Glossary of Deception: The Misleading Language of Oil and Gas
- Elan Justice Pavlinich, PhD
- 2 hours ago
- 17 min read
Language can be deceptive, especially misnomers: words that don’t accurately describe what they refer to. For example, dry cleaning does in fact use liquid solvents, just as peanuts are actually legumes and koala bears are actually marsupials. Some misnomers may be relatively harmless, but language can also be used to influence perceptions or mislead the public. In those cases, we run the risk of overlooking key issues or making choices based on inaccurate perceptions, some of which can work against our own best interests.
The influence of language is evident in politics and advertising. For example, in 2002, a Whitehouse memorandum provided talking points directing party members to use the term “climate change” because the term did not connote the same urgency or catastrophe that most audiences associated with “global warming” (page 142). Now, we use both terms: global warming refers to the increases in temperature felt worldwide, and it is considered a component of climate change which refers to the broad range of changes in temperature, rainfall, sea levels, and seasons. Regardless of what one might call the ongoing effects of pollution, we are experiencing consequences today, such as extreme weather. But back in 2002, some rhetoricians noticed that language could influence public thought on certain topics, and thus, they could also influence people’s actions. Indeed, linguistic analyses of oil and gas industries’ communications continue to reveal “messages framed in terms of individual behavior [that shift blame to consumers of oil and gas, rather than the producers, to] decrease people’s willingness to take both personal and collective climate actions.” In fact, Purdue OWL, an online writing guide referenced by institutions nationwide, cites an overview of the permitting system that allows polluters to release toxic chemicals into the environment as the example of “Deceitful Language and Euphemisms.”
If we want to protect our access to clean air and clean water, we not only need to support a just transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy, but we must also train ourselves to recognize when misconceptions arise from common terms that gloss over the environmental impacts of oil and gas development. A 2023 study reveals the terms people use to talk about the environment often indicate their beliefs and the actions they take to preserve and protect it. So, in an effort to raise awareness about some of the problematic terms that inform conversations about environmental health, we present a brief glossary of common misnomers, many of which can obscure public perceptions about the real health risks posed by oil and gas operations.
Biofuels
Biofuels are energy sources derived from living matter. Wood that is burned for heat, for example, is considered a biofuel. Similarly, some plant- and algae-based fuels provide cleaner energy options, such as using used cooking oil to fuel a diesel-powered vehicle. Some sources even describe ways to capture the methane produced by compost to fuel a stove, generator, or heat a greenhouse. But the term “biofuels” also applies to some chemicals and processes that cause more harm than good.
Predominantly in the U.S., for example, corn and soybeans are grown to synthesize ethanol and biodiesel for the purpose of fueling cars, trucks, and planes. The benefits of these biofuels hardly measure up to the massive amounts of land and resources required to produce them. According to the World Resources Institute:
Of the 92 million acres of corn grown in the U.S., roughly one-third—about 30 million acres or about the size of the state of Mississippi—is used for ethanol production. However, despite this massive land footprint, ethanol from corn only supplied 4% of U.S. transportation fuel in 2022. And while more than 40% of the U.S. soybean oil supply has been used for biofuels each year since 2022, biodiesel made from soybeans supplied less than 1% of U.S. transportation fuel in 2022.
Plus, the very processes of refining biofuels produce emissions, contributing to the very problem biofuels are touted to address. The land used to grow corn and soybeans for biofuels would be better used for climate-friendly crops, such as food supplies rather than fuel.
Blue and Green Hydrogen
Color names are used to convey the various ways in which hydrogen gas is produced for fuel. For example, grey hydrogen (the most common type) is produced with fossil gas and allows carbon dioxide emissions to escape into the atmosphere. If carbon capture is used in an attempt to prevent those emissions from entering the atmosphere, the product is called blue hydrogen. Green hydrogen, on the other hand, is extracted from water molecules (via electrolysis) using renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectricity.
Blue hydrogen is characterized as a clean energy source, but looking at its full lifecycle indicates that such a claim is inaccurate.
First, blue hydrogen requires fossil fuels as feedstock for production, often relying on the same shale gas extraction processes that are known to harm human health and the environment.
