ENER No More Cooking With Gas: Environmental Activists Going After Gas Appliances

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
https://westernwire.net/no-more-coo...ts-going-after-the-appliances-consumers-love/

No More Cooking With Gas: Environmental Activists Going After The Appliances Consumers Love

BY ERIN MUNDAHL OCTOBER 18, 2019

"Consumers are getting caught in the crossfire of environmental activists’ war against natural gas and the new battlefield is in the kitchen.

Environmentalists began collaborating with state government officials from across the United States at a closed-door gathering in New York this summer to lay out the plans for policies that would prevent consumers from using natural gas to cook their food or heat their homes.

The conference included representatives from the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Energy Foundation, and the World Research Institute among others, according to open records recently obtained by free market group Energy Policy Advocates and reviewed by the Washington Times.

It was hosted by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) at their Pocantico Center in Tarrytown, N.Y. where they paid for all logistical costs and emails show they also offered to cover the airfare of state government officials who needed financial assistance.

“If your state cannot cover travel, we can help you cover your travel costs as well,” an email read.

On July 18, the group met for a panel discussion called “Natural Gas Lock In” which set its sights on natural gas home appliances like stoves, washers, and dryers.

“We are well past the point of using natural gas as a transition fuel, and new policies and programs should explicitly avoid further ‘lock-in’ investments like natural gas fueled municipal buses or energy efficiency funding for natural gas equipment,” read one email.

It’s a policy proposal that would likely have a significant adverse impact on Colorado, New Mexico, and other energy-producing states in the West.

Additional emails showed the group included state government officials from New Mexico and 11 other “trifecta” states – in which the Democratic Party controls both the governorship and both legislative chambers – who discussed going beyond bans on natural gas appliances and pursue a full elimination of fossil fuels.

New Mexico is heavily dependent on the oil and gas industry for its economy and to fund public services. Because of the thriving Permian Basin, the state saw a $900 million surplus last year and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has spoken repeatedly about being able to offer free tuition to state universities because of this revenue.

“We are asking lead energy policy advisors to attend from a dozen states with supportive, and in many cases, new governors and legislatures interested in accelerating the transition to a clean, low-carbon economy,” read an invite in one of the emails. You are invited because you are the, or one of the, lead policy advisors to your governor on energy and climate policy,” and agenda stated.

The meeting was a sign that climate activists, including the Basalt, Colo.-based Rocky Mountain Institute and Colorado State University’s Center for the new Energy Economy—which is headed by former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter—are working to spread natural gas bans around the country and that activists are continuing to work on the strategy that was originally envisioned at a gathering in La Jolla, Calif. in 2012 to use legal and regulatory actions to curtail the use of fossil fuels.

While activists are fighting to make natural gas appliances illegal, consumers continue to seek them out. Natural gas stoves, furnaces, and other appliances remain consumer favorites. According to the American Gas Association, in 2017, natural gas had 49 percent market share for both cooktop ranges and water heaters.

In part, this is because chefs and cooks at all skill levels prefer natural gas burners to electric stoves. Gas allows for quicker heat that can be more precisely controlled. In fact, one study of homebuyers in the Pacific Northwest found that 87 percent ranked natural gas service as important to them, largely because of price and cooking. They were also willing to pay a premium for natural gas over an all-electric home.

That presents a challenge for climate activists.

Although they see home appliances as the next step in their anti-fossil fuel campaign, research demonstrates that the costs would be high and emissions reductions minimal. Energy Information Administration (EIA) statistics show that residential natural gas use contributed less than 4 percent of overall greenhouse gas emissions in 2016. Meanwhile, the cost to replace these appliances with electric equivalents, with the resulting increase in demand for electricity, would raise annual energy costs between $1100 and $1400.

This hasn’t stopped local governments from across the country attempting to enact limits on new natural gas hookups. The Seattle City Council considered a ban on natural gas hookups in new buildings this fall. Meanwhile, in New York state, utility Conn Edison is struggling to find a way to connect new homes in New York City suburbs to a limited supply of natural gas. New England has resisted constructing new pipelines for years and the region is now strapped for supply. Boulder considered implementing a city natural gas tax earlier this year.

“Berkeley is the opening salvo,” Bruce Nilles, managing director of think tank Rocky Mountain Institute’s building electrification program, told Reuters. The Bay Area city became the first city in the country in July to pass an ordinance prohibiting gas hookups in new buildings.

Climate activists are hoping that these types of bans will push consumers toward electric appliances, and they are receiving packing from deep-pocketed environmentalist donors, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF).

