New York Ban Proves Progressives Are Coming For Your Gas Stove

A proposal in New York to ban gas hookups in new buildings has “reignited” a heated debate about whether gas stoves should be banned. The proposal, which is likely to pass in the annual state budget this year in Albany, would exempt many commercial uses of gas lines but end new residential connections, thereby enacting a de-facto ban on gas stoves and appliances. The New York proposal follows one earlier this year by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency that was exploring a ban on gas stoves.

Supporters of these policies claim that they are essential for protecting public health and preventing climate change. Meanwhile, critics argue that they are an example of government overreach. Beyond the surface-level arguments, the Albany proposal also exposes a more profound issue about the nature of progressivism as a philosophy: Rather than acting as a force for progress, too often progressives want to take us back to the past.

Some studies purport to show that gas stoves produce harmful pollutants that can cause respiratory problems, such as asthma. Supporters of a ban point out that technology exists to replace gas stoves with more efficient electric alternatives that are safer and cleaner. Gas stoves and other gas-powered appliances are contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for global warming and its associated environmental problems.

However, critics of gas stove bans argue that they are based on bad science, as well as an example of government paternalism. They contend that the research into health problems caused by gas stoves is underwhelming—or at least the relationship is still unproven—and that products powered by natural gas actually lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions than do their chief competitors: products powered by electricity generated from burning coal. More fundamentally, many conservatives accuse gas stove critics of fomenting alarmism, believing it is not in the government’s mandate to tell people which appliances to use in their homes.

As the gas stove example illustrates, progressivism is too often based on the idea that ever-increasing amounts of bureaucracy and red tape should be added to American life to solve societal problems. Rather than empowering individuals to make their own choices and find their own solutions, progressives believe that government technocrats should take control and impose their preferred solutions on society.

Ironically, the debate surrounding the Albany proposal also highlights the phenomenon of “gaslighting” in political discourse. Critics of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s proposal earlier this year were accused of spreading false information. The commission had no intention of banning gas stoves—or so we were told. However, the Albany policy demonstrates that progressives are indeed serious about eliminating gas appliances from homes. By accusing their opponents of gaslighting, progressives attempted to deflect attention from their actual policies, which they likely knew would be controversial. The Albany proposal shows that the critics were right all along.

By trying to ban gas stoves and other aspects of modern life, progressives show their true colors. Despite claiming to be for progress, supporters of these policies are attempting to return society to a more primitive and supposedly simpler time. They actually want to freeze society in its current state—or even go backwards—preventing progress from taking shape.

Rather than promoting innovation and creativity, progressive policies tend to favor the status quo. In this sense, gas stove bans are not outliers: they are emblematic of a broader worldview centered on coercion and technocratic manipulation. To truly promote progress in the 21st century, a dynamic and bottom-up approach is surely needed. Don’t expect it to come from those who call themselves “progressive.”