Well I am a supporter of renewable energy, but it seems people are trying hard to save the coal, oil and gas industries. If one can use oil coal and gas to offset the carbon dioxide formed by creating rain to grow trees in deserts and so on then it could be win-win. Drought causes more fires (and there are fires in France, Portugal, Corsica, Florida and so on) and carbon dioxide is being spewed into the air. It would therefore be worth using natural gas if burning it could create rain — the exploration companies are burning it anyway.
When the methane gas in natural gas is burned, it produces water vapour (methane is the main constituent of natural gas).
CH4+2O2 gives CO2+2H20, so it humidifies air.
Now convectional rain can be brought about merely by having a piece of darker ground heating up more than surrounding lighter coloured ground (urban heat island effect and so on). Why not encourage fracking companies to burn the waste gas in long pipes with lots of holes in to form a sort of huge grid with thousands of flames coming out?
This will heat and humidify a large volume of air and could enhance chances of convectional rain if relative humidity is high (relative humidity usually increases when air gets colder at night). More trees could be grown with more rain (perhaps in deserts) to offset carbon dioxide made from the “rain enhancement gas grid” and less trees would be burned in fires. When coal is gasified it produces hydrogen and methane, which could be used, especially hydrogen.
The heat value of natural gas is about 15 kWh per kg and 1 tonne of it could heat a volume of air 200 m deep by 334 m by 334 m, to a temperature 2 degrees C higher than it was.