What drivers need to know about cyclists…

Today I was cycling along a road on our housing estate and a car driven by a young woamn of 75-80 overtook and then promptly turned left forcing me to turn left as well.

This is typical of a number of drivers of all ages, and far exceed the number of hoodlum cyclists who jump red lights.


Other times when I am indicating right, motorists are oblivious of my intentions and will not let me turn right, in contravention of Highway Code Rule 167 cited here;

Rule 167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

  • approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
  • where the road narrows
  • when approaching a school crossing patrol
  • between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
  • where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
  • when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
  • at a level crossing
  • when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
  • stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
  • when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic.

Recently Jeremy Vine was cut up by a motorist in London



This is taken from the cyclinguk blog

Source: What drivers need to know about cyclists…


What drivers need to know about cyclists…

Let’s get one thing straight: I am a car driver, I love driving my car, but because I am a cyclist too, there are some things I’d love to explain to all drivers to stop them beeping, shouting, revving behind me and overtaking too close when I am on my bike.

I am not here to defend law-breaking cyclists, just as you will never hear the AA defending drunk drivers or speeding motorists. Here at Cycling UK we believe it is not ok for cyclists to break the law, jump red lights and cycle on pavements. There is a minority that do, like there is a minority of motorists who talk on their mobiles while driving. This is not about point-scoring smugness – I’d just like us to all get along and make the roads a safer and a much less stressful place.

I suppose I just want to explain to the driver who this morning beeped and shouted at me that, like the majority of cyclists, I have not chosen my road position just to annoy you or make you late – I am cycling in the safest place for me and for you, I am avoiding potholes, the gutter, your blindspot and a dangerous junction. I realise it is frustrating for you to overtake me three times, because I catch up with you again and again in a traffic jam – but I do need to get to work too and even though you tell me to “get off road”, I don’t want to cycle on the pavement as it is illegal and I may hurt someone.

This driver’s reaction is quite common, but in many ways it is not always surprising that they think this way. They don’t cycle regularly and no one has ever explained to them why cyclists don’t want to ride in the gutter and “out of the way”.

I’d like there to be more understanding on both sides; 80% of cyclists and 94% of adult Cycling UK members hold a valid driving licence, whereas 18% of AA members cycle.”

Victoria Hazael, Cycling UK Senior Communications Officer 

As our roads get more congested, people are more frustrated as they battle through the traffic, especially in rush hour. I get stressed when I am struck in a traffic jam and stress makes people angry and angry people shout and beep. I understand that inside the safety of a car you might shout, swear and say things that you wouldn’t normally dream of saying to a stranger – but somehow when you are driving, you get frustrated. It happens.

To put it bluntly, I’d love to have a chat with the driver who had a go at me this morning and explain these things to them face to face, but I am too timid to stop and ask them to meet me for a cuppa and fear the whole thing would just descend into an argument, so instead I take the coward’s way out – I write a blog.

Here’s a list of things I would love all drivers to know and I think it is every cyclist’s responsibility to share these with drivers, so that there is more understanding between us and therefore fewer people dying or being injured on our roads:

What every driver needs to know about sharing the road with a cyclist:

