After Backlash Against Proposed Gas Stove Ban, Progressives Are Gaslighting America
Progressives might not be coming for your existing stove, but they are trying to stop any new installations.

After my column last week about environmentalists' apparent desire to make our lives miserable as they try to improve the environment, I heard from progressives who accused me of jumping on the Fox News bandwagon. That's because I pointed to their latest crusade to highlight the supposed danger of natural-gas stoves.
"I'd laugh my a** off about all the dipsticks freaking out about the imaginary war on gas stoves, but sadly, it's an indication of just how dumb and easily led so many people are," wrote one former journalist on Twitter. That echoed a common theme: conservatives are engaged in their latest unsubstantiated freak-out regarding some "reasonable" policy.
Few regular readers could accuse me of jumping on right-wing bandwagons. Despite some overstatement and inaccurate reporting—and try to find any issue that doesn't garner hysteria on social media—the conservatives are right on point. Climate warriors are indeed trying to ban gas stoves, although they are smart enough to offer a patina of deniability.
Let's recap. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency charged with protecting the public from unsafe products, declared its intention to evaluate gas-stove emissions. "Research indicates that emissions from gas stoves can be hazardous," the agency explained. Although beloved by cooks, gas stoves allegedly erode indoor air quality and contribute to asthma problems.
As that journalist noted in a rebuttal to my dismissive tweet, "Oooooh, research. Scary! Who could want more knowledge, after all? I assume you oppose scientific research because you did your own?" No, I have not commissioned my own studies on gas-stove emissions, but I have been studying the gaseous emissions from environmentalists and regulators my entire career and can draw some conclusions.
For starters, government efforts to ban stuff always start with a study. Government agencies don't simply announce a ban on a popular item—whether gas stoves, gas-powered lawnmowers, or internal-combustion-engine vehicles. They start with a premise (this item is dangerous) and then study the Very Serious Issue. Ideologically aligned interests produce studies with predictable results.
In response to the brouhaha, CPSC Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric issued a statement assuring Americans that, "I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so." But that's a bit disingenuous. CPSC has been targeting gas stoves for months—and it's become a cause du jour among many local officials.
And remember how this got started. CPSC commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. said in an interview that, "(T)his is a hidden hazard. Any option is on the table. Products that can't be made safe can be banned." Imagine the public's stupidity for taking seriously the words of a top official at an agency that banned lawn darts and ordered their immediate destruction.
If this gas-stove emissions panic came in a vacuum, one might still harangue Republicans for, as one writer put it, thrusting "gas stoves into the culture wars." Some conservatives responded in an unserious manner, including U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) who tweeted: "God. Guns. Gas stoves." Nevertheless, the Right's instincts are correct. Progressives might not be coming for your existing stove, but they are trying to stop any new installations.
New York City in 2021 passed a ban on new natural-gas stoves (and other gas-fired appliances) in new buildings. It applies to those under seven stories next year and to taller buildings in four years. In 2019, Berkeley was the first U.S. city to impose a similar ban on new construction.
This year, Los Angeles became the largest city in the United States to implement a gas ban. "Over 60 cities and counties across the state are considering policies to support all-electric new construction," the Sierra Club reported (gleefully) in 2021. It's no surprise federal bureaucrats are getting in on the action.
This is how the game works. It is an orchestrated effort driven by climate concerns. Environmentalists want to move toward a renewable electric grid and away from fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. "Natural gas bans are new front in effort to curb emissions," touted one news headline. What better way to build support for that policy than scare people about the dangers of gas cooking?
My goal isn't to engage in a deep debate about the latest research. As with all "trust the science" questions, however, one finds differing informed opinions. The CPSC is relying on one compilation of research published by an environmental group that blames stoves for 12 percent of U.S. childhood asthma cases.
Critics, however, claim the study ignored prominent international research showing no asthma link and didn't address other environmental factors that may have caused the ailment. If indoor air quality were the real issue, then perhaps regulators could insist on proper stove venting—but practical solutions are less interesting than panics.
Do your own evaluation, but don't let anyone gaslight you into thinking this crusade is imaginary.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
On the day the Democrats started walking back the idea that gas appliances were being considered for banning was also the day Gov. Hochul of New York announced her new housing plan which envisions the eventual banning of natural gas use in buildings.
The only reason they denied what Trumka said was the tremendous pushback from the public on that particular instance, while they are going forward in other areas.
They had to retreat back to the isnt happening stage for a few months as they develop more scare studies and fake narratives but will return shortly to the scheduled it is happening and its a good thing.
They're targeting natural gas in particular, it's just taking place on a broader level. The Denver-area media, for example, is pushing HARD on getting gas furnaces replaced with electric heat pumps, which shows the gas stove ban was simply one of the journolist talking points that were sent out.
Good case study here.
Start with an “idea” that aligns with overall agenda, propose a dubious “study” that invariably supports the foregone conclusion (any questions immediately attributed to science denying “wow aren’t you STOOPID”) then pops up on your legislative agenda, that the self proclaimed and media backed “smart”people will support all the while excoriating those opposed as deplorable.
Gaslighting all the way.
Especially considering roughly 95% of the Denver media are shitlib ideologues, and the rest are Democrat-voting "centrists".
Really need to work out a solution for our democrat problem.
Commission a study?
We need robust study regulation along the lines of Sarbanes-Oxley. Universities and Institutes must follow specific procedures for documentation of such studies before they can be considered as a basis for government regulation.
A brief but accurate description of how both the Grabbers Of Pussy and East German Democrats have been operating since 1977.
Heat pumps in Denver is such a fucking stupid idea.
Yeah, if the grid goes down in a winter storm for any reason, you're fucked.
★ I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart....
HERE====)>OPEN>> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Heat pumps in Denver is an excellent idea. No idea why you would say this. Weather in Denver is generally ideal for heat pumps.
"which envisions the eventual banning of natural gas use in buildings."
Yep.
Which is beyond insane - natural gas heat being incredibly efficient and reliable as compared to anything else.
That's the objection
Google pays an hourly wage of $100. My most recent online earnings for a 40-hour work week were $3500. According to my younger brother’s acquaintance, he works cs-02 roughly 30 hours each week and earns an average of $12,265. I’m in awe of how simple things once were.
.
.
See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE WORK
Which is why they, WEF, wants to ban it.
