"Getting rid of gas stoves" is a non-issue strawman used to gin up more reactionary anger among people who don't even have gas infrastructure to their homes.
Gas infrastructure is leaky as fuck and eliminating its expansion and removing the oldest and most leaky parts of the infrastructure is uncontroversially a good move.
@ericjmorey And it's a very effective way to gin up anger even among independents who really have more important things to be worrying about right now. Push this stuff and help Trump. That's the reality.
The people pushing it already support Trump.
@ericjmorey @lauren
Not all of them.
No way my mayor backs the Orange One, but I'm not allowed to replace my gas oven, while it would be a net improvement to replace it with a new one. 🤷♂️
@ericjmorey @lauren
Perhaps "pushing the issue" is ambiguous upstream and I misunderstood?
It's real, it's not a fake controversy only in Fox echo chamber.
Mayor and City Council (slim majority of) are pushing gas stoves elimination as good global climate policy and local health-justice;
they're NOT pushing the issue as pushback LibsOfTixTox/Faux+Friends style.
I'm not angry at my Major enough to vote against my interests otherwise, but gee I'd like a new oven, and I don't want to buy new pans compatible with induction cook tops.
(Helping with Xmas dinner at Mother's is enough to remind me why we'd rather not go back to resistive electric with thermal mass in element and discrete click settings of Too-Hot and Not-Hot-Enough.)
Fixing the sources of pollution is always going to inconvenience those benefiting from the externalized costs of producing the pollution. There's simply no way around that. Perhaps a policy that taxed metered natural gas would have been a better option, but it seems like a toss up when dealing with infrastructure system level decisions.