  1. Do not get impatient with cyclists who ride away from the kerb or parked cars. Cyclists are trained not to hug the kerb. This is because cycling away from the gutter increases their visibility and helps them avoid the risks of a) parked car doors opening on them; b) being overtaken where this would be dangerous; and c) having to swerve towards the traffic stream to avoid potholes.
  2. Always look carefully for cyclists before pulling out at a junction or roundabout. Junctions are risky places for cyclists  – around three quarters of incidents involving them happen at or near them.
  3. Always look carefully for cyclists before making any turning manoeuvre or changing lanes in slower-moving/stationary traffic. This is particularly important for lorry drivers.
  4. Leave plenty of space when overtaking a cyclist, i.e. at least a car’s width when overtaking at lower speeds (20-30mph); and allow even more space (a) when travelling at higher speeds; (b) when driving a lorry or any other large vehicle; (c) in poor weather (rain makes it harder for cyclists to see potholes, and wind gusts can cause them to wobble).
  5. Never cut in/turn left sharply after overtaking a cyclist. Drivers do not appreciate this either when other drivers do it to them – it is, in fact, one of the top five causes of driver stress.
  6. Wait for a cyclist to ride through a pinch point (i.e. a road narrowing caused by something like a pedestrian refuge) before driving past, unless you are absolutely certain that there is enough room to overtake them at a safe distance.
  7. Drive at a considerate speed, don’t accelerate or brake rapidly without good reason around cyclists or follow them impatiently/too closely. ‘Tailgating’ intimidates drivers and cyclists.
  8. Before turning out of a minor into a major road, wait for any cyclist riding along the major road to pass you – don’t turn out in front of them.
  9. Give way to oncoming cyclists when they have right of way – don’t try to squeeze past.
  10. Make it obvious to a cyclist that you have seen them – apparent inattention is confusing.
  11. Signal intentions clearly to cyclists. Again, drivers expect this of other drivers and it causes them stress if it doesn’t happen.
  12. Make sure you understand how advanced stop lines (ASLs) and mandatory/advisory cycle lanes work and the regulations that apply. Also, be aware of cycle symbols painted on the road and understand why they are there.
  13. Do not park in cycle lanes, as this forces cyclists using them to pull out into the main stream of traffic, a manoeuvre that could put them at risk.
  14. Look out for cyclists before opening a car door, and make sure your passengers do likewise. It is an offence to injure or simply endanger someone by opening a vehicle door, or permitting someone else to do so. If dropping off a passenger when stationary at traffic lights, make sure they check for cyclists riding up on the inside or outside.
  15. It is not compulsory for cyclists to use cycle tracks beside the road. All too many of these tracks are not well designed/maintained, or they may be obstructed. It is often better for cyclists (especially faster cyclists) to ride on the carriageway, both for their own and pedestrians’ safety.
  16. Cyclists riding in groups (e.g. on recreational rides) are not required to ride in single file and often ride two abreast on narrow and winding lanes in the interests of safety. If they form a long, single-file line, drivers may try to overtake only to find that they are forced to pull in dangerously. Riding two abreast is a way of deterring drivers from dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.
  17. Aggressive behaviour is inappropriate towards all road users, including cyclists – it is something that drivers put in their top five causes of stress.

Cycling UK campaigns on many fronts, including road safety. For example, we’d like to see cycle awareness training becoming an integral part of driver training and testing.

Currently, two of our major campaigns are Road Justice (seeking to change driver attitudes and the way the law handles bad driving), and Space for Cycling (calling for conditions where anyone can cycle, anywhere, and funding to match).

Victoria Hazael
Featured Image -- 6500

Mr. Creationist Goes to Court

This shows the impossibility of debating rationally with Young Earth Creationism

Age of Rocks

Guest post by David MacMillan


Defense: Your honor, my client is not guilty. He has already explained that he only drew his gun to check the safety, and it went off by mistake.
Prosecutor: You’re joking, right?
D: Absolutely not! How could you joke at a time like this? One man is already dead and an innocent man’s freedom hangs in the balance!
P: Innocent? The victim is dead because your client shot him. Four times. That is not an accident.
D: Now, I think we all know that’s just your assumption. Don’t act like your whole “four shots” theory is fact.
P: It is a fact. The victim had four bullet holes in him.
D: Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t, but I’m just saying, let’s not let your obvious assumptions get in the way of justice. After all, you are

View original post 1,621 more words

Why are some Christians Young Earth Creationists?

It baffles many people whether Christian or not why some Christians are Young Earth Creationist, with a belief in a 10,000 year old earth and rejection of evolution. It cannot be denied that Young Earth Creationism has caused bad relationships among Christians, influenced education and results in much mockery from some. A major reason for the friction is that YEC’s claim explicitly or implicitly that the majority of Christians who accept modern science with the vast age of the earth and evolution are at best naughty or heretical Christians.

