The Gas Stove Ban Debate Belies a Broader Problem of Federal Policy

It is discouraging enough that President Biden is moving to ban gas stoves without approval from Congress. But the ban proposed in January by the Consumer Product Safety Commission is more than just another end run around the separation of powers. It accelerates a practice by which the government forces changes in the behavior of citizens through executive mandate, when a little persuasion might have worked better.

Appealing to the better angels of people’s nature is not as quixotic as it sounds. There are plenty of real-world examples. Americans smoke tobacco a lot less than they used to. While some of that decline can be attributed to heavy regulations, taxes and outright bans, a bigger part came about because people changed their minds about smoking.

Force, on the other hand, usually doesn’t lead to lasting change. There are real word examples of that, too. By banning alcohol, Prohibitionists got drinking to decline by only 30%. The temperance movement probably would have been more successful by sticking with persuasion.

The Prohibition mindset seems to be on the rise these days, even if it conflicts with the rule of law. It’s not a question of whether Biden has the authority to ban gas stoves; it’s whether he prefers to allow people to continue to use them.

There is a better way. Instead of product mandates from the federal government, we should be able to explain to a candid world why the change is necessary. If gas stoves are bad, persuade your neighbor to buy an alternative. In a free society, people — not executive branch agencies — should be the ones who express their preferences.

There are things the government can regulate when enough people are persuaded that regulation benefits safety and public health, and that the benefits are worth the costs. Gas stoves don’t meet that standard, nor do incandescent light bulbs, nor the many other preferences Washington imposes on people.

These restrictions are not about protecting the public. When a federal agency bans a product, the decision is not based on a technocratic assessment made by the professionals of the administrative state. It is based on the executive’s political preference to ban the product and his sense of how popular the product is. They might toss in a story about climate change or scarce resources or safety concerns.

Gas stoves apparently are more popular than the administration expected. Then again, so were light bulbs. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to block the gas stove ban in July, but the White House has not given up on the idea. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. calls the proposed ban “a powerful tool in our toolbox” and a “real possibility.”

This is not how government officials should decide the fate of products that millions of citizens use. They’re supposed to secure the liberty of people so they can figure it out for themselves.

When this does not happen, the products themselves get worse. Refrigerators break faster because politicians prefer they use less energy. New gasoline cans don’t work well because politicians are afraid of spills. Dishwashers take longer with each load and don’t work as well because politicians want them to use less water.

Some products are blessedly free of political micromanagement. Snow shovels are cheaper, lighter, sturdier and easier to use. Televisions have become bigger, lighter, cheaper and better. The products that get worse are ones where political preferences overrule consumer preferences.

These forced changes involve trade-offs. Washing machines use less water at the expense of effectiveness. Consumers should be the ones choosing one feature at the expense of another, because the trade-off is inherently subjective. Some people would rather use more water and get clean laundry. That ought to be left to them.

When Congress gets sidelined on these decisions, we might take heart in the idea that unelected technocrats are at least doing scientific analyses of the costs and benefits. But that is not the case. The question of whether Biden will ban gas stoves, like other product regulations, is about political will, rather than scientific evidence. Administrators are only considering whether to ban gas stoves because of politics.

Their answer will depend on how popular they and Biden think a ban would be. If banning stoves is what the president wants, the technocratic assessment will justify his preference and offer some type of public-purpose rationale for his preference.

Persuading people, rather than foisting our preferences on them, has two advantages. It can still get the desired outcome: No company will build gas stoves if no one wants to buy one. And it can lead to lasting social change. Gas stove prohibitionists wouldn’t need to change laws if the instead changed people’s minds.

James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at Mackinac Center for Public Policy.