Why is this downvoted? This whole thread is scratching it head as to the “real reason” behind this. Here you go. Infrastructure is way too expensive to maintain for stuff you don’t really need.

> 4. It's just not worth it to support gas infrastructure just for gas stoves.

My oven/cooktop is gas, along with my on-demand hot water heater, and fire place. I also have a connection outside that I use for my grill. I think my heatpump has gas backup for when it's really cold.

Gas powers a lot more than just stoves.

Gas won your business and government picked gas as the winner. Government didn’t run a gas line to my home.

I'm sure we can find cities/new developments where gas lines were not run, but have we examples where existing infrastructure was finally shut down?

I don't why the climate change aspect is so dismissed. In germany we are currently banning new gas heating installation as a general push to phase out gas. If you want to replace gas with electricity from green sources you have to start somewhere, otherwise everyone will just cry when being forced to replace it, even if announced that general Gas will shout down in 15 or 20 or whatever years. If you really want to achieve carbon neutrality, you have to think about every energy source. We can not just continue to use gas because synthesising it is so much more expensive and otherwise we're stuck with the infrastructure we built today. Gas cooking is probably easier to replace than gas heating but it's still a headache and the public opposition to replace fully it in the future is directly correlated with the number of people using it.

If you want to achieve carbon neutrality in 20 years it's ambitious and you need a plan. Phasing out the gas-infrastructure is one of them. And housing and its infrastructure is so permanent, our gas heating is as old than I am, at least it looks this way.

What I have concerns over, honestly, is the climate science driving these thoughts.

Nobody has explained to me sufficiently in plain language how carbon dioxide is bad for the environment. I've heard plenty of good explanations for water control, but my limited biology understanding has me presuming that more carbon emissions is advantageous to plants.

Come on, under how many rocks are you living?

The IPCC reports have it all. Their models include plant growth already. Google it.

> Gas heating is easily replaced by heat pumps, even in cold climates

This claim has been contested a few times in this thread below.

> Building and maintaining natural gas infrastructure to homes is expensive

Can you quantify this? How does this compare with the cost of replacing it all and powering it all with zero emissions power sources?

I'm looking forward to going all electric in my small by most standards apartment buildings but I'm not going to tear out my existing mechanical to make it happen today. The upgrade is about $25K a unit for the electrical upgrade, new stove, water heater and HVAC system. I know it's coming but it's not today -everything in my building is high-efficiency and low flow and was the best you could get when I did my last remodel, there's lots of people doing a lot more damage than me and the people in my building. We also have to redo our grid as there is no way it can support an all electric society in the state it's in now we'd be in constant brown out.

You have to have a gas backup in cold climates. You can't just dump NG. -22F is the limit for useful heat production from a heat pump.

Ground source heat pumps, frankly, should be mandated in cold climates. That completely removes any cold-air limitations.

That being said, backup power is still vital in extreme climates.

There's nowhere outside of Alaska in the US that sees consistent temps below -22. Any place that gets that cold will only see it for a few nights at most, and could use resistive heating or portable gas to cover those brief windows.