The meaningful steps that consumers can take to reduce emissions include flying less; driving less or in more efficient cars; eating less meat; using greener energy sources; and living in higher density areas (15% less energy use per capita results from each doubling of city size). The City Council has taken real steps along some of these vectors, for example delivering renewable energy through the Silicon Valley Clean Energy program. If the city wants to move more aggressively, I would suggest considering variants on these policies to incentivize greener behavior: more bike lanes; more electric vehicle charging stations; higher gas taxes; improved mass transit (for example, putting Wi-Fi on board may be the most cost effective step to increase rider satisfaction)' and increasing housing density, especially around transit hubs.
A San Bruno fire was caused by an explosion in a natural gas pipeline, but more numerous and deadly fires have been produced by electric transmission lines. Adopting electric boilers and stoves will place increased load on those electric lines, and during power shutdowns, residents under this ban will add cooked food and hot water to the list of luxuries they cannot have several times per year.
Banning natural gas raises the cost of living in an already very high cost of living area. Taking my home as an example, replacing gas with electricity generated from solar panels would cost about $16,000 in up-front cost for the solar panels, which would take over 65 years to pay back given the current cost of natural gas, even assuming zero cost of capital and that the solar panels would last 65 years — both of which assumptions are badly incorrect. Raising the cost of living in Mountain View will continue to push people to live farther away, therefore burning more gas in cars and increasing traffic.
Most serious home chefs prefer cooking with gas stoves; those who prioritize having home-cooked meals should be allowed to do so. Some critics of natural gas cooking contend that natural gas stoves release toxic fumes in the kitchen. Regarding indoor particulates that can be damaging to lungs, particulates are attributed more to cleaning products, toasters and the foods themselves than burning gas. Regarding vapors, research on whether there are measurable harmful effects from indoor gas emissions is still being conducted (see the HOMEChem project for example) and shows thus far that gas concentrations during cooking are below EPA limits. If future studies show that indoor cooking poses a health risk, then homeowners and developers are free to elect electric stoves without a gas ban. For those concerned about unsubstantiated health effects of indoor cooking, a proportionate response would be to ensure your kitchen has good ventilation.
If the above arguments are not persuasive, then I suggest that increasing the price of natural gas would have been a way to encourage less natural gas use at the margin — for new and existing homes — while allowing those who want to cook with gas to continue to do so and raising city revenue at the same time.
In summary, banning natural gas in residences is more about optics than sound policy. It gives council members a way to burnish their green credentials without inconveniencing many current voters. However, it is not the sort of thoughtful and meaningful approach that tackling climate change requires.
I am hoping that some companies, builders ?, will put up the funds to get a voter referendum going that would prevent the state and local government from banning natural gas. If the entire US went to a carbon neutral energy source, it would only effect the world temp by 0.14 degrees. That is if you believe what the climate alarmist say. China, India, Russia, and Germany will never go along with this. In fact, Germany tried to go all renewable energy and it failed. They ended up making an agreement with Russia to build a massive Natural Gas pipeline so they could have reliable energy source.
> If the entire US went to a carbon neutral energy source, it would only effect the world temp by 0.14 degrees Pasting trash denier lies from Exxon via Heritage? For shame. > In fact, Germany tried to go all renewable energy and it failed. In 2017, 36% of German consumption was renewable. Hardly a "failure" on their way to their 2050 goals (unless you're a denier of science and fact.) They've had peaks of 75% renewables. They'll get there before we will.
Warnings from our world experts say that we can easily exceed 3*C if we lag dramatically on installing clean energy. Natural gas to balance out intermittent renewable energy is not a long term solution to climate change. It is only short term. Storage needs to be developed to fill in the gaps intermittent power supply drops short. Natural gas only delays the much needed long term storage investment. 100% renewable energy is the answer and ntaural gas cannot fit in.
Again, I have presented that the economics of electric use is better than natural gas, that should be enough to support the action. But what we have here is an entrenched market model involving fossil fuels that is threatening a large industry. But the fact is improvements in renewable energy is taking over the coal business. And it is able to take a large chunk of the natural gas industry. What we have here is another paradigm shift. A big one, that is threatening the investments of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, the climate has already moved enough that the long term climate change is permenant, and all we can do is adjust now to reduce further changes. So trying to claim that we can stop the problem is a false idea. We must take actions to further reduce the impact right now. This is going to cost a lot regarding fossil fueled energy production. Why are we even having this discussion where the economics proves that electric systems are better and safer at this time? There are going to be significant costs to those investors in the fossil fuel and this is going to be a big change.
