“Ventilation is really where this discussion should be, rather than banning one particular type of technology,” said Jill Notini, a vice president with the Washington-based trade group. “Banning one type of a cooking appliance is not going to address the concerns about overall indoor air quality. We may need some behavior change, we may need [people] to turn on their hoods when cooking.”
Consider how many existing households would feel compelled to retrofit to induction, the ability to have differentiated product lines with premium features commanding premium profit margins.
The idea that gas oven manufacturers would not enthusiastically embrace this change reflects a naive and moralistic world view.
Education has to start from somewhere, regardless of the source.
A natural reading of this defense quickly gets bogged down in the squishy ambiguity of corporate ipsum. Banning one type of cooking appliance will address air quality. That’s the whole point of the regulation.
The most charitable reading is that it’s making the perfect the enemy of the good. It won’t solve the problem, sure, but air quality will improve if every single gas stove is replaced.
> Eliminating materials like concrete or plastic or replacing them with alternatives is not going to address the fundamental problem with human attitudes and our unparalleled appetite for more.
Eliminating plastics will not fix the problem of overconsumption at all.
> However, the introduction of the reverse onus at bail is not going to address intimate partner violence and empower women, at least not meaningfully.
Placing the burden of proof on accused abusers will not fix intimate partner violence at all. “At least not meaningfully” is an important qualifier because otherwise any amount of mitigation of the problem undermines the claim that X doesn’t address Y.
These are the first relevant hits on Google for ‘"is not going to address" -gas’. I excluded some that didn’t seem relevant (e.g. “John Oliver is not going to address”, I am interested in X being a problem not a person).
Now if we look back at the lobbyists’ statement it’s clearly a tortured construction. They are contorting it to mean that doing X will not solve Y 100%.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210520-could-humans-rea...
Her point is that there are more reasonable alternatives to improving air quality if people want to keep using gas. You seem to think that spending money on less desirable cooking options is the best way for people to use that money. As if the people proposing this heavy handed approach have considered the cost/benefit for the whole universe of cooks.