With YEC making inroads into churches (including the Church of England) and trying to call the shots over education in all parts of the world, it is best to know what they believe and why they do as they go against all scientific teaching and what most churches actually believe.


As YEC attracted so much more heat than light, it is best to start with a general summary of YEC beliefs, though YEC is not monolithic.

  • The earth and universe are no more than 10,000 years old and this is supported by the best modern science.
  • Most of the fossiliferous strata from the Cambrian (550m.y.) to the Pleistocene (10,000yrs) were laid down in the Noachian Deluge. (There is some variation on this.) Below is flippant mocking of this
  • 10389436_10203030956276827_2185931412440811414_n
  • Dinosaurs lived alongside humans. The first is an exhibit at Ken Ham’s Creation Museum and the other two from creationist books
  • edendinos51gBlHMEfwL__SS500_dinopica
  • Evolution from the primordial sludge (goo) to humans (you) did not happen and is contradicted by true science.
  • During the Creation Week, God originally created “kinds”, e.g., horse kind, which has evolved through “micro-evolution” into related species.
  • Standard “evolutionary-uniformitarian” geology, biological evolution and cosmology are flawed and based on false assumptions. Evolutionary ideas are pre-conceived assumptions rather than conclusions from the scientific data, which to a YEC point to a young earth.
  • “Evolution” and “evolutionary geology” are based on atheistic assumptions stemming from the Enlightenment, including an insistence on randomness and chance, which excludes the possibility of a Creator God. Geology, with its long ages, is based on the assumption of evolution.
  • When the Bible is read correctly, without atheistic and Enlightenment presuppositions, the Book of Genesis only makes sense when read literally with a Creation in six solar days, a Fall resulting in the introduction of pain and death to the animal world, and that there was a world-wide deluge lasting a year during the lifetime of Noah. Only Noah, his family and two of every “kind” survived the flood. (This is alleged to be the traditional view of Christians.)
  • There are many minor tenets. A few YECs are also geocentrists, for example Bouw and Bowden.
  • And lastly Evolution is ONLY a theory
  • 168946_477433586556_727651556_6500443_8206770_n

I could refute each one in turn, but a simple list makes the beliefs stand out starkly. (I have dealt with many in other blogs.) However those who defend the sincerity of YECs may be shocked at what they actually beleive and that it is nonsense.

You can even play Creationist Bingo as the same sorry arguments appear often

creationist binjgo


When I first heard about Creationism when I read a review of The Genesis Flood while working as an exploration geologist in the Namib desert, I simply burst out laughing and wondered how anyone could even suggest it. I soon found it was not that simple.

Creationism cannot be understood without grasping the deeply–felt reasons for believing what many scientists think nonsense. YEC provides the “scientific” capping to a “biblical Worldview”. This Worldview provides an all-embracing outlook on life and integrates every aspect of their lives. It also enables one to oppose non-Christian Worldviews and to be confident in the “Culture Wars. Here are most of the various reasons;

