Of course, we agree. I just see that switching old stinkers (gas, oil, and whatever else is burned) to modern gas systems and heat pumps is the way to go, always with the thought that if a heat pump is sensible and economical, then it should be preferred. Not with a heavy hand, but approaching the matter with sense and understanding.
But this is hardly possible, for example, in multi-family houses and also for many new home builders... not everyone can afford a house where a heat pump really makes sense. Let's not kid ourselves. Large housing contractors, for example, only build according to the Building Energy Act (Energy Saving Ordinance), certainly 40+ etc. is possible here but not necessarily desired or feasible for the house buyer at all. Of course, one could say that they shouldn't build a house at all. But who are we to dictate that to someone.
Also, a heat pump in a house that is not designed or prepared for it (meaning the majority of existing buildings) is a nightmare and often has the opposite effect because then the heating rod ends up running more often than one would like. After all, nobody wants to freeze.
But of course, if you have a heat demand of 55 or less, it is worth considering a heat pump and then actually choosing it. Actually, even starting at 70, you can’t draw a hard line and each case must be considered individually.
Other countries are still behind the times and consider the heat pump generally as something fantastically advanced (as the main heating system for houses and apartments), and even the condensing boiler established here is futuristic for many and is rarely installed because the heat-value boiler (which we've long considered scrap metal here) is the method of choice.