True.
CO2 content in natural gas is a parasite. It robs useful heat from the desired heating effect and sends it out the stack.
But I do understand the frustration with the anti-CO2 crowd. When CO2 is the result of carbon combustion, it is not a bad thing, and it is plant food. It is not pollution.
I would suspect it would be great to mix in with the drilling mud to add downward pressure to prevent blow-out (but I digress).
Our local gas just went down 10 cents, I joked with the attendants "What, did you just hook up to the Gulf of Mexico?"
Semantics will get you every time. The effort by the EPA to classify as a “pollutant” is another term that needs defining. I don’t mean that WE need to define it. I mean that we shouldn’t let the government define it on their own terms for their own purposes. The booze I drink has a level of “impurities” useless toward it’s positive effects but that doesn’t mean they are bad. And as far as I can tell, the EPA’s definition of pollutant could be applied to just about everything. I’ve been told, broccolli is good for me. Yikes, humans are making broccolli by the ton. If humans make so much broccolli that I get buried by it, then I will surely die. Therefore it must be a pollutant. IOW we are not endangered by CO2 and it certainly shouldn’t be considered a pollutant.
Atty Gen "Moonbeam" Brown also is taking advantage of that approach in clever wording of a California Referendum to be voted on soon.
Technically, I suppose you are right, as in impurities in an natural resource, but the way it is presented in the ad, is as a negative, i.e. something to be gotten rid of to prevent global warming. It is a total falsehood.