  1. The most important reason for accepting YEC is not a literal Genesis, but a concern for salvation through Christ. The heart of evangelical faith is redemption through the death of Christ, expressed as Substitutionary Atonement in that Jesus’ death forgives sin and takes away the penalty of death. To some this is dependant on their being no death before the Fall. It is supported by citing Genesis 3 and Romans 8.19ff
  2. There can be no death before the Fall. e.physical death came in at the Fall (Gen 3) and before that no animal died or suffered. If T. Rex had actually attacked and killed herbivores 100 million years ago, then the whole Christian Faith will collapse like dominoes, hence the geological timescale MUST be false. Q.E.D.! This is at the heart of YEC arguments.
  3. The Bible says so,. Applied to Genesis, that means Creation in Six days and a worldwide flood. A Young Earth model supports this scientifically, so YEC is the ONLY valid interpretation
  4. The Sabbath and that is dependent on a six-day creation and thus “billions” of years is wrong.
  5. .Hence as these four arguments are seen as essential to evangelical belief then a Christian must be YEC.
  6. Moral concerns In his book The Genesis Solution Ham argues that evolution leads to a decrease in marriage, an increase of suicides, euthanasia, pornography, abortions, promiscuity, sexual abuse, homosexuality, theft, violence, racism etc. Hence evolution is contrary to family values.
  7. Anti-reductionism or Nothing-buttery as Donald Mackay called it. I. e. everything is nothing but physics and chemistry and there is nothing distinct about humans. Reductionism often stems from a scientific materialist philosophy. Opposition to reductionism is widespread. Arthur Peacocke, biochemist and clergyman has opposed reductionism from a liberal theological position and founded the Society of Ordained Scientists in 1986 to facilitate this. The same with John Polkinghorne and Donald Mackay, and many members of the CIS and ASA, who reject YEC. However YEC is extreme anti-reductionism.

An excellent book which deals with all these issues and focussing on the Grand Canyon is;

Featured Image -- 5288

And more historically ;

41cWtwXrboL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_ (1)

Not to mention many of my blogs

Why Bill McKibben’s “Keep-It-In-The-Ground” World War II Analogy is Ridiculous

As the Divestment campaign continues and even infiltrates the churches, here are four reasons why it is wrong  and McKibbin especially so.

I expect most at Greenbelt will agree with McKibbin but ought to live out the implications. The first of these is that Mckibbin would not fly from Seattle to the UK so as to keep-it-in-the-ground



Four Reasons – Beyond the Obvious – Why Bill McKibben’s “Keep-It-In-The-Ground” World War II Analogy is Ridiculous

Climate activist Bill McKibben has officially jumped the shark, penning a cover article for New Republic this week that claims ending all fossil fuels is the equivalent of what the Greatest Generation did when they stormed the beaches of Normandy:

“We’re under attack from climate change and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.”

“It’s not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war. And we are losing.”

The “mobilization plan” the leader of the “Keep it in the Ground” (KIITG) movement speaks of is an immediate conversion to 100 percent renewable energy — which is essentially a declaration of war on reality, as a pair of prominent Democrats have recently pointed out.

Obama Science Advisor John Holdren has said, “The notion that we’re going to keep it all in the ground is unrealistic,” while Clinton campaign chair John Podesta has called the KIITG agenda McKibben is pushing “completely impractical.”

And as EID has noted numerous times, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — which activists including McKibben have long called the “gold standard” for understanding climate change — has stated fracking brings down greenhouse gases.

So beyond the fact that McKibben continues to deny the science and push absurdities (yes, he likens fossil fuels to Hitler) here’s a closer look at the four reasons why McKibben’s plan is as impractical as it is ridiculous.

Reason #1: McKibben wants to end the one fuel responsible for significant decreases in GHG emissions

McKibben and the KIITG movement continue to ignore the fact that the U.S. energy-related CO2 emission are at their lowest levels in nearly a quarter century. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has projected that domestic CO2 emissions will drop to their lowest levelssince 1992 this year. Any objective observer would have to agree the fact that natural gas is now the U.S.’s top source of electricity generation has everything to do with that trend.

In fact — thanks to fracking — electrical generation is no longer the top industrial source of CO2 emissions, as conversion to natural gas for electrical generation has accounted for 68 percent of the 14 percent total reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions during last decade. This has all happened at the same time the economy has grown 15 percent, reversing a trend in which economic growth has been coupled with emission increases.

McKibben certainly would have applauded these trends back in 2009, when he was standing on the steps of the U.S. Capitol demanding power plants switch to clean-burning natural gas. McKibben was so cognizant of natural gas’ climate benefits that he was even willing to get himself arrested in efforts to get power plants switched to natural gas, as he said in the build up to the protest:

“There are moments in a nation’s — and a planet’s — history when it may be necessary for some to break the law … We will cross the legal boundary of the power plant, and we expect to be arrested.”

