I will admit I don't know much about cooking with gas, so this might be off the mark, but who would you say is the third party in this situation? If I buy a gas stove and there are health concerns, don't I bear the burden? You could say kids are affected and that makes them the third party, but are they far enough removed to be considered a third party? They can't very well choose to move, and probably have no say in what type of range their parents buy, so maybe they are, but it seems like a huge potential can of worms if kids are allowed to claim third party status for the decisions of their parents - being a parent and having made some bad decisions that my kids bore part of the cost of, I fell like I have some experience here. If, as you say, "the issues with gas stoves aren’t exactly breaking news" doesn't this become akin to smoking in your house? If you buy a gas stove, you primarily bear the costs of the activity. Visitors to your house are more than likely also using gas stoves (presuming they live close by and are using similar appliances) or wouldn't be in your house over a long enough period of time to be impacted by the emissions.

Expand full comment

I debated this same point the entire time I was outlining this post, but I think the concepts still apply. I thought of the externality-generating activity as cooking with, where some parents are benefiting from natural gas and natural gas sellers are the supplier of gas for the stove.

Parents impose a cost on their children as the third party, and the kids have no property rights to clean air in the house. The kids aren't able to go through the traditional Coasian bargaining process, which implies there may need to be government intervention.

You could also take the easy route and say that childhood asthma is a burden on the healthcare system and that society is paying for it through that avenue. This would frame it similarly to the more popular smoking and fast food examples.

Expand full comment