[pj3000]

Talk about quickly modifying a stance once proven wrong. They're made for each other.

Originally Posted by chris08876

I just wonder what the cost will be to both residents and businesses to make the transition.

I apologize for the troll post, I know... I just had to get it off my mind... sometimes a good idea comes to mind due to creativity.

I mean, possibly rolling it out over "X" years would of been appropriate.

California has always pushed the frontier of change, but I feel at the expense (cost) to the residents or general business environment.

Transition is key I feel. Like imagine if you have a business that relies on natural gas, and now... you have all of this expense at once. Even with exceptions, all it does is create bureaucracy, more paperwork, and makes it even harder to do business.

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's not a transition. It's for NEW construction.

There will be no transition. It doesn't need to be "rolled out". It is inherently being rolled out by focusing on new construction. Goddamn, fucking read for 2 minutes.

Originally Posted by chris08876

I did read it. And I think the time frame for new construction is too short of a notice. In a state that has a housing crisis, this is just further adding to the giant stack of bs that developers have to go through.

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's a lot easier and cheaper to build all-electric. This is not some added burden on "developers" as you're trying to make it out to be.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Cool now they will use electricity which is by far worse in terms of fossil fuel use. 80% of Electricity is still generated via Coal gas and Oil power plants.

Originally Posted by craigs

Cool story, bro.

Meanwhile, in reality, PG&E has already provided the breakdown on how they produce power for Caifornia cities, including Berkeley: 33% renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and waste, small hydro), 27% nuclear, 20% natural gas, 18% large hydro, and 2% market purchases. They make a point of putting coal into the chart, and it's 0%.

Originally Posted by pj3000

First, once again, it’s for NEW construction... so there’s no “now they will use electricity”. Existing buildings can still use natural gas.

Second, not in California. And not in PG&E service territory. PG&E power sources are only like 20% natural gas now, and zero coal. Mostly renewables, nuclear, and hydropower.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Cool story bro's now all it does is inconvenience Berkeley residents to "make a statement" politically.

Good for them, Just like renaming Columbus Day "indigenous peoples day" (which Berkeley did long ago) Even though it is still a day because of Columbus and the signage still says (Columbus day) in parentheses because otherwise nobody would know what the hell they were talking about. Banning natural gas in New Buildings in Berkeley for heat and cooking does absolutely nothing to effect or change the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit and will have absolutely no impact other than "making a statement".

A bunch of rich lefties making grand meaningless gestures to prove to themselves that they aren't really "that bad" as rich westerners because they "care" oh so much about X topical cause of the day.

The whole thing gets a big eye roll from me dog. But its Berkeley, You know what you are getting into if you move there.

Originally Posted by pj3000

No, it won't inconvenience Berkeley residents or developers. It's much cheaper to build all electric, and never gets cold enough there to necessitate anything more than electric heat.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Dude, Natural gas is in literally thousands of products you use all the time. Even if you stopped all energy uses (which you wont as its one of the most cost effective ways to produce lots of electricity) it would still be vital to how your life functions.

Its one of the most important resources on earth: