A full inventory of what dishes can be cooked on induction/electricity (boring) vs 'carbon' (fun) before false assertions can be stated. 15000 BTU wok burner will always make a better stir fry than A++ induction. The technocratic inept fully electric vegan approach will result in boring food so it must be opposed for all who care about cooking!

Why a carve out for gas cooktops? Induction works great, causes less interior air quality issues, and can use 100% renewable energy.

I don't live in NYC but the same technocrats will suggest taking BBQ's away.

Banning gas? Let's plug the butts of all the cows and all the humans while we are at it (and their mouths). It seems like part of your argument is about automobiles which is completely a different product itself from that of natural gas used for cooking and heating. One's a liquid where the word 'gas' is shorthand, the other is actually a gas (as in gaseous state) and is referred to as such.

To the down voters, it was mainly in response to the OP but also the butt plug part was more satire and joke than a serious statement.

Dont let the details get in the way of political virtual signaling.

There is also a push for all electric heat as well

I’ll keep my nat gas furnace and hot water tank.

NS - I got $38 carbon tax on my $56 gas usage for my last bill. Than they taxed the tax.....

Rough... mine was $14 carbon tax on 124m3 usage. Still way cheaper than if I had electric heating.

I've never had natural gas service interrupted in my entire life, whereas electrical goes out in my menstrual

Whoa, not "menstrual" but rather "neighbourhood" 1 to 3 times a year. The streetlights have been out in my area for going on two weeks now (I'm not complaining, it's nice actually)

do you like to cook?

Yes? You?

100% - After having gas for years I'm so happy to be back on induction. Water boils way faster, the temp control is just as good, and the air smells so much better.

AA - that's pretty much exactly my experience as well. Primarily its the smell that really gets at me.

Ah, but fire has its own environmental impacts. Maybe just ban cooking, period. Cereal for everybody!

nuts, berries, and bananas for the less hairy upright apes.

Found the Australian.

Now we're talking! And don't forget to... simply continue with our current transportation highway building and parking minimum requirements for new construction. Boooo! Now take that scariness!

Florida has a ton of problems, not least of which is its reactionary politics which lead to "banning gas bans". I haven't seen a single architect in this community who wants to keep parking requirements the way they are. Every architect, planner, and socially conscious person wants to lower parking minimums and encourage walkable environments. Suggesting that keeping gas cooking in a society that has much better options readily available is asinine.

The efficiency of grid power varies greatly depending on what ISO you're on.

Exactly! Also the efficiency of electric or gas will depend on your climate, construction type, and building use.

I disagree; the efficiency of the fuel is entirely dependent on the equipment and installation. Electric resistance heat, for example, is 100% efficient but heat pumps are 200% to 500% efficient, comparing energy in to energy out, while fossil-fuel equipment varies from around 70% for legacy systems (residential) to the high 90s for super-efficient units. Power plants can make electricity far more efficiently from fossil fuels than you can make it on site but transmission losses can cut that efficiency by 70%, but there are a lot of variables. But reducing the demand for fuel definitely impacts decision-making.

Any use of new gas appliances in new construction will slow the transition to all-electric buildings, disincentivize investment in renewables and make the ultimate conversion to 100% renewable energy even slower. It's vexing to see the gas industry arguing that we shouldn't invest in a technology which is currently imperfect but has huge future benefits just so we can continue using a different imperfect technology (gas) which has no long term potential.

What will be the total temperature difference of the earth in 20 years if we remove gas stoves in all 50 states?

Now compare that to difference in energy cost increases for Americans in 20 years. Are Americans willing to pay significant increase in energy per household for a fraction of a degree reduction in average earth temp? Those are the numbers we need to be looking at. And, I’m surprised that these numbers are not being advertised to make the case. Probably because the cost benefit analysis doesn’t add up for most people.

X, I am confident you have at least the reading comprehension skills of a 10-year old, so please use them to look at Janosh's first sentence. Divesting in gas cooktops is the first step in turning toward a more sustainable energy source in the future.