McKibben even said a conversion to natural gas would be good for the economy, which, of course, has proven to be a spot-on assessment.

Flash forward seven years, and McKibben’s tone is much the same, but with a few notable caveats: Natural gas is now the enemy even though it reducing GHG emissions — which is ironically the No. 1 goal of the KIITG movement. Furthermore, there are huge doubts about the economic and logistic feasibility of the alternative McKibben is pushing, which brings us to the next two reasons his New Republic article is ridiculous.

Reason #2: Study McKibben cites as evidence of renewable energy’s economic viability shows 100 percent conversion would yield millions of job losses

Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson’s research has long been used by greens to try to sell their 100 percent renewable ideology as being economically feasible, and McKibben’s New Republic piece is just the latest example, as he claims:

“For starters, it’s important to remember that a truly global mobilization to defeat climate change wouldn’t wreck our economy or throw coal miners out of work. … It would produce an awful lot of jobs. (An estimated net gain of roughly two million in the United States alone.)

But a recent EID review of Jacobson’s plan found his own data showed a 100 percent renewable conversion would actually destroy nearly four million long-term jobs nationwide with a net loss of 1.2 million jobs.

Those figures were buried on an Excel sheet from Jacobson’s website under a tab titled “Total Job Loss.” Jacobson’s own data showed that a complete conversion to renewables would yield the elimination of 2.4 million transportation jobs, 800,000 oil and gas production jobs and 90,000 coal mining related jobs — a grand total of 3.8 million jobs lost, compared to the 2.6 million long-term jobs Jacobson claims his plan would create.

Not surprisingly, after EID brought this information to light, Jacobson claimed these numbers were not “real” and “test” numbers. He subsequently deleted the “Total Job Loss” tab on excel sheet from his website.

Jacobson also originally touted that his plan would result in a net gain of four million jobs. However, we would be remiss not to note the latter was based on his projection of 5.3 million construction jobs being created — the kind of “temporary” jobs greens have long criticized as not being “real” jobs. Interestingly, McKibben has now halved Jacobson’s original claim to two million net jobs created, which may or may not have something to do with EID highlighting the original inclusion of these “temporary” jobs. But bottom line: both of his figures are wrong.

Reason #3: Experts agrees a conversion to 100 percent renewables is impractical

Even before EID shed some much-needed light on what Jacobson’s data really forecasted on the jobs lost/jobs created front, his rosy plan for a 100 percent renewable energy conversion was highly criticized for being completely impractical from a basic functionality standpoint.

Roger Pielke, a professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has called Jacobson’s 100 percent renewables plan for New York a “fantasy” and “magic thinking.”

Dr. James Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s most famous climate scientists, says that believing in the feasibility of a rapid transition to renewables is more of a mythical belief than a reality-based argument, stating:

“Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” (emphasis added)

Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute — whom TIME Magazine has declared a “hero of the environmentsimilarly critiqued Jacobson’s plan for 100 percent renewables, specifically Jacobson’s decision to rule out nuclear power, which produces no carbon dioxide emissions. Shellenberger also notes “solar and wind are totally different than [fossil fuels] and inferior in that they’re intermittent.”

Even a Daily Kos blogger, who allowed Jacobson a forum to respond to EID’s findings, criticized his 100 percent renewables plan as impractical. In a comment posted to the article including Dr. Jacobson’s interview, the environmental blogger said that “no electric utility is ever going to adopt Jacobson’s plan” because, among other things, the “wind power component of Jacobson’s plan cannot be relied upon for reliable electric power generation and supply.”

The latter facts were recently highlighted in a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which brings us to our next example of why McKibben’s piece essentially declared war on reality.

Reason #4: Renewables need natural gas like a fish needs water

McKibben notes in the New Republic piece that retired engineer Tom Solomon has calculated that the 100 percent conversion to renewables mapped out in Jacobson’s plan would require “about 6,448 gigawatts of clean energy to replace fossil fuels — or the equivalent of 295 solar factories the size of Elon Musk’s SolarCity Gigafactory under construction in Buffalo, N.Y.”

