We're talking about something that accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas use right now. This will have no measurable effect on CO2 emissions.
As ylermenezes mentioned cooking accounts for less than half a percent of total natural gas. So, no, we don't need to start somewhere. We need to start where it makes a difference.
60% of US electricity is generated from fossil fuels (1). 40% of that is from Natural Gas. 20% from Coal which produces almost twice the carbon as Natural Gas.
And (2) says 60% of that energy is lost in conversion. So, converting from natural gas to electricity would actually increase carbon emissions in many parts of the US.
So, where should we start? I'm not an expert, but just this quick analysis says decreasing the amount of fossil fuels used for US generation would be a much better choice.
1. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427 2. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436
In contrast, less than 3% of residential gas usage goes to cooking, according to TFA.
Now, if you were to assert that poor people shouldn't even buy Starbucks once a week, that might be a more apt analogy, although I would question the effectiveness of that advice.
Like I said earlier, I drive a 1995 Honda minivan, because the mileage and low upkeep probably constitute the greatest environmental impact I can make at my income level.
What, if I may ask, are you do doing to minimize your impact?
It sucks, but it is something that has to be done if we are going to avoid catastrophe, unless someone invents really effective carbon capture.
My personal habits are irrelevant, but I'm in a deregulated energy state and pay extra for 100% renewable/carbon-offset power, and I don't have a natural gas hookup.
But IMO, a better way forward would be to raise taxes on residential gas delivery such that home heating with gas becomes cost prohibitive. The extremely low cost of gas incentivizes profligate, wasteful consumption, sort of like the unmetered delivery of water in places like Sacramento, where the marginal cost of water delivery is very low, and the externalized cost of eventual resource depletion is not accounted for.
What sources of pollution are we allowed to keep? What is your criteria for an acceptable amount of human impact on the environment? If you also have information for acceptable levels of cobalt, nickel, and copper mining, and landfill usage (per capita per year, in cubic meters, I guess), that would be useful. Because every time I see any climate change story, I'm told that I absolutely have to give something up to save humanity, and I'm beginning to feel like no level of existence will be acceptable.
I'm very eco conscious in my day to day life, more than most of the people in my social group. But I also realize we can't just eliminate every trace of our lives.
The answer is that, long term, we have to balance out and only keep the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that the planet + carbon capture can absorb. It's going to be a very small number per capita.
As I said, it sucks. But it is the only way to prevent serious climate change long-term.
The reason you're going bankrupt is because you've convinced yourself the $5 coffee is the solution.
If you want a small change that makes a real difference take the bus one day a week.