Well sure, if you want to overlook the contribution to climate change that methane causes. Hint: significant.
Buy an induction cooktop for FFS.
Well sure, if you want to overlook the contribution to climate change that methane causes. Hint: significant.
Buy an induction cooktop for FFS.
I wonder how the vast majority of the electricity that powers those induction cooktops is generated. Pixie dust and unicorn farts? And how much methane is released by burning those unicorn farts?
California is already banning gas stoves and heat in many areas and is scheduled to be banned state wide in the building code in 3 years. And any house being built now has even if it is gas has to have the electrical wiring in place for when they are banned on existing homes.
so yes it is happening. and scary since california can't keep the eletricity on now let alone when everything goes electric
How did these morons even survive childhood?
Read The Coddling of the American Mind.
Clearly they grew up with gaslights in their homes back when asthma wasn't a buzzword and it's clearly impacted their critical thinking ability.
Must have been the stoves.
Because unfortunately there was a ban on lawn darts.
Head first into the wood-chipper with every last leftist.
It's the only way.
If it's not put to use for heating or cooking, natural gas is flared off at the wellhead. What is gained, except a total waste of energy with equivalent environmental effects?
Fascists gotta do fascism.
yes exactly! They gonna do whatever they like. which is totally unacceptable.
There is really nothing to debate, the study was garbage.
1. No children studied in new ‘study.’
2. Results not statistically significant.
3. Asthma = allergic disease, but gas stoves emit no allergens.
4. The study was supported by a group that stands to gain financially from a reduction in gas stoves.
The interesting political angle is that Progs just lined up behind it w/o understanding the study or w/o even reading it.
Why is that interesting? They know the study is bullshit. But they don't care. The end justifies the means.
Who would have gassed the progressives didn’t read it?
The study smells rotten.
re: your #3 - Asthma is not necessarily an allergic disease. It is a common symptom or consequence of allergies but a) it can be triggered by other medical conditions as well and b) even among those of us with allergies, our allergy-induced asthma can be exacerbated by other conditions.
For a personal example, my allergy-induced asthma is easily manageable most of the day and even most of the year. But trying to run in cold weather will set me off like nothing else. The air is certainly not more allergenic because it is cold - my body just reacts to it differently. And given my pre-existing allergies, that triggers the asthma.
I agree with your points 1, 2 and 4 - that study was garbage. But it is not implausible that a properly-designed study could find a causal link between poorly-vented natural gas stoves and asthma.
Pretty sure, if you load enough conditions on it, a 'study' could find just about anything preferred by the sub-text
Yes soot can be an issue, so yea #3 is wrongish.
the study to ban lead bullets in California was garbage and was so bad they wouldn't let legislatures see it before they put in place the lead bullet ban. its crazy what our legislatures do. they claim laws based on studies that they never read and were never peer reviewed and are in fact bogus to begin with. And people wonder why so many of us are "anti" science we are not anti science we are anti politization of science for their ends
Democracy!
I don't mind the lead bullet ban so much but then I've long preferred the expanding all copper hunting bullets and now practically everyone makes one or more and they keep getting better.
Non-lead shot, on the other hand, is like blowing chunks through your nose. Sure, it comes out fast but it doesn't get far and tears up the tubes along the way.
The bigger problem is that there are loads of other things that people commonly have in their houses that probably contribute more to respiratory problems than gas stoves ever will. It's stupid to focus on single sources like this when sources of indoor pollution are everywhere. Unless of course the point isn't what they say it is.
Said study is garbage. But that isn’t the point. Headline touts study, “proof” is disseminated via social and progressive media, …
For starters, outlaw pets. They are probably the largest source of allergens in homes. Watch what happens when the thought police announce they are coming to take Fido and Fluffy.
3. Asthma = allergic disease, but gas stoves emit no allergens.
Not that the study isn't bullshit for other reasons, but allergy-induced asthma is just one category of asthma. Other forms of asthma can be triggered by heavy breathing (usually due to exercise, and especially when the air is cold) as well as chemical irritants.
Sucks to your ass-mar.
They’re all – “research published by an environmental group” They always – “ignored prominent international research”
Heck; 99% of the time their "study conclusion" is a compete contradiction to all the cherry-picking data they could turn-up in said study. I was completely amazed and enlightened when I started pulling "so called" study papers on these types of subjects. They're a complete joke and littered with propaganda talk.
And most importantly they IGNORED reality for agenda-fulfilling non-sense.
They’ve been at this a long time. There’s so many things society has been brainwashed to believe that out-right defies REALITY. 50-Years after the 20-years “Scientifically proven” predicted Great Dust Bowl prediction the snow is still falling every year. Anyone who is still fanning over “Environmentalism” is entirely brainwashed to the point of demanding that reality doesn’t exist only fairy-tales and unicorn farts exist.
And most of the recent research done on gas stoves hasn't involved interviewing people or getting medical data from anyone and trying to correlate information about gas stoves. It's mostly about finding datasets from previous studies about other topics and trying to graph their hypothesis onto the data, and if they find something that kinda sorta looks like a line, they consider their hypothesis proven.
If I point this out, this statistical weaseling that doesn't include any science at all and is merely statistical cherry-picking, I must therefore be anti-science somehow.
Well said... The Anti-Science label for anyone not willing to push for growing socialism in the USA. After all; If it wasn't designed to push socialism it really wouldn't matter it would just be a disagreement between free members of society.
Progressives Fuming After Gas Stove Ban Put on Back Burner
Must be waiting for new pilot program.
The study sparked my interest.
It smelled like rotten eggs to me.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://Www.workstar24.com
There is a range of jokes that could be made about this topic.
They'll soon be flaming anyone who dissents.
DGB playbook will be used.
This was widely unpopular and mocked. Made worse by all the usual statist progs having expensive gas ranges in their kitchens, which is well documented (unlike the people who probably make the meals on said ranges)
They know they have to either go with "its not happening" or go full silent on it, until they can manufacture enough reasons to ban them.
Then expect the climate change playbook: Gas stoves are totally bad and no one should have them, but all the elites will still have them in their mansions. Just like gas powered vehicles are ruining the planet but they for some reason have to fly private jets to meetings that could be done over zoom
There will be a link to how tasty meat is cooked on gas versus electric (or microwaved!). To get folks to reduce their meat consumption (and ostensibly save the planet), gas stoves must be sacrificed.
