Climate Change is a Technological Challenge, Not a Moral Crusade

And it's not about gas stoves

Built from painting of the siege of a Saracen town, c.1099. (Image credit: Getty)

If I was Joe Biden, I’d fire the idiot who told Bloomberg that the US Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering banning gas stoves. Administration officials are nominally independent, but they should also be politically astute, and it blows my mind that one exists who doesn’t understand the basic dynamic of modern American politics. It’s like being a crypto enthusiast and not understanding that the “product” is just a better way to buy drugs — are you a complete fucking moron? How can you not understand how this works?

The dynamic I’m talking about is this: The Republican Party is animated mostly by hatred of Democrats. Right-wing media exists to publicize every dumb thing done by anyone on the left. Democrats spend most of our time trying to convince voters that we’re not controlled by the smug, out-of-touch idiots that everyone hates. In basically every election at every level in this country, the Republican argues that their opponent is an America-hating leftist wacko, and the Democrat counters with: “No I’m not!”

Fox News and other right-wing media outlets treated the gas stove thing like it was Pearl Harbor times a hundred. And we’re not done hearing about this — Republicans are already discussing Congressional hearings so that they can talk about gas stoves until the universe collapses back into a singular point. The White House responded to the CPSC’s fuck up by unequivocally opposing a gas stove ban, and the CPSC itself quickly distanced itself from the comments. But, it’s too late: The issue is out there now. It’s the Green New Deal dynamic all over again: Someone on the left does something dumb, Republicans put Environmentalist Wackos Hate Your Way Of Life diss track on heavy rotation, and Democrats are forced to play defense. And the fight against climate change suffers a setback.

And, of course: This is about climate change. The stove dialogue is nominally about non-greenhouse gas toxins, but I think that believing that this is about asthma is like believing that Warrant’s “Cherry Pie” is a song about tasty desserts. The gas stove debate is a stalking horse for petroleum products, generally. And I think the whole episode demonstrates how poorly some climate crusaders understand what the problem is and what the solution will look like.

---

Let’s start here: How dangerous are gas stoves? Well, the study that’s the proximate cause of this flareup¹ finds that gas stoves are responsible for 12.7 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States. In my humble opinion, wheezing, phlegmy children are bad (That is: The wheezing and phlegm are bad, the kids themselves vary on a case-by-case basis). If gas stoves are a significant cause of asthma, that’s something worth knowing.

But, as Emily Oster Emily Oster explains here, the study in question doesn’t tell us much. It’s a meta-study that compares asthma diagnoses in children from homes with gas stoves with diagnoses in children from homes without gas stoves. I’m emphasizing “diagnoses” because most studies did not find any difference in the presence of symptoms associated with asthma, such as wheezing. The difference is in diagnoses of asthma. So, we need to ask: Is there any reason why children from homes with gas stoves might be more likely to be diagnosed with asthma? And, yes, there is: Homes with gas stoves tend to be wealthier, as pointed out by Matt Bruenig, who happens to be someone who has written about the hazards of gas stoves:

Source: People’s Policy Project

Wealthier people have better access to health care, so they might also be more likely to have their children diagnosed with asthma. This obviously doesn’t disprove a link between gas stoves and asthma, but like I said: The study doesn’t really tell us much.

Other studies have found that gas stoves give off harmful pollutants in amounts that might be cause for concern. One thing I learned in my nine years at EPA is that pollutants are everywhere. Toxins like lead, formaldehyde, and arsenic are much like Maroon 5: No amount is good, less is always better, but unfortunately, avoiding them entirely just isn't possible. So, we all make decisions about how much exposure and risk is acceptable for any give action.

