View Single Post
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:52 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
1) Energy efficiency: Natural gas appliances use less watts or in some cases kilowaters versus thier electrical varients. Hence why I mentioned advances in material science to make normal day-to-day items run on less electricity.
Not true. Natural gas appliances are often cheaper to operate due to electricity rates being higher now, but they are not more energy efficient... (and they don't use watts at all; watt is a measure of electric power).

Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
2) Rich people will benefit from this because they can afford the new developments going on in this building/property market, whereas the common man will have to seek to get exceptions. A stove might be cheap for some, but for others, it can be a big investment. $1000 might not seem like a lot for some, but for a lot of people, it is. The worse thing the state or even the local government can due is "force" conversion of such applications without consideration of family incomes and current financial burden.

Again, this is for new construction -- No one is being forced to convert anything, as you're suggesting. The common man in Berkeley can keep his gas stove and he can even get a new gas one if he wants someday.

Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
3) Why I keep mentioning implementation over time is so that people aren't financially burdened even further. Climate change is just one issue of many, but for a lot of folks, its not the root cause of their daily gripes or challenges. Things like traffic, housing, wages not keeping up with soaring living costs. These are the real issues that effect people.
Who is financially burdened by something like this? The utility PG&E? Because they won't be able to sell as much gas to Berkeley now?

Daily gripes? Let's get a congressional subcommittee to investigate these important issues right away! Fuck human health/climate change... people have gripes!

Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
So its fine and dandy to reduce our carbon footprint (which I am for btw), but WE should also consider the costs that it may incur on residents or the business environment.

Going green is good, but going green to quick can have ill consequences that lead to other issues, primarily economic and cost of living related.

An example to illustrate this would be FORCING everyone to get an electric car in 2020. because right now, technology, while improving, has not gotten the costs down where batteries are cheap to make it feasible for the common man/woman. So that's why long term goals and strategies must be devised, so that financial burden is not instilled upon a populous, if it be local or state.
Yeah... I'm not for putting financial burden on anyone, but I just don't get this reasoning as far as how it puts costs on people (the common man you're referring to). No one is being FORCED to get anything. Berkeley is deciding that they're not going to put gas in new buildings because the city doesn't need it and it will help them meet carbon reduction goals.
Reply With Quote