Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on slrpnk.net

17 replies

I've never heard smart people say it's clean. I've only heard smart people say it's the cleanest fossil fuel... but not clean.

12

The word 'natural' in natural gas does some heavy lifting there. If you sold diesel as "green diesel", people would buy it

6
piefed.zip

"It's better than nothing" was true back when the alternative was to do nothing. Now there is no benefit to natural gas. It has no place in new buildings, and older buildings should be trying to remove it as quickly as possible.

12

Are you serious? No benefit? This is capitalism the amount of money is the real benefit since the beginning. Every time a new invention that threatened oil and gas came out they immediately tried to smother it. They are trying to stay alive for as long as possible while making trillions together. No benefit from any other perspective but, this is a society where greed prevails above everything including human lives.

1

I remember taking an HVAC course after highschool. It felt like a two year natural gas and refrigerant propaganda course. It was confusing.

I left that career behind pretty quickly after completing that course. The last bit of motivation to leave was seeing and hearing how other HVAC technicians were ruining their knees and backs.

Damage the planet and my body for money? I don't think it's worth it...

I wish I can say I made smarter choices after that but instead I learned some more tough life lessons the hard way.

6
Aulireply

So you thought HVAC wouldn't use natural gas or refrigerants. Let's leave gas out of it how do youbexpext.to do anything without refrigerants?

1
lemmy.world

If you can’t look beyond the marketing you’re not smart. They used to teach this stuff in school… (e.g. history - questioning sources)

4
lemmy.ml

I think Obama is actually smart. He's a horrible person, war criminal, etc. But he's a smart guy. And he bought this bullshit hook, line and sinker. All the good smart libs did

2
lemmy.world

As a bridge fuel - yes, usually cleaner than coal. Which it is. The article is about how apparently lots of smart people think it’s a source of clean energy, with it isn’t. Even with the most elastic definition of clean. I don’t know what any of that has to do with “smart libs”…

2

rtfa and stop repeating pro-gas propaganda

RL: The bridge fuel talking point has been around for a really long time. Democrats, and occasionally Republicans, really love this argument that gas can be a bridge to renewable energy.

The implication is that it’s temporary—something useful while we scale up renewables, and then we phase it out.

In reality, that’s a lot more complicated. Gas requires lots and lots of infrastructure. We’re talking about hundreds of miles of pipes and massive liquefied natural gas facilities being built to export gas around the world. These are expensive projects. The idea that you can just swap gas out for something else isn’t really what’s happening.

And the timescale is a big piece here. What’s rarely defined when talking about a bridge fuel is how long that bridge is. Science shows that we have to scale down our fossil fuel dependence, but we’re actually building out more infrastructure.

The industry has shifted its messaging, too. Gas was a “bridge,” then a “partner” for renewables. Now the popular talking point is carbon capture and storage for gas.

RL: The very idea of a “bridge fuel”—that phrasing—was introduced by the gas industry itself in 1988.

The American Gas Association and related groups were promoting gas as a climate solution. They introduced this idea to the public in a Washington Post article about gas as a bridge fuel.

So that’s one way they literally wrote the script for talking points we still hear from politicians today.

2

You reached the end