I read the three studies linked to above. The bad news is that I don’t have the time or expertise needed to really give them a thorough analysis. The good news is that the words “peer reviewed” don’t mean jack shit these days anyway, so it's always the case that a dive into the science will take you to a Dali-esque surrealscape in which nothing is knowable. A tossed-off summation from a comedian might be about as good as you’re going to do these days, so here’s that tossed-off summation: I think there’s cause for concern, but personally, I would not freak out. There’s no doubt that gas stoves release harmful substances, and the contamination levels cited in the studies are above “who gives a shit” levels. But we don’t know much about exposure levels (how much do people hang out in their kitchen?), and the data on health effects is limited. If you have a gas stove, then I’d recommend that you turn on your vent and/or open a window, which is also what the CPSC will almost certainly recommend when this shit storm dies down.

The CPSC official stepped on his balls — or, actually, on the balls of anyone who cares about climate change — by floating a solution that’s several orders of magnitude too severe for the problem. Banning gas stoves would not be like banning lead paint or incandescent lightbulbs, because it would require a major construction project in many homes. Here’s what replacing a gas range with an electric one entails:

• You have to cap your gas line.

• You have to have available amperage, which means a 50 amp double-pole breaker for most modern stoves (which you may have available or may not). You might need to get additional power from the city, which has the potential to be a journey that makes The Odyssey seem like a run to the corner store for milk.

• Stoves need their own circuit — you can’t daisy-chain a new outlet from an adjacent one — so you need to run a new line to the circuit breaker.

• Depending on where your circuit breaker is, you might have to cut a channel into the drywall and then patch and paint it. That’s a multiple-day project, and the drywall demolition comes with its own set of health concerns.

If you, like me, live in a city where a contractor won’t spit in your face for less than $500, this is going to cost several thousand dollars. It’s hard for me to imagine anyone anywhere getting this project done for three figures; I think “a few thousand” would be the norm. Which means that discontinuing gas stoves would send the following message to the 38 percent of Americans who cook with gas:

“If your stove ever breaks, or if you want a new one, then it’s going to cost you thousands of dollars on top of whatever you pay for the new stove. It will also be a whole fucking ordeal — you might have to deal with the city, and you might have your wall torn up for a week. The government has made this decision about what level of air quality is acceptable in your own home even though the science behind this is pretty underwhelming, plus we don’t know who lives in your house or what the airflow in your kitchen is like. We also did this despite the fact that informing people about the risks and saying ‘crack a window’ probably would have done most of what’s needed.”

This is political poison. This would be a one-size-fits-all solution and a major financial hit to many regular Americans. It’s a concrete, uncomplicated issue where the battle lines are known to everyone — it’s the type of thing that changes votes. It’s hard to imagine a bigger political loser — maybe a law mandating that only celery be served at baseball games, or a decision to add an exhibit to the American History Museum called First Lady Upskirt Pics. No administration official should so much as whisper this possibility softly into a pillow, much less say it to a reporter. The fact that one did is an absolute gift to Republicans.

---

Let’s back up. This is about climate change. We know this because of the speed with which gas stove critics pivot to talking about climate change, and by the ferocity with which both sides of the culture war have seized on the issue. It reminds me of a fight I once had with my ex-wife about Shrek 2: In hindsight, that fight had nothing to do with Shrek 2. Sometimes, larger issues are at play. In this case, the larger issue is climate change.

How much do gas stoves matter to climate change? Very little. A heavily circulated Stanford University study from 2022 found that gas stoves leak methane even when they’re turned off. The study estimates the total methane emissions from gas stoves to be 28,100 metric tons, which caused some people to say: “Holy shit! That sounds like a lot!” And it does sound like a lot, IF you’re completely unfamiliar with the math.

So, let’s do the math. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon, so a commonly accepted conversion is to multiply methane by 25 to get carbon equivalent. 28,100 x 25 = 702,500, so the gas stove output described in the Stanford study is equal to 702,500 metric tons of carbon. US GHG emissions in 2020 were 5,222,000,000 metric tons of carbon. 702,500 divided by 5,222,000,000 is 0.00013, so we’re talking about 0.013 percent of US emissions. Gas stoves are about as relevant to climate change as the migratory patterns of geese are to the NFL playoffs.

