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.