The American Petroleum Institute provides an important public information service. Though this is mainly on behalf of the fossil fuel sector, and not actually for the advancement of truth and public understanding.
On a page entitled “Natural gas is alternative energy”, the API boldly states that “Natural gas is an alternative and natural form of energy, which can be used to replace traditional fossil fuel (gasoline and diesel).”
There are two things to note about this page. First, the grammar and writing are appalling, and second, it is wholly misleading, simply in that first sentence, without considering the rest of the poorly written text.
Whilst natural gas does produce fewer harmful emissions than do oil or coal, under the universally accepted meaning of the term, natural gas is not considered “alternative energy”. Using the phrase “alternative energy” to describe natural gas is misleading, further compounded by referring to oil and coal as “traditional fossil fuels”, giving the impression that natural gas is not in fact a fossil fuel but without directly saying so. To see this verbal slight of hand more clearly, a look at what is meant by the terms “fossil fuel” (or fossil energy) and “alternative energy” is useful.
“Fossil energy” is used to describe combustible materials produced naturally from the decomposition of organic matter – remnants of plants, animals, plankton and bacteria – fossilised over millions of years under great heat and pressures deep within the Earth. (See also the Smithsonian definition of fossil fuel.)
“Alternative energy” on the other hand, refers to forms of energy that are not the result of fossilised decomposition of organic matter over millions of years. This includes renewable alternative energy such as wind, solar, biomass, hydro, tidal and wave, which are all replenished continuously by the sun; and non-renewable alternative energy such as nuclear and geothermal. It takes in both combustibles (wood, bio gas), and non combustibles (wind, tidal etc.) The essential attribute and defining criterion of this category of energy source, however, is that its formation is not via fossilisation of dead animals and plants over millions of years.
“Alternative energy” and “fossil energy” are thus used to designate two separate categories of energy source. The term “alternative energy” is now universally used, understood and accepted throughout society (academia, media, government, industry and down at the pub) to refer to all sources of energy that are not derived from fossil fuels.
That’s my definition of alternative energy. Here are some others:
- Usable power (such as heat or electricity) that comes from a renewable or green resource. (Merriam-Webster)
- Energy fuelled in ways that do not use up the earth’s natural resources or otherwise harm the environment, especially by avoiding the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. (Oxford Lexico)
- Energy sources considered to be alternatives to fossil fuel sources (Engineering Wiki)
Interestingly, Wikipedia does not have a separate entry for alternative energy and redirects to the page on renewable energy. This is probably testament to the fact that “alternative energy” is not only understood to mean energy sources that are not fossil fuel derived, but that the term has by now become more or less synonymous with renewables that produce little if any harmful emissions, and which constitute the majority of alternative forms of energy.
The other point to note is that this accepted differentiation between alternative energy and fossil fuel energy does not at first consider the impact either form of fuel has on the environment. The fundamental defining criterion that distinguishes alternative energy and fossil fuel energy is the manner in which they are formed. Their categorisation is not ultimately in regard to what they are used for or the effects they have, and not even in their chemical composition or how they are extracted or otherwise obtained. It is how they are formed that is the fundamental bases by which “alternative energy” and “fossil fuel energy” are distinguished and taken to constitute two different categories of energy source. The fact that alternative forms of energy are less harmful to the environment than fossil fuels is significant of course, and in fact is why it is useful to invent a distinguishing term. But it is not the fundamental criterion by which we clearly distinguish these sources of fuel.
Natural gas is indisputably obtained from deep within the Earth, and moreover always in association with oil and coal, or perhaps intermediate forms such as peat. Critically, the formation of natural gas is uncontroversial in scientific terms, and can only be explained as resulting from the decomposition of the remnants of ancient organisms buried deep within the earth and subject to enormous forces and heat.
Clearly then, natural gas does not fit into the universally accepted definition of alternative energy. It is not alternative, because it is in fact a fossil fuel. Stating that “natural gas is alternative energy” is a gross misrepresentation, exploiting the received meaning of alternative energy (as just set out) to circumvent public unease at the continued use even of this less harmful fossil fuel (natural gas), when cleaner forms of energy are available.
