I guess you missed the entire headline and article where it says they will call natural gas green.
That sounds very idiotic to me. One of the biggest environmental threats is global warming, which is caused by reintroducing carbon into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. It makes no sense at all to label fossil fuel usage as green just because they manage to come up with an arbitrary line in the sand for unrelated pollutants and in the process ignore carbon emissions.
> and in the process ignore carbon emissions.
Natural gas is the best of the worst, and it contributes to the solution in the specific case where it replaces even worse options (like coal plants). I'd argue that <270g CO2 per kWh is far too high of a threshold, but that's still at least a half of what even the "cleanest" coal plants produce per kWh.
It's not the best solution and nobody is arguing that, but it is a solution in very specific circumstances.
The best you can do sometimes, its just to be less bad. If you can replace coal or diesel powered power plant into modern gas powered plant, you will emit a lot less CO2 for equivalent power.
Solar and wind are not enough jet. We need something that can produce electricity 24 hours a day, or on demand. The "greenest" such tech are nuclear and gas.
I have high hopes of geothermal, maybe replacing a lot of gas, but we are not there jet.
I saw no reference to origin or source or type of gas.
All I saw were references to low emissions.
It seems they decided to redefine "green" as "not coal".