Lower than if we don't. While I have mixed feelings about legislating this kind of thing, I agree with Janosh that it's inevitable and ultimately the right choice, so why not push adoption where it can be done without too much pain. (I.e., where people can afford it.)

And, by doing this through bureaucracy and corporate agency capture, rather than market competition, the electric providers and producers have no incentive to reduce prices to be competitive against other options, like natural gas…it’s like removing coke from

*the market place to promote healthier alternatives…but you inadvertently or purposefully removed the price floor…

Janosh wrote: 

 "Any use of new gas appliances in new construction will slow the transition to all-electric buildings, disincentivize investment in renewables and make the ultimate conversion to 100% renewable energy even slower."

Not true. 

"It's vexing to see the gas industry arguing that we shouldn't invest in a technology which is currently imperfect but has huge future benefits just so we can continue using a different imperfect technology (gas) which has no long term potential."

It is vexing.  However simply going 100% electric will not reduce carbon emissions or reduce dependency on fossil fuels.  It needs to a combined effort involving multiple industries.  

Wood Guy wrote:

"I disagree; the efficiency of the fuel is entirely dependent on the equipment and installation. Electric resistance heat, for example, is 100% efficient but heat pumps are 200% to 500% efficient, comparing energy in to energy out, while fossil-fuel equipment varies from around 70% for legacy systems (residential) to the high 90s for super-efficient units. Power plants can make electricity far more efficiently from fossil fuels than you can make it on site but transmission losses can cut that efficiency by 70%, but there are a lot of variables. But reducing the demand for fuel definitely impacts decision-making."

True.  However there are limitations on certain types of electric mechanical equipments.  For example, heat pumps.  They work great in 90% of climates and uses.  However when you get into very cold climates (-40F areas) or when you need very fast temperature change (think vehicle bays in fire stations) electric heat pumps cannot handle it and require an additional system - typically natural gas.  

That's what I was referring to when I said that the efficiency of electric or gas will depend on your climate, construction type, and building use.  I should of said 'operational efficiency' though.  

Don't get me wrong - I would love to go 100% renewable electric for all buildings and can't wait for this to happen once the carbon production disparity is addressed.  

Jovan, I’m asking for numbers on what effect this will have to reduce overall temperature. You are making a simplistic argument as if the US and Europe have their own environment. This is a global issue. Any advances in renewable energy in the US has side effects elsewhere. For instance, mining the non-renewable stuff required to create the “renewable energy” systems. This is a very complicated thing, and very big shift, and a very expensive shift. Shouldn’t we at least be allowed to have the data showing that it will be worth it. What effect does this have on energy independence? Because we don’t have a rich supply of rare earth metals in the US…Because not being energy independent creates other problems like the cia being compelled to blow up pipelines in the ocean causing mass oil contamination, war, etc…The greatest danger of climate change (which is definitely real) is the orthodoxy it’s become, and the lack of attention being paid to the unintentional consequences of a such a transition. None of this is to say that we shouldn’t do it. We just need better cost benefit analysis.

The abstraction of this debate has become a way to defer deficiencies in policy and technology to some grand fleeting far away future goal. That’s not good enough. We need to be able to analyze each and every step, not defer benefit unto the cumulative hypothetical. Because, then there is no party state or private responsible for anything. It’s a very dangerous path to go down for obvious reasons. It enables corruption, and removes accountability.

x-jla - the US is largy (95%) energy independent. We export more energy than we produce. The only energy we import is heavy crude oil primarily used for plastics. We only import heavy crude oil because there is none in the US controlled land.

"The one city that decided to require 100% electric found: cost of MEP systems 15% higher, the total energy use of the building around 13% higher than a gas / electric building, and that the estimated carbon footprint of the building was 27% higher than a gas / electric building."

Hey Chad, can you explain that one? I can get my head around the other measured findings, but wouldn't it make sense for a reduction in MEP system cost when you eliminate one of the main systems? IE if electric is already going into the building, and you eliminate all gas/etc systems, shouldn't you be seeing a cost reduction?

No problem - this can be a bit confusing.  It can cost more to go with 100% electrical for several reasons. 

1. You're not eliminating a system but replacing it with another.  You'll save running a gas line to your building but that's about it.
2. You typically have to increase the service size going to a building if you're doing 100% electric.  This can be very costly. 
3. The cost of the 100% electrical systems that are replacing natural gas systems cost more.

Again - this isn't for all buildings.  This was just for the few commercial  buildings that I've worked on that wanted to go 100% electric.  They're all in climate zone 7 or 8, have high heating loads that require quick temperature adjustment. 

I hope this clarified things a bit.  I'm not mechanical engineer and am just poorly conveying what was explained to me by experienced engineers.  

These are good points and do a good job of explaining of why this complex. But we also know that cold climate heat pumps are almost on the market and I am certain that the only thing that is holding them back is a lack of market incentives (which would be provided by an all-electric mandate for new buildings). And to go back to the original post, the fact that we don't have effective electric instantaneous heating or perfect heat pumps for very cold climates isn't an argument for preserving gas stoves and ranges.

The petition doesn't call for preserving gas stoves. It's both this nuance and the big picture that are the value of this petition. It's calling for a ban on most gas equipment, with the least utility.  That includes a ban on stoves and ovens.  

The other piece is political.  The gas ban is being slowed down by the movement to protect gas cooktops.  Remove that from the equation and electrical systems will be embraced much faster.

Like anything else. It’s a cost benefit analysis. Any decision that is based on a cost benefit analysis should be made by the end user, not some bureaucrat with industry lobbyists in the background. Cheap gas will force clean energy Prices to be competitive. If state mandates remove cheap gas…there is no force pulling prices down. The market works well for this reason. People will choose clean, safe, environmentally sound if the price is the same.

Why? Unless one is running a Korean BBQ out of their home, there is no good reason for a new home not to use an induction range.

Same reason why muscle cars and bolt action rifles and board formed concrete will always exist …people like the feel. We are not soulless ants. We are emotional creatures with a big pleasure center in our brains. I love cooking, have a gas hook up, but switched to an electric stove recently after my teenager left the gas on making himself a snack. Made me nervous. In terms of taste, there is no difference at all. In terms of feeling like Bobby bad ass flay…gas makes it more fun. Some cave man deep shit.

Janosh wrote 

“These are good points and do a good job of explaining of why this complex. But we also know that cold climate heat pumps are almost on the market and I am certain that the only thing that is holding them back is a lack of market incentives (which would be provided by an all-electric mandate for new buildings). And to go back to the original post, the fact that we don't have effective electric instantaneous heating or perfect heat pumps for very cold climates isn't an argument for preserving gas stoves and ranges.”

I’m not talking about preserving gas stoves and ranges. I’m talking about banning all natural gas utilities. I said this in my original post. 

 Current heat pumps will work down to -20 F. They lose about 25% of their output though. Once they get below that they really don’t work at all. In addition, they can handle -10 F temps for about 12 hours before they lose about 60% of their efficiency.  As for your claim that cold weather heat pumps are almost on the market – that’s only true if cold weather is around -20 F for under 10 – 12 hours. That will be the range of the new cold weather heat pumps.  They aren't going to be that much of an improvement to the current units.  

I know you say that doesn’t matter if we don’t have the infrastructure or products to go with 100% electric for very cold climates. Keep this in mind – about 15% of the US gets below the new heat pump lowest useable temp  ten days a year. About 35 of the country experience more than 50 days of -10 F temps. That’s not a small amount of the country where 100% won't work.  

This isn't even touching on the fact that the current electrical grid in most areas of the US is in poor shape and couldn't handle even 15% of communities going 100% electric. 

As I said before - I'm all for using as much renewable electric power as possible.  I don't think it's feasible yet to require it.  A much more realistic approach would be to create new buildings that can be easily converted to be 100% electric when the technology and grid can support it.  

NYS is one of those places. I wonder how that will backfire.

Chad, I think you are forgetting that heat pump water heaters and induction ranges work in all climate zones, and ground source heat pumps can work even in giant HDD locations. The point being (again) that none of this is impossible. Here in California every six years an aggressive update to our energy code has everyone saying that the technology doesn't exist to meet the regulatory requirements. And despite the groaning, it has always turned out fine because the standards are announced sufficiently far in advance to incentivize product development. And even then, if the technology isn't entirely baked at the time regulations become effective, implementation can be delayed. There's no downside to raising the bar and plenty of downsides to delaying decarbonization.

I'm quite aware of heat pump water heaters and induction ranges work in any climate if they are in a space above 40F. Ground source heat can work in any climate - if you have enough money to be able to drill deep enough and have enough space to drill.

That's the thing - solutions have to be practical and work.  If money or complexity was no object then then climate change would never have become an issue.  

Thats basically -40C. Easy to remember because its roughly the one point where F and C cross (equivalent number).

Bench, you're thinking -40°F, which is very close to -40°C. 40°F is about 4°C.

40d F is 4.5d C

Ya'll a bunch of crazy kooks with your freedom units

How many football fields fit in 32C degrees?

Hey now, it got us to the moon.

^allegedly.

I hope you haven't given x-jla or Non-ASD another topic . . . ;)

Akshually... metric got us to the moon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#:~:text=Calculations%20were%20carried%20out%20using,Apollo%20astronauts%20were%20accustomed%20to..

Oh haha - i read "below 40" as "forty below"

Wood Guy - shhhhh. Don't let facts get in the way of a good joke. ;)

Besides, we tend to have an issue with units.  

https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/#:~:text=In%20September%20of%201999%2C%20after,%2C%20i.e.%2C%20the%20metric%20units!

I don't really know metric but I wish I had been forced to. When I was like 8 years old there was a strong push to go metric, then I guess 1976 happened and suddenly Freedom Units were the only measurement allowed. We are so dumb.

I'm pretty good with metric, compared to most Freedom Fry eaters, thanks to having to learn and use both SI and IP in engineering school and later when working at a panelized Passive House firm associated with the original German group. I find it helpful to be able to go back and forth but actually prefer IP in many cases and don't agree that we should switch to SI for everything.

use microsoft calculator (if using a Windows PC), click on the 3 bars and go to temperature. Normally, it should default having Celsius and Fahrenheit. Change the numbers of the Fahrenheit side and the Celsius side should automatically update to show the conversion. You can then round off for communication sake.

Note: 0 degrees celsius to the temperature water freezes (officially). That is officially designated as 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientifically, it's more complicated than that. 

WG - we have to learn both up north thanks to the 'murican pull and influence. That being said, i've actually told coworkers on multiple occasions that i tend to actually prefer the IP units strictly for residential applications, mainly due to the fact that they are still rooted in basic fractions of the body (rather than the 'metric' which is inherently abstract). When I can think of my counters as being three of my feet tall *in theory* then it just feels easier to get around ideas of scale.

Bench, thanks for articulating what I didn't--that's exactly why I like IP. I don't have an intuitive understanding of what 600mm looks like. But I know my thumb is an inch wide, my waist is 3' off the floor and my head is 6'.

I grew up learning both. In the U.S., it'swho d primarily generational and regional. When I lived in California, we were taught both systems. When up in Oregon, it was taught. There are places in the U.S. that probably didn't teach both systems even today with much of today and the past 25 years because of the willful backward-thinking driven resistance to any ability to think and be educated so that also meant that learning to measurement systems due to willful desire to be simpletons. Sorry for my sarcasm. 

However, baby boomers and older generations, and some Gen-X did not learn both systems because it was not taught. The change largely began in the 60s and onward. Sadly, a lot of Americans (and far too many in my opinion) stopped learning once they entered puberty. This is why we should teach systems before 4th grade and certainly continue it but it should be largely taught in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade and continue to reinforce the understanding of both. 

If anyone born after 1980 who does not know both systems, should be smacked in the back of the head.... Gibb style.

If you don't know how to work with both imperial and metric, as an American, by the time you enter college (during high school) then you should be smacked in the back of the head, Gibb style. 

You are going to be using both systems on classwork and homework for college-level math courses. The basic math course you need to pass, at a very minimum, is required for all degrees in every accredited academic institution, requires students to solve math problems using both imperial & metric. Science like physics customarily involves metric units... so if you don't know that 1-inch equals 25.4 millimeters and 1 foot is equal to 304.8mm (305mm being a round-off but slightly inaccurate). If you understand metric lineal measurement system, you should already figure out how many centimeters per inch and also per foot. 

There's no excuse for not having conversion tables to remind you how to convert between imperial & metric for everything in architecture, engineering, physics, etc.

Even when the electric appliances are 3-4X more efficient than electric resistance? I know that's true in some places but it's usually pretty close to equal. Of course there are various subsidies that shouldn't be there, or should be fairly applied at least.

Gas and parking are two important but separate issues. It's ridiculous to compare the two.

No one is making that error Ricky... well, no-one except for the OP who clearly thinks no-one should be making any changes unless it is solely to reduce parking.

Argument still stands. If there is one here, who knows how many more elsewhere.

Yes and no. 

Petroleum is the major factor that needs to be address - not refined gasoline. While reducing gas powered cars will reduce carbon emissions using all EV's and the required power and charging capacity will not simply negate all the carbon that used to be from gas powered vehicles. At most it will reduce that carbon emissions by 35-40%. Petroleum products will still be needed for the components related to the EV's and their associated power requirements. The increased demand for these products and their associated petroleum based components actually could reduce the carbon savings by as much as half what I previously stated.  

It's not as simple as get rid of "x" and all the bad carbon emissions from them will go away.  We need to be looking at the entire lifecycle of these products.  

What part of natural gas (aka methane) "has been tackled in a major way"???? And what part of the electric car revolution do you think is not focused on phasing out gasoline?

​Ummm. The gas ban going into effect in NYS, Woodsy. Chad, I really liked your assessment earlier in thread but I'm not sure where you took me as promoting EVs as the solution.

Natural gas is much cleaner though.

The legislative gas ban only pertains to the natural gas and cooking. That will be already a problematic issue. 

If you banned gasoline and gasoline powered vehicles, and gas stations.... you can guarantee that people will literally go to violent responses, not just legal action. Why? If you did both at once and it would literally be riots. Cars are more expensive to replace when there are those who already own vehicles and then have to spend several thousand dollars to replace. Seriously, this would run into serious angry response because there is no financial incentives and grants being made remotely to handle millions of people needs. 

Think this through.... you'd be talking about 2-2.8 million automobiles registered in NYS using gasoline. You are talking easily $5,000 to $25,000 to purchase a new EV car. So, lets factor $12,500 per automobile. Lets assume 2.5 Million automobiles to be replaced in a 3 to 6 months time frame before such a law would be enacted if were adopted. You are talking $30-$35 BILLION in funding that would need to be brought forward. If you didn't, you just pissed off millions who will want your head on a stick. 

Legislation and change needs to be done with incentives over time not sudden things like all gas stations be shut down and no gasoline based automobiles allowed on the streets of New York State and other such draconian mandates.

Obviously, no sensible person would do such a thing without thinking it through.

Not happening anytime soon. Therefore put your efforts into mitigation. Climate change is not apocalyptic. I’m not all that worried about it really. I’m way more worried about the exploitation of it for tyrannical and greedy people.

It’s becoming a religion like other things. To the point where talking about mitigation is taboo, when in reality I can 99.999999% guarantee you that we will end up mitigating, not stopping or slowing the trend.

mestizo, I guess we have different ideas of what "tackled in a big way" means. Getting gas appliances banned for new residential work in one of the most left-leaning states in the US is certainly a win, but it's barely a start, and is galvanizing not just opposition but pro-gas actions in red states.

In terms of carbon emissions, the most important element of "burning cleaner," natural gas (aka methane) burns about 30% more cleanly than gasoline. That's certainly a good thing, but the term "natural gas" hides the fact that it's almost entirely methane, one of the most potent global warming compounds in existence.

