Yes, we absolutely have to figure out a way to transition away from it and both here an in other countries around the world. An outright ban probably isn't achievable or effective in the short term. We could tax it to raise the cost (discouraging use), and use those taxes to fund transitions away from gas to heat pumps or other solutions that don't involve pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Why is that a problem? At this point in the game most things that need to be done to address climate change and pollution are reactionary.
> If this comes down to CO2 there are bigger fish to fry, no?
You can say that about almost anything. There's always "bigger fish to fry", but that doesn't mean we should only ever deal with the "biggest fish". We regulate car emissions even though ships and airplanes are arguably the "bigger fish". We prosecute thefts even though most people would consider prosecuting murders the "bigger fish".
Not disagreeing there, but I think if we satiate the need to do something right now by cutting the rings on our six packs then we might not ever get to the other fish.