Next, the process for producing blue hydrogen begins with mixing methane gas with superheated steam to produce carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Both the methane and hydrogen can leak into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Methane is responsible for more than 25 percent of the climate warming we are experiencing today. On a 20-year timescale, methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2), meaning its contribution to climate change in the short term is outsized compared to other common greenhouse gases. Research shows that the amount of methane leaking into the atmosphere during the process of producing blue hydrogen may be more than twice the amount previously assumed, according to a 2023 study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
Finally, some suggest blue hydrogen is a clean energy solution because CO2 is captured and stored underground. But this underground sequestering of greenhouse gases does not mean the hazard is completely sealed off. The injected gases can leak into water supplies and the atmosphere. (See “Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage” in this glossary.)
Green hydrogen, on the other hand, is produced by using renewable energy sources, and there are no harmful emissions. The only byproducts are oxygen and water. Green hydrogen’s costs are dropping over time, indicating that it may be a clean energy solution in the future, but even then, it will not represent a climate-friendly solution to meet all of our energy needs. In fact, because hydrogen production is so energy intensive, it is best to fuel only the hardest-to-decarbonize sectors, such as steelmaking or heavy trucking. Using hydrogen or methane-hydrogen blends in other sectors can be inefficient and potentially dangerous. For most energy consumption, renewable energy sources still represent a cleaner option than blue hydrogen.
Brine
"Brine” may be a familiar term for some, evoking visions of preserving vegetables or preparing a tasty meal in a home kitchen, but in the context of shale gas drilling, “brine” refers to liquid waste. To extract oil and gas from underground shale deposits, a slurry of water and chemicals is injected into wells, releasing oil and gas that come back out, along with flowback water, containing toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and salts—this flowback water is nicknamed “brine.” Brine can also describe the water that comes to the surface from conventional drilling.
Although this “brine” is not commonly found in kitchens, it may be closer to home than you think. “Brine” has been spread across roads to control dust and ice, a process referred to as roadspreading. Pennsylvania has prohibited roadspreading “brine” from both conventional and unconventional wells because it is a hazardous byproduct of oil and gas extraction that can be harmful to human health and the environment. A Pennsylvania State University study that found “brine” may contaminate water, and it does not significantly control road dust compared to less harmful solutions, such as rainwater. But some oil and gas representatives aim to reclassify “brine” as a “coproduct” comparable to other commercial products that control dust and ice on roadways; “coproducts” are not subject to the same restrictions enforced by the Department of Environmental Protection. According to a review of records conducted by Grist, between 2019 and 2023 oil and gas producers reported spraying “nearly 2.4 million gallons of wastewater on Pennsylvania roads,” but this is likely a gross underestimate considering the limitations on self-reporting.
Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS)
Excess carbon dioxide, or CO2, is bad for the atmosphere because it traps heat and warms the planet. CCUS implies the ability to continue drilling for oil and gas without the climate-warming consequences of CO2 emissions. As the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is: the Inflation Reduction Act propelled CCUS as a strategy for mitigating fossil fuel emissions before the consequences had been sufficiently considered.
CCUS involves capturing CO2 directly at the source of emission, such as power plants, factories, and oil refineries; preventing CO2 from entering the atmosphere; then, either transporting the CO2 to be used for other purposes or injecting it deep underground to be stored in pore spaces in rock formations. But pressurized CO2 can leak, potentially contaminating drinking water and creating safety hazards for nearby communities. It seems that these risks are hard to justify: CCUS has not been proven to effectively capture CO2 at a rate that would make a meaningful difference in combatting climate change.
Carbon Footprint
“Turn off the lights when you leave a room.”
“Ride your bike or walk instead of using your car.”
“Don’t use plastic straws for beverages.”
All good tips for reducing waste and energy consumption. Many of these strategies are tied to the notion that each individual has their own “carbon footprint,” a unique profile that calculates all of your impacts on the environment. The concept of a “carbon footprint” enhances personal accountability so that ideally, more people will make responsible choices to reduce harm, these choices will add up, and eventually the impacts of climate change will be reduced. But the term “carbon footprint” gained popularity as part of a marketing strategy that was used to shift the responsibility for reducing climate impacts onto individual consumers, and thus to distract from the outsized role the oil and gas industry had in the climate crisis. Mark Kaufman traced “carbon footprint” to its problematic origins:
British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.
