I left it implied, but the logic of getting rid of gas hookups altogether, instead of keeping them and using heat pumps for heating, is that the emissions purely due to the distribution network are non-trivial. That's the proximate reason the cooking transition is being proposed. It's also why it mentions that there's a reasonable argument for a carve-out for _cities_, where the distribution network would be more efficient than in rural areas.

> Humans have an impact on the planet. Deal with it.

> Some of the big ways we do are summarily ignored.

That is, ironically, the point of the article (not that it's perfect). Let's not summarily ignore the emissions from the gas distribution network, just because we're upset that cooking will change slightly. Deal with it, and don't let silly resentment towards an individual activist or cynical campaigns by massive carbon emitting industries fool you into doing otherwise.

Saying "deal with it" is not at all how I would communicate the issue to the average consumer, but you don't fit that description. Never mind that individual consumer choices like your own, summed across all individuals, have almost zero impact compared to systemic changes like those proposed in the article. I say this as someone very similar to you (vegan, bike/walk everywhere, use renewable energy, etc.).