[Politics][Humor] FREEDOM GAS!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

https://www.dw.com/en/white-house-touts-freedom-gas-as-next-critical-us-export/a-48973948

The department of energy, under Rick Perry, has decided to rebrand natural gas as "freedom gas", which they will export to the world. Molecules of American FREEDOM. Official department policy is to refer to natural gas as such.

This is too damn funny, I saw the headline and thought it was the Onion at first.

Freedom from what? Freedom from self-awareness, good taste and sanity apparently.

crimson5pheonix:
https://www.dw.com/en/white-house-touts-freedom-gas-as-next-critical-us-export/a-48973948

The department of energy, under Rick Perry, has decided to rebrand natural gas as "freedom gas", which they will export to the world. Molecules of American FREEDOM. Official department policy is to refer to natural gas as such.

This is too damn funny, I saw the headline and thought it was the Onion at first.

This can not be a thing. People can't be that stupid

Making America the Butt of Jokes Again.

MABJA?

crimson5pheonix:
https://www.dw.com/en/white-house-touts-freedom-gas-as-next-critical-us-export/a-48973948

The department of energy, under Rick Perry, has decided to rebrand natural gas as "freedom gas", which they will export to the world. Molecules of American FREEDOM. Official department policy is to refer to natural gas as such.

This is too damn funny, I saw the headline and thought it was the Onion at first.

Man, the kool aid is flowing thick and far through this administration.

Wow, that sure is something. Reminds me of that Freedom Fries thing back in 2003.

Man, that was stupid, tho this might actually be even dumber.

I am reminded of the time environmentalists tried to have natural gas relabeled as fossil gas. Something I initially thought was excessive but after realizing that I subconsciously had a more positive view of natural gas because of the the word "natural" in the phrase I am on board with calling it fossil gas.

Which is another way of saying that I vehemently disagree with this relabeling. Natural gas is natural in the sense that it exists without any interference of humans, so that label makes some sense. It's fossil in the sense that it is the byproduct of natural processes millions of years ago(often in connection with oil and coal), so that label makes sense. How on earth is it related to freedom?

The USA is being very cynical about this.

They can see the way the (pollution-bearing) wind is blowing: fossil fuels are on the way out one way or another. Thus what they're doing is frantically digging as much of theirs out as possible before they become effectively valueless. Nevertheless, it's a very "short term gain long term gain" policy given the risks of climate change.

I have mixed feelings. On a national level every time a megastorm dumps half the sea over a coastal American city or a load of tornados rip up the midwest or another large chunk of Florida sinks underwater, I think "Serves you right". But at the level of individuals I feel very sorry for them, because it's not like the ones taking the punishment made the big decisions they're suffering from.

One day they'll probably label everything 'Freedom' something. It's like they genuinely believe theirs is the only free country in the world.

We can't talk though. Remember when Tony Abbott tried rebranding Coal-burning power plants as using 'Clean-Coal'?

crimson5pheonix:

The department of energy, under Rick Perry, has decided to rebrand natural gas as "freedom gas", which they will export to the world. Molecules of American FREEDOM. Official department policy is to refer to natural gas as such.

Getting serious...

Let's see what sort of freedom it means for the people of Vanuatu when their whole country goes under the waves. Do you think the USA (and others) will compensate them appropriately? I don't. They'll probably just get refugee-level treatment in somewhere like New Zealand.

To me, this sums up a lot of the outrage: it's a total bullshit notion of "freedom". This is getting tangential but it makes me remember so many arguments I've had with stricter libertarians, and this is a major sort of thing they hand-wave away. They love their negative freedom stuff, that you can do what you like with what's yours, but if you damage other people and their stuff you should pay. But this is only notional: in practice, for things like climate change, they know perfectly well they can fill the skies with pollutants, give millions of people asthma and sink huge tracts of land other people own under rising seas, and no-one's ever going to come and collect from them. And oh so conveniently, we can't tax them either because that's "theft", and, y'know... freedom!

It can be the slimiest, shittiest, most cynical exploitation of how we can practically or temporally assess consequences to allow them to infringe on other people's freedom to their own profit. In some cases it's dodging responsibility by hiding behild layers of moral and legal insulation: "My national laws said I could do this, so you can't hold me responsible." "Well, I didn't totally know at the time, there was merely a 97% scientific consensus." "It was my dad who made that $5billion, you can't punish me even though I inherited it." etc. Perhaps in some cases it's just a complete lack of imagination about how far consequences can spread.

I like to pick on libertarians over this sort of thing because most non-libertarians have much greater appreciation of more proactive structures and regulations to prevent potential harm. Libertarians often want those slashed away, and yet don't seem to be investing thought and effort into systems of post-hoc justice and redress for harm inflicted which might be equivalent.

something gives me the impression the types of people we're dealing with here are those who take the Starship Troopers film at face value; as a positive celebration of US militaristic zest. probably while cheering, firing their guns into the ceiling and yeehawing throughout

Squilookle:
We can't talk though. Remember when Tony Abbott tried rebranding Coal-burning power plants as using 'Clean-Coal'?

