> And of course carbon removal from burning the natural gas is totally out of the equation. Sorry for being nitpicky, but burning natural gas does not remove

> And of course carbon removal from burning the natural gas is totally out of the equation. Sorry for being nitpicky, but burning natural gas does not remove carbon, it adds new CO2 to the atmosphere (if you release the burn products which is usually done). You probably mean that if you released that natural gas directly into the atmosphere instead, it would have a larger greenhouse effect than the CO2 released by the burning process. This is true, and one should absolutely choose "burn it" when given the choice of releasing only vs burning and then releasing. But expressing it in the way of carbon removal is misleading. The number of carbon atoms in the atmosphere is the same in both scenarios, they are just bound in a less greenhouse-y form (also, natural gas decays into CO2 plus water eventually, but it's a very slow process). The number of CO2 equivalents goes up in both scenarios as well, just way less if you burn it before. Maybe some people refer to those through "carbon", idk.