By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - DoE Rebrands Fossil Fuels to "Freedom Gas" - Not Satire

KLAMarine said:
NintendoCM said:

You seem to be so caught up in what I presume to either be your need to defend the United States or Trump. I don't want to assume that it's Trump, so I won't. But there is no defense to the story. It just highlights that the DoE is truly inept when it comes to the dangerous problem of climate change. Therefore it is ironic they are "renaming" fossil fuels. You don't need to snap at every post that points out how asinine the DoE is acting. 

Except the DoE is NOT renaming fossil fuels.

Please observe for example the DoE's own website:

https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/fossil

sethnintendo said:

Guy is so dumb on history prob doesnt even realize Russia fought the Germans more than any country.  Sure we helped them with lend lease program but they took brunt of assault and casualties of Germany.  USA (my country) merely stepped into war at end.  Now talk about Japan....  We kicked their fucking ass.

Not just Russia but the USSR fought Nazi Germany as did Britain and the US. D-Day landings were conducted mainly by British, US, and Canadian forces.

You wanna talk history?

EricHiggin said:

Trump is clearly against political correctness, yet he, and/or his subordinates are using a form of political correctness to make something that's seen as negative, look positive.

What's even funnier is that it's hypocritical from the other side as well. Trumps opposition, who's hardcore about political correctness, see's this, and bashes Trump and his administration for using political correctness.

Which leads to a partial reasoning as to why Trump behaves as he does, because he knows the blame is coming his way, one way or another, no matter the hypocritical justification in this case, so he just goes ahead and does whatever he wants anyway.

If everyone's ordering hypocrisy off the menu since it's oh so satisfying, even though it costs an arm and a leg and your soul, why shouldn't he have a plate? Based on some of his trolling, at times using his opponents tactics against them for his own gain, this is right up his alley.

This all seems highly speculative.

Mnementh said:

One thing was pretty stable over the past decades: natural gas deliveries by Russia. Even during the cold war. The US on the other hand has shown time and time again, that they are willing to use every lever to influence other countries. So europe should go away from stable gas deliveries by Russia to replace them by more expensive one by the US that could be utilized in a conflict? Sounds not too intelligent.

If Europe would prefer to only have one supplier rather than two, that's totally up to them. Not a good idea though since if your sole supplier runs into trouble, Europe is left without gas.

It's actually very smart to have more than one source.

SpokenTruth said:

I can't believe you're attempting to spin this.

I don't care about the specifics of the deals.  That's a different subject. But the absolute inanity on display as the DoE patriotizes natural gas and hydrocarbons is both laughable and extremely cringe worthy. 

Seriously, imagine being a foreign dignitary trying to foster an energy contract and having to write and talk about (and sign a contract for) 'molecules of US freedom'. 

I'm not the one spinning, you're the one who quote-mined.

Tell you what: if you ever come across 'freedom gas' or 'molecules of US freedom' in official written documents, let me know.

RolStoppable said:

Sure, but not too long afterwards things were turning to keep Europe being dependent on the USA. The whole idea of the European Union was to form a superpower on its own in order to not become a toy of an existing superpower. While the Soviet Union was an obvious enemy, the USA too turned into a potential threat eventually.

The US isn't much of a threat when it's on the other side of the Atlantic.

There is a reason I put renaming in quotes. I fully read the article, I'm merely equating the article into effective terms. They are attempting to make fossil fuels seem less damaging than they are, which is *extremely* dangerous to efforts to combat climate change. This article is simply highlighting the issues with our DoE and how our country is leagues behind on this imperative fight due to the DoE and the Trump Administration. 



Around the Network
NintendoCM said:
KLAMarine said:

Except the DoE is NOT renaming fossil fuels.

Please observe for example the DoE's own website:

https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/fossil

Not just Russia but the USSR fought Nazi Germany as did Britain and the US. D-Day landings were conducted mainly by British, US, and Canadian forces.

You wanna talk history?

This all seems highly speculative.

If Europe would prefer to only have one supplier rather than two, that's totally up to them. Not a good idea though since if your sole supplier runs into trouble, Europe is left without gas.