Considering this would equate to the construction of six such factories per state over that timespan, even Solomon admits this is a very tall task. And, ironically, it would require a whole lot of natural gas to execute.

What McKibben, Jacobson and other KIITG supporters always fail to mention is — due to the fact that the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine —all the new wind and solar infrastructure would be required to have backup generation options due to their status as intermittent sources of energy. And that backup source will likely be natural gas, due to all the economic and environmental factors we have already discussed.

As the National Bureau of Economic research study notes, eight megawatts of back-up capacity are required for any 10 megawatts of wind capacity added to the grid. Again, this is required.

That study also makes reference to research suggesting that in order for photovoltaic power to be a viable base-load resource, it must have the ability to store solar electricity for 20 hours. Problem is, no such massive storage technology currently exists, which is why rapid-fire fossil fuel backup power (i.e. natural gas) is necessary to “spot” solar power, so to speak.

These realities considered, the study points out that renewable conversion is much more expensive than its proponents are leading on, and that usually means the added cost will be passed along to customers.

“… the estimated indirect costs of renewables are at least an order of magnitude greater than those associated with dispatchable fossil-fuel technologies. For the latter, system costs are relatively modest, generally estimated below USD 3 per MWh (megawatt-hour) in OECD countries. For the formers, such costs are as high as USD 40 per MWh for onshore wind, USD 45 per MWh for offshore wind and USD 80 per MWh for solar. These high estimates are the direct results of the need for additional system reserves and back-up generation to ensure system reliability. Renewable energy system costs will also increase over-proportionally with the amount of variable electricity in the system, with far-fetching [reaching] implications for the energy markets and security of supply. Ignoring them can thus lead to a severe underestimation of the social and private costs of any energy transition.”

It is important to note that this study was not the product of an industry source or so-called “climate deniers.” And independent experts such as Christopher Knittel, who directs the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at MIT, largely agree with the conclusions, as Knittel made the following comment to the Washington Post.

“It’s a reality check now,” said Knittel of the study’s insights on the practicality and financial issues regarding conversion to renewables. “I think it’s potentially bad news as we start to get higher and higher penetration levels of renewables.”


That McKibben choses to compare the incredible sacrifices of the Greatest Generation to the KIITG movement is bad enough.

Making matters worse, McKibben’s piece ignores the fact that a fuel he advocates eliminating is achieving his movement’s stated goal — reduced GHG emissions — while the alternative he’s proposing has been unequivocally deemed economically and functionally impractical.

Throw in the strange irony that McKibben has declared war on a fuel that he was willing to go to jail for just seven years ago, and it’s no wonder mainstream Democrats simply don’t agree with McKibben and the extreme “Keep-it-in-the-Ground” movement he represents. U.S. Interior Secretary and former National Parks Conservation Association board member Sally Jewell pretty much summed it up when she said:

“It’s going to take a very long time before we can wean ourselves from fossil fuels, so I think that to keep it in the ground is naïve, to say we could shift to 100 percent renewables is naïve.”

ISIS Embraces Critical Scholarship of the Bible?

This is a disconcerting blog on how ISIS views the Bible. It is disturbing to read ISIS publications for the West

Gates of Nineveh: An Experiment in Blogging Assyriology

The fifteenth issue of ISIS’ English-language propaganda magazine Dabiq spread across the internet this month. This issue focused on an extended critique of both western secularism and Christianity in attempt to convince westerners to convert to Islam and join the Islamic State.

This blog has previously examined how the increasingly ideological and post-state nature of modern war is creating a situation where scholarship will be increasingly appropriated by armed groups and the purveyors of ideological arguments will frequently become targets. The new issue of Dabiq provides an interesting opportunity to examine an instance of such appropriation in action.

