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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?
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.
>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.
> It is not a label, it is scientifically established and accurate name
Not all all. To someone who only understands the meanings of the individual words, the term is extremely ambigous. "Natural gas" could simply mean "air" or could refer to any gas that is naturally occuring in our atmosphere.
The reason why "natural gas" has the meaning that it does is purely convention and has no scientific basis or justification.
> The associations of the name with other terms are not correlated with education, they are caused by it
Education is not how we learn language. We learn language primarily contextually based on experience. While learning additional languages can be assisted by education, contextual experiencea are required for mastery.
> ergo the only proof needed is logical.
That's not how logic works...at all
> nobody except some woke and poorly educated Americans wants to change.
Scientists at Yale are "poorly educated"...? Throwing that accusation out pair with the word 'woke' exposes you as a partisan who has no intrest in learning or constructive discussion
That's not how logic works. Go learn about how logic and science are used together.
> someone who only understands the meanings of the individual words…
This person probably has a communication disability if they are not able to use language properly. We are not speaking in individual words, we use sentences and grammar, metaphors and homonyms, we have a lot of context even in low-context cultures. All of this can be learned and this is what education is for.
> Scientists at Yale are "poorly educated"...?
Maybe. Ivy League university or scientific degree is not a seal of quality. When you design such research only to control for political affiliation, that’s a bad science.
