By Noah Rothman
Tuesday, January 10, 2023
Some of
the bluest states in the nation have committed themselves to war with the most
efficient appliances in your home: natural gas-powered heaters, furnaces, and
stoves.
In
September, California announced a new rule passed unanimously by the thoroughly
undemocratic California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
It will outlaw the sale of natural-gas heaters at the beginning of the next
decade. New York’s newly reelected Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul proposed a similar initiative
this month, which would ensure that the Empire State constructs only
“climate-friendly electric homes” by 2027. The first step on the long march
involves a ban on the use of oil or gas for residential water heaters,
furnaces, and stoves.
Now, the
federal government is getting in on the act, but it’s not being so honest about
what it hopes to achieve by anathematizing your gas-powered appliances. It’s
not about the environment. At least not exclusively. It’s an effort to
safeguard your health, which you would recklessly imperil if you were left to
your own foolish devices.
In a
shockingly advantageous coincidence for meddlesome bureaucrats, it turns out
your gas stove is as bad for the environment as it is for your lungs. The U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission recently discovered that these age-old appliances, which are in
use in about 40 percent of American homes, produce harmful levels of nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulates. Recent studies (like those cited by
California officials in
their quest to ban gas appliances) also found that natural gas stoves and ovens
leak carcinogenic benzene into the atmosphere, exposure to which is unsafe at
any level. Other studies maintain that gas stoves have contributed to a
measurable increase in childhood asthma cases.
If
appealing to the hypochondriacal mania that pervades the national discourse
doesn’t do it for you, maybe moral blackmail will. According to some Democratic
lawmakers, the menace that affects roughly 49 million households hits the poor and
American minorities hardest. “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” Commission official
Richard Trumka Jr. bluntly told
reporters. Given
the degree to which the physics associated with the combustion of hydrocarbons
is unreformable, it’s logical to conclude that an outright ban is the agency’s
objective.
All this
psychological manipulation is necessary to overcome the foremost obstacle
before the busybodies who have gone to war with so many modern conveniences:
They work better than their alternatives.
If your
primary objective is to get something as hot as possible as fast as possible,
there is no substitute for an electric range. But temperature
regulation is
not its strong suit. Anyone who prepares food on a regular basis understands
that erratic temperature control is a recipe for ruining the recipe.
If you
only use your stovetop to boil or sear, you’re unlikely to notice the
difference between electric and gas. But let’s say you want to sauté, braise,
fry, or simmer—just about any other stovetop activity that occurs between the
temperature ranges of scorching and warming. In those cases, gas is superior.
Moreover,
there are certain activities that electric stovetops cannot manage. You cannot
char anything that requires charring, such as delicate vegetables. You cannot
toast anything that needs toasting unless you limit your toasting to the oven,
which produces a distinct flavor and texture that is not always desirable. You
cannot flambé in the absence of a direct flame.
The loss
of these techniques may not disturb those for whom fine dining is one
restaurant reservation away—those with sufficient means who reside in locales
with access to that level of finery. That leads us to perhaps the most important
distinction between electric and gas overlooked by America’s busybodies: gas is
cheaper. In most U.S. states, natural-gas appliances cost between 10 and 30
percent less to
operate on a regular basis than electric alternatives.
The
attack on natural gas appliances should be viewed as an extension of the war
the nation’s regulatory apparatus is waging against gasoline-powered
lawn equipment. The
arguments that opponents of these machines deploy are myriad. They are bad for
the environment. They throw “disease-spreading” particulate into the
atmosphere. They shatter the bucolic placidity of the spring and summer months.
These dubious assertions are necessary to convince you to devote more of your
income and vastly more manhours to the work of lawn care.
There’s
symmetry, too, with the undemocratic means by which America’s most neurotic
states are depriving you of access to single-use plastics such as straws and shopping bags, incandescent
lighting, and short-cycle
dishwashers and laundry machines. Efficiency is the problem. If abstractions such as social justice and
sustainability fail to convince you, then you must be cajoled or extorted out
of your selfish attachment to proficiency. And if that doesn’t work, there’s
always the force of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment