More CSG Greenwashing?

What’s been a good way in the past to distance a nasty product from its bad reputation? Simply change its name. 
   
However, the strategy isn’t so effective these days in an increasingly online world where news travels fast.
   
According to a report on the ABC, a briefing note from the office of Resources Minister Chris Hartcher suggests changes be made to the way the coal seam gas (CSG) industry and fuel is described within Government communications and texts.
   
Instead of the crisp ‘CSG’ term or ‘coal seam gas’, it seems Mr. Hartcher would like to see it referred to as ‘natural gas from coal seams’ and that references to coal seam gas or CSG be removed from sentences.
   
‘Natural’ may work as an effective greenwashing term for some products; but the recommended change won’t fool many – it will (and has already) just further incited those dedicated to exposing the many serious issues involved with extracting the fossil fuel. 
     
In addition to the interruptions to agriculture and potential contamination of water supplies; according to Zero Emissions and other sources, coal seam gas is even more emissions intensive than coal when total lifecycle emissions are taken into account.
    
Research recently carried out by scientists at the University of Queensland determined that not only would a shift from coal-fired to gas-fired electricity generation in Australia fail to deliver significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions; wholesale electricity prices would be higher than with a renewable energy option.
    
According to Aidan Ricketts from CSG Free Northern Rivers, quoted by the Northern Star; the attempt to relabel coal seam gas is “.. just another example of the government falling in line with industry. They’re trying to get away from the words which have become poison.”
    
It would seem changing how CSG is referred to is just a case of putting lipstick on a particularly filthy and greedy pig.