Although some of the practices for reducing personal reliance on oil and gas are beneficial, and do make a difference altogether, personal responsibility is not enough to arrest climate change while the massive industries responsible for pollution continue to produce, or even to escalate their emissions. The most effective way to limit adverse impacts on our climate is to transition away from climate-warming sources of energy and demand accountability for large, corporate polluters, not just individuals.
Christmas Trees
A vertical assembly of pipes installed above a gas wellhead is called a Christmas tree because it resembles an assortment of branches, like a pine tree, decorated with valves and gauges, like ornaments. The term, which is actually used in the gas industry, evokes a sense of nostalgia and celebration that is often associated with the holidays, but these “Christmas trees” control the flow of oil and gas from the well, and they are crucial for performing an emergency shut down during a critical situation to prevent ignition and explosion.
Energy Independence
This term appears most frequently as a talking point in political arenas with different connotations. In some instances, “energy independence” refers to a country, namely the United States, producing more energy than it consumes. In other cases, it means not relying on fossil fuels imported from other countries—a near impossibility since oil is part of a global economy. Interestingly, the United States relies on imported oil since our processing facilities are not set up to refine the quality of oil we frack domestically.
It is worth noting that the United States has made some progress in the direction of providing more of its own energy in recent years by adopting more clean sources of energy, such as wind and solar. Because these renewable sources of energy better lend themselves to local production and use versus trading in foreign markets, they are less susceptible to the same volatile price swings as oil and gas. That price stability represents a benefit for consumers, especially those who can’t afford unexpected cost increases as a result of international conflicts.
Greenwashing
The color green is associated with nature, and so it comes as no surprise that green is the natural aesthetic choice for environmentally focused activities and groups, such as recycling signs or Greenpeace. But color codes, much like language, are also open to manipulation. Like the fabled “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” some marketing efforts make use of the color green, environmental motifs, and the language of environmental responsibility to gloss over practices that are less than environmentally friendly.
As consumers become more environmentally conscious and concerned about pollution, more companies are shifting their language to capture consumer attention. However, many “eco-friendly” terms and claims are not backed by standards, meaning that while marketing efforts may convey a commitment to sustainability, they may not be accompanied by a meaningful effort to meet them. In fact, Boston University experts have identified complex advertising strategies, leveraged by oil and gas companies, aimed at manipulating audiences to mistake advertisements for scientific reports, formatted and presented as reliable journalism. Some non-profits are taking legal action to combat certain instances of false advertising. For example, a 2024 suit in California alleges that Exxon suggested single-use plastics can be recycled, incinerated, or dumped into landfills safely, despite the fact that these plastics are not bio-degradable and contain harmful chemicals.
The term “greenwashing” is often used to imply intentional deception, but we can also find examples of marketers benefiting more passively from terms that have been in use for years. For that more subtle form of misnomer, please refer to the following entry, “Natural Gas,” in this glossary.
Natural Gas
The term “natural gas” became widespread in the 1800s, some say as a way to differentiate naturally occurring methane gas from manufactured coal gas. However, the gas industry has continued to benefit from the positive associations with the term “natural” and implications that it is an environmentally friendly fuel source. In reality, this gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, which is a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2. It is not a “clean” energy source because methane is responsible for 25 percent of the human-produced warming we are experiencing today. Not to mention, those who live near gas facilities are at a higher risk of experiencing poor health symptoms compared to those who live elsewhere.
On a related note, some assume that because it’s labeled “natural,” then fossil gas must also be renewable. It is not. Because it takes so long for fossil fuels, including oil and coal, to form, they are effectively finite for us, meaning we cannot continue to rely on these dirty energy sources indefinitely. They deplete over time, and their continued use harms both human health and the environment. For these reasons, some health advocates prefer to use terms that more accurately describe the gas, such as “methane,” “fossil gas,” or “fracked gas,” if it was produced through fracking.
