De Blasio’s natural gas ban hurts consumers, the ecosystem

De Blasio’s natural gas ban hurts consumers, the ecosystem

(Image courtesy Unsplash)

Just a few months back, when Bill de Blasio was leaving the mayor’s office in New York City, he banned natural gas hookups in new buildings.

He was trying to help consumers and the ecosystem.

But his agenda backfired on both counts, explains a new report from The Washington Free Beacon.

The report said the goal was to help the ecosystem by eliminating the use of natural gas in kitchens. Instead, only electric appliances would be allowed.

TRENDING: Simple keys to starting that small business

Further, it was supposed to help consumers battle racism.

“There was just one problem: Almost all of New York City’s electricity comes from natural gas. That method electrifying buildings will increase emissions instead of reduce them,” the report explained.

The Free Beacon quoted Mark Mills, of the Manhattan Institute, who said the plan will raise emissions, without a doubt.

Mills told the publication it takes twice as many fossil fuels to provide strength to an electric stove than it takes to heat up a gas appliance.

Does a ban on natural gas hurt both consumers and the ecosystem?

96% (636 Votes)

4% (26 Votes)

It’s because energy is lost in the time of action of changing from one form to another.

“Fewer gas stoves method more gas burned overall and more carbon dioxide in the air,” the report said.

For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and examination, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!

If you like WND, get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox – for FREE!

But the Free Beacon explained already environmental groups supported the calamitous plan because they want “racial justice.”

“Several of the environmental groups that supported the gas ban framed it as an ‘antiracist’ measure. Gas appliances release toxic fumes, they argued, and the people most likely to inhale those fumes are black,” the report said.

The consequence, they claim, is different health outcomes for communities of color.

But that’s going to be the consequence, anyway, from the gas ban itself.

“An examination from the Consumer Energy Alliance found that the ban is likely to hike energy bills, which eat up a disproportionate proportion of minorities’ income. The ban will also increase the likelihood of blackouts in minority communities—usually the first to lose strength when energy is scarce—by straining the electric grid,” the report said.

The consequence? “Higher emissions for New York City and a lower standard of living for its most unprotected citizens,” it explained.

The current situation is a consequence of multiple wrong steps, the publication reported, including attacks on the Indian Point nuclear strength plant by environmental groups that claimed “people of color” were facing radiation trouble, already though the plant never surpassed federal limits.

It’s now closed.

So to replace the electricity lost, the city employed several gas-powered plants, and now the fossil fuels’ proportion of the city’s grid is 90%, the Free Beacon said.

strength lines were supposed to be built from various hydrodams in Quebec, but the report said surging opposition from groups like the Sierra Club method that’s now doubtful.

Further, the report said because of ineffective strength systems, Consolidated Edison before has cut strength to “black neighborhoods” to cope with shortages. It said those areas account “for a disproportionate proportion of the city’s heat deaths.”

Content produced by the WND News Center is obtainable for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


Click: See details

leave your comment