Its centerpiece is a fifteen page article titled “Break the Cross.”Although the article is unsigned, it was obviously written by a native English speaker who appears to be familiar with critical scholarship of the Bible and early Christianity as well as a very basic reading knowledge of Hebrew and Greek.


View original post 692 more words

Dangers of ideological purity on fossil fuels and climate change

I get fed up with the Green litany that renewables are possible now when they are not. It is fine if you are ideological and are either load loaded like a luvvie or too obsessed to realise, but it is simply not pragmatic and will be a disaster rather than a solution.

Here Nick Grealy in his usual way makes the case against ideological fanatics.

I have , of course, nicked it from


(Many of the articles from Natural Gas Now are good)

Purists vs. Problem Solvers, As Shale Revolution Changes All

LNG - Nick Grealy ReportsNick Grealy
Administrator of NaturalGas2.0NoHotAir and ShaleGasInfo Blogs


While the shale revolution offers to make real environmental differences and solve real problems, ideologically blinded purists demand 100% solutions.

The US shale revolution is now going global via LNG. Countries that formerly would have chosen coal for power generation are now going gas.

“There are markets like Bangladesh and Pakistan where traditionally they would have gone with coal but now gas can be the cheaper option once you include the cost of new infrastructure,” LeLong of Goldman said. “You are seeing these energy poor countries often with poor credit ratings turning to LNG.”

shale revolution

While China and India are the two carbon monsters in Asia, there are many smaller ones also doing the math about coal and gas and finding gas wins on cost, pollution and infrastructure.  Coal was the default option for years. but we’re seeing smaller markets embrace  natural gas as in Sri Lanka:

Sri Lanka will cancel plans for a 500 megawatt Indian-built coal-fired power plant at its strategic eastern port city of Trincomalee and will instead opt for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) power plant, a cabinet minister said late on Tuesday.

“We do not want to hurt India. So President Sirisena in his visit has offered an LNG plant instead of the coal plant,” Weerakkody told Reuters. “This has been discussed at the highest level and there is consensus.”

The Philippines provides another example:

Royal Dutch Shell plc and France’s Total S.A. made moves earlier this year revealing their interests to progress plans for LNG terminals in the Philippines, where demand for the clean fuel has been crimped by a lack of LNG receiving options.

Vietnam is booming, but they too are looking at gas instead of coal:

Vietnam’s 2016-2025 gas development plan, which was approved by the government earlier this week, gives priority to LNG imports and cutting LPG imports eyeing higher domestic output instead.

In short, the shale revolution is providing clean and affordable energy that will not only slow carbon emissions but put them into reverse.

shale revolution

Yet, in the US,  environmentalists are fighting gas export infrastructure. Sandra Steingraber has been active in fighting fracking in the US and now wants to expand it to gas export infrastructure

Wearing blue and carrying banners from past civil disobedience blockades, the Seneca Lake defenders—many of whom had been previously arrested in actions to stop gas storage in underground lakeside salt caverns—attracted considerable attention from marchers from other grassroots groups who were fighting fossil fuel infrastructure projects that were threatening their own communities. These include pipelines, compressor stations, LNG export facilities, oil trains and new gas power plants.

Yet, US environmentalists cite their fight as a global one too:

“Climate change is already causing conflicts and crises around the world, from Louisiana to Syria. We need to make giant leaps towards a clean energy economy and put an end to the vicious cycle of dirty wars, climate refugees and reliance on dirty energy,” Alesha Vega of the Coalition for Peace Action said.

The US shale revolution is not slowing down the path towards carbon reduction from green power or efficiency at home.  It won’t happen in Europe, where we see coal disappearing off the UK system for days at a time as huge wind projects also come on line.

Simply put there is room for everyone. It’s bizarre that Food and Water Watch, et al seek 100% solutions worldwide by wanting to either ban US fracking or prevent it’s export.  The gas industry constantly points out that renewables have either nothing to fear from gas or should be welcomed by carbon reduction advocates. We’re not proposing 100% solutions. Why are they?