The problem with this thinking is you're referring to a constant factor; you'd be cooking the same foods either way, searing all the same.
These effects are cumulative, it's not some threshold you cross where the other negatives are no longer relevant because you do something far worse.
It's like people who rationalize eating a pint of ice cream before bed because they had mcdonalds and a beer for lunch already. The appropriate action would be to skip dinner and dessert altogether, but they're doing the opposite due to such wrongheaded thinking.
You should really be thinking "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"
I think your analogy is missing the scale. In this case, I think it's likely that the equivalent scale would be worrying about eating a tic tac, when lunchtime is beer and burgers.
> "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"
How about not cooking animal products, i save more emmissions that way than spending $2k on an appliance that will be obsolete or irreparable in 5~6 years.
These effects are cumulative, it's not some threshold you cross where the other negatives are no longer relevant because you do something far worse.
It's like people who rationalize eating a pint of ice cream before bed because they had mcdonalds and a beer for lunch already. The appropriate action would be to skip dinner and dessert altogether, but they're doing the opposite due to such wrongheaded thinking.
You should really be thinking "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"