Vancouver General Discussion Thread

[mcj]

If anything, reversing this policy is virtue signaling. This policy would have reduced the adverse health effects from having natural gas in the home, as well as reduced safety risks from gas leaks/explosions/open flames in the home, and reduced costs from eliminating the need for a separate utility installation.

But hey, when conservatives virtue signal, y'all cheer it on.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by mcj

If anything, reversing this policy is virtue signaling. This policy would have reduced the adverse health effects from having natural gas in the home, as well as reduced safety risks from gas leaks/explosions/open flames in the home, and reduced costs from eliminating the need for a separate utility installation.

But hey, when conservatives virtue signal, y'all cheer it on.

Yeah never had a fire start from faulty electrical.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Yeah never had a fire start from faulty electrical.

Reduced does not mean eliminated.

[Jimbo604]

CBC Vancouver reverses ban on the use of natural gas in new homes
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...rsal-1.7274783

"Vancouver city council surprised many Tuesday by reversing a long-standing bylaw that bans natural gas, used for heating, in newly-built homes.

Councillors voted 6-5 in favour of the change, with Mayor Ken Sim casting the tie-breaking vote remotely from his vacation.

Proponents say the move will help spur more home construction in the city, but critics say it sets the city up to fail on its climate goals. ..."

6-5... close vote.

[NewfBC]

Until the next council changes it again..

Ron.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

If anything, reversing this policy is virtue signaling. This policy would have reduced the adverse health effects from having natural gas in the home, as well as reduced safety risks from gas leaks/explosions/open flames in the home, and reduced costs from eliminating the need for a separate utility installation.

But hey, when conservatives virtue signal, y'all cheer it on.

Will you make the same argument against the single staircase apartment building code change? It will have adverse safety compared to the existing policy won't it?

Or will you accept that sometimes we have to accept a little bit of deregulation to reduce building costs?

I'm generally supportive of this. My understanding is that gas heating is generally much cheaper to install than electric heating including heat pumps, and the running costs aren't really that much better for even the best heat pumps. During the winter months when people want heating, we're buying electricity from Alberta and Washington state anyway and they're not exactly known for green electricity production.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by madog222

Isn't concrete regulations that specifically ban a use of a hydrocarbon the opposite of virtue signaling?

Because it is literally pissing into the wind in the scope of global emissions, harms sales of a BC product and drives up the cost of living.

But speaking of "concrete" they could just ban the use of that massive emissions creator.

[Migrant_Coconut]

For what it's worth, the gas stove ban is still on the table (at last check). And BC's considering a province-wide heating ban.

[GenWhy?]

In a recent development of ours we had to use all electric due to the latest Vancouver VBBL regulations on emissions. So maybe this just impacts Part 9, townhomes / duplexes?

[RedArbutus]

Originally Posted by madog222

Isn't concrete regulations that specifically ban a use of a hydrocarbon the opposite of virtue signaling?

It is, but unfortunately the right wing got a hold of a term that once had a niche meaning among sociologists studying prison populations - murderers with a moral code against child molestation, for instance - and now it means "anything anyone does that they feel might improve society somewhat", so here we are. That's the muh-free-speech crowd for you.

Ironic that it's an insult that's meant to convey disdain for perceived liberal superficiality and political naiveté, and yet some of the councilors that voted for it all had appointments with lobbyists for FortisBC on their agendas. What an astonishing coincidence

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

For what it's worth, the gas stove ban is still on the table (at last check). And BC's considering a province-wide heating ban.

If the city wants to build "culturally appropriate housing" for Chinese seniors, they all better have "culturally appropriate" stoves as well! Given the demographics of Vancouver, I find it extremely unlikely that gas stoves will be banned anytime soon, especially given that the environmental impact compared to gas heating is pennies on the dollar.

Not wanting it in your house? I can understand that, but banning it is just simple government overreach as far as I'm concerned. A certain prime minister once said the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation; Well I'd say the same thing about the kitchens.

[SpongeG]

Lynwood LRT opens on Friday, anyone going to go down or be in the area?

[BaddieB]

I'm more in support of banning gas stoves simply because of the negative health effects it has.

Things like this make it no mystery why it took so long to ban things like leaded gasoline and asbestos. People are all for the health of others until it causes them a minor inconvenience.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

I'm more in support of banning gas stoves simply because of the negative health effects it has.

Things like this make it no mystery why it took so long to ban things like leaded gasoline and asbestos. People are all for the health of others until it causes them a minor inconvenience.

If we were banning things purely because of any negative health effects, we'd be banning wild caught seafood, banning multistory buildings, banning ladders, banning pools, and certainly banning cars, trucks, and alcohol.

Banning leaded fuels was good because the societal impacts were enormous and we really did not need leaded fuels anymore. Banning asbestos was probably good because it could linger in products and homes forever undetected and turned out to be a societal problem due to mesothelioma.

I do not see how gas stoves will be a societal problem beyond "they might make the air quality a bit worse." Having a pool in your backyard or alcohol in your liquor cabinet is a much greater health risk to yourself and your family. In fact, if I recall correctly, living next to a major arterial road will make your air quality orders of magnitude worse than a gas stove will (and EVs will not solve that problem, they still have brakes and tires that rub against roadways.) Are we going to require homes to be over 200m from the nearest road next?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

I'm more in support of banning gas stoves simply because of the negative health effects it has.

