“The term natural gas does not explicitly convey the fossil origins of such gas, leading to potential misunderstandings and hampering policy-making,”
“The term natural gas does not explicitly convey the fossil origins of such gas, leading to potential misunderstandings and hampering policy-making,”
From the article:
I generally try not to talk down to people, but jesus christ how ignorant can these people possibly be? Do they think just because it isn’t literally coal that it’s somehow beneficial? Who educated them? Absolutely wild.
It’s funny to me, because when it was coined, natural gas made SENSE. See town gas, the majority of gas used in cities, was made at gas plants from coal or wood and piped to homes as a clean burning fuel. You’d have gas plants that created the gas. Natural gas, therefore, was just gas that was natural and not made vs the syngas that most people had used. It wasn’t some sort of nefarious marketing ploy, it was just an apt description of where the gas came from.
The gas didn’t have carbon monoxide. The gas released carbon monoxide as a byproduct when the gas was combusted to release the heat for the oven.
Incorrect. The production of town gas from coal created large amounts of carbon monoxide due to the incomplete pyrolysis process employed. People didn’t turn the oven on, they just turned on the gas. Suicide rates in england dropped more than a quarter after the switch over to natural gas. Town gas is mostly hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
https://caer.uky.edu/power-generation/coal-gasification/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas
I think the most common answer for this topic would be, “No one, really.” Except maybe energy marketing/ads. You know, the folks that brought us “clean coal” and “fracking is totally safe and will definitely not bork your groundwater.”
Not being familiar with all things oil and gas would be pretty common for people not living in areas where it is processed or compressed. It’s much like a Linux enthusiast being upset at Windows and Mac users not realizing there are other OSs for computers. Might not be in their realm of thought.
Natural has been a wonderfully misleading marketing term for food products too. There’s no regulations in the US on what one calls “natural” ingredients. Most people mistake it for being like organic just as intended. Natural just sounds good. Unfortunately radioactive material can be natural too.
“Organic” is just as much of a bullshit buzzword as “natural”.
But it’s least well defined, so you can rely on it always meaning the same thing, which is IMO the most important thing.
It’s true, I am always grateful to know whether or not my food is carbon-based.
All the other claims are fluffy af, and it doesn’t mean what most consumers think it means, which is arguably more important when it’s a marketing term more so than anything else.
Being intentionally obtuse doesn’t make people be on your side.
What do you think “organic” means when you see it on packaging?
No pesticides? Carbon neutral? GMO-free? Bunny friendly? Cures or prevents cancer? Prevents monocultures? Cures diabetes?
I’ve heard all this from people trying to justify why they insist on buying organic. It doesn’t mean what consumers think it means, and the only meaning that is well-defined is the other one.
Didn’t realize people had no sense of humour about it, but I won’t stop because I think it’s vile that companies market this nonsense with a halo on to fool consumers, sometimes by referencing very serious health or environmental claims.
You got me there, I am indeed from Alberta, Canada. Do people really not have any idea where the fuel they use every day comes from? Maybe I’m just more curious than others, I guess.
To be clear, I don’t disagree with changing the term to something less misleading. Just surprised is all.
Same people that think “organic” = “healthy”
I have some organic cyanide you might be interested in…
If you’re careful in selecting your samples you can get people to say just about anything.
Ali G’s secret is out.