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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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?
" 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.
Yet I see none in this thread. And I don’t know any recent cases either. Last time US forcibly annexed land was when, civil war?
> the US isn't whiter than white, just like every other country.
Just because no country is 100% evil doesn’t mean they are all equal. As a European consumer, I prefer renewables, but until the tech is here, I strongly prefer buying fossil fuel from US.
Americans have not started a war in Europe ever, Russia is still fighting with Ukraine for 5 years now, 1000 miles from here. They also tried to kill our prime minister, couple years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_coup_plot
So yes, in this case it's not as ridiculous as many other expressions with freedom and the US in them.