Calling for individual action is a deliberate strategy to shift responsibility from corporations.

Electric is an option, but we've already switched from coal to gas... which is the problem.

And nuclear energy, while having no carbon emissions, has the problem that nobody wants it in their backyard. Plus, huge upfront investments and costs.

Actually, I would seriously consider putting a small-scale nuclear reactor in my backyard if it were possible. My neighbours might object, but since you said my backyard: I'm perfectly ok with that.

Buying somewhere else, using alternatives, such as green gas or heat pumps ...and then never go back

>>Buying somewhere else

Where? And how?

>>using alternatives, such as green gas

You mean synthetic gas? There is absolutely no capacity to produce anywhere near enough to satisfy even a single percent of European needs.

>>or heat pumps

Heat pumps are not a universal solution, they don't work in all climates, or they require digging trenches or wells to actually be efficient - again, not possible everywhere and for everyone.

And even if it was - with what money? Where I'm from in Poland I know lots of people who still heat their houses with coal, purely because gas is too expensive as it is. And you want to switch their source of heat to an even more expensive one? I'm sure they will be super happy to do that, sure.

Pretty sure there exists more than one source of gas.

You only need as much gas as is required to fill the gap that alternative gas providers and heat pumps can't provide to compensate the lost gas.

Another option is to improve the houses such they leak much less heat.

Money allocation could be managed through a variety of ways, such as EU funds

Heat pumps suck in really cold climates. I highly recommend a natural gas water heater if you have a gas line. I have never run out of hot water.

Aren't fireplaces much more polluting when compared to burning gas for heating?

Plausibly better for the climate (it's not fossil carbon, it's much more recent carbon) but much much much worse for immediate human health, since it spews all sorts of nasty particulates out the chimney and also into the home.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/07/fireplac...

I know many electric-only houses: you can heat yourself without methane.

The Netherlands wants to push towards electrification - probably to reduce dependency on Russian gas - but the power grid cannot handle it, and it'll take years and billions to increase its capacity.

I mean electric boilers, heating panels, ranges and car chargers will easily increase peak loads by 15-25 kilowatts per house, that's 2-4x as much as they currently pull. Do that times hundreds of thousands of houses and you see the issue.

What you are right about is that both consumer and production endpoints transitions must be synchronized. But they should still happen very fast.

The right conclusion is that now they need to buff up the power grid extremely quickly TOO (it needs not take such a long time, some choices like solar or wind are quite quick to install).

Both the consumer endpoints and production endpoints have to change, of course.

As for the billions required for the transition, since when absolute figures make for good decisions? What is required is a comparison with alternatives. And one sure thing is that the cost of a failed transition, of a climate catastrophe, or indirect consequences like wars, are tremendously more expensive.

That’s fine for a long ye strategy. But asking people who are fitted for gas to go electric?

Politicians tend to make delusional promises which can never happen. Something like this is a long term thing it’s not… stop using gas now!

I think that's the right time to ask people to make the change, on the contrary, as it's the middle of the gas crisis (through geopolitical reasons).

Governments are trying hard to artificially keep the prices low, but the reality is that the market really really wants people to give up on fossil fuels.