> If you want to make certain forms of energy "illegal" because of some "lung-irritating pollutants", I mean why not start with the unsustainability and cancer risks of these poly type chemicals, no?
This is a fallacy. Regulations can be improved even without being perfect and your pet peeve not being addressed in a specific discussion does not make the discussion useless. Gas is harmful, as well as some antiadhesive coatings. Saying we should not do anything about either because the other would still be bad is not particularly smart. It is also the contorted logic that lobby groups use when they know they are on the wrong side of a public health issue.
This is a fallacy. All materials and compounds are harmful, in certain degrees. Along with gas, anti-adhesive coatings and potentially maybe even some of those glass ceramic compounds those induction cookers use (especially at high heat)? It's a slippery slope.
I didn't say we shouldn't do anything about either, but banning natural gases that are found in nature because of "lung-irritating pollutants" is not particularly smart. I'm not in any lobby groups. I care about freedom and energy independence. Some NYT article pushing an agenda of "all electric" and climate change is contorted logic.
Put all of your trust in some on-grid electric power utility company where in some cases are not stable(cough cough PG&E), all the while power grids are huge targets for foreign "attacks", and even a solar EMP (Nuclear bomb? Solar flare?) could render all electronics useless. All the while, you make cooking with natural gas illegal? I suppose at that point, we could rub sticks together and cook by a wood fire (since the dawn of Man)? Or that is illegal now too?
This is a fallacy. Regulations can be improved even without being perfect and your pet peeve not being addressed in a specific discussion does not make the discussion useless. Gas is harmful, as well as some antiadhesive coatings. Saying we should not do anything about either because the other would still be bad is not particularly smart. It is also the contorted logic that lobby groups use when they know they are on the wrong side of a public health issue.