I wonder how they will feel about me doing brisket in a self made wood burning pit.
Actually, I dont care, Im going to keep doing it anyways
The gas range at the compound is getting long in the tooth. It would be a pain to convert the kitchen to allow a wood cookstove, but may go that route instead of staying with gas.
Well I have a gas stove in the mansion. Changing to Electric would require putting in a 240v lines. A bit of a pain. Note, the last house had electric stove and it worked very well. I have nothing against electric stoves. Just went with how the mansion was set up originally.
I like an electric oven because it's easy to use, but far prefer a gas stove top because the heat capacity of electric "burners" is so great that it takes a long time to heat up and cool off.
Agreed. I loved the hybrid we had but couldn't take it with us across country where we lived in an apartment for a few years.
I will say if you have steel/iron pans the new induction jobs are simply fantastic. Their Achilles heel is they simply won't fly If you've got copper or aluminum and that will require new pans. If I could have a hybrid cook top with both gas and induction, I'd be a very happy guy because I'm not ready to give up the copper set I inherited and I'm too cheap/poor to replace all my cookware.
Maybe my retirement plan will be selling induction top stills on Amazon. Beer in, whiskey out, I wonder if it would sell.
Don't give them any ideas. I don't want to read about the next target being BBQ because charcoal makes bad fumes that cause some mysterious malady in children. OH MY!
Don't forget there are a great number of BBQ cookers that use ......wait for it.......gasp!....GAS!
I will, however continue to use lumps of charcoal and wood for smoking my next rack of ribs.
Meat? Don't you mean crickets?
The gas stove ban is bad because it forces people to buy an inferior product they don’t want, for an imaginary gain.
But the bans on all gas appliances in new construction are far worse. Coupled with the push for unreliable green energy and the push for all electric cars to cripple the power grid, people will be stuck in their homes with no heat and no hot water when the power goes out, with nowhere to go because their car needs a charge.
If you need a car to get to work then you are living to far from work and need to move to one of our new 100 story housing blocks with new security features that will monitor your every word and movement 24/7.
We have a nice little pod waiting for you.
You already carry a bugging device with you 24/7, and can't take your eyes off of it even though it provides all your data to the NSA and CCP.
Progressives might not be coming for your existing stove, but they are trying to stop any new installations.
Except you pretty much outlined the fact that, yes, they were, in fact, trying to ban gas stoves and backed off because the public noticed and provided a lot of pushback. I'm all for not assuming bad intent. But, the bad intent here didn't need to be assumed. It was announced and demonstrated.
They rarely ban things outright. Instead they make the thing illegal to sell. They did that here in Maine with wood stoves. It's totally legal to own one. Just don't try to sell it.
One can purchase a wood stove in Maine. It is how some of us heat our homes.
Maybe you are referring to uncertified outdoor wood boilers.
I'm pretty sure they banned the sale of the old pot-belly stoves like what you'd find in a camp.
Pretty sure you're wrong as they just changed some standards. Even has a response from Maine.
https://www.maine.gov/dep/air/woodsmoke/woodheater.html
Do you ever verify things you "know?"
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using
this website.............. http://Www.workstar24.com
If you recall from the comments responding to binion piece on baldwin, roberta claimed that somebody can 'know' something that is untrue. Sarc provides a good example of how being certain of a falsehood's certitude is not the same as knowing something. There is a difference between belief and knowledge, one that progressives and sophists would like to pretend doesn't exist. It's one of the reasons why the group of diehard left-leaning commentariat here and at volokh come off as lacking integrity -because they do.
Now do Trumpaloos citing a lack of evidence as proof that the election was stolen. Go on about how they show their integrity with their inability to be swayed from their certainty in falsehoods. This should be good.
I would think that a thing being true is a precondition for knowing the thing. Of course that also means that it is almost impossible to know if you know something.
The only thing in a camp is us.
Maine company selling wood stoves.
https://atlanticstove.com/wood-stoves/
Why would we expect sarc to know anything about a topic.
They even have wood pellet types.
https://www.frostandflame.com
There are several wood stove dealers in my area. Had the new wood stove installed last summer.
I checked the regs recently on this for indoor wood stoves, and the Fed EPA put out new standards in 2016 (about) that took a number of the old standards off of the market. Everything has to pass certain tests for particulates and certain gases.
Maine (sad to say, but not suprisingly these days) fell right into line with the Federal edicts. You can still buy and install a wood stove for heat, but the nanny’s are going out of their way to make it difficult.
(There was also info on the Fed EPA site about what wood you are legally supposed to be burning, and you’ll be interested to know that you should only burn well seasoned wood ….. gee! what a shock. Reminds me of my year burning wood for heat, and I called for a load, and asked what they had, and the response was “I think they’re cutting birch today”. And very green birch it was indeed that smoldered all winter long through the nights and while I was at work all day.)
For me, living in Maine, I welcomed the availability of higher efficiency wood stoves. I heat six months of the year and it is now all wood. In the past, kerosene or electric did some of the heating. I process the wood from felling, limbing, bucking, hauling, splitting and stacking. About five cords a year. Higher efficiency burning means less of that. If folks want to burn unseasoned wood, use an old 1970s stove (maybe 30% efficient) or anything else, they should be allowed. See plenty of smoky chimneys suggesting they are doing just that.
I don’t recall any extra hoops when buying the new stove last year versus a stove purchase about 12 years ago. But I do notice burning about the same quantity of wood for almost twice the heat output.
High efficiency stoves are great, just like high efficiency light bulbs. Doesn't mean they have to ban the low efficiency ones. Should still be a person's choice.
It should be but Janet’s gonna Janet. I imagine one could still post an ad in Uncle Henry’s for one. Have had offers for the Big Moe Allnighter but so far declined.
I forget that there are ads on Uncle Henry's for things other than guns.
There are currently 306 used wood stoves listed on Uncle Henrys, some appear to be pre-compliant.
Don't say that too loud. Don't need some g-man to catch wind and offer to buy the stoves so they can bust the sellers.
What I’m saying is that they are available locally if you want one without it being “a friend of a friend” thing.
In Maine they are still legal. They have been completely banned in some areas, though:
The regulations are likely going to get tighter and tighter. The consequence is that those stoves will become more and more expensive. You'll also be restricted in the kinds of fuel you can use. The long term consequence will be that wood burning appliances will turn into luxury items for the wealthy, not cheap sources of heat for off-grid living.
