Now we're seeing the pushback for the pushback. fvdesson is right.
There's an article from 2003 so this isn't exactly new.
If you roll out the tax as 25% starting in July, increasing 25% every 3 months after that until it hits 300%, people have some time to plan for it and you don't hit them this winter. Maybe you need to return 1/3 of the tax money to low-income households who are having a hard time getting their equipment upgraded in a timely fashion and 1/3 of the tax money in incentives to that same group [and landlords of affordable housing] to help them cover the capital costs.
Trying to backhand it by making people "not want" gas stoves seems like a longer and less certain path than just giving people economic incentives to do the thing that you want them to do.
- That would have an immediate financial impact on people with gas boilers in a way that banning new gas appliances does not. This kind of thing would need to be rolled out very slowly over time if you want to avoid extreme backlash. Constraints on new construction don't have the same effects.
(EDIT: Ah, you edited your comment to address this one - sure, if you can reliably distribute funds for lower-income people to replace their appliances then maybe. I bet you still get a lot of backlash from people who can afford it but don't want to though. Unless it's rolled out very slowly.)
- Ultimately we need to get rid of the infrastructure piping all that gas around too, as that's where a lot of the climate impacts come from. Any new gas usage at all, whether for cooking or heating, makes it harder to do that.
Utilities already have the means to bill and tax fuel. Most already have conservation rebate schemes in place. Many already have low-income billing plans and rate cards (probably all have multiple rate cards). I think you could reliably administer a tax, rebate, and capital credit scheme using mostly existing mechanisms.
> I just installed a new gas boiler (I wanted to go electric but it was massively economically disadvantageous). That thing is probably going to run for 20 years.
You're making a bet that gas will remain economically advantageous over electric for 20 years. I don't know about you, but the way the winds are shifting, that doesn't sound like a good bet.
If they do disconnect and electric becomes advantageous, I'll have saved money for likely a decade and can consider switching at that point. (It was capital costs that made it non-advantageous, not operating costs.)
Not true, at least not by definition. I heat with oil and cook with gas. My gas stove is fed by an outdoor propane tank that's filled once a year. When I was house hunting there were plenty of houses with gas ranges but I didn't see a single one with gas heat, that's really uncommon here.