The case for natural gas

The days are damp and cold and I've begun to think fondly of heated indoor spaces, long nights of deep sleep, and soup. In other words, I'm anticipating the human version of hibernation. I've lit the gas stoves that heat our home until the deep cold of winter arrives and the wood burners are needed.

I've noticed a spate of articles in the last few weeks reminding us again of the hazards of gas stoves. The ‘dangerous gas stove’ story is part of the ‘dirty fossils fuels’ and the ‘transition to renewables’ narratives. These stories inform us of the environmental damage of extraction, transmission, and burning of coal, oil, and gas, and the need to transition to renewables. While I accept that fossil fuels use is causing enormous harm to the biosphere, this doesn't mean I must uncritically accept all parts of these stories.

The gist of the narratives goes like this: By phasing out fossil fuels rapidly, ramping up solar and wind projects,and using smart tech to greatly improve efficiency at the user end, we can avoid catastrophic climate change while maintaining energy output at levels that don't threaten industrial scale business-as-usual. There are some large chinks in the armor here for anyone interested in attacking this narrative, and not least is the belief we can keep up with current levels of output as we phase out fossil fuels.

To me it's clear that the extraction of resources necessary to build out so-called renewable energy infrastructure to deliver energy on a par with fossil fuels will result in extensive environmental damage, which will in turn create further climate destabilization. I foresee competition for crucial metals and disputes over land appropriated for mines and solar and wind farms driving global conflict in much the same way that the quest for control of fossils fuels does now.

The dominant story here is one of mining and manufacturing our way out of a crisis, of solutions that always involve doing more, rarely doing less. Discussion of the radical ways we must simplify our lives and reduce energy use by changing the ways we grow food, build, and move goods doesn’t exist in the mainstream story, which should immediately raise red flags and call other parts of the narrative into question.

Another topic that apparently isn't worth discussing is how a ban on gas stoves might affect consumers who are dependent on them. Are gas stove lovers like me merely knuckle dragging Neanderthals taken in by right wing propaganda who need to get with the program, or could we have legitimate concerns? I live in a household that is reliant on gas appliances for most creature comforts like heating and cooking. To transition to electric would be not only extremely inconvenient and expensive in the short run, but also long term as it would result in higher monthly bills.

Though few households in this area live as primitively as ours, most homes use some form of gas appliance such as a furnace or cookstove. Some, like ours, enjoy free gas as part of the sale of mineral rights. Living atop the Marcellus and Utica shale formations means home use of natural gas is extremely common here, so it stands to reason that any legislation regulating use of gas stoves will be unpopular. This is not because we are backward-thinking troglodytes, but because home-scale natural gas means we can cook and stay warm without needing to spend a lot of money on expensive electric replacements and the power to run them. Existing, usable infrastructure is exactly what we should be preserving as we power down our society.

For an equitable and realistic transition to clean energy, I would be willing to make sacrifices, as I'm sure many would. But as a longtime gas appliance owner, the focus on the user end of the gas stream makes me angry, and I call bullshit on the claims of dangerous indoor air pollution from burning gas. I grew up with gas and have lived with it for most of my adult life. Same for my parents and probably grandparents too. I'm talking about old school, unvented, open-flame-in-almost-every-room-in-the-house gas heaters, along with a gas clothes dryer, oven and range, and hot water heater. No one in my family is or has ever been plagued by asthma or any other chronic respiratory ailment.

While I understand the difference between anecdotal and epirical evidence, I also grasp the difference between correlation and causation. Articles on the topic of gas stove hazards are careful to state that while there appears to be a connection between childhood asthma and living in households with gas stoves, experiments involving exposing children to products of combustion would be unethical. (Thank goodness for that!) This means there is little empirical evidence to support a causal link, and a whole lot of hay being made about correlation. We should ask why. It seems to me the push to get rid of gas appliances is less about concerns over children's health than with creating opportunities to sell more electric ones and — most importantly — buttress the story of how we should conduct our energy transition.

Anyone looking to protect children here in the Appalachian foothills from harmful substances should consider sources much more egregious than gas appliances: riverside manufacturing plants spewing PFAS into groundwater and dangerous particulates into the air, brine trucks carrying radioactive cocktails of uncertain content ceaselessly on our state highways and narrow back roads, and frack pads that alternately catch on fire and spew unimaginable amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

For those concerned about children's respiratory health and greenhouse gas emissions, opposing fracking — or more accurately our current mode of deep well horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — makes much more sense than tilting at gas appliances. It needs to be acknowledged that we can simultaneously vehemently oppose expanding fossil fuel extraction and support the ability of working people to utilize existing energy infrastructure.

A talking point circulated in the early days of the fracking boom was that natural gas could function as a bridge fuel, a cleaner alternative to coal that would be a temporary fill-in as we transitioned to renewable energy. This possibility has been revealed as fantasy as the glut of gas has mainly supplemented coal rather than supplanted it, while also fueling a significant expansion of plastic manufacturing. The question is raised, however, of what might it look like if natural gas truly was used as a way to tide us over as we power down to sustainable energy sources. That story would certainly include local, existing sources of gas being burned to meet basic needs.