I don't think most legislators (or people trying to influence legislators) have a good holistic picture about whether banning gas helps or hurts. It's a very

I don't think most legislators (or people trying to influence legislators) have a good holistic picture about whether banning gas helps or hurts. It's a very complex issue. Do they consider, for example, that the situation in the US is (or was for the last many years) a natural gas surplus due to the byproducts of the fracking industry? And that the gas would be burnt or flared if not sent for distribution? And that, with natural gas being better carbon-wise than coal-fired electricity, this might be a net benefit? And that to incentivize the building of any kind of gas pipelines, it takes decades of certainty about demand? And that household gas usage is a drop in the bucket? The list of issues to consider goes on and on. It's not just "burning fossil fuels = bad".