Pigs
Pigs, in the context of oil and gas pipelines, refer to the small devices used to clean or monitor pipelines without disrupting the flow of oil and gas. There is some debate about where the name “pig” originated, with most sources favoring the name originating with the squealing sounds these devices would make as they moved through the pipelines. Others suggest it is an acronym for Pipeline Inspection Gauges, but this was likely appended later, according to Wegauge Pipeline Inspection and Services. Either way, the term “pig” can serve to normalize this device, putting it into a familiar term that can seem both quaint and natural. But these are not the cute little piggies who "cried wee, wee, wee, all the way home.” These piggies facilitate the transport of hazardous materials too close to residential areas.
Plastic Recycling
It could be argued that “recycling” is the most misused and misunderstood word on this list of misnomers. Recycling, at its core, is the idea of transforming waste materials into new materials of the same quality as the original (for example, a glass bottle or an aluminum can being recycled into the same thing). The properties of plastic fundamentally limit its ability to be recycled indefinitely, and only a few types of plastic can be recycled economically or at scale. As a result, most plastic waste today is landfilled, incinerated, or “down-cycled” into products of lower value, such as fleece clothing and plastic decking, with less than 10% of it actually returning to service as its original form of product.
Since the 1980s, American consumers have been encouraged to recycle plastic waste. Strategic messaging, including a recycle symbol and polymer number imprinted onto plastic materials helped cultivate public perception that plastic pollution was a waste problem, not a consumption problem. This marketing effort helped shift the burden of responsibility onto consumers, who were explicitly encouraged to recycle their plastic waste and implicitly encouraged to buy more products in plastic packaging. Unfortunately, given the limitations of plastic recycling mentioned above, the result was more plastic waste and more demand for virgin plastic products. Today we have global contamination of plastic waste, including microplastics found deep in the bodies of organisms, including humans, and even in remote areas of the world.
“Plastic recycling” can be grouped into two main categories: “mechanical recycling” and “chemical recycling,” also called “advanced recycling.” Since the 1970s, the widespread process for plastic recycling has been mechanical. Discarded plastic is sorted, cleaned, shredded into pieces (generating microplastics in the process), and melted into pellets called “nurdles” that serve as feedstock for new products. Investigations reveal that as early as the 1970s, plastic industry executives doubted that recycling could be made economically feasible because of the low cost of virgin plastic, but they saw recycling programs as a way to prevent bans on plastic products.
More recent marketing initiatives are promoting “chemical recycling,” which is being touted as a way to recycle “hard to recycle” plastics, such as bags and films. The chemical processes covered by this catch-all term include pyrolysis, gasification, solvolysis, and solvent-based purification, though pyrolysis facilities are the most common to date. According to a recent report by Beyond Plastics, “The language of chemical recycling is a jumbled one. No two authors use the same nomenclature when categorizing the systems or subgroups, and there are many synonyms.”
What is clear about chemical recycling is that there are significant health and safety risks for those who live and work nearby, and there are still questions as to whether closed-loop chemical recycling can be done economically or at scale. Nevertheless, as Beyond Plastics points out, “petrochemical and plastics industries have been aggressively working across America to pass state laws that reclassify chemical recycling facilities as manufacturing rather than waste facilities, which reduces regulation of these polluting plants and allows the companies to grab more public subsidies.”
This history of terms and technologies used over the years points to the simple fact that “plastic recycling” in any form has never been a viable solution for curbing plastic pollution and may have instead supported increased plastic consumption. The best solution for reducing plastic pollution is reducing our reliance on plastic products in the first place, especially single-use items.
Some of the oil and gas misnomers listed here are terms used internally as part of industry operations, and others are marketing terms intended for the public, but any one of them may influence the ways we talk and think about the environmental impacts of pollution. Thinking critically about the veil of language that hides hazardous pollution and false solutions is one way to come to terms with the reality of our current climate crisis. Once we do that, we can begin inviting others into more realistic conversations grounded in scientific evidence about the impacts of oil and gas.
If you’re interested in learning more, you can...
