Environmentalists like natural gas because they hate coal.
Gas companies hate disclosing the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing. So they must be forced to disclose them.
Which of the above statements is true?
Neither. Many energy firms have been voluntarily disclosing fracking chemicals, so a new state requirement to do so is mostly moot.
As for the environmentalists, particularly the Sierra Club, they hate both natural gas and coal. They just hate coal more.
A sensible national energy policy, which this nation doesn't have, would stress domestic sources of fuel for running vehicles and making electricity. The sources would be diverse — coal, hydropower, wind, solar, oil and natural gas. For making power, gas is cleaner than coal; thus, encouraging its use should be a priority for environmentalists.
It was a priority. At least we thought it was. Now it's clearly not.
A Wall Street Journal commentary puts this in perspective: The Sierra Club liked gas more than coal until it didn't like either. Actually it never really liked either but it disliked gas less than it disliked coal. At least we think so. Check back next time the Club for Ungrowth spits out another press release using a solar-powered inkjet printer.
As gas prices have fallen, more electricity is being made with gas and less with coal. That should be cause for celebration among environmentalists. Problem is, lower gas prices widen the advantage of this fossil fuel over renewable power sources. As long as gas prices were high, it was easy for the coal plant scrubbers to be Facebook friends with gas.
One reason gas prices are low is fracking. Mandatory chemical disclosure rules such as Oklahoma's came after gas companies started making the disclosures. You gotta like that, right?
You gottalot of gullibility to believe the Sierra Club likes it.