Well, my comments in a New York Times piece about natural gas have certainly provoked a lot of reaction, including some who thought I was arguing that coal is a better fuel from a climate standpoint than natural gas.  Not what I said, for sure. Nor what I think.

No, the point of my statements to the Times reporter is that to protect the climate we need to keep cumulative CO2 emissions over the coming decades below amounts that will produce disastrous disruption of the climate.  That means we need a game plan that keeps emissions from all fossil fuels in check---no fossil fuel that is abundant can be given a free pass.  A ton of fossil CO2 that goes to the atmosphere does the same damage to the climate, whether it comes from oil, or coal, or natural gas.

Does that mean we can't make use of natural gas to help limit emissions?  No, we can.   Done right, natural gas has many advantages.  It is a tool that can help or hurt our climate protection goals depending how it is used.  If natural gas backs out the use of dirtier fuels, like coal from uncontrolled power plants, it helps.  But if natural gas displaces opportunities to invest in energy efficiency or renewable energy, it hurts.

That means clean energy advocates need to push for policies that prioritize clean energy options like efficiency and renewables and assure that natural gas and any other fossil fuels we consume are used in a way that minimizes their CO2 emissions.