RBF funds multi-million-dollar anti-fossil fuel initiatives including campaigns against the Keystone XL pipeline, fossil fuel divestment and climate litigation. RBF grantees including Colorado State University, Georgetown University, the latter’s Climate Center in particular receives substantial funding from numerous foundations aimed at eliminating fossil fuels."
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
These people are insane. Do away with that and you can't even cook over cow dung as they don't want cows because of their flatulence. What do they want people to use....electric? Well for that you would need new nuclear power plants and new coal fired plants. Think that is going to happen? They are shuttering the coal plants and using more natural gas powered turbines so I suppose the environmentalists are going to go after those as well. Natural gas is a lot cleaner burning than coal without all the pollution control devices. Time to tell these people to go live in the huts and work with their stone tools and leave the rest of us alone.
 

Murt

Veteran Member
"they" should lead by example and remove ALL fossil fuel from their lives---including electricity generated using natural gas

I grow weary of their noise
 

Luddite

Veteran Member
Reminds me of the dystopian fiction by Glenn Beck where the characters were forced to walk on a treadmill device to earn their keep and provide enough electricity for the day. I can't remember the name.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
We need to roundup all these people and put them on some isolated abandoned town with no modern convenience whatsoever not even a gas station and force them to live that life for two years or more.
Oh they will scream foul but them first and it's what it will take to teach them a lesson.
 
Last edited:

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Look, I’ve been saying for years that these people want us living in caves and eating dirt. Nothing less will pacify them.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
We need to roundup all these people and put them on some isolated abandoned town with no modern convenience whatsoever not even a gas station and force them to live that life for two years or more.
Oh they will scream fowl but them first and it's what it will take to teach them a lesson.


This one made me laugh Publius! (It’s “foul”. “Fowl” are birds :D)
 

Plain Jane

Just Plain Jane
I am reminded how the left embraced the Hunger Games series of books and then the films until the third film was about to be released. Then all of a sudden there was handwringing over the championing of going against an all powerful government. It finally occurred to them that they were on the evil side of the narrative there.
 

nomifyle

TB Fanatic
Reminds me of the dystopian fiction by Glenn Beck where the characters were forced to walk on a treadmill device to earn their keep and provide enough electricity for the day. I can't remember the name.

the name is "Agenda 21", scary but hopeful. I'd never make it to one of those places because I would not give up and go quietly but then I don't have children near me, so I would be eliminated.

Judy
 

Switchback

Veteran Member
Electric appliances + Smart meter and smart grid + Internet of things + 5G build out = monitoring and CONTROL. 2030 is fast approaching, many target mile markers to reach.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
Of course if one doesn't use natural gas or electricity to cook your food - what does one use?

The only viable alternative I can think of would be wood.

Owner does not cook with wood - but he heats with wood - to the tune of 4 cords a winter. It is his sole heat source.

He has help with this, of course. Its what I do.

Wood is nice and would be favored by the Leftists because it is "carbon neutral" and doesn't add to the "desequesturization" of fossil carbon and global warming. Everything you burn as wood came to that form first as carbon dioxide in the air. So really, you're putting back into the air carbon dioxide which was taken from the air perhaps 50 years ago? Few trees live longer than 100 years.

But the downside of wood is that the smoke which comes from a wood fire is particulate carbon - and many don't like the smoky downside of wood fires - which is POOR COMBUSTION.

Owner has a wood stove which was advertised in its day as "one of the most efficient." Even at that it was rated only 62 percent efficient. This means that 38 percent of the carbon goes unburned - and into the air as smoke (or into the chimney as creosote.)

Do these environmental humans think air quality is going to IMPROVE with a wood-fuel heating economy?

Truthfully, I think like others that these enviro-weenies should be forced to live sans fossil fuel. Let them put their shiver on and live like Owner's Ancestors did in the 18th Century pre-fossil fuel economy.

If it was good enough for George, and Benjamin, and Thomas, those old, rich, white, male dudes, it should be good enough for them.

Dobbin
 

Meemur

Voice on the Prairie / FJB!
Huh? I remember when natural gas buses were all the rage -- clean burning natural gas! Sold the city a bunch of them at quite a hit to the taxpayers.

I miss my gas stove. I'm going to have a gas line put into the kitchen, sooner rather than later, now that I've read this.

Agree with locking up these idiots for two years somewhere set up like the 1880s. Take their TP away, too, and let them use whatever they can fabricate. Most will last about three days, if that.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
For the same amount of heat natural gas actually has HALF the carbon emission of oil or coal fossil. It can be burned in a cylinder VERY cleanly hence its adoption for inner city transport.

Dobbin
 

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
WAIT A SECOND!! Ban natural gas? Natural gas is....like.....farts! They are going to ban farts? Yeah well they want to ban cows cuz they fart. Also cows are not vegan. Well cows are actually vegan but what we do WITH them is not vegan.

I think Dennis was right. No fossil fuels - CHECK! No carbon emissions - CHECK! No dams - CHECK! No natural gas - CHECK!

Aaaaah what are we supposed to use to heat our homes and cook our food? Wood? No we can't use wood either. It makes smoke. Smoke is bad.

Have these NIMRODS totally lost their friggen minds? :gaah:
 
Top