One California City Wants to Get Rid of Gas | Residents of liberal Berkeley will get to vote on a second attempt to curb use of the fuel in buildings. - eviltoast
  • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Definitely could do it that way. But everybody is better off if we do it in a planned way instead of leaving people to deal with that kind of a mess.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      So whats the plan to replace gas in commercial kitchens? Oh wait there isn’t one.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Two options right now:

        1. Run new electrical lines to them capable of providing for their actual needs
        2. Propane
        • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Propane doesn’t offer the benefits you seem to think it does. It’s more expensive and the distribution system for it likely has as many issues as the natural gas does. Going after natural gas distribution while we still have larger and more significant sources of emissions is a minuscule bandage solution at best. At worst it solves a very minor source of emissions problems at a major cost in both money and convenience.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Those commercial and residential emissions - those are largely about the fuels burned in buildings. 14% of the total is enough to matter — and when we’re running out of time to get emissions to zero, we need to cut it all to zero, not pick and choose.