It's actually very smart to have more than one source.

I'm not the one spinning, you're the one who quote-mined.

Tell you what: if you ever come across 'freedom gas' or 'molecules of US freedom' in official written documents, let me know.

The US isn't much of a threat when it's on the other side of the Atlantic.

There is a reason I put renaming in quotes. I fully read the article, I'm merely equating the article into effective terms. They are attempting to make fossil fuels seem less damaging than they are, which is *extremely* dangerous to efforts to combat climate change. This article is simply highlighting the issues with our DoE and how our country is leagues behind on this imperative fight due to the DoE and the Trump Administration. 

The DOE name in itself is a problem if you go deep enough. Look how long it's been around and how long fossil fuels have been said to be a problem. Is the "Department of Energy" really the best name for it, or is it just the most politically correct?



EricHiggin said:
KLAMarine said:

This all seems highly speculative.

Trump/DOE trying to remove the negativity towards fossil fuels and natural gas due to climate change - "Molecules of Freedom", "Freedom Gas".

Ilhan Omar trying to remove the negativity towards Muslims and their civil liberties due to 9/11 - "Some people did something".

It's all just business and/or politics in the end.

Except "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" seem more a response to Europe's reliance on Russian gas imports, not climate change.

NintendoCM said:
KLAMarine said:

Except the DoE is NOT renaming fossil fuels.

Please observe for example the DoE's own website:

https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/fossil

Not just Russia but the USSR fought Nazi Germany as did Britain and the US. D-Day landings were conducted mainly by British, US, and Canadian forces.

You wanna talk history?

This all seems highly speculative.

If Europe would prefer to only have one supplier rather than two, that's totally up to them. Not a good idea though since if your sole supplier runs into trouble, Europe is left without gas.

It's actually very smart to have more than one source.

I'm not the one spinning, you're the one who quote-mined.

Tell you what: if you ever come across 'freedom gas' or 'molecules of US freedom' in official written documents, let me know.

The US isn't much of a threat when it's on the other side of the Atlantic.

There is a reason I put renaming in quotes. I fully read the article, I'm merely equating the article into effective terms. They are attempting to make fossil fuels seem less damaging than they are, which is *extremely* dangerous to efforts to combat climate change. This article is simply highlighting the issues with our DoE and how our country is leagues behind on this imperative fight due to the DoE and the Trump Administration. 

"They are attempting to make fossil fuels seem less damaging than they are, which is *extremely* dangerous to efforts to combat climate change."

But alleged renamings to 'freedom gas' and 'molecules of US freedom' say nothing about natural gas' effect to the climate.



KLAMarine said:
EricHiggin said:

Trump/DOE trying to remove the negativity towards fossil fuels and natural gas due to climate change - "Molecules of Freedom", "Freedom Gas".

Ilhan Omar trying to remove the negativity towards Muslims and their civil liberties due to 9/11 - "Some people did something".

It's all just business and/or politics in the end.

Except "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" seem more a response to Europe's reliance on Russian gas imports, not climate change.

At face value yes, but this is a perfect excuse to try and change the viewpoint about climate change worldwide. Like Omar using her position to try and change the viewpoint about Muslims and their culture's beliefs and any ties to terrorism worldwide. Not letting an opportunity go to waste.

It's all just business and/or politics in the end.



EricHiggin said:
KLAMarine said:

Except "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" seem more a response to Europe's reliance on Russian gas imports, not climate change.

At face value yes, but this is a perfect excuse to try and change the viewpoint about climate change worldwide. Like Omar using her position to try and change the viewpoint about Muslims and their culture's beliefs and any ties to terrorism worldwide. Not letting an opportunity go to waste.

It's all just business and/or politics in the end.

So have either "Molecules of Freedom" or "Freedom Gas" been used to "try and change the viewpoint about climate change worldwide"?



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
EricHiggin said:

At face value yes, but this is a perfect excuse to try and change the viewpoint about climate change worldwide. Like Omar using her position to try and change the viewpoint about Muslims and their culture's beliefs and any ties to terrorism worldwide. Not letting an opportunity go to waste.