They wouldn't even have to go that far, since NY banned gas appliances in new construction that likely means any new buildings won't even have gas service. They don't have to make it illegal to sell a gas stove because no one could use one in a new building anyway.
Next step is likely that permits for major renovations to existing buildings will be contingent on removal of the gas infrastructure from the building.
Yeah, what they banned is not the gas appliances per se, but gas hookups in new construction.
I forgot to put the word "old" in front of "wood stoves." Sue me.
No, you were wrong and backtracking instead of admitting to being wrong.
He was technically wrong.
In practice, he is right: progressives are making it harder and harder to heat with anything other than electricity, and the only reason they are not outright banning it is because they couldn't get away with it.
And some jurisdictions already have outright bans.
He must be squirting jizz all over the monitor in his glee to point out me being wrong about something. What a pathetic fucking loser.
Just fucking admit you’re wrong when you’re wrong. Don’t be such a bitch all the time.
You bring your misery on yourself.
They're not going to pass a law that makes them tear out their restaurant quality Viking or Wolf range. They already have a house. They will make the peasants buy a little electric cooktop and live in a high density development if the peasants can still afford a new house.
"...I heard from progressives who accused me of jumping on the Fox News bandwagon."
"Faux News", please. It's one of the Liberals mic drops.
Shrike and Jeff can ignore this article as the link on the research goes to "right wing" washington examiner.
The UCLA study also used for bans completely sealed the room using plastic to ensure no ventilation to get the hazardous levels of gas. Also they had no stove vent at all.
The other important thing to note, that anyone with a brain has considered, is that if you cook food using just about any method of heating (including induction) with this poor level of ventilation, its going to produce debris / food particles / smoke / etc.
I used to cook steak in an apartment that had completely shit ventilation, on an electric stove top. Got it crazy hot to get a nice sear (though it took some time). The amount of smoke I made would probably send most healthy people into an asthma attack, because the vent hood didnt work, and the apartment only had a couple small windows.
A very hot skillet with a few shakes of salt has become my go-to for doing a steak when it's too cold or wet to grill outside. It give excellent results, perhaps even better than what I can reproducibly get with the grill, but even with the hood on high and several windows strategically opened, the smoke can be pretty intense - definitely not for someone with breathing issues. I can't imagine how an open flame would be worse, and in fact, some of the unburnt crud in the air might even be combusted in that case.
It's just about control, right up until they tell you to "go take a shower" over there, in that building "for the good of us all".
Lately I cook my steaks outside on a butane burner in a cast iron. Montreal steak seasoning, hot iron, and duck fat. Yum.
If gas ranges are banned homeowners are going to start building some fancy-ass outdoor kitchens with monster gas grills.
It’ll be like people getting around showerhead restrictions by putting five showerheads in their shower.
Better to have gas stoves and not have democrats.
In vanilla white Mike’s eyes, this is not a Democratic party problem but just something that happened. The broken windows are ok because they improve commerce.
right up until they tell you to “go take a shower” over there, in that building “for the good of us all”.
“What, it’s just a nice warm shower. And afterwards you’ll get a tasty hot meal (cooked on an electric stove, of course). What’s that? Why is that guy with a gas mask on climbing up on the roof with a bucket full of pellets and pouring them into the building through a vent in the roof? Nevermind him, that’s just… soap pellets… yeah, that’s the ticket.” – Progressives a few years from now, probably
I recently cooked a small rack of ribs in the oven. Used a recipe I found on a BBQ You tube channel, Cooking With Ry.
Not bad but nothing beats slow and low with hickory logs.
There's no plan to get rid of gas stoves, that's just a right-wing conspiracy theory like mandating low-flow toilets and shower heads, energy efficient dishwashers and washers and dryers, and outlawing incandescent light bulbs.
But what if we really like needing four hours to wash a partial load of dishes, or two hours to do a load of laundry?
At least the mandated CFL bulbs only lasted a few years before technological advances replaced them with LED bulbs. But the CFL bulbs were far more dangerous than incandescent bulbs if they broke, far more likely to break if you dropped them, inferior for lighting quality, and a long-term hazard in landfills. But they made the progs feel good for “doing something” to “save the environment” at least.
Wall Street Journal (Jan 27) goes through all of the financial support from political groups for research into the various issues with gas stoves. Even Consumer Reports is taking money from people who want you to go electric.
We're being lied to!
More like we're being dominated by fascists.
A distinction without a difference?
Anyone with power over us will abuse that power. Fascists today, Marxists tomorrow. It's all the same.
A liberal today is tomorrows totalitarian.
Usually those who are confused about the term, "liberal".
Yup, so join my campaign to use the word "leftist" rather than "liberal", and feel free to correct (politely - it works better) those who use the word "liberal" to describe a leftist.
Yeah, for the last ~120 years. What else is new?
They also want to ban all other gas-based appliances. This raises energy costs and makes people completely dependent on electricity providers. And it makes off-grid and rural living nearly impossible, since that usually relies on propane. One has to assume that all these consequences are intended.
Yes, public transit isn't about saving the planet by having everyone in walkable neighborhoods and using more efficient transportation, it's a way to lock you into their corrupt political district.
Welcome to the 15 minute city.
in WA state the the state issues "green credits" for new residential construction. you then get to spend the credits on your gas appliances, but of course you don't get many and certainly not enough to build a complete gas home. i built my home the year before this nonsense became law so i'm golden, but if i had to adhere to this i would not have built a new home.
What is really idiotic about this is that we use gas because heating with electricity is extremely inefficient. A water heater that uses gas costs $303 annually vs. $858 for electric. In a place like MN to not heat on gas would be incredibly expensive, I already pay $700 in the coldest months, it would definitely be over $2000 a month to heat on electricity, plus the grid could never support it. So this basically becomes extremely expensive for the citizens because government, as always, does nothing useful except unintended consequences.
Electric stoves, like electric cars, run on coal. A good 60% of the power is lost between the generator and the appliance. As a result electric stoves use more fossil fuels than gas ones. Problem is that to see that you need to get past first-order thinking. And that's really hard for some people. Especially people with an agenda.
And if their agenda is "saving the planet", it's going to be very difficult to persuade them to depart from it (the agenda, not the planet...)
In other words, as per usual, for a true believer a religious belief trumps all facts.
Electric stoves, like electric cars, run on coal.
