Totally sensible policy that the average American thinks is crazy because their overton window is so skewed.

In Australia they're looking to identify larger areas to remove from the gas grid at the same time. Otherwise the few remaining on gas bear the entire cost of upkeep of the grid.

▲

thegrim33 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The overton window is skewed? Do you think people 20 years ago would be more likely to agree or disagree with this policy, compared to people today? What about 40 years ago? What about 60 years ago? 80 years? If anything, the window has moved so far in the direction of your ideology that this is the first point in history where such a policy would have any chance of being implemented.

▲

TimorousBestie 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

During the post-war period in the states, natural gas displaced coal and oil for domestic consumption in part because it burnt cleaner. So yes, people in the past did agree with displacing inconvenient fossil fuels for modern alternatives.

▲

antonymoose 3 days ago | parent [-]

Consumers exercising preference for a better technology and nanny-state interference in people’s lives are two very different issues.

	▲	TimorousBestie 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		In both cases I’m talking about people’s preferences, since that’s the way the question was framed.

▲

AIPedant 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not just "direction of ideology," it's direction of science. We know now that stoves are bad for the environment and extremely bad for public health. 60 years ago the environmental impact was seen as minor compared to coal or wood stoves, and the public health impact totally unknown. This is no longer the case.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

archagon 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What are you even talking about? Not everything has to be interpreted in the context of some cataclysmic battle of ideologies. And this sort of policy is not uncommon in other parts of the Western world.

▲

MisterSandman 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m guessing you’ve never been to SF? The quality of housing in SF is really poor, with most affordable homes being decades behind in renovations and upkeep. This requirement adds unnecessary costs in an already overheated market.

	▲	3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

tlogan 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The very big issue in San Francisco is the severe lack of affordable housing. When renovations become significantly more expensive, those costs inevitably get passed on to renters: making the crisis even worse.

If regulations like these are necessary, they should be applied in areas without a housing affordability crisis. But somehow, it’s always the high-cost cities that get hit with even more burdens.

▲

wyre 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, it is an issue that SF doesn't have affordable housing. Any price increase by requiring induction stovetops is a rounding error compared to inflation, or is an excuse for greedy landlords to increase rents heavily.

Also, any desirable part of the country with jobs is facing a housing affordability crisis. High rents are caused by greedy landlords and the protections given to them by the government, not because of regulation requiring them to spend a little bit more on an electric range.

	▲	tlogan 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		San Francisco home prices have increased approximately 2.5 to 2.6 times over the past 25 years after adjusting for inflation [1]. Nominal prices in San Francisco grew by over four‑fold in 25 years. I bet the reason for this rule that house price in SF are finally in step with inflation. Anyway Im not against doing this but let’s be honest here: this is going to make houses just less affordable. The are some benefits of this rule but affordability is not the one. [1] https://www.redfin.com/city/17151/CA/San-Francisco/housing-m...
	▲	culopatin 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It’s not just the stove that you need to change. You need to get power to the stove. Cutting the wall open, conduit, drywall if you’re lucky, in SF you’ll most likely have the old lath and plaster then electrician and paint. If rent is 3k, inflation say 3%, that’s 1k. The change is at least 3x that

▲

_tbl6 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be fair in houses it's relatively easy to run a gas cooker on bottles of propane, mains gas isn't necessary for this.

	▲	fundad 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Exactly I was just thinking people can take responsibility for gas delivery themselves like any luxury. BTW I went all electric because plumbing costs more than wiring.
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

refurb 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Sometimes the Overton window is in the right place.

Just add it to the pile of detrimental policies that California has created over the past few decades.

	▲	fundad 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		California has many towns and cities where you can have fossil gas delivered for your use.