I’m a big believer in using natural gas in a cleaner way

I’m not convinced natural gas is the answer to reducing CO2 emissions.

The key to that is to make sure the gas is being used properly.

But when I was in a meeting with a group of senior officials from a number of big coal companies in Washington DC last week, they were adamant about how natural gas would play a role.

“We don’t need any more natural gas,” they said.

“The only thing that will happen is people will start to use it.”

In their view, natural gas has been a good investment in the past, and they were concerned about the future of renewables.

“If you’re talking about coal, coal is the worst carbon dioxide emitter in the world,” said one of the coal industry’s leaders.

“That’s what’s going to happen, if the price of natural gas stays at $10 a barrel.

So I think it’s a great opportunity for renewables to compete against coal, and I think there’s a lot of momentum around that.”

Another industry leader told me that natural gas prices are already low enough to allow renewables to be competitive with coal, but he argued that prices could still be lower.

I spoke with one of those leaders, Mark Bostrom, the Harvard-trained philosopher who wrote the bestseller The Age of Spiritual Machines.

He agreed with me that the industry is right to be concerned about CO2 and that there’s potential for renewables, particularly wind, to be a serious competitor.

But he also believes that the price should be high enough that natural fuel will be able to be used more widely.

Bostrom is also an expert on CO2.

He believes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that it’s still a big problem in the real world.

If we could just get rid of it and get rid at least half of the CO2 in the atmosphere, we would be in a better position than we are right now to prevent climate change.

He also argues that the technology to capture and store CO2, called carbon capture and storage (CCS), is now being used by many large and small companies in the US and around the world.

In the US, Bostram and his colleagues have been using carbon capture for nearly a decade, and he expects it to continue for a few more years.

The technology is very advanced.

It’s cheaper than other methods, but it’s also very, very hard to do and it’s not something you can just dump into the atmosphere.

The biggest challenge is that it has to be carried out over a long period of time.

So, it’s going through a lot more rigorous trials and so on than we can imagine.

There’s a very strong argument that the most important thing is to do it properly.

So that’s the biggest issue.

The other thing that I think the industry’s going for is to get more renewables and get a price at the right level.

The bottom line is, I think that if you look at the carbon footprint of coal in the United States, it is actually not much worse than the carbon footprints of wind and solar.

In fact, wind and PV are better than coal in terms of emissions than coal.

Bostroms view of the future isn’t too different from that of many in the industry.

He thinks we’re heading for a world where we’ll use up the resources of nature and we’ll need to use some form of carbon capture technology to keep it going.

He argues that coal is a lot like oil: It’s a good fossil fuel, but the carbon it releases is very bad for the environment.

The real challenge will be finding a way to use the energy of nature as efficiently as possible.

One of the big challenges is the cost.

Boody, a natural gas and coal energy analyst at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, said that while it’s easy to think about how much carbon is required to make a tonne of natural fuel, there’s really no way to calculate the amount of carbon that will be released when we produce a ton of natural gasoline.

Boady said that if we could figure out how much natural gas there is in the ground, we could potentially make a profit.

He added that it would be a lot easier to figure out where natural gas was coming from and how much CO2 it was emitting.

In a paper published last year, Boodie and colleagues estimated that the cost of natural-gas production was between $30 and $60 per megawatt-hour, depending on how much gas was used.

That’s still way below the cost for wind and other renewables.

Boudichet also pointed out that there are many ways to make natural gas.

For instance, you can make a lot in the form of shale gas, which is much cheaper and more environmentally friendly than coal or natural gas itself.

But shale gas has very little carbon emissions, and it doesn’t really compete with coal.

That means there’s an incentive for the