And natural gas. It's just a far less efficient way of using NG.
And dangerous. It's one thing for Texas to have a winter power outage because the windmills froze up. In Minnesota it would be life-threatening. Or force people to burn wood in woodstoves, which is worse for the environment (defeating the purpose) and actually affects peoples' breathing (unlike fake studies). At least until the wood stoves are banned too.
"...At least until the wood stoves are banned too."
If you read regarding No. Korea's policies during the famine (and quite possible still), the government-provided food rations did not show up. Further, it was illegal to trade for food, to grow food and (since you were, by law, required to be 'at work') to scavenge for food.
You either starved or were, in the eyes of the state, a criminal.
We're not there. Yet.
Soon my friend, soon!
no only that but these days new construction uses tankless water heaters because they're infinitely superior. an electric tankless is virtually impossible because of the current draw. you'd need a minimum of 100 amps just for the water heater.
an electric tankless is virtually impossible because of the current draw. you’d need a minimum of 100 amps just for the water heater.
LOL. You can buy those "virtually impossible" electric tankless water heaters all day long, and have been able to do so for quite some time now. My house has had one for three years now. Here, let me Google that for you...
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=whole+house+electric+tankless+water+heater
government, as always, does nothing useful except unintended consequences.
At this point I'm not so sure the consequences are really "unintended." When they're obvious to anyone with a half a brain, I think you have assume it's on purpose.
dafuq do I need a gas stove for if all there is to eat is ze bugs?
Und you vill be happy, ja?
Every day it becomes ever more clear the only way we are going to stop these power mad lunatics is to kill them.
Word.
as with covid the science is irrelevant. even if the "science" about gas stoves is true, i don't care because i have the freedom to choose what i put in my own home. the state has no role in regulating my stove.
Again, they're not gaslighting us. They're gaslighting themselves.
they are going after gas appliance and cars and the problem is those of us who hold out will have to pay a heavy price for our fuel since less demand by others means fewer gas stations and fewer propane deliveries so to keep that up the price will rise and eventually we will have to convert. this will take time but it will happen since things in this country only get worse.
Sure, you can keep your stove. (Really, not like your doctor.). But when they shut down gas service, what will you do with it?
There’s the problem. Gas is a highly regulated public utility and all the control freaks really need to do is say “shut it off”. I’m surprised they haven’t forced “smart” gas meters on everyone yet so they can just turn off those squeaky wheels who disagree – but only in winter, naturally since everyone cooks outside in July anyway. A compliant public means a happy control freak indeed. What was the line of that pseudo-sexual control freakery HBO series? Oh yeah, “Winter is coming”. Not sure they ever said who Winter is however.
Change the jets and use propane bottles? Much of the world uses bottled gas, after all.
I thought it was all about cow farts, I'm so out of touch.
Ban Bans.
They want to ban cows too.
It only took the liberals 400,000 years to cancel fire!
Imagine if the typical nanny-Karen-progressive had been around when Ogg showed the rest of the cave group this fire thing.
Think of the future! Think of the children!
Given that many cities (I’ve read about 100) have banned gas connections in new construction, it would be completely inconsistent of the Dems not to want to shut off gas service to existing buildings. So, of course they want to force you to scrap your gas stove, in addition to any other gas appliances.
Except they rarely do that. Even the federal "assault weapon ban" was just on newly manufactured weapons. You'd think (if you really believed the hype) that would have justified an actual "ban".
Fuck off and die, lefty shit.
It's got nothing to do with stoves, or furnaces, etc. It's about removing some of our autonomy, i.e, as always, it's about control. It's much easier to starve out a troublesome, independent minded neighborhood dependent on electricity, you just flip a switch, presto, no lights, no heat or cooling, no cooking, no water being pumped... If you get rid of the guns, the guys flipping off the power don't need to worry much either. Can't have the proles shooting out the power lines to the capital buildings now, can we?
1776, British soldiers were shocked that the King had “ALLOWED” the colonies to have lovely homes, orchards and self sufficiency. I believe this was the battle on Long Island.
Independent minded neighborhoods have solar panels (to be independent of the power company) and BBQs (because real men cook on fire). Right? And with 70% of all gas stoves in the liberal coastal states, especially California, it's not like it should matter to red-blooded Trumpy conspiracists. Amiright?!
"Progressives are liars" is really not a proposition I need any more evidence for.
I remember when Gaslighting was called lying.
Please don't use the word gas, try "carbon neutral luminescing." It has the benefit of being hard to say, and completely devoid of useful information, therefore it is doubleplusgood.
I remember when Gaslighting was called lying.
All gaslighting is lying, but not all lying is gaslighting.
It has nothing to do with the environment or asthma. It has everything to do with centrally controlled electric meters and the fact that smart gas meters aren't a thing since it would require an electric control that may spark when shutting it off remotely and the bad press associated with blowing up a city block just to censor one dissenter.
Which isn't to say they wouldn't be willing to blow up a city block, they just need to make sure they have the narrative in place when they do. Let's face it, the whole "Russian hackers did it" is wearing a bit thin. Something Russian hackers might want to exploit.
Just sayin'.
Nonsense. They are in common use in many countries. There's a "smart gas meter" in my house right now.
I consider the possibility that the government will shut off my gas supply remotely in retaliation for my expression of political views to be somewhat remote.
I also use a VPN.
...the fact that smart gas meters aren’t a thing since it would require an electric control that may spark when shutting it off remotely and the bad press associated with blowing up a city block just to censor one dissenter.
If only someone provided a way for you to quickly and easily check to see if something is actually true before you made a fool of yourself by declaring a "fact" that isn't.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=smart+gas+meter
As with their other control schemes (see: Gun Control) the answer to this stuff is mass non-compliance. For example:
Them: "We're banning potato chips."
Everyone Else: "No."
You're going to run your own gas lines?
LOL. You're funny.
Them: We elected people to our state legislature and told them to phase out natural gas to homes.
Everyone else: Damn! I wish the person I voted for had won! But that's democracy. At least I get to keep my existing gas stove, though the new induction models are cool, cheaper to run, and the state is offering tax incentives to get a new one. Maybe I'll do that.
Stock Market: Divest! Divest! Divest!
Gas company: Uh oh. Demand has fallen. We're losing money. Raise gas prices.
Everyone else: gas prices are too high. I'm getting an electric range.
