[simoncion]

> One way or the other, it needs to go away.

Sure, agreed.

> It's not performative...

Right now it very much is because, as you say:

> ...it's low-hanging fruit.

As I said:

> ...banning natgas cookstoves is a few pennies saved on like a thousand dollar expenditure.

and

> [Low-impact, high-visibility stuff like that is done because] it's way easier than making a real dent in the underlying problem

If you'll pardon the mixed metaphors: When it comes to environmental stuff, a lot of the time, the low-hanging fruit isn't worth picking because the high-hanging fruit is the thing that's the immediate wildfire hazard.

[dd36]

How is residential natural gas use not high-hanging fruit?

Precluding new residential infrastructure is high-hanging fruit. It precludes leaky infrastructure.

[rhaway84773]

Setting aside the validity of your claim that it’s just a “few Pennie’s on a thousand dollar expenditure (which I strongly disagree with…banning natural gas hookups would be worth it even if climate change wasn’t a problem).

Your argument basically boils down to “I’m in debt and need to start spending thousands of dollars less. Cutting out this completely unnecessary expenditure will only save me a few dollars so I shouldn’t cut out this completely unnecessary expense because it won’t save me all the thousands I need to save”.

[Scalestein]

I'd say a more accurate metaphor would be "I'm in debt and decided to ignore my biggest high interest loan in order to fully pay off my smallest low interest loan so I feel good about something"

Sure it's good you have less debt but while you were resolving the small loan you were racking up massive interest on the big one

[BeFlatXIII]

If I ordered the non-avocado toast at my weekly brunch, I'd be able to afford a house.