It's all just business and/or politics in the end.

So have either "Molecules of Freedom" or "Freedom Gas" been used to "try and change the viewpoint about climate change worldwide"?

That would be the point of naming them in such a fashion. What type of evidence and how much time is necessary to prove it has created the desired change?



EricHiggin said:
KLAMarine said:

So have either "Molecules of Freedom" or "Freedom Gas" been used to "try and change the viewpoint about climate change worldwide"?

That would be the point of naming them in such a fashion. What type of evidence and how much time is necessary to prove it has created the desired change?

But "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" were both brought up with regards to exporting natural gas. They had nothing to do with climate change.



KLAMarine said:
Pemalite said:

Of course "Freedom gas" is going to be a terminology that catches on when you assert that you are providing freedom via gas. (Europe is pretty free anyway, meaning that statement was entirely unnecessary to begin with.)

Taking an apologetic perspective on this isn't really isn't helping either way. It's political correctness and the Trump administration is using it to it's advantage to rally it's patriotic fan base.
Aka. It's hypocritical.

As an Australian, I do rather enjoy the free entertainment that Trump has brought to the table since gaining power, it's been highly amusing... Definitely been an ongoing joke on the world stage that's for sure. - Still wish him the best of success of course... But when he (Or his administration for that matter!) is being  hypocritical or there are screws up, you need to call it out for what it is.

So please explain how it's hypocritical.

I didn't think it needed to be said due to how obvious it is.
But the far-right, Trump included generally whinges about political correctness... And then goes ahead and promotes political correctness because it fits in with their narrative.

EricHiggin said:

What's even funnier is that it's hypocritical from the other side as well. Trumps opposition, who's hardcore about political correctness, see's this, and bashes Trump and his administration for using political correctness.

Indeed, Trumps opponents who typically promote Political Correctness are being a little hypocritical as well.
I'm not one of them though. :P

KLAMarine said:
EricHiggin said:

That would be the point of naming them in such a fashion. What type of evidence and how much time is necessary to prove it has created the desired change?

But "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" were both brought up with regards to exporting natural gas. They had nothing to do with climate change.

Yeah. I don't think it will impact climate change efforts from either side.
The worst it will do is paint fossil fuels in a slightly more positive light for your average Patriot.

I think we are at that tipping point where the science is pretty solid on how fossil fuels affect climate, renaming a few things isn't likely to undermine that a great deal going forward.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

KLAMarine said:
EricHiggin said:

That would be the point of naming them in such a fashion. What type of evidence and how much time is necessary to prove it has created the desired change?

But "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" were both brought up with regards to exporting natural gas. They had nothing to do with climate change.

Two planes fly into two skyscrapers...

'Ah, nothing to look into here. Just a couple pilots who made a mistake. No biggy'... 'Terrorism? That's absurd, obviously that's not what happened. How do you explain them getting into the country, getting on the planes, getting control of the planes, veering way off course, avoiding the air force, and crashing them into those two specific buildings?'

'Oh... well then... who would have thought?'...



Pemalite said:
KLAMarine said:

But "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" were both brought up with regards to exporting natural gas. They had nothing to do with climate change.

Yeah. I don't think it will impact climate change efforts from either side.
The worst it will do is paint fossil fuels in a slightly more positive light for your average Patriot.

I think we are at that tipping point where the science is pretty solid on how fossil fuels affect climate, renaming a few things isn't likely to undermine that a great deal going forward.

I don't see this in particular necessarily making a major impact on the overall viewpoint of climate change, but not every attempt at making change has to be done in a manner that makes a big splash. Sometimes you have to take baby steps to get to your goal. Sometime you have to push. Sometimes it just takes time.

As stupid as some people seem to think Trump and his administration is, I seriously can't believe they would be dumb enough not to take climate change into account based on their energy push against renewables.

One word that is extremely good at getting people to side with you, is...

Replace "our lives" with our jobs, income, etc, and you can see why freedom is the right word because it covers more than just the business aspect. Politically it's a really smart move on their part.