BUT HANG ON: I consider that number to be an underestimate, because it doesn’t account for methane emitted from natural gas extraction and transportation (which is considerable). So, let me make a back-of-the-envelope estimate of that number. Methane is 11 percent of US GHG emissions. Natural gas and petroleum systems are 31 percent of US methane emissions² — that is, 31 percent of that 11 percent. 15 percent of natural gas emissions come from residential use, and about 7 percent³ of residential natural gas use is from cooking. So:

.11 x .31 x .15 x .07 = 0.00036 = 0.036 percent

I’ll assume that the Stanford study is correct when they say that roughly 3/4 of methane emissions happen when the stove is turned off, so I’ll multiply my number by four: 0.036 x 4 = 0.144 percent. By this estimate, gas stoves account for about 1/694th of US GHG emissions, still well within geese/NFL playoffs territory.

BUT HANG ON ONE MORE TIME: Replacing a gas stove with an electric stove doesn’t reduce that stove’s emissions to zero — the electric stove needs, you know, electricity. And 22 percent of our electricity still comes from coal, a cartoonishly awful energy source. Since this discussion began with talk of respiratory effects, I should note that coal’s negative effects on respiratory illness are both disastrous and well-documented. Plus, if you’re into the “effect on marginalized communities” angle — and some people only get out of bed in the morning so that they can hammer the “effect on marginalized communities” angle — Black and low-income Americans are most hurt by power plant pollution. And, unfortunately, more than 22 percent of those new electric stoves will run on coal, because the Midwest has a lot of gas stoves and also uses a lot of coal. Plus, another large share of those new “electric” stoves — probably around 30 percent — would be powered by, wait for it…natural gas.

Phrased another way: If we threw every gas stove in the country in the ocean tomorrow, it would probably reduce US GHG emissions by an amount that would be significantly less than 0.144 percent. I'll note that moving away from gas stoves could be the beginning of a process that reduces our natural gas use, generally,⁴ and that would have a larger impact, but focusing on gas stoves seems like an odd way to start that transition.

Phrased yet another way: What the fuck are we doing here? Why are climate crusaders picking a fight that they will definitely lose, and which would achieve nothing important even if they won? Is this just “ban plastic straws” all over again, i.e. “let’s make people associate environmentalism with being judgy and annoying even though the effect on the environment is fuck all,⁵ and the campaign is mostly just a pet project by a bunch of Twitter idiots who don’t know shit about shit”?

Well, yes. I think it is partly that. But I think there’s also something else going on.

Environmental author Mark Lynas asks this question to audiences at his speaking engagements: If you could wave a magic wand and solve climate change — that is, nothing about the world would change except that climate change would be solved — would you do it? The surprising result is that a large number of environmentalists wouldn’t wave the wand. For some people, climate change is about more than results.

There’s a long history of environmentalism being essentially a moral crusade. Sierra Club founder John Muir often framed environmental issues in religious terms; he called the Hetch Hetchy valley “a holy temple” and condemned those who wanted to dam it as “mischief-makers of every degree from Satan”. The modern High Priestess of Environmental Doom — Greta Thunberg — once said “I see the world in black and white, and I don’t like compromising.” There’s a strain of thought that sees mankind as wicked, and views environmental destruction as a tragic tale of man being doomed by his own self-indulgence. It’s basically the left-wing version of the right’s “fall of the Roman Empire” narrative, in which a great civilization collapsed because people liked to bone too much.

If your goal is to condemn the world as wicked, then product bans are appealing. Bans are maximalist; they show no quarter for the evil implements of a decadent society. The cars, food, appliances, and other trappings of man need to be damned and shunned. In this view, people who want to discourage but not outright ban certain products are seen as cowards who are “both sides-ing” a battle between the righteous and the wicked.

That’s not how I view environmentalism. To me, environmental challenges are merely problems that need be solved. In my view, humanity is neither good nor wicked — we are, as Homer Simpson once said about alcohol, both the cause of and the solution to all of life’s problems.

