21–30 of 36 posts
I’ve come to the conclusion the only way to make progress on carbon is to ban the sale of new devices that use fossil fuel when an alternative technology exists. Either that, or use military force to shut down one refinery a day until there are none left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the very end: > After years of fanfare about renewable natural gas, what’s its share of NW Natural’s gas supply today? > Less than 1%. The article, indeed, cites precious few actual statistics to lie with at all, but this suggests that the phrase "as much" means the same proportion, not the same absolute amount. So in your words, yes, they're selling "more natural gas" from fossil sources.
Yeah the only actual numbers (and the most damning) in the article say that they promised 5% and delivered less than 1%. That said, it really would have been nice if they'd linked directly to the reports and documents they used as sources. They list their sources as: The NW Natural 2023 Annual Renewable Natural Gas Compliance Report, Oregon Senate Bill 98 (2019), and the 2022 NW Natural Integrated Resource Plan.
They also partnered with BP (wearing a disguise called Archaea, because Deepwater Horizon ruined their name) but they only have one facility listed in Oregon so far, and a few in Washington.
Given my political and environmental leanings I should be picking up a pitchfork now as the article intends, but the entire article is built on lying with statistics. > NW Natural has more retail gas customers than ever. It supplies them little, if any, renewable natural gas. It sells them as much fossil natural gas in an average year as it did before. And it wages steady battles in the courts and in local city halls…
> I saw did they say how much recovered methane they are selling to customers... misrepresenting numbers... Is the only valid journalism conducted like a war crimes commission?
Just do what Ohio did and declare natural gas green. Problem solved. /s
AI Boom Is Driving a Surprise Resurgence of US Gas-Fired Power
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-16/us-natura...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I saw did they say how much recovered methane they are selling to customers... misrepresenting numbers... Is the only valid journalism conducted like a war crimes commission?
Providing concrete numbers directly to support your conclusions is not a war crimes commission. It just means you might have accidentally read some Tufte at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Providing concrete numbers directly to support your conclusions is not a war crimes commission. It just means you might have accidentally read some Tufte at some point.
What concrete numbers would persuade you one way or another? You are probably not going to “just” answer that question, which should illuminate for you why the only place your brand of skepticism gets air time is among people who have made up their minds about everything. Even though I think you are being sincere, the thing you are advocating for is co-opted by people who are not.
I’ve come to the conclusion the only way to make progress on carbon is to ban the sale of new devices that use fossil fuel when an alternative technology exists. Either that, or use military force to shut down one refinery a day until there are none left.
>I’ve come to the conclusion the only way to make progress on carbon is to ban the sale of new devices that use fossil fuel when an alternative technology exists. Maybe if you're a dictator. In the real world you'll face tons of political opposition https://www.euractiv.com/section/transport/news/combustion-e... https://www.politico.eu/article/heat-pumps-exploded-germany-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What concrete numbers would persuade you one way or another? You are probably not going to “just” answer that question, which should illuminate for you why the only place your brand of skepticism gets air time is among people who have made up their minds about everything. Even though I think you are being sincere, the thing you are advocating for is co-opted by people who are not.
Companies grow in volume all the time. It’s a common way to vilify companies by ignoring their mix of good and bad and just focus on them doing the same volume of bad, despite doing more volume overall. I already suspected from the headline that’s exactly what they were doing, and they didn’t exceed my low expectations.