Climate advocates point to the polling, the greenwashing, and the policy implications as pressing reasons it’s important that everyone, especially the media, drop the natural gas label.
For Alan Levinovitz, the name natural gas is simply “too dangerous to have around.” Stopping calling it natural gas is the necessary first step for the world to move away from gas as a climate solution.
Rebecca Leber
February 10, 2022
The end of natural gas has to start with its name
[I find it very telling they claim certain words and phrases are “too dangerous to have around”. Isn’t that almost straight out of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four”?
The other thing about the article I find very telling is they write about how natural gas/methane is such a potent greenhouse gas then jump into how “natural gas” name has to be removed from our language. They don’t address the combustion products of natural gas versus the alternatives. It’s as if “natural gas is bad because it is methane” without addressing that natural gas isn’t deliberately released into the air. It is a product sold to customers who consume it. If they want express concerns about combustion products (or byproducts of using natural gas in things like plastics) I would consider that mostly fair. But that is not what they do.
They want to repress speech and are deliberately deceptive. That is all I need to know about them to be opposed to their agenda.—Joe]
Aren’t we all supposed to go organic? You can’t get more organic than methane.
No, we’re not supposed to go organic. They want us to go third world for the 25% or so they will ‘let’ survive. The rest of us are supposed to go extinct. That’s what they want.
If we all went third world, it would kill off a lot more than 75%. Try 95%.
Then again, China won’t, nor other countries like it. And while without a functioning West they too would have a mass die-off, (a) it won’t be quite as large, and (b) those in power don’t care anyway.
If ever there was a reason to burn schools to the ground and start over. This one pretty much makes the case.
Does it get more natural than your own farts? Which is methane gas right?
The lie is that one can change the weather by ones actions. What a joke. Only a conceited teen-ager could think like that.
Lighting off every nuke in the world at once wouldn’t change the temperature of this planet for an hour.
Temperature is controlled by the sun, or the lack thereof.
Even Bill Gates has talked about ways to block it with SO2.
In this totally degreed, licensed, permitted, and over educated world.
This is what passes for reason, logic? The most ignorant of lies?
Glad I’m short. Cause people that believe shit like that are going to starve to death in the dark.
To save the planet!
Satan and crew must be laughing till they piss themselves. You know Soro is.
What is SO2? Sulfur dioxide? Bill Gates, that expert in everything because he was expert in marketing his company is telling us to seed our clouds with something so we can have Acid Rain?
Really? Acid Rain will solve the Climate Change? I thought Sulfur Dioxide wasn’t good to breathe. Is he suggesting that the burning of fossil fuels will prevent climate change? If not, where does he propose getting it?
I find the word “Progressive” too dangerous to have around in any but a mechanical or mathematical usage. Get that word out of our lexicon. It’s not progressive if they are pushing for a return to the unified government structure of Europe before 1776, when judges were merely “Lions under the throne.” I propose “Totalitarian” instead.
Progressive as opposed to Revolutionary… Communist.
The missing word is always “Communist”. Nobody actually uses “Libertarian” as the unspoken second word.
The difference is speed. Progressives want to get to the Communist utopia one step at a time, while the RevComs want to get there now, no matter how many people they need to shoot. Don’t worry, both approaches will fill mass graves with the results of their deliberate policy choices. Hayek hasn’t been proven wrong, yet.
SO2 is produced in large quantities when volcanos blow. The effects are to retard sunlight in the upper atmosphere. Thus cooling the surface temperature.
I read once Gates had studied it as a possible avenue to cool the planet.
As you correctly surmised. When SO2 contacts H2O. It reacts to form H2SO3, sulfuric acid. Which is liquid at standard temperature and pressure. And becomes acid rain.
Although in low enough concentrations to be no more than fertilizer. It still has that scary sound the media love to through at us.
Your car engine creates NOX and SOX gasses. But also H2O at the same time. Which would make continuous stream of both nitric and sulfuric acids. How many years does it take to eat through your tailpipe?
If burning hydrocarbons were a pollution problem. How come generations from Los Angelenos aren’t mutating? Or just dropping where they stand?
More to the point is; Why has LA’s problem become the worlds problem?
Money, power, control. Use any two, to get the third.
WAIT!!! Won’t the SO2 from the volcanoes deplete the ozone layer in the ionosphere as well?!! We have no hope. We are doomed by global warming or we are doomed by ozone depletion. How can one compound save us and kill us at the same time? I am sure there is an answer somewhere from some other brilliant environmentalist zealot activist/progressive elite/nanny.
Just when I thought Stupidity had reached it heights.
I am proven wrong.
Everyday a new level of crybaby.
Words-Just to dangerous?
Funny…
Sticks and Stones.
Worked for me. I been called wvery vile name
And afew i didnt know hahahaha.
Grow the Hell up you Emotional Faggots.
The left know all too well that he who controls language controls the society. They are highly accomplished masters at doing so. And the rest of us just stand around picking our collective nose while they get away with it time after time.
I don’t care if they call it “baby seal squeezins” or “death juice.”
It’s plentiful, inexpensive, and it works very well. The hazards are well known, and easily mitigated using well known techniques.
The only reasons I would switch are if we run out, or come up with something that is actually better/faster/cheaper/more reliable.
I would also like to point out that it is called “natural” gas because it does not require additional processing to turn it into a gas—as opposed to “coal gas,” which is chemically similar but you get it by distilling coal.
Interestingly enough, very few people, and NO climate activists understand that natural gas often isn’t methane…
What is provided as natural gas, in the US actually legally defined as “City Gas” is any mixture of gases that has the combustion characteristics of natural gas under specified conditions. Whether or not there is actually any methane present varies depending on the source and processing – it can be ethane, butane, propane, and any of several other -anes as long as it performs the same.
It is a parallel to octane ratings for gasoline, which is any mixture of liquids that act like octane at the given percentage.