Such being the case, this enormous waste of energy can be seen today as chance to reduce the hydrocarbon extraction. The situation is a bit like that already seen for hemp: saving hydrocarbons is convenient from both an economical and an environmental point of view. It is always like this when we learn to avoid useless wasting of primary strategic resources that are also limited.

"How much" is convenient is easy to verify. To expand the use of methane means to consume a part of the same methane that today is extracted only to be immediately burnt. And in the same time it means to substitute the consumption of oil with this methane. In other words, the substitution of oil with methane provokes the reduction of the wasted methane and at the same time reduces the request for oil. Because, as together with the oil also methane gas comes to the surface, reducing the demand for oil we also save the methane coming up with it, methane gas that would be wasted too.

To make this concept easier to understand let’s make an example:
Let’s imagine a condominium needing 100 tons of naphtha per year for heating. If the heating system is made of a burner, some gas pipes and the radiators: just the substitution of the old burner with a methane burner will help using 100 tons of methane now uselessly burnt and saving in the oil extraction necessary to produce 100 tons of naphtha “more” hundred tons of other methane (methane meant in tons of equivalent oil meant to be uselessly extracted and burnt).

So, the substitution of the burner in a condominium consuming 100 tons of naphtha per year, makes a saving of 200 equivalent tons of oil, that would not be extracted and pollute.
And all this as long as there will be methane gas extracted and burnt without being used. All this even before thinking of insulating or of insulation without reducing the level of consumption or comfort.

Moreover, for a country like Italy that imports almost all the energy consumed it is also important to remember that the reduction of oil on the international markets means a reduction of hydrocarbons prices as well. And we do not understand why, in a country where a distribution net for methane gas already exist, and it is present almost everywhere, the use of the methane only for the heating is not yet a law.

We also do not understand why only a little part of the electricity produced in our country comes from methane. And if it was difficult to understand in the past let’s figure it out today now that we do have advanced gas turbines. As these turbines make it possible to double the yeld of the electric plants, substituting the plants working with naphtha with equivalent plants working with methane with advanced gas turbines, it a saving of fuel of 400% compared with the consume would be possible. Really a good result!

Naturally, there would be a substantial reduction of the air pollution, half the electric energy cost, etc.
And with hemp it would be possible to produce not only paper but also plastic materials and paints, and many other things, we could really do without both the light products of oil (naphtha, kerosene, gasoline) and the heavy (from which we get plastic materials and several chemical substances) contributing more or less in the same way to pollute our environment.

In this way the picture would be really complete.

If only we would want it, we could save half of the trees that are cut every year, we could reduce half the quantity of the extraction and burning of hydrocarbons, reduce in great measure the green house effect, reduce the pollution due to fumes, plastics, pesticides(thus avoiding most of cancer diseases), etc.

Why should we not want all this?
And this is not only possible but also very convenient from an economical point of view, it would improve the balance of payments, and create new jobs.