Gas company: We're rebranding and turning our gas fields into geothermal generators. All those electric stoves need power!
I find all of the 'ban all things gas' trend so silly in the wake of the Texas blackout. Relying 100% on one source for heating and cooking is a bad idea.
I am going to stop recycling and start throwing plastic straws in the river
So, when are the activists coming for the gas furnace? Obviously, it's used quite a bit more than the stove. And the grid to run all this nonsense and charge your EV? Do unicorns come down from the heavens to crap the grid to run it all? Say what you want about the activists, uninformed mouth-breathers can't hold a candle to them when it comes to "not thinking this thing out". Magic thinking is great for fiction. Life is non-fiction.
This has nothing to do with gas stoves, it's a diversion to keep public attention off what they are doing in the background. What are they trying to hide this time?
It's never even been about gas stoves.
This is another radicalized-right manufactured crisis serving its intended purpose: to keep GOP voters perpetually agitated and hostile to Democrats, despite not being issues at all for Democrats.
One CSPC commissioner said in an interview what researchers have known for a decade; gas heating and cooking increase fine particulate matter and introduce carbon monoxide and other gases and these conclusions were probably actionable in the future.
Then the Right's rage machine did its work: hate- and fear-mongering.
All based on a lie.
Another example: Trumplicans in Congress condemned (and STILL do) A.G. Merrick Garland for accusing "concerned parents" of being "domestic terrorists."
Garland did no such thing. Neither he nor anyone in the Justice Department administration EVER branded people protesting at school board meetings domestic terrorists,and, frankly nor would they.
Right, he just sent the FBI to parents homes to terrorize them instead.
Oh, yes, also arresting someone who protested against abortions.
Your response is just another form of gaslighting.
"...they are trying to stop any new installations."
WHO CARES?!
No one has an inalienable right to cook with gas, for God's sake.
Research has been accruing for a decade that gas cooking and heating are affiliated with elevated fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide and other gases.
It's not Progressives walking anything back. It's the moral panic du jour so-called conservatives with at least one foot still grounded in reality.
"OK, so Biden and the Secret Service won't be going door to door to forcibly remove gas ccoktops. But they don't want gas pipes in new homes and that's just as bad!!"
In my long life, I have lived in South Carolina, Massachusetts, Virginia, Nebraska, and Arizona, and not once have I had gas heat or gas cooking. I certainly have never cried victimhood due to Big Guv-m'nt oppression.
Gas was never an option where I've lived. And, guess what, if the CSPC's idea is correct and new homes are built without gas, future residents will respond exactly as I have. If gas isn't available, WHO CARES?!
Anyway, there is a better option than gas for cooking: induction stoves and cooktops. Induction allows better temperature control than gas for cooking, uses less energy, does not introduce indoor pollutants, can never cause grease fires, and the pots and pans most people already have at home are fine for induction.
Climate change is real. It's the reason why eggs are so expensive nowadays. It's why huge tropical fish are being caught off Oregon's shores. Island nations are literally losing ground and are grappling with the future possibility of evacuating.
Only in America is the Dunning-Kruger effect so rampant that anyone with a big mouth or social media account counts as an expert whose opinion must be respected.
You know that Reason is basically a libertarian organization, right?
The issue is not about whether you can get by (or even do better) with something else, the issue is that no one should be making the decision for you.
And the problem is, regardless of the issue, government wants to control everything. Left unchecked, the whole world would look like North Korea.
(And re climate change: as long as China and India continue to bring a new coal-fired power plant online every month, with no end in sight, it does not matter how hard the West works to reduce CO2, the level will keep rising.)
The problem is you people want to be maximally free to make your own choices while also being maximally uninformed about the consequences of those choices.
Why, do you suppose, do people become more progressive as they become more educated? Do you think that "China and India are destroying the world, so we might as well destroy the world too," as an argument, might not pass muster at their dinner parties?
Those who are concerned about gas stoves should be free to publish any study they want, and others should be free to ridicule them accordingly.
Ridicule, but not publish studies using contrary evidence, naturally.
Why not use contrary evidence? That's how science is done; things are seldom black and white when you're doing research, more generally shades of grade, and how you interpret the data draws on your own unique point of view.
"Why, do you suppose, do people become more progressive as they become more educated?"
Y'know, there ARE other explanations. Passive Indoctrination for one, tribalism for another, and on, and on...
Note to foreign readers: "progressive" in American usage has shifted away from Theodore Roosevelt's altruistic Christian National Socialism. It's current meaning is more in line with the Mao Tse Tung variant of weaponized altruism.
Are you carbon neutral?
It's not about which inalienable rights you may have or may care about. It's about government overreaching where it has no constitutional authority, or where no intervention in consumer choice is required, since there is no grave danger anyone is in (or any danger at all, since the study was flawed.)
Gas is better and more efficient for cooking and home heating and heating water than electric, and burns cleanly. Induction cooking may be better, but costs more and would impose a cost penalty on people for no good reason.
Every appliance in your home was regulated by the government into its current form. Every light bulb, your car, your insulation, your carpet, your very drinking water.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to accept that regulation is good and actually promotes individual freedom? All libertarians are offering is the freedom to die early from stubbornness and diphtheria.
All libertarians are offering is the freedom to die early from stubbornness and diphtheria.
So, if you accept Darwinian evolution, you should be happy to see us exercise our judgement.
But quite seriously, there are many ways to make sure harmful devices, substances, etc. are phased out: keep the press free of government constraints and the muckrakers will get the news out. If, for example, gas stoves are really so dangerous, let me decide about the risk that I want to take, based on the info that I put together. Heck, you might even get voluntary organizations putting a stamp of approval on things, but there is no fundamental reason that needs to be done by a governmental body. AND, aside from the stretched-beyond-recognition Commerce Clause, there is no Constitutional basis for the Feds meddling in these things.
But why?
Why? Because government relies on force, whereas voluntary association relies on thought and personal valuation of a set of data.
We may both not want our children exposed to noxious fumes, and come to the same action of not buying a certain stove, but doing so because someone pointed a gun at the stove manufacturer and said "You must do it this way" is very different from me saying "I care about my kid's health".
And yes, at the end of the day, all government edicts are at the point of a gun. Try continuously ignoring a minor one, and the results of that action (fines), and the sheriff when he comes to evict you, etc. etc. etc., and eventually it's you facing the wrong end of a gun. Even if you never did anything more than just went on your own way and ignored each escalating step.
