Hacker News Reader

Comment by encoderer | Hacker News Reader

An acquaintenance in my network is a founder in the climate space. Two years ago he mentioned that for climate activists, eliminating gas stoves is the next target.

About a year later the trickle of bad news about gas stoves began. And it’s somehow all about the health risks of having a gas stove.

I’m not a conspiracy guy but it seems to me like climate activists are driving this message and they know full well you will never convince people to stop cooking over a flame, without resorting to “protect the children” nonsense.

View on HN

> About a year later the trickle of bad news about gas stoves began.

Nah. Here's an article from 1996. (The "now, ladies" dates it pretty well to sometime outside the last decade, heh.)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-02-ls-54048-...

"And now, ladies, one more reason to get out of the kitchen: Cooking may be hazardous to your health. Or so suggests controversial new research into the relationship between the use of gas stoves and respiratory problems in women. The major pollutant released by the combustion of gas is nitrogen dioxide, an odorless, reddish-brown compound that irritates the linings of the respiratory tract and causes shortness of breath."

Great citation but it really can support the point either way.

Something known for decades is now getting new attention, scrutiny and oversight. What changed? Is it just a coincidence it’s become a target for the climate industry at the same time?

What changed? "Climate change isn't happening" ceased to be a sustainable political position in most of the world; even in the US it's moved from "climate change isn't a thing" to "humans can't cause climate change" to "it's real but we can't stop it". Same thing that happened to tobacco in the 1990s; the fossil fuel industry stopped being able to bullshit their way out of admitting the problem's existence.

Yes it’s a problem, but induction cooktops are true feats of engineering. Have they tried just mandating these companies make a gas stove that doesn’t poison the users? Whatever that means.. better fans, tighter tolerances, it doesn’t sound intractable.

Ultimately, I think it’s a hard sell that we as a race should no longer cook over an open flame. But of course, the other target from the climate industry is meat itself so I guess the idea is that when it’s all plant paste who cares how it gets cooked?

> Have they tried just mandating these companies make a gas stove that doesn’t poison the users?

They might do exactly that.

The exact quote from the interview (https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-01-09/us-safety-...):

"'This is a hidden hazard,' Richard Trumka Jr., an agency commissioner, said in an interview. 'Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.'"

The mitigations you propose would seem to fall within the "made safe" category.

Also in the LA Times piece, emphasis mine:

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which has a staff of roughly 500, plans to open public comment on hazards posed by gas stoves later this winter. Besides barring the manufacture or import of gas stoves, options include setting standards on emissions from the appliances, Trumka said."

30 years ago it was radon. Everyone was running out to get detectors lest the ground beneath their houses killed them in their sleep. And who can forget Alar on apples or fat=bad or a thousand others.

So far I have yet to read a comment addressing the actual analysis of the studies by the author of the article. It's all: "Everyone knows gas is bad; it's axiomatic and self-evident, and anyone who goes to the trouble of actually looking at the source data and run analysis on it is a moron."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com