How big is the climate impact of gas stoves, anyway? Subjectively it seems like excess emissions from a stove would be a rounding error compared to things like automobiles and manufacturing.
But if this had been an article on banning gas furnaces instead, would you be saying it doesn't matter unless we also ban gas stoves? Do we need to regulate everything bad simultaneously or not at all?
I find it fascinating how different preferences arise and end up dominating in different countries. I wonder what it is about gas dryers that make them popular in the US. Anyone got one and can enlighten me?
Modern induction stoves are far superior anyway you would be doing yourself a favour upgrading. That gas is somehow "qualitatively better," is propaganda from the gas companies to keep people choosing gas. "Now you're cooking with gas," is from a gas propaganda short aired decades ago... to keep people choosing gas when people were starting to convert to electric.
There's no good reason I can think of to keep using gas stoves.
Tortillas and marshmallows. Not enough of a reason to keep a gas stove really, but it's traditional to some people.
Though I do like restaurant provided charred flour tortillas
Your argument is a bit disengenious though. The slogan came about in the 30s-40s and yes it was with competition of electric stoves but traditional electric stoves suck. Induction only became reliable in the past few years, before that the components were not as reliable, we had many issues with component failure in our kitchen across various brands.
I can think of a handful of reasons to use a NG/LP burner over induction, mostly around heavy searing and stir frying but certainly new residential builds should not include them, easier to have separate LP hob setup.
Modern magnetic induction is better. For me it has killed off anything about gas stoves that made them unique. Induction stoves heat fast, as hot as you need, even surface; wok, Dutch pot, whatever; I take it over gas stoves.
Side hob for a round bottom wok is a great idea.
There may be propaganda on both sides, but fossil fuel companies have a long history of involvement in the debate.
For example: https://grist.org/culture/how-natural-gas-propaganda-made-it...
> The afternoon started off like most, with the 41-year-old software engineer picking his son up from John M. Tobin Montessori School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But when his son opened his backpack, Bahmutov caught a glimpse of two children’s activity books emblazoned with the logo of Eversource, an energy utility that serves more than 4.3 million customers across New England. The booklets, one of which was titled “Natural Gas: Your Invisible Friend,” include natural gas safety tips and portray the fuel as an ideal, clean way to cook food, power vehicles, and heat and cool buildings. Bhamutov immediately noticed one gaping hole in the information provided in the booklets: They didn’t once mention that burning natural gas emits greenhouse gases and contributes to climate change.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/03/branded-content-fossil-f...
> Or was it? On closer inspection, the report wasn’t coming from the D.C. paper’s newsroom. Though the link takes you to a page published by WashingtonPost.com, the story is actually a publication of WP BrandStudio, the paper’s branded content platform. In other words, the article is really an advertisement, and the copy was paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. The tagline — “Content from American Petroleum Institute” — is plain to see if you’re looking for it, though easy to miss if you’re not.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FJRQo5aawho
Literally paid for by the gas industry to keep people choosing gas.