So are you against the very concept of law and order?
Maybe it's just a difference of attitude. If we were born in most places in most times, we'd be under a real jackboot. At least we have some measure of democracy where we are, where some measure of accountability and public assent can exist to the rules we have to live by.
Not having any rules at all doesn't seem coherent as a concept to me.
You're obviously dealing with an insane anarchists.
They're always going on and on, whining about government violence against peaceful people, when, really, that's the best kind.
"You’re obviously dealing with an insane anarchists."
laugh riot, steaming pile of lefty shit.
I have a gas stove, gas furnace , gas starters and gas logs in my fireplaces. I also have very sensitive meters for CO & N₂O. The reading are always at zero. I don't believe the "studies " that say nat gas is a health hazard based on my own data.
Republicrats only seem to care when their leaders tell them to do so (as we can see here), but libertarians do care about the underlying idea that government's proper role is to coerce people into doing things they would not choose to do themselves.
But, you're right that (assuming it does not evolve into "gas stove grabbing" by the new Bureau of Gas Appliance Control) the restriction of natural gas appliances may not affect everyone in the same way--if at all.
The question for libertarians is whether this is a reasonable thing for governments to be doing with their police powers. Like banning future sales of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles. Or frosted incandescent light bulbs. Or lead-based paint. Or cigarettes. Or militia weapons...
Observe that when the subject shifts ENERGY, the key to productive power (Work per unit of time) and political power (cadavers per unit of time), anonymous sockpuppets spring up like hammers in a Pink Floyd video. Be surprised if their message deviates from initiation of force to suppress some imaginary hobgoblin as goood, and the Petition Project that derailed the Kyoto Kamikaze Protocol as baaad.
So, bottom line. “Misinformation” and shoddy studies are fine as long as you support the objectives. Got it.
I'd believe that you are serious, instead of just spewing demagoguery, agitprop, and BS, IF you also advocated that I be allowed to pour mercury in your drinking water for profit and fun.
With my informed consent?
This is a particularly hilarious culture war freakout du jour considering the hillbillies FOX News targets use electric, with gas stoves prevalent only in coastal liberal enclaves. God forbid the government protect us from dangerous toxins in our houses. But then this is the party whose solution to children being butchered in large numbers on the regular is to give them more guns and ban drag shows.
Tony's model Chicom Government just banned medical weed products as "dangerous toxins" from Hong Kong houses, where Harry Anslinger now occupies the guest room. Monolingual crybabies with zero work experience outside of These States and no grasp of math are hardly fit to inform policy on a subject whose very definition escapes their grasp.
"... God forbid the government protect us from dangerous toxins in our houses..."
Got a cite to back your bullshit, shitstain? Didn't think so. Fuck off and die.
Is this article written by big oil? Cover up the truth for freedom and let the next generation die from it, Woo-hoo! Critical thinking is dying
Are you a bot or watermelon ignoramus? Care to elaborate on 'critical thinking'? Pretty sure you have no idea what that means. Nothing you've posted suggests otherwise.
The information age.. People with vast resources who believe in the science but want to leverage the opportunities from it spend the time and resources to spread info that the issue does not actually exist. Take away opportunities. Look at climate change, who on the right believed it was happening and decided to direct their resources to the future? Are you sure YOU are not gaslighting yourself?
Are you sure there's anything other than empty space between your ears?
Priovide cites for your claims or STFU
"natural gas is a fossil fuel" this is actually not true, or at least not that cut and dry; renewable manufactured propane has existed for almost s decade now; it is not itself a fossil fuel but rather a byproduct of other fuels and sources. If it really came down to it I'm sure they could find a way to refine methane to eliminate the unpleasant odor, and that stuff is not from "fossils" unless you're saying your farts are millions of years old too. This never ending witch hunt from psycho environmentalists trying to find what teensy tiny little thing in everyday life is causing climate change needs to stop, especially when it's really quite simple: take away all the private jets from the elite who put out more CO2 in their daily flight to Starbucks than every car in their home city combined, and that would be all we need. Gas stoves, cars, and all the rest of that doesn't make a dent on the ozone of this planet which started out as literally ash and magma; there is NOTHING we could EVER do as a species to make this planet as uninhabitable as it has already done by itself before without us.
Methane flowing through gas lines and dragged around in LNG tankers is indeed a fossil fuel since it is one of the final products of geochemical breakdown of organic materials laid down tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.
Methane as a greenhouse gas from cow farts, true, is not a fossil fuel. But for all the greenies out there who want to end cattle and dairy production, be aware that about half of all atmospheric methane originates from naturally occurring seeps such as are seen off of California and in the Gulf of Mexico. Methane from organics that are near enough the sediment surface that doesn’t happen to be trapped by certain rock formations will eventually work its way up to the sea-floor and be released. This has been going on probably for 2 billion years or so, and will continue until the Sun consumes the Earth.
Natural gas is by definition a "fossil fuel", but you're correct that there are other types of gas available which are not.
But so what? I thought the point was to stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, not just CO2 which had been stored underground for ages.
In any case, you illustrate the typical, populist Republicrat position on global warming/climate change: your main objection is that the wrong people are being targeted. (And why mention ozone? Do you think that's what this is about?)
Observe that ever since the Bozone Layer hoax was exposed as utter bosh, the word itself is as unutterable a profanity to stoppered socialist looter ears as "female with individual rights" is to the empty space between the ears of Televangelical Trumpanzees. https://jhenryphillips.com/bozonelayer.htm
I actually read that page--what a pile of ad hominems that was. Hard to take anything he says seriously but he posed a good question: why only the South Pole? He had no answer for that, which I think is meant to create doubt in his audience. So I toddled over to NASA to ask them the same question. They had a clear and concise answer to it. Almost like they'd studied and documented it. There's even a big pretty picture that clearly demonstrates the reason. Strange that J Henry Phillips didn't address this information directly but left the question hanging.
"...In any case, you illustrate the typical, populist Republicrat position on global warming/climate change: your main objection is that the wrong people are being targeted. (And why mention ozone? Do you think that’s what this is about?)..."
You, on the other hand, clearly stand as a fundy Gaia-worshipping watermelon.
Not one single prediction by the catastrophists has turned out to be accurate in the last 25 years. Not ONE!
