Except the DoE is NOT renaming fossil fuels.
Please observe for example the DoE's own website:
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.