Should natural gas be part of plans to combat global warming?

  • Natural Gas should absolutely be used to combat global warming

    The gas is available NOW in our backyards. It leaves half the carbon footprint of coal. The changeover from coal to natural gas has already begun with the effect of decreasing the US's carbon emissions to its lowest point in 20 years. A switch to turn on alternative energies is simply not available yet, but industry can easily change from coal to natural gas and from there, the use of alternative energies may be built into our utility infrastructure.

  • Any cleaner alternatives to coal and oil should be a part of combating global warming.

    While global warming is a mixed bag on causes, the only cause we can truly combat is the fossil fuel usage. For this reason, any source that minimizes oil and coal usage should be considered. Natural gas has its own draw-backs and is not the best alternative, but there is not reason to ignore alternatives just because they aren't perfect.

    Posted by: KnownEvan
  • It's there, so why not use it?

    I think that natural gas is a great way to combat global warming. After all, it's a resource that is there and available to us, so why not use it? It's not something waiting to be found, or that we can only use ten years in the future. It may not be a permanent solution, but a viable temporary one, and one that is environmentally better.

    Posted by: SloppyRaphael88
  • Natural gas is far more efficient than gasoline and coal, and is largely available in the country.

    Natural gas vehicles run more efficiently than a typical gas car. They are better for the environment, and it is cheaper to fill up your tank.

    Posted by: ReminiscentDewitt75
  • I believe natural gas should play a key part in combating global warming, because it is much better for the environment.

    Natural gas is a key component in the attempt to stop global warming. Natural gas contains much lower emissions of the gases that lead to global warming, when compared to other hydro-carbons. Natural gas is readily available, and the supply is proven to be sufficient to last for a long time.

    Posted by: N4PFerIi
  • I agree that natural gas should be part of the plans to combat global warming because natural gas appliances are efficient and natural gas is a renewable resource

    Natural gas is a renewable resource, making it a more responsible choice than petrol. Less pollution, less price gouging due to an ever dwindling supply, more efficient appliances that require less power to run, it's a win no matter how you look at it. The only real con is how awful it smells.

    Posted by: M West
  • There is a clear need for other resources of energy while we combat global warming.

    Alternative energy sources, such as natural gas, help keep the world functioning and "moving" while still not polluting the environment. It is essential to preserve all of the resources we can in order to sufficiently preserve our world and atmosphere as well. This is an easy change that can make a big difference.

    Posted by: joeandminnie
  • Natural gas should be part of plans to combat global warming.

    Natural gas is easier to produce abundantly, and it is less contaminant than oil and it is safer than oil. Based on all that, serious plans to combat global warming should consider natural gas as part of the solution.
    Natural gas can be uses in factories, homes, cars, machinery, industries, etc. The replacement from oil to natural gas is not expensive and the benefit are more than the problems.

    Posted by: l0olllooi
  • I support the use of natural gas to combat global warming, at the very least as an intermediate step.

    Although natural gas does contribute to global warming, it burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels. While waiting for cleaner energy sources to become more feasible, the use of natural gas over petroleum and coal could represent an intermediate step. Any movement in the right direction is welcomed, and though natural gas is far from perfect it would represent an improvement over some energy sources currently in use.

    Posted by: TamiaH
  • Natural gas should be part of any environmental plan because it is less harmful on the planet than oil.

    In the long fun, natural gas can provide all the benefits of using oil without the same harmful effect on the environment. It is cleaner and, in the long run, it's a better idea. More attention should be made in finding alternatives to oil. Changes doesn't happen overnight, but by increasing the use of natural gas we will eventually get to the point where it is the primary source. Combining natural gas with solar, wind and nuclear will only be beneficial to the country, and the world, in the long run.

    Posted by: jeanipok
  • Given that all fossil fuels, including natural gas, are non-renewable resources, and that the extraction of natural gas has negative environmental consequences, we should invest in alternative energy sources.

    Switching to a natural gas economy would, at best, prove to be a stop-gap measure and not a permanent solution to our energy needs. Like petroleum, natural gas in a fossil fuel and a non-renewable resource, meaning that, when supplies are depleted, we'll need to look for another energy source. Also, recent evidence has shown that hydraulic fracturing, the preferred method being deployed to tap natural gas deposits, may be endangering local ground water supplies at fracturing sites. Unintentional release of natural gas into the atmosphere also contributes to global warming. While it may take decades to develop cleaner, economically sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel, we must invest in these technologies now, if we hope to slow the advance of global warming and the other environmental damage caused by the extraction and use of fossil fuels.

    Posted by: SmartOber
  • I do not think natural gas should be part of the plan to combat global warming because we need clean energy.

    I do not believe that natural gas should be included as a part of the plans to combat global warming. We should be switching everything to clean energy such as solar, water and wind. All of these are effective in producing electricity and running automobiles. They are clean and cause no pollution and utilize things that are constantly available and part of our natural environment, and are renewable resources!

    Posted by: ExcitedRonald
  • No, other alternatives need to be sought out, because natural gas is non-renewable.

    Natural gas is a good energy resource that needs to be tapped. But, those who view it as the cornerstone to a long-term alternative energy policy are mistaken. This is because natural gas is a non-renewable resource that will eventually run out, like fossil fuels. For a short-term solution, it works great. But, for long-term plans, it too will eventually fall to the same pitfalls as fossil fuels.

    Posted by: R4yAnych
  • Natural gas should not be part of plans to combat global warming because, while natural gas is a relatively clean-burning energy source, the cost to the environment of extracting it is not worth it.

    Natural gas is often obtained by the process of fracking. Fracking has many deleterious effects, including contamination of ground water with dangerous chemicals, and disruption of irrigation water sources. So, although natural gas is a relatively clean-burning source of energy, it is not worth the environmental cost to extract it. Other, cleaner sources of energy should be used to combat global warming.

    Posted by: 5l4y3rChr
  • I disagree that natural gas should be a part of a plan to combat global warming, because it is still a fossil fuel that is not easy to renew.

    Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are spent and not easily replenished, and they are fuels formed by nature which take millions of years to create. Renewable energy such as bio-fuels are a much better resource than natural gas, because the energy renews itself right away. Bio-fuel energy is made from nature and comes from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled greases.

    Posted by: WeaverRick
  • Natural gas has methane which is one of the major contributors to global warming.

    Since methane is a part of the natural gas, it's use should not be encouraged simply because it would not help control global warming. There's no doubt it is cleaner to use and less costly than fossil fuels like coal, but it is still a major factor towards air pollution. We should not use it simply because it is less `bad' than the `worse' solution. I totally disagree that its use should be encouraged in order to combat global warming.

    Posted by: babyphatgurl
  • Natural gas is also a fossil fuel that releases carbon dioxide when it burns.

    Although natural gas is cleaner burning than coal, and doesn't have all the impurities that release sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere, it still has carbon dioxide as a bi-product of burning. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and the use of anything that releases CO2 needs to be lessened not increased. Wind, solar, hydroelectric and other environmentally sound energy sources don't release CO2.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • Natural gas should not be a part of the plans to combat global warming because it isn't enough.

    Natural gas should not be a part of the plans to combat global warming because it isn't enough. It's a small step, but not big enough. It doesn't address the core problems, but just substitutes one dependency on another non-renewable one. Yes, it's greener than coal and oil, but resources should be focused on more practical solutions.

    Posted by: H0bi3Invader

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.