Follow EHP on social media for regular updates and information on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and BlueSky.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter for updates, events, and resources.
Check out our quarterly health newsletter, full of research reviews, webinar invitations, events, and fact sheets for healthcare professionals.
Find important contact information for Pennsylvania state agencies on EHP’s Quick Reference Card.
View additional resources in EHP’s Where to Turn Directory.
References
Bagenstose, K. (2025). Appeal could make it easier for companies to spread drilling fluids on Pennsylvania roadways. Pennsylvania Capital-Star. https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/appeal-could-make-it-easier-for-companies-to-spread-drilling-fluids-on-pennsylvania-roadways/
Bell, L. (2023). Chemical recycling: a dangerous deception. Beyond Plastics and International Pollutants Elimination Network. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5eda91260bbb7e7a4bf528d8/t/674f56482360216cb1c253c0/1733252686279/10-30-23_Chemical-Recycling-Report_web.pdf
Bolster, J. (2024). “Roadspreading” returns: how PA’s oil industry quietly dumped waste across the state,” GoErie. https://www.goerie.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/08/08/fracking-wastewater-road-dust-oil-gas-pennsylvania-warren-county-erie-dep-toxic-brine-penn-state/74629803007/
Chen, J. (2025). Understanding Christmas trees in oil and gas: function and operation. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/christmas-tree-oil-and-gas.asp
Cherry, M., Sneirson, J. (2012). Chevron, greenwashing, and the myth of “green oil companies.” Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment, 3(1), 133-154. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/jece/vol3/iss1/5
Clean Air Council. (2026). New study links proximity to gas wells to cancer and other negative health impacts. https://cleanair.org/new-study-links-proximity-to-gas-wells-to-cancer-and-other-negative-health-impacts/
Darley, J. (2025). Apple faces greenwashing lawsuit over carbon neutral claims. Sustainability Magazine. https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/apple-faces-greenwashing-lawsuit-over-carbon-neutral-claims
Dey, A. (2021). Emergency shutdown system or ESD system. What is Piping: A Blog for Piping Engineers. https://whatispiping.com/emergency-shutdown-system-or-esd/
Elmallah, S. (2024). Deconstructing gas industry propaganda: what does the gas industry want you to believe? And what is the truth? Climate and Country Institute. https://climateandcommunity.org/research/deconstructing-gas-propaganda/
Environmental Defense Fund. (2025). Get the facts about “advanced recycling.” h347a0y48v284ru72daof4134ksfjle2.pdf
Fine, J., Love-Nichols, J., Perley, B. (2023). Climate and language: an entangled crisis. Daedalus, 15(3), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02019
FuelStream Services. (2024). Why the U.S. can’t use the oil it produces. https://www.fuelstreamservices.com/why-the-u-s-cant-use-the-oil-it-produces/
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J., Law, K. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Gold, A. (2025). A sneaky form of advertising favored by oil giants influences public opinion with climate action misperception, but researchers are studying potential solutions. Boston University Institute for Global Sustainability. https://www.bu.edu/igs/2025/03/04/news-article-or-big-oil-ad-as-native-advertisements-mislead-readers-on-climate-change-boston-university-experts-identify-interventions/
Gopalakrishnan, N., Balasubramanian, B., Meyyazhagan, A., Chaudhary, A., Palani, V., Kamyab, H., Pappuswamy, M., (2025). Exploring the efficiency and scalability of using algae as a biomass feedstock for biofuel production. Algal Research, 90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211926425003625?via%3Dihub
Guenther, G. (2024). The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hall, J., Waldman, P. (2002). The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories that Shape the Political World. New York, Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195152778.001.0001
Jung, Y., Sampath, V., Prunicki, M., Aguilera, J., Allen, H., LaBeaud D.,Veidis, E., Barry, M., Erny, B., Patel, L., Akdis, C., Akdis, M., Nadeau, K. (2022). Characterization and regulation of microplastic pollution for protecting planetary and human health. Environmental Pollution, 315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120442
Kaufman, M. (2021). The carbon footprint sham. Mashable. https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham
