$70K would keep my 1980s era furnace running for a very, very long time. Keeping that machine out of the landfill, and preventing the new carbon footprint of anything else I would have to buy to replace it, really makes me question the potential carbon decrease of such an effort. How much oil was burned to make your heat pump?

Also, in what world does this make any economic sense whatsoever? Most people cannot and will not be able to afford to do this. Meanwhile, why is the taxpayer subsidizing someone who _can_ already afford to spend $70K of their own money on this?

Enjoy your electric car, champ, but carbon-wise it's actually better to keep a mid-2000's Toyota running for an extra decade so that all the carbon that was released in its manufacture is amortized over a longer lifetime.

Focusing efforts on converting the natural gas stove to electric might end up causing more environmental harm compared to keeping it as is. Once you take into account the brand new entire replacement unit and the disposal of the old one (not to mention the portion of electric powered by fossil fuels anyways) it just doesn't make sense. You get a much better return on replacing windows, sealing cracks, adding insulation where needed, etc.