I've become very skeptical of any plan to just get rid of something that people need and use, in the hope that that will magically force the issue and usher credible alternatives into existence years down the line. It's sort of like a government trying to reduce government spending by cutting taxes (i.e., the "don't feed the beast" approach). Such efforts never end up reducing spending, rather they just create an environment in which debt and chaos are constantly increasing.

I get the idea behind it- "let's just start doing everything according to our desired outcome, and the parts that don't fit will somehow come into line on their own". It's very seductive but I've learned to avoid the temptation to think that hard problems can be solved in this way.

I feel like this is a problem-solving antipattern that I see over and over again and it just never works- not just in government, but in software engineering, in management, even in interpersonal relationships. People get frustrated that they can't change other people, so they decide to simply move everyone to some new way of doing things without any sort of plan for how to deal with the fallout. They think it will create an environment where the people who are negatively affected will spontaneously start conforming to the desired behavior due to some invisible hand of incentivization, but I've never seen this strategy applied in any context where it worked out. It's always just a rat's nest of unintended consequences and misery.