Germany was the first to embrace renewable energy. Read this article for real world information. People can put whatever info they want into climate models. When you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Read story here, about Germany, it's failed renewable energy push. Learn from this lesson as we will also fail and it will cost us dearly. [Portion removed due to promoting a website] Remember, we are now being told that we only have 12 years to act, after hearing this for the past 50 years. If the few countries who are willing to try and push for renewable energy independence, look at what their time frame is, it is 2050. 18 years beyond what we are being told is the drop dead date to act. It will have ZERO impact on the climate, according to the climate alarmist, it is too late.
In response to Do not ban NG you said: “Germany was the first to embrace renewable energy. Read this article for real world information. People can put whatever info they want into climate models. When you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Read story here, about Germany, it's failed renewable energy push. Learn from this lesson as we will also fail and it will cost us dearly.” You have to be very careful Mountain View. This article sourced is not journalism, it is an opinion article. The country has been manipulated by politicians and special interest groups constantly resourcing opinion articles as research or journalism. This has caused serious problems in the country because it takes a lot of work to make sure you do not get confused by propaganda and not real research. This article only covers Wind energy, with the hundreds of miles of water aqueducts in California, you can put water wheels and attach generators to them. Setting up a chain of them, there is a large amount of renewable energy that can be captured right here, without the use of any fuels. So selectively only targeting either wind or solar where the combined use of all sources can remove the necessity of combustion to a significant degree. We need to work on making sure we don’t overlook the big picture here.
Good grief - a link to an anti-wind website that looks like it was created in the 90's. A link to this guy, a shill for the extraction industry in Canada: "Rick Peterson is the Edmonton-based founder and Beth Bailey is a Calgary-based supporter of Suits and Boots, a national not-for-profit group of investment industry professionals that supports RESOURCE SECTOR workers and their families." Web Link Think CANADIAN EXTRACTION. These wackos collect "articles" that claim wind energy makes you sick! see: "wind turbines make people sick" At least they are getting paid by the extraction industry - one wonders why our Denier posting above is doing it. Kind of like Trump's continued insistence that wind causes cancer: "President Trump Says Wind Turbines Cause Cancer. 99% of Iowans Disagree" Web Link Followed with more lies and unsubstantiated claims - geez, deniers are too much! Again: In 2017, 36% of German consumption was renewable, well on their way to their 2050 goals (unless you're a denier of science and fact.) They've had peaks of 75% renewables. They'll get there before we will.
In East Anglia University is in Norwich, England, they changed, then destroyed historical weather data to create the now famaous "hockey stick graph" which Al Gore loudly proclaimed alarm about the climate changing. He also said that he wants to be the first "carbon billionaire". Until the climate change people agree to have the first public debate, stop running and hiding from this you alarmist, with both sides present, and both sides showing their evidence, until that happens, there is no agreement on this issue and nothing is settled. You can not have one side claiming something, then refuse to debate it or proof it. Name calling people does not work. story here,Web Link "They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence." "The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming." "The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports."
@Good German, you said, "Pasting trash denier lies from Exxon via Heritage? For shame." “The Obama’s administration’s model projects that the amount of global warming that would be saved going to zero emissions tomorrow … would be 14 hundredths of a degree Celsius,” says Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists. It's good to know that you call Obama a trash denier, liar, and works for Exxon.
Conflating this oil-funded denier with Obama? Hah! This dude is on the Koch payroll. Give it a break, deniers. Pat Michaels takes oil money. Before that, he took tobacco money. "In a leaked 2006 memo of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), Michaels is listed as a recipient of at least $100,000 from IREA to combat global warming “alarmists.” The IREA memo outlines a coordinated strategy by Koch Industries, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michaels, and other key groups." Like I said previously, they're getting paid to lie - but why are you posting lies? well?