Lacroix, K., Goldberg, M., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S., Leiserowitz, A. (2021). Different names for “natural gas” influence public perception of it. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77, 0272-4944. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494421001249
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Goddard, E., Carman, J., Verner, M., Myers, T., Ettinger, J., Fine, J., Richards, E., Goldberg, M., & Marlon, J. (2025). Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Spring 2025. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Live to Plant. (2025). Using methane gas capture from compost to improve garden energy efficiency. https://livetoplant.com/using-methane-gas-capture-from-compost-to-improve-garden-energy-efficiency/
Luntz, F. (2002). Memorandum to Bush White House: The environment: a cleaner, safer, healthier America. Luntz Research Companies. https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
Natural Resources Defense Council. (2022). Recycling lies: “chemical recycling of plastic is just greenwashing incineration. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/chemical-recycling-greenwashing-incineration-ib.pdf
NASA. (2022). What’s the difference between climate change and global warming? https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/whats-the-difference-between-climate-change-and-global-warming/
Ohio River Valley Institute. ORVI hydrogen and carbon capture primer. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6qTuqdT2euexvs--J6skhJoI8dDRYfrQttmuAvjUPc/edit?tab=t.0
Pauly, M. (2025). The ultimate guide to running a diesel engine on cooking oil. EasyCleanCook. https://easycleancook.com/how-to-run-a-diesel-on-cooking-oil/
Purdue OWL. Deceitful language and euphemisms. Purdue University. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/using_appropriate_language/deceitful_language_and_euphemisms.html
Ramirez-Franco, J. (2024). The nation’s first commercial carbon sequestration plant is in Illinois. It leaks. Grist. https://grist.org/technology/the-nations-first-commercial-carbon-sequestration-plant-is-in-illinois-it-leaks/
Roddy, M., Garel-Frantzen, A., Showalter, J., Shiff, A. (2025). Environmental NGOs and local Governments target “climate deception.” The National Law Review. https://natlawreview.com/article/esg-litigation-update-environmental-ngos-and-local-governments-target-climate
Scafidi, A., Leslie-Bole, H. (2025). Increased biofuel production may harm farmers and climate in the U.S. Midwest. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/increased-biofuel-production-impacts-climate-change-farmers
Schley, T., WennersHerron, A. (2022). Oil and gas brine control dust ‘no better’ than rainwater, researchers find. Penn State College of Engineering News.https://news.engr.psu.edu/2022/burgos-bill-dep-ogpw-report.aspx
Schlissel, D., Juhn, A. (2023). Blue hydrogen: not clean, not low carbon, not a solution. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/090.%20David%20Schlissel%20and%20Anika%20Juhn%2C%20IEEFA%2C%20Blue%20Hydrogen%20Not%20Clean%20Not%20Low%20Carbon.pdf
Searchinger, T. (2015). Why dedicating land to bioenergy won’t curb climate change. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/why-dedicating-land-bioenergy-wont-curb-climate-change
Sharma, S., Chatterjee, S. (2017). Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human health: a short review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 21530-21547.
Simon, J. (2023). The U.S. is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/21/1172679786/carbon-capture-carbon-dioxide-pipeline
Solnit, R. (2021). Big oil coined “carbon footprints” to blame us for their greed, keep them on the hook. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook
Spector, J. (2022). We need to talk about how we talk about natural gas. Canary Media. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/we-need-to-talk-about-how-we-talk-about-natural-gas
Sullivan, L. (2020). Plastics industry promoted recycling to help keep oil and gas profits high. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/822597631/plastic-wars-three-takeaways-from-the-fight-over-the-future-of-plastics
Supran, G. (2021). Fueling their own climate narrative. Science, 374(6568), 702. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm3434
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2022). The United States produces lighter crude oil, imports heavier crude oil. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54199
Waldman, S. (2024). What does energy independence really mean?” Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-independence-is-a-big-election-talking-point-but-what-does-it-mean/
Wegauge Pipeline Inspection and Services Pvt. Ltd. (2025). Why pipeline tools are called “pigs.” LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-pipeline-tools-called-pigs-wegaugeinspection-o37wc/