One reason its potency is under-appreciated is the time frame they use for global warming--100 years. That's not a good scale when the climate crisis gives us 10-20 years to fix things. (Attempts to argue about climate change will be ignored, go F yourself.) Methane only lasts 10-20 years in the atmosphere but we compare it to compounds like CO2 that last 100 years or more in the atmosphere.

mestizo wrote

"Why are there people who don't understand that both natural gas and gasoline have negative impacts on the environment?  Now that natural gas has been tackled in a major way, it's time to go at gasoline with the same vigor.  Make sense?"

 "Ummm. The gas ban going into effect in NYS, Woodsy. Chad, I really liked your assessment earlier in thread but I'm not sure where you took me as promoting EVs as the solution."

You're promoting 'tackling' gasoline like natural gas.  You're the one that wants to ban natural gas use. Hence I thought you wanted to ban gasoline..  The only real way to do so is to use EV's.  That is unless you're proposing that the world moves back to non mechanical locomotion.  

Also, nothing about  natural gas has been 'tackled in a major way'.  

Finally - gasoline uses around 38% to 43% of the petroleum consumed in the world. The rest go into a wide amount of products that are vital to everyday life. Things like plastics and pharmaceuticals. The use petroleum products outside of gasoline contributes more carbon than the refinement and consumption of gasoline.

x-jla wrote:

 "Natural gas is much cleaner though."

Than gasoline?  Kind of but not really.  Natural gas is nearly pure methane.  Methane creates more carbon per ounce than burning gasoline.  

Gasoline? I’m pretty sure natural gas produces less co2 than gasoline…

I could be wrong, it’s been a while since I read up on the stats, but I remember natural gas being about 1/2 the co2. Methane itself is a problem. It’s more effective greenhouse gas. So, if inefficient burning allows for some methane to escape into the atmosphere. That may reduce any benefits.

natural gas is not a singular type of gas. It's a composition of multiple gas. I do agree it is largely composed on methane but it also consists of ethane, butane, and propane of varying composition but mainly within a certain range of percentages for each component gas. When you burn methane, you get CO2, and water (gaseous H20) in trace amounts. What else produces CO2? you. How do you mitigate CO2 emission? Plants. Plants that transforms them into oxygen. Curious, why not some solution sequesting the CO2 like plants. Instead of just merely exhausting, can we do a process similar to plants to transform it to oxygen?

It's because the plans conversion rate for CO2 to O2 can't keep up with our current production and use of natural gas. Currently natural gas produces around 250x of CO2 than the entire world's plant population could convert.

Ok, how much natural gas is involved in cooking versus heating of homes? Why not require homes to not use natural gas to heating so there is a 90% reduction in natural gas use in new homes constructed. Existing homes and major renovations that would involve replacing heating/cooling systems to be redesigned so the required usage is reduced by 50% (minimum). Industrial reduction or removal of use of natural gases. Cooking is unfortunately a drop in the bucket of how much is used in homes. If we can reduce natural gas usage for space heating and heating water by 50%-90%, it will be a significant impact of usage in comes not the 2-5% or so used for cooking in homes.

However, I would look at the industrial and electric power utilization of natural gas or if they can reduce their consumption by 70% over the next 10 years (increasing to a 90% reduction over the next 10 years after that. I'd target those.

Instead of screwing with the lives and money of citizens having to replace equipment through draconian ban on natural gas cooking, it's not even close to making a meaningful dent in natural gas use. Replacing a several hundred dollar appliance. New construction can already be designed to meet zero or near zero natural gas mandate through passive solar and other heating and cooling in many parts of the U.S. and increased insulation as needed. I can see so localized areas where there is needs for relaxing the standards some out of practicality.

XJLA, one problem with the GWP of methane is how GWP is measured, on a 100-year scale. GWP should be measured on a 10-year scale, in which case methane would look far worse than it does on a longer scale. CO2 lasts hundreds of years in the atmosphere, whereas methane lasts 10-20 years. Its stated GWP should be multiplied by 5-10X for a more accurate accounting of its real impact. 