In fairness, there was also a push to reduce or capture emissions (which the Greens opposed, because of course they did). "Clean Coal" is a lie, "Cleaner Coal" not so much. Not nearly as good as replacing coal with renewables, significantly better than what we had.

Just what i needed to cook my Freedom Fries. Well, that, and a bottle of Freedom Oil.

Remember when they wanted to rename the french fries as "freedom fries" because France refused to support the invasion of Iraq?

image

Freedom Fries didn't last long, and neither will this.

"Freedom Gas! Brought to you via imperialistic wars, where we basically stole it from middle-eastern countries we're drone bombing tons of innocent civilians in! Now THAT'S what I call FREEDO-Wait, why is the internet roasting us?"

The sad part is that, for the most part, the DoE, which is ran by Former Texas Governor Rick "opps" Perry, remains the only department that I've heard of so far that hasn't had some kind of serious scandal attached to it in the last 2+ years of the Trump administration. I've been operating under the theory that Perry's indictment as governor gave him a "hot stove moment" that has ironically made him smarter about doing shady things.

My reaction to this is "eh." The bigger carbon pollutants are oil and coal. Natural gas is pretty much the lower-carbon fossil fuel options, so my bigger concerns about it tend to be that natural gas extraction is more of a pollutant with the chemicals and frakking techniques that literally cause earthquakes and contaminate water supplies. A dumb promotional stunt is barely worth raising an eyebrow in this dumpster-fire of a presidency...

Tell me when we move onto Freedom Nukes and swallow the red pill on Nuclear Power.

Leg End:
Tell me when we move onto Freedom Nukes and swallow the red pill on Nuclear Power.

.
^^^
This guy.

Go Nuclear hopefully till you go fusion, leave green as an ancillary, not a main source.
.

AMERICA, F*CK YEAH!

Goddamnit, somebody tell this idiot we export troops to bring oil and gas back home, not the other way around.

Chimpzy:
Wow, that sure is something. Reminds me of that Freedom Fries thing back in 2003.

Man, that was stupid, tho this might actually be even dumber.

Oh but we have such a long tradition of doing this, we can't possibly back out now. Hell, way back during WW1 we pretty much renamed anything German related. Sauerkraut was Liberty Cabbage, hamburgers were called Liberty Sandwiches, etc. My personal favorite is that they changed Rubella to Liberty Measles....because national pride and hatred of the other knows no fucking bounds.

Honestly though, this is fucking pathetic. It's like they WANT to raise anti-American sentiment across the globe.

Ah yes. The freedom to pollute without paying.

The freedom to have one's head in the tar sands while the planet's burning.

The freedom to hold onto fossil fuels as long as possible.

The freedom to act like complete morons.

Cue "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme, because within my lifetime, chances are we won't have a habitable (for humans) planet left, because we've got morons at the steering wheel.

I actually really like this. It's an entertaining change at the least. Now I can always claim I'm grilling with Freedom! Or huffing FREEDOM!

Hawki:
Ah yes. The freedom to pollute without paying.

The freedom to have one's head in the tar sands while the planet's burning.

The freedom to hold onto fossil fuels as long as possible.

The freedom to act like complete morons.

Cue "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme, because within my lifetime, chances are we won't have a habitable (for humans) planet left, because we've got morons at the steering wheel.

Why do you hate freedom?

IceForce:

Hawki:
Ah yes. The freedom to pollute without paying.

The freedom to have one's head in the tar sands while the planet's burning.

The freedom to hold onto fossil fuels as long as possible.

The freedom to act like complete morons.

Cue "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme, because within my lifetime, chances are we won't have a habitable (for humans) planet left, because we've got morons at the steering wheel.

Why do you hate freedom?

Because I'm one of those dirty reds/cultural marxists/socialists/green fascists that you've probably heard about. :p

Ah yes, natural gas, the rich douchebag's solution to climate change.

Thaluikhain:

Squilookle:
We can't talk though. Remember when Tony Abbott tried rebranding Coal-burning power plants as using 'Clean-Coal'?

In fairness, there was also a push to reduce or capture emissions (which the Greens opposed, because of course they did). "Clean Coal" is a lie, "Cleaner Coal" not so much. Not nearly as good as replacing coal with renewables, significantly better than what we had.

I liked when he called it brown coal like it's better than normal.

Also, I liked when Morrison brought in a chunk of coal into parliament as a cross to scare away the coal heretics

So, we have clean coal, freedom gas, whats next? Patriotic oil? Holy Soybeans?

generals3:
So, we have clean coal, freedom gas, whats next? Patriotic oil? Holy Soybeans?

I predict a turn for the worse for labelling renewables.

Maoist Solar, Bolshevik Wind, Commie Hydro. Probably represented as a trio of comic book villains.

Hawki:
Cue "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme, because within my lifetime, chances are we won't have a habitable (for humans) planet left, because we've got morons at the steering wheel.

C'mon dude, I've got some prime beach lots to sell to you. Marshall Islands sounds like a good place to retire, no?