Things like this make it no mystery why it took so long to ban things like leaded gasoline and asbestos. People are all for the health of others until it causes them a minor inconvenience.

My building has gas but only for stoves and a few larger balcony units have connections for BBQs.

I wonder what the additional expense is/was to run all of that gas vs. just having electric stovetops, with an option for induction.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I do not see how gas stoves will be a societal problem beyond "they might make the air quality a bit worse."

There's no 'might' about the air quality effect of using gas stoves. They pollute in three different ways. Burning the gas creates CO2, which is already at an atmospheric concentration that is causing global heating. In locations where there's a less carbon intensive potential for cooking, like in BC, that's a societal benefit.

Recent US research shows that gas stoves leak a small amount of methane continuously into the atmosphere. Individual homes are safe (unless the stove is damaged), but collectively all the US stoves in existence leak the equivalent of half a million vehicles operating every year. Methane is a more intensive contributor to climate change than CO2, although it's shorter lived in the atmosphere.

Burning gas also releases nitrous oxide. When conducting the tests, researchers found high levels of nitrogen oxides, greater than 100 parts per billion. The Canadian standard for 'safe' exposure is 13 ppb over a 24 hour period. If the kitchen is well ventilated, and the range hood is always used when the stove is in use, the concentration shouldn't reach dangerous levels, but people don't know that, or forget. NO2 is particularly dangerous to individuals, especially children, who have asthma or other breathing problems. These days buildings are more effectively sealed up, for energy efficiency, and that increases the likelihood of higher and more lingering concentrations

The lead researcher at Stanford University had a gas stove, that he operated without turning on ventilation. After the study he always ventilated his kitchen whenever he used the stove. Then he replaced it with an electric stove.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There's no 'might'...

Yup, good job. Everyone knows that by now. And it's 1000x times better than owning a car or living near them. When's the candle ban? How about the incense ban? Perhaps the cigarette ban? Oh! Or the lawnmower ban? Or perhaps the barbeque ban? Or the air conditioner, heat pump, and refrigerator ban (just as likely to release greenhouse gas refrigerants!)?

We live in a society, and we have tools. Some of our tools are not perfect. This does not necessarily mean that we ban those tools.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Yup, good job. Everyone knows that by now. And it's 1000x times better than owning a car or living near them. When's the candle ban? How about the incense ban? Perhaps the cigarette ban? Oh! Or the lawnmower ban? Or perhaps the barbeque ban? Or the air conditioner, heat pump, and refrigerator ban (just as likely to release greenhouse gas refrigerants!)?

We live in a society, and we have tools. Some of our tools are not perfect. This does not necessarily mean that we ban those tools.

We indeed live in a complex society, and we have tools. Human ingenuity constantly invents new tools to solve problems, or make human lives easier. But some of those inventions come with unanticipated negative consequences.

Thalidomide was a great drug, until it wasn't. DDT was a huge benefit for farming until the songbirds disappeared. Asbestos saved lives by stopping fires, but then the miners and the installers started dying. There was a huge hole that appeared in the ozone layer because we invented propellants for spray cans. When we can offer equally effective alternatives that don't have as negative impacts we sometimes accept we're better off abandoning the more damaging item. That's why gas stoves are being targeted.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Thalidomide was a great drug, until it wasn't. DDT was a huge benefit for farming until the songbirds disappeared. Asbestos saved lives by stopping fires, but then the miners and the installers started dying. There was a huge hole that appeared in the ozone layer because we invented propellants for spray cans. When we can offer equally effective alternatives that don't have as negative impacts we sometimes accept we're better off abandoning the more damaging item. That's why gas stoves are being targeted.

It's funny you mention thalidomide because it's still incredibly effective and used worldwide. We're prescribing thalidomide to people in this country today, we just make sure to tell people that any pregnancy that occurs with thalidomide in the bloodstream is an extreme health risk.

On top of that DDT and asbestos definitely were not phased out because we had an equally effective alternative. DDT is a miracle pesticide that earned the scientist who first used it as an insecticide a Nobel prize. Asbestos was a miracle material used by human civilization for thousands of years. We just finally decided that the benefits were outweighed by the risks.

Currently there is no equally effective alternative to gas stoves. Pure electric cooktops are simply worse for responsiveness and raw heat output, and induction stoves are ineffective for cooking in anything other than ferromagnetic materials. I'm completely unconvinced that the benefits of allowing gas stoves are outweighed by the risks.

Just like thalidomide, we ought to make sure people know not to run a gas stove without the vent hood on, and crisis averted. A lot of modern vent hoods turn on automatically in response to heat or are linked to the cooktop too. If we want to update building codes for what is legal and what is not, maybe start with requiring those for new stoves (and not just gas stoves, frankly).

[WarrenC12]

The gas stove thing is up there with the "1 beer a day will give you cancer" news we got blasted with last year.

Yeah some stuff isn't great for you. But it's far more important what you are cooking and eating from your gas stove than the stove itself.