Their goal is to get people switch to electric heat pumps. So basically we know: 1. Gas is bad 2. Heat pumps are a viable alternative (maybe in most cases?)

Their goal is to get people switch to electric heat pumps. So basically we know: 1. Gas is bad 2. Heat pumps are a viable alternative (maybe in most cases?) 3. The supply of heat pumps is low because they aren't popular (yet). This is a standard problem with two standard solutions: 1. Ban the bad thing, forcing the market to shift to the alternative, causing a lot of short term pain as the supply chain for the new thing ramps up 2. Subsidize the new thing with government money so that it's cheaper than the old thing and people naturally shift to it as they build new or upgrade. Option 1 makes it happen faster while sacrificing some people (usually poor and marginalized groups) while option 2 is more friendly to society at the cost of slower adoption. Seems like the environmental groups are coming from the point of view of sacrificing some to make things move faster. They would probably make the argument that those people will be sacrificed anyway during rapid climate change. So the real debate here is, will climate change slow down enough to make a difference based on the speed of adoption of residential heat pumps? I don't think it will. In which case option 2 is the better one -- subsidize heat pumps, don't ban gas.