Anyway, we will probably use up all natural gas and almost all oil. Oil shale and coal should be left in the ground.

Guys, come on, April Fool's was a couple months ago, you missed your chance for jokes

Thaluikhain:

Squilookle:
We can't talk though. Remember when Tony Abbott tried rebranding Coal-burning power plants as using 'Clean-Coal'?

In fairness, there was also a push to reduce or capture emissions (which the Greens opposed, because of course they did). "Clean Coal" is a lie, "Cleaner Coal" not so much. Not nearly as good as replacing coal with renewables, significantly better than what we had.

Can't find any info about the greens opposing a push to reduce emissions, only their opposing Rabbott's reduction of target levels. My google-fu appears to be weak, can ya give me some more context please?

DarthCoercis:

Thaluikhain:

Squilookle:
We can't talk though. Remember when Tony Abbott tried rebranding Coal-burning power plants as using 'Clean-Coal'?

In fairness, there was also a push to reduce or capture emissions (which the Greens opposed, because of course they did). "Clean Coal" is a lie, "Cleaner Coal" not so much. Not nearly as good as replacing coal with renewables, significantly better than what we had.

Can't find any info about the greens opposing a push to reduce emissions, only their opposing Rabbott's reduction of target levels. My google-fu appears to be weak, can ya give me some more context please?

Yeah, googling it isn't that helpful, as the name of the party is "Greens", and "Green" is going to come up in any discussion of the subject.

Anyway, there was a push some years back for CO2 sequestration (my dad worked on that). Instead of letting the CO2 go into the atmosphere, you collect (some of) it and stick it somewhere else. A worked out coal mine, for example, the remaining coal is absorbent (not unlike how filter masks use activated charcoal). This is far from a perfect solution, so the Greens opposed it, but far better than the current system of letting it all into the atmosphere, so I strongly disagree with them on this.

Apparently this is not contained to Australia: https://theconversation.com/capturing-carbon-to-fight-climate-change-is-dividing-environmentalists-110142

Now, while I respect the Greens for bringing attention to environmental issues, they consistently fail at providing workable solutions, and get in the way of people trying to make things better because they aren't going to make things perfect. OTOH, outside green issues, the Greens are a lot better, because there are lots of social issues that require simple and obvious solutions.

trunkage:
I liked when he called it brown coal like it's better than normal.

Uh...not sure about the context, but "brown coal" is just another way to refer to lignite. Which, based on the little bit of Googling I did about the relevant statements, seems like the term was used accurately if not misleadingly, considering lignite is the least efficient and dirtiest form of coal, and the most dangerous form to mine, handle, and transport as it's pretty volatile. It's barely better than straight-up burning peat; if I remember my maths right, burning it in HELE ("clean") plants is still a net emissions increase compared to even sub-bituminous coal in traditional processes.

It'd be like calling tar sands "clean oil". Which, yes, actually happens.

Is freedom gas what comes out when you fart after eating freedom fries?

Thaluikhain:

Yeah, googling it isn't that helpful, as the name of the party is "Greens", and "Green" is going to come up in any discussion of the subject.

Anyway, there was a push some years back for CO2 sequestration (my dad worked on that). Instead of letting the CO2 go into the atmosphere, you collect (some of) it and stick it somewhere else. A worked out coal mine, for example, the remaining coal is absorbent (not unlike how filter masks use activated charcoal). This is far from a perfect solution, so the Greens opposed it, but far better than the current system of letting it all into the atmosphere, so I strongly disagree with them on this.

Apparently this is not contained to Australia: https://theconversation.com/capturing-carbon-to-fight-climate-change-is-dividing-environmentalists-110142

Now, while I respect the Greens for bringing attention to environmental issues, they consistently fail at providing workable solutions, and get in the way of people trying to make things better because they aren't going to make things perfect. OTOH, outside green issues, the Greens are a lot better, because there are lots of social issues that require simple and obvious solutions.

Yeah, it's weird that The Greens have some incredibly good social and even economic ideas, while their ideas around thing they were originally formed around, environmental protection, can be... hmmm... lackadaisical... at best.

--------------

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
I liked when he called it brown coal like it's better than normal.

Uh...not sure about the context, but "brown coal" is just another way to refer to lignite. Which, based on the little bit of Googling I did about the relevant statements, seems like the term was used accurately if not misleadingly, considering lignite is the least efficient and dirtiest form of coal, and the most dangerous form to mine, handle, and transport as it's pretty volatile. It's barely better than straight-up burning peat; if I remember my maths right, burning it in HELE ("clean") plants is still a net emissions increase compared to even sub-bituminous coal in traditional processes.

Former Australian Prime Minister Phoney Rabbott had a very... loose... association with truth, to the point where he was regularly accused of being Rupert Murdoch's ventriloquist dummy (except for when it came to homophobia and extreme christianity), especially on immigration, which was kind of odd given that he himself was an immigrant. He certainly wasn't on the level of Trump when it comes to telling lies, but enough to cause problems.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here