't say gay" bill when it was just targeted through 3rd grade, for example, or did you wait until they brought it to bear all the way through 12th?
2. The distinction is too nuanced to matter. Maybe hold off on feeding the trolls at Fox fodder for their dystopian narrative until AFTER democracy is no longer under direct threat?
re
Shaun Dawson
3 hr ago
This is true. However, two additional things are also true:
1. There is a legitimate "tip of the spear" argument to be made. Did you oppose the Florida "don't say gay" bill when it was just targeted through 3rd grade, for example, or did you wait until they brought it to bear all the way through 12th?
I opposed it from the beginning. I thought everyone did.
Which is why they put democracy under threat so no progress on anything they don't like can be made. They win either way. They either take control or they scare the normies into appeasement. Perhaps not a big deal with gas stoves but there are plenty of other, more pressing, issues that use the same playbook.
If you don't want a gas stove ban then that is your right, but make it your own considered decision on the issue not a bone to throw the crazies or the crazy adjacent (people who can't decide between Dems and GOP right now).
I don't agree. Per my comment above, I think that because of the corner Rs have painted themselves into strategically, serious progress can be made on any issue that has widespread (70%) support. Focusing singularly on issues that meet that criterion will make progress AND demonstrate the unseriousness of the Rs.
That's the opportunity presented to the Ds today.
But that is a pipe dream. There might be 70% support for such a ban in NYC. You can't prevent all local variance in priorities or variance in individual opinion expressed on social media.
That brings us back to whether this is a priority for national Democrats. It decidedly is not. If that isn't good enough for the normies then it will never be good enough.
Yeah, I don't think I'd restrict my 70% rule to the local jurisdiction. Since all politics is national now, and the point of the rule is to keep as many cudgels out of the hands of the unserious people as possible, I'd apply the rule statewide, at least, if not nationally.
There are other states that have at least considered similar proposals (CA and WA come to mind). It’s true that this specific item is just in new construction - for now. Next up, at some point, is no longer approving remodel permits for kitchens that don’t convert from gas to electric. At that point, once a critical mass of locales and / or states get there, the costs will start to go up and the market may wind up pricing most people out of gas.
To be sure, there are many benefits to getting off gas, primarily around health (climate change issues may wash out depending on sources of electricity). As you say, it may be naive to think it will just stop at new construction, but I can only muster so much outrage over this when there are higher priorities right now. I do, however, agree it is worth keeping an eye on to see how this evolves.
Important is that there are significant alternatives to gas in CA, WA, and NY, each having renewables in close/abundant proximity. I cook. The thought of being gasless causes me stress, but this is another anti-woke lede for the right who vehemently support taking away human and gender rights but whose heads explode about their BBQ.
I think we have a long, long road to pulling democracy out of direct threat territory. We can’t put everything else on hold to fight this one singular fight. By ignoring things that the government should do (like natural gas installations to address indoor air quality leading to health issues), it just feeds the narrative that government cannot help people. This will lead our democracy to crumble faster.
Exactly! Plus it won’t do a damn thing to keep the Fox trolls quiet. Their entire job is trolling. If it’s not about gas stoves or drag queens or history books, they’ll find something else to try and make Republican voters angry. They don’t have any consistent values or policy proposals. Inciting anger is the only tool they’ve got.
The trolls are gonna troll!
I think this is a good observation. However, which narrative do you think contributes to the crumbling of democracy more:
1. Government can't help people.
2. Those ivory tower liberals want to "help" you into a socialist worker's paradise by taking away even your most basic freedoms in the name of "health" and "safety". Shouldn't YOU be the one to decide if a gas stove is healthy or unhealtly? For you and your family? They are coming for your GAS STOVES!!! What ELSE will they take away if you let them take power? You can take my stove when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
In my view, the second one is way more pervasive and pernicious among the people that still need to be persuaded. I believe that focusing on #1 to the exclusion of #2 has helped the extreme right erode the trust Americans used to have in their government.
To earn back that trust, focus on positions that are supported by 70% of people. If you want to do something about gas stoves, get 70% of people on your side first. There are lots of these issues. Abortion rights (up to a certain point), voting rights, Ukraine, even sensible gun restrictions are pretty popular. Dems are doing a pretty good job hanging the Rs on these issues, IMO.