Do Not Ban NG does not disclose that this auther also proclaimes that asbestos does not cause cancer and that second hand smoke is not dangerous. please refer to this history of him (Web Link) Also look at this information: In December 2009, Christopher Booker and Richard North had published an article in The Sunday Telegraph in which they questioned whether Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain, with a follow-up Telegraph article in January 2010. On 21 August 2010, The Daily Telegraph issued an apology, and withdrew the December article from their website having reportedly paid legal fees running into six figures. Dr Pachauri described the statements against him as "another attempt by the climate sceptics to discredit the IPCC." Why would his publisher issue an apology? Lets just say that this resource can at least be determined as questionable. Again, we have to be carefull becasue almost anything can be published no matter what the content is. This is our biggest threat today, that the people can be manipulated so easily. Still you do not address the issue that it is in a lot of cases be cheaper to use electric energy for heating. Let's just stick to that subject. I wrote information in the past that those supporting Natural Gas claimed it was cheaper, but I found resources the proved otherwise. Why overspend for energy than what we have to? People claim prefereance regarding cooking with gas. But with electric you can actually set the temperature you want the element to be. You cannot do that with gas. What proof is their that gas cooking is superior to electric? Granted many have cooked with gas for years, but there is no scientific evidence that gas cooking is any better than electric. Heating is just that, heat.
People sure have a problem with facts. When you have to twist yourself into a pretzel, you know the facts are not on your side. Fact:"Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation", that story, and many more was written about University of East Anglia, they had the documents that showed what was going on. That can not be denied. You are a liar if you try. Fact: “The Obama’s administration’s model projects that the amount of global warming that would be saved going to zero emissions tomorrow … would be 14 hundredths of a degree Celsius" as many other also state. Fact: The climate alarmist refuse to debate this matter. The facts are not on their side and they do not want to expose that. Fact: Name calling only proves how little you know about the subject, and shows that you can not think for yourself. You are nothing but part of the emotional group think herd where you have to be told how to think and what to say. NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity story here, 10/1/2018Web Link "We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.” Before any of you knock this, let me remind you that it is your sides job to prove your facts, which you have failed at doing. EVERY prediction from the IPCC since 1990 have been WRONG. Instead of knocking people who are asking for you to explain your theory, tell your side to go out and debate it with the science community from the other side, and do it out in front of the public.
Denier spews a bunch of factless noise with only one link, to an absurd fringe political website from... (wait for it....) (drum roll....) ”a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society" Science!!
In response to Do not ban NG you said: “Fact:"Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation", that story, and many more was written about University of East Anglia, they had the documents that showed what was going on. That can not be denied. You are a liar if you try.” Again, that was a opinion article and not actual research. Please provide more evidence other that one. Again the same write claimed that asbestos was not the cause of cancers and that there is no link regarding second hand smoke and respiratory diseases. Why do you continue to make claims not born from real research? You said: “Fact: “The Obama’s administration’s model projects that the amount of global warming that would be saved going to zero emissions tomorrow … would be 14 hundredths of a degree Celsius" as many other also state.” You know that is not correct because climate change is a worldwide problem. Please identify other than opinion articles where this was scientifically determined. Again, we have opinions being classified as facts that does not make sense. You said: “Fact: The climate alarmist refuse to debate this matter. The facts are not on their side and they do not want to expose that.” Please provide real research from scientifically peer reviewed articles to establish your fact? You are not an authority because you are simply a poster using an alias. The people here need more than just your word. You said: “Fact: Name calling only proves how little you know about the subject, and shows that you can not think for yourself. You are nothing but part of the emotional group think herd where you have to be told how to think and what to say.” Again, the writer you used for your argument was known for writings that resulted in an apology and withdrawal of the writings. That is not name calling in any way, it is history. You said: “NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity story here, 10/1/2018 Web Link "We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”” That was in the year 2018, but if you read the article (Web Link) called July 2019 was the warmest month in recorded history. The data regarding the research reported simply didn’t match reality. So that hypothesis could be proven false. In reality most of the year either approached or broke record heat. Sometimes the atmosphere capturing and holding heat and lower altitudes results in colder temperatures higher up. Maybe that’s why they saw that result, and didn’t understand that the heat was trapped in lower altitudes? You said: “Before any of you knock this, let me remind you that it is your side’s job to prove your facts, which you have failed at doing. EVERY prediction from the IPCC since 1990 have been WRONG. Instead of knocking people who are asking for you to explain your theory, tell your side to go out and debate it with the science community from the other side, and do it out in front of the public.” That is very over simplistic, if you read the article (Web Link) How well climate models projected global warming you can find that the IPCC model 1990 was 83% accurate. That is not a result you can call WRONG. The 1995 prediction was 72% accurate that would still be a passing grade. The 2001 model was 86% accurate. The 2007 report was 93% accurate. So your attempt to overly claim that the IPCC is not a valid prediction does not appear to be correct. Finally again, why not also discuss that the cost of electric use is cheaper and more safe than natural gas?
