4 ms·

I love the Guardian articles in general, but this time I'm a bit let down. Why didn't they bother to offer any explanation of why that term was used? Because in

I love the Guardian articles in general, but this time I'm a bit let down. Why didn't they bother to offer any explanation of why that term was used? Because in this case there actually is a very good reason (hint: several countries in Europe are dependent on gas from one not-so-democratic country that already used it as a trump card during a war conflict and hinted they would use it again). So yes, in this case it's not as ridiculous as many other expressions with freedom and the US in them.

arkades 7y ago
No, it is ridiculous. A public speech in which one says “we are effectively supporting the freedom of European states with this liquid natural gas export” may not be ridiculous, but once you strip context and just start calling it “freedom gas”, you’ve jumped the shark.
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  Yes, I agree that this particular figure of speech is ridiculous. But the underlying meaning is not. The energetic security, both long-term and short term (hot summer coming!) of several of these countries depends on Russia, in some cases in its entirety. This gas is actually of real help.
  - hurryskurry 7y ago
    Is natural gas used to cool houses in Europe? I thought natural gas was mostly used for heating. In the UK at least many house lack air conditioning. I can't speak about the continent.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
      The article in question refers to Liquified Natural Gas - it has many uses but in this particular case it's used to generate electricity in power plants.
- hurryskurry 7y ago
  Freedom gas, the new American euphemism for flatulence
lotsofpulp 7y ago
What is the benefit of changing the label of fossil fuels?
- Const-me 7y ago
  US doesn’t forcibly annex foreign countries. Don’t sponsor terrorists since at least cold war. American government doesn’t kill political opponents or journalists, neither abroad nor at home. Doesn’t use military chemical weapon against civilians. Russian government does all that and more. Buying natural resources from them is ethically questionable, and has consequences.
  - benj111 7y ago
    Exceptions to your statements in 3... 2.... 1. Edit: Um ok, sort of statement I would have thought people would disagree with. Wasn't thinking of any examples in particular :)
    - Const-me 7y ago
      I doubt it, if you had the exceptions you would write the exceptions, not the announcement. Also, even if you think US is equally evil, there’s still a difference. US is #1 economy in the world. If tomorrow everyone will stop buying American gas, this might help American economy: will obviously hurt oil mining sector, but help everything else due to falling energy prices. Hollywood, software and internet companies won’t even notice. Russian economy is very small, they’re smaller than Italy or Brazil, and they entirely depend on the export of their natural resources. If your goal is to minimize global evil, and you must select from these 2, the pick is kinda obvious, doesn’t it?
      - benj111 7y ago
        " if you had the exceptions you would write the exceptions, not the announcement" Why? All the obvious ones are well rehearsed, we all know the US isn't whiter than white. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed by the conversation, and haven't anything new or insightful to add so what's the point? And I don't think the US is "equally evil". This isn't a superhero film where everyone is either a goody or baddie. There are shades of grey, and I wouldn't use 'evil' to describe any country. So maybe we don't all know that the US isn't whiter than white, just like every other country.
Jtsummers 7y ago
Natural gas was described in the DoE press release as “molecules of US freedom”. It is ridiculous no matter where else natural gas may come from for other countries.
ptah 7y ago
it is entirely ridiculous as you would only be exchanging Russia for US. Russia is mroe easily contained than US so surely the Russian fuel has greater "freedom"
hurryskurry 7y ago
Still ridiculous. To me we should be above all that.

arkades 7y ago

No, it is ridiculous. A public speech in which one says “we are effectively supporting the freedom of European states with this liquid natural gas export” may not be ridiculous, but once you strip context and just start calling it “freedom gas”, you’ve jumped the shark.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
Yes, I agree that this particular figure of speech is ridiculous. But the underlying meaning is not. The energetic security, both long-term and short term (hot summer coming!) of several of these countries depends on Russia, in some cases in its entirety. This gas is actually of real help.
- hurryskurry 7y ago
  Is natural gas used to cool houses in Europe? I thought natural gas was mostly used for heating. In the UK at least many house lack air conditioning. I can't speak about the continent.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
    The article in question refers to Liquified Natural Gas - it has many uses but in this particular case it's used to generate electricity in power plants.
hurryskurry 7y ago
Freedom gas, the new American euphemism for flatulence

lotsofpulp 7y ago

What is the benefit of changing the label of fossil fuels?

Const-me 7y ago
US doesn’t forcibly annex foreign countries. Don’t sponsor terrorists since at least cold war. American government doesn’t kill political opponents or journalists, neither abroad nor at home. Doesn’t use military chemical weapon against civilians. Russian government does all that and more. Buying natural resources from them is ethically questionable, and has consequences.
- benj111 7y ago
  Exceptions to your statements in 3... 2.... 1. Edit: Um ok, sort of statement I would have thought people would disagree with. Wasn't thinking of any examples in particular :)
  - Const-me 7y ago
    I doubt it, if you had the exceptions you would write the exceptions, not the announcement. Also, even if you think US is equally evil, there’s still a difference. US is #1 economy in the world. If tomorrow everyone will stop buying American gas, this might help American economy: will obviously hurt oil mining sector, but help everything else due to falling energy prices. Hollywood, software and internet companies won’t even notice. Russian economy is very small, they’re smaller than Italy or Brazil, and they entirely depend on the export of their natural resources. If your goal is to minimize global evil, and you must select from these 2, the pick is kinda obvious, doesn’t it?
    - benj111 7y ago
      " if you had the exceptions you would write the exceptions, not the announcement" Why? All the obvious ones are well rehearsed, we all know the US isn't whiter than white. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed by the conversation, and haven't anything new or insightful to add so what's the point? And I don't think the US is "equally evil". This isn't a superhero film where everyone is either a goody or baddie. There are shades of grey, and I wouldn't use 'evil' to describe any country. So maybe we don't all know that the US isn't whiter than white, just like every other country.

Jtsummers 7y ago

Natural gas was described in the DoE press release as “molecules of US freedom”. It is ridiculous no matter where else natural gas may come from for other countries.

ptah 7y ago

it is entirely ridiculous as you would only be exchanging Russia for US. Russia is mroe easily contained than US so surely the Russian fuel has greater "freedom"

hurryskurry 7y ago

Still ridiculous. To me we should be above all that.