A growing number of decision-makers understand this, including those in surprising places. In one of the "reddest" states in the Midwest, for instance, the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) selected a clean energy portfolio of wind, solar and batteries over a gas plant bid to replace coal plants.

On its Website, NIPSCO explained to its consumers, "while there is a relatively lower up-front capital cost for new natural gas resources, the savings from renewables as compared to natural gas and existing NIPSCO coal units are largely driven from the difference in lower (i.e. "zero") fuel costs and operating and maintenance expenses, as well as influence from the federal production and investment tax credits."

NIPSCO CEO Joe Hamrock told the New York Times he was surprised to discover that "Renewables in our particular situation were far more competitive than we realized."

In another very red state, Idaho Power has announced a commitment to 100 percent clean energy by 2045. A year ago, Xcel Energy, which serves eight states in the Midwest and Southwest, red, blue and purple, announced a goal of zero carbon emissions by 2050. Several other major utilities, including Duke Energy, have announced major emissions reduction programs, but there is significant controversy over the pledges, based on the level of continued usage of coal plants or the building of plan new gas plants.

Similarly, many major oil and gas producers tout "sustainability" programs to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of their operations. But those pledges are hard to square with their proclamations about natural gas.

Harry Brekelmans, Shell's projects and technology director, told analysts this summer: "Probably the greatest contribution Shell can make right now is to continue to increase the role of natural gas to fuel transport, heat and light homes, and power industries." ExxonMobil's 2019 Energy and Carbon Summary says: "Natural gas will expand its role, led by growth in electricity generation and industrial output."

This dropping cost of renewables, the urgency of states, counties and cities to get to zero emissions and the assumption by the natural gas industry that it is only going to expand is building toward a reckoning. Natural gas is now America's leading source for electricity generation, providing 35 percent of fuel. The EIA currently expects gas to rise to 39 percent by 2050, still higher than the expected 31 percent of electricity provided by renewables.

The effects of gas becoming our dominant fossil fuel is only now being understood.

Natural gas production and usage in producing power, making fertilizer, heating our homes and cooking our food now send more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than coal.

Most studies show methane emissions to be soaring in the fracking era, at rates already close to a negating any suggested benefits of natural gas over coal in terms of global warming emissions. Risks to those who live near fracking operations continue to emerge. Just before Trump took office, the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama found that fracking could contaminate drinking water.

On the hopeful side, there is mounting evidence that the faster we can switch to electric end use at home, in offices, factories and the transportation sector, the faster we can reduce our global warming emissions. That makes the abandonment of environmental protections by the Trump administration and the PR campaign of industry unconscionable.

For several years now, my colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists have warned that there was always a "ceiling" on using natural gas to wean ourselves off coal. In a 2013 report, UCS said that while gas might play a "modest" role in a clean energy future, a gas-dominated system will "fail to effectively address the growing dangers of climate change.

With the plummeting costs of renewable energy now calling even the modest benefit of natural gas into question, along with its risky methods and risks to the climate, it should be debated whether gas should be called "natural" at all.

What we do know is that the industry is trying to lead us blindfolded towards its imaginary bridge. When the blindfold is taken off, the so-called bridge is likely to look more like a chasm, with clouds of dust rising from the rubble of stranded assets.

Derrick Z. Jackson is on the advisory board of Environmental Health Sciences, publisher of Environmental Health News and The Daily Climate. He's also a Union of Concerned Scientist Fellow in climate and energy. This post originally ran on the UCS Blog and is republished here with permission.

"No plastic has been tested thoroughly—none. Zip. Zero. Nada."

By keeping Americans focused on the climate benefits of gas vs. coal, industry seeks to delay a broader debate of the deficits of gas vs. renewables.

The bipartisan neglect of our National Parks

An expert marine biologist on the many ways microplastic pollution research can be bolstered

Lessons from environmental and economic restoration efforts in the Ruhr Valley could help usher Appalachia into a new era.

Study finds decreasing lead in topsoil coincides with reductions in children's blood levels, which suggests playing around the dirt may be an important source of the toxic for children

Above The Fold

Above the Fold