[ivan_gammel]

Saying that it is “greenwashing” is ridiculous. The gas is called natural because when it was discovered it came from nature, not from manufacturing by heating coal. This name is older than marketing or green politics and it is quite natural way to call this gas.

[shkkmo]

The origin of the term doesn't mean that the term isn't an effective form of greenwashing that creates false perceptions around its harmful effects.

[ivan_gammel]

The obvious fix for this is better education and a good understanding of the meaning of words ind different contexts. It is a way better than broadly applying various labels to the point when they become completely void of any special meaning.

Greenwashing is an intentional effort to portray greenhouse gas emissions as safe by relativizing their contribution to the climate change. Calling natural gas natural according to an old tradition is not the same.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

Would it be wrong of me to coin the terms Natural Organic Oil and Natural Coal? They are both, in fact, natural and organic after all. Adding a prefix like Natural or Organic definitely resonates with a lot of people and builds a perception that it’s “clean.” It’s not ridiculous to point out this fact, it was clearly chosen with intent to mislead. The problem with Oil and Coal is that it’s hard to sell it this way because they’re already widely known to be disastrous for the environment.

[ivan_gammel]

If you could do that in a letter exchange with Humphry Davy, Lavoisier or other scientist in 1750-1850, that would be fine, though they would probably ask why. There were scientific reasons for giving the name to natural gas (to differentiate from manufacturing process). Can you suggest any reason for your terms?

Anyway, if you would do it today, it is really hard to justify, not least because there exist new meanings of the words now and there exist already sufficiently good classifications. Context does matter.

[globalnode]

its greenwashing in the sense that its a convenient historical term used to mislead the average (contemporary) punter that its ok for the environment. so it has less emissions than coal, doesnt make it safe... just call it gas and drop the natural.

[shkkmo]

If you think that the emphasis of the name "natural gas" over other just "gas" or other common terms for it isn't intentional, then you are quite naive.

Education does not change how these sorts of tricks affect our brains. Research has shown that using the term "Natural Gas" creates false impressions of the its environmental impact.

[ivan_gammel]

>If you think that the emphasis of the name "natural gas" over other just "gas" or other common terms for it isn't intentional, then you are quite naive.

Assumption about my personality doesn’t make your statement right or make sense. Of course it was intentional, just not the way you suggest here. The name “natural gas” exists in many languages, literally means “coming from nature” and is being used for centuries. Major suppliers outside USA use this name in contracts etc. Nobody is going to rename it just because American education system is so bad that people are getting confused.

>Education does not change how these sorts of tricks affect our brains. Research has shown that using the term "Natural Gas" creates false impressions of the its environmental impact.

Proof link? What factors were controlled in that research?

[shkkmo]

While the name was not coined as a form of greenwashing, the industry has a long history of greenwashing and outright lies. It is naive to think this industry hasn't considered what label to use for this product and how that affects public perception. It absolutely effects their efforts to dismiss for accurate alternative labels.

Not exactly hard to find, but here you go. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/should-it...

Do you have proof that this association or this type of association is correlated with education?

[ivan_gammel]

>It is naive to think this industry hasn't considered what label to use for this product

It is not a label, it is scientifically established and accurate name that nobody except some woke and poorly educated Americans wants to change.

The associations of the name with other terms are not correlated with education, they are caused by it, ergo the only proof needed is logical. If you know what it is, you describe it exactly as it really is — clean when burning if compared to coal, producing even stronger greenhouse effect when directly released to atmosphere.

[Teever]

So what do you think we should rename it to?

[OrwellianChild]

"Natural Gas" is 97% methane, so it's probably most direct to just refer to it by it's primary component...

[badpun]

In Poland, it's called "Earth gas" or "ground gas".

[dskloet]

Also in Dutch: aardgas

[namibj]

And German: Erdgas.

[Faaak]

In some countries it is also called "city gas"

[Al-Khwarizmi]

City gas was obtained from distilling hard coal or, later, from gasoline. So not the same thing as natural gas.

[adrianN]

City gas is actually something else, it's coal gas.

[Faaak]

Yes, but it's still called that way

[VintageCool]

It has become popular to refer to it as "fossil gas".

[scotty79]

oil gas? carbon gas? fuel gas? fossil gas?