But that has no effect on true believers like you who spout the same lies and, I guess, hope no one notices.
Fuck off and die; make the world a better place.
First, are you really trying pedantry as an argument here? The volume of natural gas pulled from the ground dwarfs all other sources, largely because it’s cheaper to frack it out of the ground that chemically stew it up in a factory. But it doesn’t really matter to either argument if the climate-affecting gas comes out of a cows mouth or an oil well; the impact is identical.
Methane is 80 times more impactful than CO2 for climate change. Further, it’s responsible for about 25-30% of climate impact. If you burn it, no problem. It’s the leaks that are the problem. Millions of leaks in every home with a natural gas device plus all the leaks associated with mining, processing, and transportation. Even if we find a leakless way to deal with natural gas, that doesn’t solve any health issues from burning it in an enclosed space, but it might solve the more critical climate issue. (The vast majority of gas stoves in the US are in coastal, liberal states anyway.)
I’m not sure I understand your final line. Sure, we could not create global volcanic destruction of the planet. But just because we cannot do that, doesn’t mean we aren’t capable of ending most life on the planet through a variety of means. Nor that we should avoid trying not to off our own species simply because the Earth was uninhabitable a million years ago. What sort of nihilism is that? Let’s not nuke life off the planet, or create a plague, or poison our oceans or soil to the point food doesn’t grow. We do have the technology to wipe out most humans on the planet already. 1.4 Trillion cars on the planet burning little fires simultaneously and near-continuously is significant. We’re terraforming Earth unintentionally through sustained mass action planetwide for over a hundred years.
No worries, though, because we also have the technologies needed to avoid catastrophe while still supporting mass travel and industry. So new homeowners in some coastal cities will find an electric stove in their new home instead of a gas one. Food still gets cooked. Their electric car still drives. The electric train still delivers. The hydrogen aircraft still flies.
Without the internet, did our ancestors lament the loss of the buggy whip?
Compulsive lying Progressives! Wolf hopper with all of their scum!
Nazi loser muted
There was no proposed gas stove ban, Greenhut. Just a vague statement saying everything was on the table. You and other idiots started fearmongering based on that.
Your fellow journos were wrong to call you a moron. They should have called you a fucking moron.
Chicom looter muted
The root problem is simple - zero consequences for doing stupid stuff.
Sadly, our Constitution did not establish separate agency for routinely prosecuting and convicting public officials who violate the public trust.
Whose Constitution did? France let Danton run its department of Terror as Prosecutor-General, with results remarkably similar to Qing Dynasty outcomes. The Bill of actual Rights was the alternative to natural selection turning out leaders who do not value their own lives (much less yours). Heinlein's proposal--a chamber to repeal stupid laws--actually existed until the 17th Amendment ruined that. Repealing that, and finishing off the partial repeal of the 18th could restore many individual rights better than France or China ever will.
Zero or trivial consequence for corporate malfeasance, too. Maybe if it didn't take an act of God to hold corporations responsible for knowingly harming their customers while withholding information from them we wouldn't have these issues to begin with. When large corporations can just add the cost of lawsuits into the pricing of an item, there's nothing to stop them from continuing to harm customers outside of an elected legislature passing a law or empowering an agency.
Ever since the Freeze and Surrender movement smacked face-first into the Second Amendment, Chinese totalitarian resources have regrouped to ban all Western technology more advanced than 1873. The number of useful idiots gulled into collaborating in this enterprise is matched only by Western Televangelist Trilbys demanding compulsory return to 1873 Comstockism--if it means repealing the 13th and 19th Amendments to brainwash, de-individualize and re-enslave all fertile females. Ain't the Kleptocracy wunnerful?
Oh, we aren't planning on banning gas stoves. You can keep your gas stove appliances as long as you wish, but after we forbid the sales of NEW gas stoves, the manufacturers will be forced to discontinue stocking spare parts and very quickly all those stoves will become unusable and obsolete and you will have to buy a nice shiny new electric cook top for a mere $4,000. These people are so obnoxious I don't understand how they ever reproduce.
I really don't get why they continue to pretend they're not trying to ban gas stoves when they obviously are.
"Conservatives are making up an issue about gas stoves! Hurdehur!"
Actually, we're at step 1:
1. It's not happening
2. It's being considered
3. It's being discouraged
4. It's a good thing!
We're at step 1 of a process we've gone down a hundred times.
“We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.” – Attributed to Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
Now do lead and asbestos!
The author lists a few conspiracy theories starting with the whole "they always start with a study" and then descends into idiocy and lands on "gaslighting." I love the idea of conspiracy-minded folks calling reality "gaslighting." Any way to preserve one's fragile worldview, I guess.
Meanwhile, no complaints about the studies that lead to the banning of leaded gasoline, lead paint, and other restrictions on lead. Or BPA. Or asbestos. Or other chemicals/minerals we later discovered to be harmful. We know natural gas is a major methane source and a problem for climate; maybe it's also an air quality issue worthy of attention--or at least study--too.
And you gotta love the author's flipflopping on the whole study issue. "...government efforts to ban stuff always start with a study..." leads to criticizing the CPSC for only using "one compilation of research" and ignoring opposing views. Minimizing a group of studies down to just "one" is a neat rhetorical trick. But it's even funnier when the entire article revolves around a complaint about the CPSC announcing the need for more research. So which is it? Research into this is bad or there isn't enough research?! What a Gordian knot.
Anyway. Typical Reason.com #ragefarm stuff.
It's not the liars who are using the term gaslighting. As to why use the term rather than just calling them liars, because gaslighting implies something much more insidious than mere lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
All the cool kids say 'gaslight' on Twitter and TikTok.
Gaslighting is beyond lying. It's lying combined with a campaign to make you (or others) think you're nuts for seeing the truth.
gaslighting implies something much more insidious than mere lying.
^This^
Lying is one thing, gaslighting people is lying to them and then attempting to convince them to believe your lies instead of their own eyes. Usually through the use of bogus, scientifically flawed studies, as is the case here. Step two is calling anyone who disagrees with or points out the flaws in their bullshit studies, or points out what they're trying to do before they're fully ready to put their plans in motion things like "Science denier" (heretic, IOW). Gaslighting is a much more descriptive term because it captures not only the fact that they're lying but also that they're attempting to psychologically manipulate you and everyone else into believing their lies.
But are you getting any?
thnks for sharing these information