• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    29 days ago

    No, it’s relevant for the cost of distributing the gas. It’s not cost-effective to run a gas distribution system just to commercial kitchens without the much larger distribution going to heating.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      If that’s right, you don’t need to ban gas cooking, just ban residential heating and let the market take care of it.

      Y’all just want to tear shit down to pat yourselves on the back.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        Definitely could do it that way. But everybody is better off if we do it in a planned way instead of leaving people to deal with that kind of a mess.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            29 days ago

            Two options right now:

            1. Run new electrical lines to them capable of providing for their actual needs
            2. Propane
            • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              29 days ago

              Propane doesn’t offer the benefits you seem to think it does. It’s more expensive and the distribution system for it likely has as many issues as the natural gas does. Going after natural gas distribution while we still have larger and more significant sources of emissions is a minuscule bandage solution at best. At worst it solves a very minor source of emissions problems at a major cost in both money and convenience.

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                28 days ago

                Those commercial and residential emissions - those are largely about the fuels burned in buildings. 14% of the total is enough to matter — and when we’re running out of time to get emissions to zero, we need to cut it all to zero, not pick and choose.

    • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      What evidence do you have that it would be cost-ineffective to pipe natural gas to only businesses? The only thing they do these days when someone opts out of using natural gas is turn off the valve at the street. The gas still flows to other businesses and neighbors. It doesn’t matter what Berkeley does because Oakland, Richmond, Hayward and every other town or city around Berkeley is not going to ban the use of natural gas. It’s a non-starter. It’s pointless to do.