That makes sense.

mestizo wrote: 

"Correct. You assumed I said "ban gasoline" but I never said that. My point is if architecture truly wants to improve its environmental impact then there should be no minimum parking requirements."

How will removing minimal parking improve the environment? 

• Sure it can reduce the heat island effect but so can properly shading the parking surfaces. 
•  It could reduce the use of petroleum products like asphalt however there are much larger carbon emitters out there (plastics, methane, electronic manufacturing).

Finally, how do you want people to get around if you're not going provide adequate parking for the vehicles they use?  Public transit?  

• A good solution however the infrastructure environmental costs only work if passenger vehicles aren't used.  If you have both it's a wash at best.  
• You'd have to resort to non mechanical transportations - aka walking or biking everywhere.  While that's a great idea it's not feasible.     

"How will removing minimal parking improve the environment?"

Cars are a problem, even EVs, when it comes to the environment/climate change. I'm sure we can agree on that. So the issue to wit is called "Induced Demand." A self-fulfilling cycle that is havoc on our environment. It's cousin to the "user tax"/fuel tax cycle that generates and expands our highway gluttony. 

 You used the term "adequate parking." It would be worthwhile for you to think what the exact definition of "adequate parking" is.

Removing 'minimal parking requirements' isn't going to remove cars though.  I suppose you're hoping that if people can't find a spot to park their cars then they won't drive to a place. That won't happen UNLESS there is some other form of multimodal transportation. If not people will still drive and just park a bit farther away or illegally.

Cars are part of the problem. 

The bigger problem is we live in a global economy that has a heavy reliance on petroleum products for transportation and manufacturing. Removing 'minimal parking requirements' isn't going to improve this.

Since you asked - adequate parking to me is enough parking to accommodate around 40% of the per year peak demand (aka Thanksgiving at a grocery store) for said parking.  This would include shared parking spots, street parking, and shuttled parking.  

Also it would be ideal if parking could be in a centralized location based on density and surrounding services. Multimodal shuttles could then be used to move people to their designations allowing a severely reduced amount of parking at a particular building. Ideally the parking structures would use robotic parking to allow less space to be used per car (reduced stall size, circulation, ect). This would allow more urban space to be dedicated to various green spaces that could be used to reduce heat island effects, reduce carbon emissions, ect.

I dunno. I've been promoting incremental changes and flexibility that allows new construction to adapt as our energy production moves towards 100% renewable electric. I just sound like a downer because I use facts in my arguments that show the 'change immediately' plans won't work.

It will have a big impact. I hope it's as beneficial as claimed and can be built on time and within budget without marginalized and low income people being even more disadvantaged.

Getting NYC build a new energy infrastructure, remove / cap in place the old infrastructure, and change all buildings stove / ranges to be 100% electric is a big task in only seven years. 

The issue isn't the impact but the feasibility of the implementation of the change that would have that impact.  To be blunt it all takes money and the money has to come from somewhere.  It's worth trying however.  

The issue is, why not target industrial and electrical power usage of natural gas by say, 50% to 90% (nation-wide) which would be a far bigger impact on natural gas reduction than the measly amount used for cooking. I'm for BPRA but why ban natural gas cooking appliance? BPRA can perhaps phase out all it's power generation driven by natural gas. 

Reduce industrial sector's use of natural gas 50-90% would be much more impactful than banning natural gas cooking appliances. 

Reducing space heating of buildings and homes, using natural gas, by 75-90% in new construction would be a significant impact on natural gas use.

Reducing that on existing buildings over the next 25-50 years by 50-75% would also be significant.

I agree. I was purposeful to not be overly specifying a singular solution but passive solar and geothermal H/C (ground source heat pump) are options but other solutions maybe appropriate as well.

Please stop murdering the air

You should be cooking on charcoal in my opinion, propane is for the wok. Induction and stuff is fine for boiling or roasting, electric ovens are vastly superior. Please don't have a gas BBQ they must be opposed.

I thought I liked charcoal until I got a wood pellet stove.

Nothing beats real wood.