[jcampbell1]

Drill in this context means to lift carbon baed fuels stored deep underground and bring it to the surface where it will be converted to energy and then go into the atmosphere.

Irony requires a reversal of expectations. The logical expected consequence of drilling is increased greenhouse gas emissions. What in fact happened was the reverse. This is textbook irony.

[alexqgb]

"Drill", in this context, also means "for oil". Specifically, "in Alaska". Even more specifically, "in ANWR".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Because ANWR would supply petroleum (a fuel mostly used for transportation and scarcely ever used for generating electricity), it has virtually nothing to do with the market for coal (which is used almost entirely for generating electricity), or disruptions to that market caused by a growing reliance on natural gas (which is also frequently used for heating, but remains uncommon in the transportation market).

And because transportation networks and electrical grids have so little overlap in terms of power supplies, policy choices made about Alaskan petroleum have little direct connection with policy choices related to fracking for natural gas. So no, there is no irony in any of this. The word is simply inapplicable.

[Daniel_Newby]

Natural gas is a hydrogen based fuel.

[amalcon]

Natural gas is made up of hydrocarbons, mostly methane, so it's both hydrogen-based and carbon-based.