One way or the other, it needs to go away. It's not performative, it's necessary for achieving long-term emissions goals, and it's low-hanging fruit.
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.
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”.
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
Precluding new residential infrastructure is high-hanging fruit. It precludes leaky infrastructure.
It is still good to fix if it contributes to a significant amount of warming, but it isn't cumulative like CO2: it eventually degrades in the atmosphere.
...into CO2