Any issue you decide to take on, Ted Cruz and his ilk will reflexively take the other side of it. They have painted themselves into that corner. Hang them with it. Make them take the 30% side of every issue in existence. This is the way to demonstrate to skeptical swing voters that the Rs are unserious, irresponsible, and authoritarian leaning.
Giving them red meat like this gas stove thing isn't worth it. Win today's fight, and then take on more marginal issues like this.
Stopping anything deemed “socialist” is what they want and at this point - everything the government does outside of the military/police/prison industrial complex is “socialist” in their mind. I agree that democracy is the most important issue, but that should not come at the sacrifice of everything else. I want to be clear - I don’t care about the gas ban itself. It was a false equivalence in the tweet to rile people up. Would I as a Governor made that my focus? No. But I am going to call bullshit where I see it.
You're 100% right. The false equivalence is bullshit. But it works. And when attack is a chyron (or tweet), and the defense is this nuanced discussion, the issue is lost.
The shortest argument that has resonance wins in the social media age.
Except it doesn’t work. If by work you mean changing the minds of voters. This is a local law in a blue state that doesn’t affect them except to reinforce their priors. Does it give “red meat” to people who think “libs are socialists who want to force their views about climate change & public health on everyone else!” Yes. It probably does...but if NY hadn’t passed it, they would believe that *anyway*.
Think about the converse - something like Tennessee banning drag shows”. Did it give “red meat” to people who think that “Republicans don’t have any policy proposals for fixing real problems and just want to force their strict religious based morality on everyone else!” Yes. It probably did. But if they hadn’t, they would probably believe that anyway. I know I definitely would.
Most of the other issues you mentioned that have broader support among Republicans and Democrats alike are either national issues that state legislatures have no control over or local issues that politicians in blue states like NY already support. They’re not the ones who need to be convinced to focus on important issues like abortion and gun regulation that most Americans support instead of focusing on pet issues that are usually more popular among more extreme voters.
I feel the same frustration you do, however this isn't in effect until 2026 and 2029. If democracy is not the headline today, everyday, then this may be moot.
Nice. I came to the comments to say the same.
Agree. I did a spit take when I saw how deliberately misleading that tweet was.
It’s so easy to get the rubes riled up, even if they don’t have gas appliances they’ll fight for their rights of self determination and damn the needs of societal survival.
Without proper ventilation there are health issues with gas stoves. The whole issue seems like a tempest in a teapot.
There's a few fire and explosion issues as well. No gas lines running down streets is probably fire department approved.
I don't see an end of gas-fired boilers in large buildings, so those pipes will stay there.
Electrical work is one of the leading cause of fires.
Kitchen fires are the leading type/room of origin, and induction stoves are less likely to be a source of ignition than gas or electrical coil/radiant stove tops. But as long as people leave pizza boxes in ovens there will continue to be fun times.
Children don't develop respiratory illness from electric outlets.
I don't know about a statewide ban, but I thought that's why the city wide bans in new builds made so much sense. In multifamily units it's almost impossible to get proper ventilation, and the air quality of one unit affects the air quality of other units. It's not like apartments are hermetically sealed.
But, but, but my stove!!!!! :)
The idea of banning gas stoves from multifamily new builds makes a lot of sense to me.
The idea of banning gas wholesale from a northernly state with the 3rd biggest rural population in the US seems like playing with fire (pardon the pun). Maybe Buffalo and Syracuse can get their grids in shop for the transition, but can Canandaigua or Watertown, or the mostly-seasonal towns in the Adirondacks? That's what worries me.
One question, is the rural gas you are referring to propane (which is delivered by cannister?) or natural gas, delivered by a pipe in town. propane is different and greener. Most truly rural gas use is propane - and the proposals don't seem to refer to propane.
I'm really not sure. But in the Western part of the state, closer to PA there are tons of natural gas wells so I think it does potentially become an issue. Probably less of an issue in the Adirondacks.
Why would they not increase supply to meet increased demand? Isn't that how capitalism works?
Predictions are tricky things. Especially when they involve the future.
The lines are underground in my subdivision but they are fed by above ground lines elsewhere so we lost power for three days during a hot spell last summer. Fortunately the house I bought a couple of years ago has a whole house backup generator so it was only a minor inconvenience. There were only a few things it didn't pick up.
But getting back to the issue at hand, in spite of what I said about predictions, I think the future is electric. The car companies know that. Even the oil companies know it. It's going to take a considerable investment in infrastructure but its pretty surely bound to happen.