I left it implied, but the logic of getting rid of gas hookups altogether, instead of keeping them and using heat pumps for heating, is that the emissions purely due to the distribution network are non-trivial. That's the proximate reason the cooking transition is being proposed. It's also why it mentions that there's a reasonable argument for a carve-out for _cities_, where the distribution network would be more efficient than in rural areas.

> Humans have an impact on the planet. Deal with it.

> Some of the big ways we do are summarily ignored.

That is, ironically, the point of the article (not that it's perfect). Let's not summarily ignore the emissions from the gas distribution network, just because we're upset that cooking will change slightly. Deal with it, and don't let silly resentment towards an individual activist or cynical campaigns by massive carbon emitting industries fool you into doing otherwise.

Saying "deal with it" is not at all how I would communicate the issue to the average consumer, but you don't fit that description. Never mind that individual consumer choices like your own, summed across all individuals, have almost zero impact compared to systemic changes like those proposed in the article. I say this as someone very similar to you (vegan, bike/walk everywhere, use renewable energy, etc.).

Is there a large amount of natural gas to-home infrastructure outside of cities now? I suppose this will vary by region. The (admittedly, few) family members and friends I have who live rurally and use gas have propane tanks that are filled by truck, not buried gas pipes coming from the street.

Fair point, I don't know. I wouldn't be in favor of the carve-out either way, because I can't imagine it being sustainable to preserve it for long.

> Saying "deal with it" is not at all how I would communicate the issue to the average consumer

Manipulating people isn’t a sustainable solution.

If your point is that the primary argument _should_ be "deal with it" or that anything else is "manipulating people", I disagree with such a binary assertion.

> Literally don't care that houses in Malibu are going to fall into the sea because I love grilling up some salmon and asparagus over cold ones

Houses in Malibu fall into the sea because they are built in a coastal erosion zone, not because of your grilling - which can also be done over charcoal or propane, which don't have the huge issues of gas grid leaks and maintenance.

I'm going off the argument chain that grilling produces CO and CO2, which are greenhouse gasses, which melt sea ice, which raise sea levels.

And FWIW I usually use charcoal/wood.

The problem is the global warming impact of the leaky natural gas grid, which has far more consequential impacts like damaged via sea level rise to the Gulf Coast, and the aridification of the Western US.

It's a systems problem that requires system solutions, not the problem of an individual's right to cook over a natural gas flame.

Maybe there is room for an electric/wood hybrid stovetop?

I can't see that being anything other than a very luxury item. Burning wood requires much better ventilation than most kitchens have. It's not easy to control the heat level, and the effort of using it is disproportionate for small amounts of cooking. And the fuel itself is cumbersome and takes up a lot of space.

Can we come up with regenerative cooling of the food? I'll have to eat everything lukewarm, but think of the impact on the environment!