That’s why I approach product bans with caution. They’re a huge swing, politically; they’re only meaningful when applied to a popular product, so you have to tell people “you may not have this popular thing”. I was at EPA when the government effectively banned incandescent light bulbs; that ban — which was a heavy lift — was only possible because low-energy bulbs that lasted longer and cost the same as incandescent bulbs were already on the market. Of course, there was still an uproar from idiots of note. But public opinion overwhelmingly supported the ban because — unlike with paper straws and first-generation low-flow toilets — the new product really was better. Ironically, the “what about toxic chemicals???” shrieks back then came from the right, because some low-energy bulbs in those days contained mercury (virtually none of them do now).

We won’t reduce the prevalence of gas stoves by banning them; we need to beat them. Induction and battery-powered stoves need to become the obvious choice. How do we make that happen? Well, the best way to do it would be to attach a price to greenhouse gas emissions, which will never happen, and the second-best way to do it would be to subsidize emerging technologies, which just did happen. The Inflation Reduction Act gives tax credits of up to $840 for new electric ranges, and you can get up to $4,000 if converting to electric drags you into the ninth circle of Contractor Hell. The bill’s battery subsidies will benefit all sorts of technology, including appliances. Eventually, having a gas stove will be like having a record player: It will be a technological throwback preferred by a small number of hobbyists. And that’s fine — let the hipsters have their dumb thing.

We also need to remember that the United States is not the only country in the world. As I’ve written before, activists often make the mistake of focusing on US emissions, but climate change is a global problem. The goal shouldn’t be to get net US emissions to zero; the goal should be to spur the rapid technological advances needed to get all of our emissions to zero. To the extent that I care about gas stoves, I care about gas stoves in India, China, Brazil, and Indonesia as much as I care about gas stoves in the US. With every aspect of climate change, we win when the low-carbon option is also the obvious choice.

And we lose when we hand cheap wins to the only major political party in the industrialized world that doesn’t even acknowledge the problem. That CPSC official really blew it; I wonder if he got caught up in the “gas stoves are the devil” dialogue that exists on Twitter. Anyone who sees climate change as a problem to be solved needs be strategic and pick their spots. And anyone who sees climate change as a moral crusade, in my opinion, would be better off spending their time some other way.

1. The study was cited in the initial Bloomberg interview and in the bevy of ensuing articles that made the case against gas stoves.

2. The “and petroleum systems” in this sentence means that my estimate is probably an over-estimate. Because I’m trying to get to methane emissions from natural gas stoves, and this step in the process is giving me emissions from natural gas and petroleum (as in gasoline) systems. So: Industrial processes that use petroleum and the small number of petroleum-fueled power plants are included in this number.

3. Emphasis on the “about”, because I couldn’t find nationwide numbers — the seven percent number comes from California in 2009.

4. Meaning this: Many homes and apartment buildings have a gas hookup. They typically use that hookup for heat, water heat, and cooking (and sometimes also laundry). Cooking is a small part of that equation — as mentioned above, in California in 2009, cooking was only seven percent of home gas use. If people become less attached to gas stoves, then they might care less about having a gas hookup at all, and that would affect the other 93 percent of home natural gas use.

5. How can I bluntly assert that straw bans do “fuck all” for the environment? Well, in the interview I linked to, a conservationist who supports the ban calls straws “a tiny fraction” of the problem of plastics in the ocean, adding that it’s “less than 1 percent”. We also have estimates that between 75 and 86 percent of the debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch comes from fishing boats — it has nothing to do with consumption on land. Furthermore, we know that land-based garbage in the patch comes overwhelmingly from Asia, because 1) There are a hell of a lot of people in Asia, and 2) The waste disposal systems in Asian countries are often not well-developed. When you’re looking at the problem of plastics in the ocean, “straws from the United States” is an infinitesimally small number.