Maggie's Farm

Huh? Who do you think you're quoting and what is the point of the quote. It doesn't support your assertion.
The Biden administration has proposed/signed in law massive subsidies for solar and wind, which artificially lowers their cost and make natural gas less competitive.
They're trying to change the rules on investment banker's fiduciary responsibilities so that they can keep refusing to finance fossil fuel production. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/fact-sheets/notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-prudence-a
The EPA is proposing multiple rules that increase natural gas costs and lower production. https://www.wri.org/insights/epa-power-plant-rules-explained#:~:text=New%20natural%20gas%20power%20plants%20that%20operate%20
All of those are things you should have, and probably did notice. Collectively, it is an act of war on the energy industry.

Which may be a point worth making. or not, since almost no one is making the claim, not even the guy being quoted. In contrast, claims of wind and solar being net zero are often made by people of your ilk, and are clearly not true. In fact, natural gas often has a smaller net carbon footprint than solar and wind, with far fewer other negative environmental impacts. While being much cheaper and much more reliable than wind and solar.

You haven't supported anything, and the carbon accounting done by "green energy advocates are either incompetent or dishonest. Solar requires huge amounts of silicon, which is one of the highest carbon footprint of any processed material in the world. Wind and solar both require large amounts of aluminum, which has the highest carbon footprint of any metal. solar and onshore wind requires 2 times as much copper as natural gas. offshore wind requires 3 times as much. Wind has large amounts of exotic metals which requires processing huge quantities low concentration ores. Commercial wind and solar are usually sited very remotely, so the transmission infrastructure has a carbon footprint for wind and solar is at least 5 times that of natural gas. Not a single one of the carbon footprint analysis done by green advocates has accounted for this. Nor have they properly accounted for the disassembly and disposal of retired facilities, which will be many times higher than that of natural gas power generation.
You don't know what you're talking about.

You're wrong on both points. The point made by quote, which is by Moore, not of Moore, is that enviro wackos claim wind and solar are net zero for propaganda and regulatory purposes despite the fact that they are not, so fossil fuel proponents should make the same claim for natural gas for the same reasons. Neither is claiming natural gas is net zero. Which is obvious if you just make a few clicks and read a few sentences.

Secondly, the total carbon budget for the extraction, refining, manufacture, transportation, installation and maintenace of a megawatt of solar or wind production capacity is much higher than the carbon footprint for those things for a megawatt of natural gas production capacity. Because the life expectancy of a solar panel is 1/3 that of a gas plant and that of a wind turbine if 1/2 that of a gas plant. Secondly, a solar panel averages less than 20% of its nameplate production over its lifetime in its optimal environment. Wind is slightly better at about 25% in its optimal environment. Also because the materials used in the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines have a much larger carbon footprint than those used in a natural gas turbine. The extraction and refinement of the metals/minerals have a lot of nasty environmental impacts as well.
Finally, much solar and wind capacity has been installed in environments that aren't just less than ideal, but terrible. Like solar in Great Britain. Germany, and the US northeast. Such installations are not just not net zero, their lifetime carbon footprint is much worse than that of natural gas turbines.