How This Slight of Hand is Pulled Off
We have established that with the term “alternative energy” the American Petroleum Institute is using misleading language to describe natural gas. The API in fact conflates variety with category. Natural gas is a variety of fossil fuel, not an alternative to it, because in the context of energy, “alternative” refers to a different category and not a different variety of energy source. Stating that natural gas is “alternative energy” is similar to saying a wooden dining chair is alternative seating to a textile armchair. Whilst trivially this is true, categorically it is false. They are each a variety of seating, alternatives if you like and wish to be pedantic, yet they are still both part of the same category of furniture – “things to sit on” – commonly known as seating or chairs. Similarly with dogs: there are varieties among them – called breeds – yet they all still belong to the same category or species of animal “dog”.
And so it is with with oil, coal and natural gas: whilst trivially they can be viewed as alternative to each other, they are still all fossil fuels, only different varieties. They are all part of the same category of hydrocarbon based energy sources produced via ancient fossilisation and decomposition of the remnants of plants and animals over millions of years. Each is simply a different form – or breed if you like – of fossil fuel, just as a Chiwawahua and Great Dane are different breeds of dog.
And like chairs made from different materials and in different shapes and sizes, oil, coal and gas each have a use for which they are best adapted, natural gas being the lowest emitter of harmful substances when used for power generation. Coal and oil contain impurities absent in natural gas, many of which produce substances that are highly toxic when burned, such as dioxides of nitrogen and sulphur. Coal and oil are therefore best left unburned and are best used in processes that extract useful compounds for applications such as plastics and fertilisers. Natural gas therefore emerges as a better, alternative form of fossil fuel for energy production.
In the specific context of fossil versus non fossil energy such as wind, solar and hydro, the API identification of natural gas as an alternative energy is, as just noted, grossly misleading. It is not an alternative energy source, just a different form of fossil fuel. It is the the API’s use of language universally understood to mean “forms of energy that are non-fossil derived” that constitutes the slight of hand, by all appearances deliberately conflating variation within a specific category with variation between categories. (The variations are oil, coal and gas; the category is energy sources). An apple is an alternative form of fruit to oranges, to adopt the strange language of the API, but they are still both part of the category fruit. They certainly differ with regard to appearance, taste and how they are constituted, but they both share all the characteristics and are subject to the same criteria that we use to define fruit as a distinct category of food.
Where the API should have used different form or variant, they have used alternative, thus hijacking the accepted use of this word in the context of energy and harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The conflation is, on the face of it clever. The API does not actually claim that natural gas is not a fossil fuel; it simply uses language to misrepresent and mislead us into thinking that it is not a fossil fuel. This is further assisted by referring to oil and coal as “traditional fossil fuels”, which has the effect of further falsely differentiating natural gas from oil and coal, again without actually claiming that natural gas is not a fossil fuel similar to oil and coal.
To round things up, at the end of the article the API inaccurately states that:
“Most natural gas is fossil fuel formed by heat and pressure on organic material and form (sic) over millions of years. Natural gas can come from landfill gas and water/sewage treatment…“
This is also patently misleading. As noted here, natural gas is the name given to all (not most) of the gas that is formed under heat and pressure over millions of years. The gas that is produced from landfill, water and sewage treatment, and also in bio-reactors is a renewable resource termed biogas, to distinguish it from non-renewable natural gas. Both categories of gas may have a similar hydrocarbon structure, yet the process of their formation is entirely distinct in each case.
The API misinformation is a difficult slight of hand to unpick, easily missed by those not yet alert to attempts by the fossil fuel industry to thwart regulation of fossil fuel burning, further delaying the widespread use of alternative and renewable sources.
It is also another eye opening example of a shameless “alternative truth”. To drive the point home to the apprentice alternative-truther who wrote this appalling and grammatically challenged piece: natural gas is not alternative energy. It is just an alternative form of the precious, unique, irreplaceable yet highly polluting fossil fuels that we currently burn as if there were no tomorrow.
Leave a comment