You deny science and call the science based community "alarmists" yet somehow act offended when you gain your well-earned title of Denier. Your very few links are to extremist organizations like the John Birchers or Deniers funded by the Kochs, or Heartland, funded by Big Oil. @BusinessMan kindly defeats every one of your false, unsubstantiated claims/lies, so you resort to: > Fortunately for you... > In real life... > You really should... > P.S, You also forgot to say... Thanks for playing. You're toast, except in that little fringe circle of those getting paid to peddle this trash.
Our city council doesn't think through all of their mandates. The ban on natural gas doesn't stand on its own, there are many more other mandates which are self contradictory, and impossible to satisfy, so you will need to beg them for variances. For example, we have a solar mandate in CA - 100% of our home's electric usage must be offset by rooftop solar starting for new homes built as of Jan 1. Electric heating increases your power use, so per law, you must increase the size of this PV system. Taking my home as an example, it is impossible for me to install a PV system to offset my electric usage because most of my roof is north facing, and huge trees block the sun to the south. Since the trees are tall, I can not remove them, as they are heritage trees, so what I would have to do to comply is install a PV system with sufficient nominal wattage to meet regulations, but net wattage would be closer to zero - huge cost for no reason. Yes, new homes can be designed with that in mind, but it will simply not be possible to put solar everywhere. If I'm to heat electrically, the efficient way to do so is via a heat pump. These are reversible air-conditioners, basically, and sound the same. You need a compressor/evaporator unit outside. Noise ordinances preclude installing those in some homes, particularly new, denser ones, so you now have to use resistive heating, which is prohibitively expensive. It's maddening to see this lunacy being foisted on our city. Whenever doing anything, you first have to seek permission from our all knowing-masters. We have to get permits for the mandated solar panels!
@Marcin: "so per law, you must increase the size of this PV system" "Taking my home as an example" "If I'm to heat electrically" It doesn't apply to your home, only new homes.
The problems for Natural Gas investors today is that the prices are going down severely. Adding the fact that any programs used to eliminate demand for it is just adding to the problem. Here is some news (Web Link) This is why so much adversity to alternative energy systems are such a threat. This is going to get ugly.
I realize that it doesn’t apply to my home, I was just using it as a hypothetical new home. It’s really dishonest and unfair to pass laws affecting just the new folks, and city councils around here like to tighten the noose once they’ve slipped it over our heads. However, we’re not there yet, and for the time being we’re making new homes more expensive, and introducing more hoops to jump through. These “tax the other guy” approaches are very popular since current residents don’t think it will affect them, until the code is tweaked, and soon, you can’t get a new gas stove to replace the old one, or you must remove your gas furnace when it comes time to replace it, and then you have to roll the dice as to whether you’re allowed an efficient electric heater since it’s loud. California politics is a form of mental illness.
"and soon, you can’t get a new gas stove to replace the old one, or you must remove your gas furnace when it comes time to replace it" Didn't you just admit it's only for new buildings? "California politics is a form of mental illness." I hear Kansas is looking for techies. You'll love the politics there.
It's a shame that people can't have an honest debate or even a difference of opinion without all the name-calling. I think Mr. Holme makes a lot of good points even though I don't agree with everything he said. I also think that it's a shame that the City Council has chosen once again to use the heavy hand of government to micromanage what should be a personal choice. It has not been proven that so-called climate change is man-made. I remember when they were predicting a new Ice Age, then it was Global Warming, now it's 'Climate change' because that covers all the bases regarding any change in the weather at all! No one is saying that human activities have zero effect, but it is disingenuous to say that anyone knows exactly what the effects are or will be in 12, 20 or 100 years when very often they can't even tell you what the weather will be tomorrow! In the mean time, the government is happily taking away all our choices ( which also happens to increase our costs) because they always know what's best for us.) I am very disappointed. I was hoping that this City Council would be different and would look out for the most economically disadvantaged among us. It looks like I was wrong. Jim Neal Modesto, Ca (Formerly Old Mountain View)
Instead of this council banning gas ovens and burners, how about banning the gas powered leaf blowers which causes pollution affecting health and noise problems? Every week, it is almost a constant leaf blowing in the neighborhood. More wealth, more leaf blowing.
Support local families in need Your contribution to the Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Voice readers and the Wakerly, Packard and Hewlett foundations contributed a total of $72,000.
© 2019 Mountain View Online All rights reserved. Embarcadero Media PR MediaReleaseSponsored contentMobile site
Light Oil Burner, Gas Burner, Diesel Burner, Oil Burners - Renaissance,http://www.eburn-burner.com/