Source: Deadly-Crossing-Web-Version.pdf

25 million Americans live within one mile of a bomb train route. Are you one of them?

As you read this, train cars are crisscrossing the nation carrying a highly volatile form of crude oil. Known as “bomb trains,” these cars have a history of devastating explosions – threatening lives and waterways – when involved in any kind of an accident.

Our report, Deadly Crossing: Neglected Bridges & Exploding Oil Trains, details the danger. The report includes the findings of a grassroots network of advocates who conducted inspections across the United States and identified significant areas of concern with 114 railway bridges along known and potential routes of explosive oil trains.

What they found should alarm us all.

The condition of our nation’s rail infrastructure is dismal. And, according to a study by our report partners, ForestEthics, it threatens the lives of more than 25 million Americans who live within one mile of an oil train route, known as the bomb train blast zone. You may be one of them.

Help us take the findings of this new report to the federal government and demand that bomb trains stop endangering lives and waterways.

Leave fossil fuels buried to prevent climate change, study urges | Environment | The Guardian

Leave fossil fuels buried to prevent climate change, study urges | Environment | The Guardian.

Climate coverage soars in 2013, spurred by energy, weather — The Daily Climate

Climate coverage soars in 2013, spurred by energy, weather — The Daily Climate.

Is North America The Next World Capital Of Energy? : NPR

Is North America The Next World Capital Of Energy? : NPR.

The business of a natural gas pipline in Vermont | Burlington Free Press |

The business of a natural gas pipline in Vermont | Burlington Free Press |

Drill Baby Drill, David Hughes

Drill Baby Drill.

In this landmark report, PCI Fossil Fuel Fellow David Hughes takes a far-ranging and painstakingly researched look at the prospects for various unconventional fuels to provide energy abundance for the United States in the 21st Century. While the report examines a range of energy sources, the centerpiece of “Drill, Baby, Drill” is a critical analysis of shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) and the potential of a shale “revolution.”

A print version of the report can be purchased here.


It’s now assumed that recent advances in fossil fuel production – particularly for shale gas and shale oil – herald a new age of energy abundance, even “energy independence,” for the United States. Nevertheless, the most thorough public analysis to date of the production history and the economic, environmental, and geological constraints of these resources in North America shows that they will inevitably fall short of such expectations, for two main reasons: First, shale gas and shale oil wells have proven to deplete quickly, the best fields have already been tapped, and no major new field discoveries are expected; thus with average per-well productivity declining and ever-more wells (and fields) required simply to maintain production, an “exploration treadmill” limits the long-term potential of shale resources. Second, although tar sands, deepwater oil, oil shales, coalbed methane, and other non-conventional fossil fuel resources exist in vast deposits, their exploitation continues to require such enormous expenditures of resources and logistical effort that rapid scaling up of production to market-transforming levels is all but impossible; the big “tanks” of these resources are inherently constrained by small “taps.”

about the author

J. David Hughes is a geoscientist who has studied the energy resources of Canada for nearly four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as a scientist and research manager. He developed the National Coal Inventory to determine the availability and environmental constraints associated with Canada’s coal resources.

As Team Leader for Unconventional Gas on the Canadian Gas Potential Committee, he coordinated the recent publication of a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s unconventional natural gas potential. Over the past decade, he has researched, published and lectured widely on global energy and sustainability issues in North America and internationally.

He is a board member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas – Canada and is a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute. He recently contributed to Carbon Shift, an anthology edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon on the twin issues of peak energy and climate change, and his work has been featured in Nature, Canadian Business, and other journals, as well as through the popular press, radio, television and the internet. He is currently president of a consultancy dedicated to research on energy and sustainability issues.

Changing Views About a Changing Climate

Changing Views About a Changing Climate.  Richard A Muller


Bill Wallace

I’m very bothered by what Prof Muller is doing these days. He has been a very vocal climate change denier and has enabled congressmen (esp. Sen Inhofe) to delay solutions and to castigate and denigrate real climate scientists.
He has received funding from a Koch foundation whose record has made it plain that they expect certain outcomes to scientific inquiry.
All of the research done by real climate scientists has been available (and massively peer reviewed) for some time now. This epiphany of Prof. Muller’s smells to me like a tactic change.
Most climate scientists have stayed out of the arguments over policies for addressing this real problem, but Prof. Muller jumps right into that arena with suggestions that border on demand that we accept fracking, and push for a move to natural gas. If the Koch brothers have conceded they are losing the argument on denial, might they want to set an agenda (fracking and natural gas) that would benefit them?
Further, what is the need for a book by Prof. Muller about his conversion? If it’s to explain what evidence there is for human caused climate change, that’s already been done very well by Michael Mann, among others. I can only think of two reasons for the book. One is for Muller to remain a prominent voice whichever way the discussion goes, and the other is to promote an agenda favorable to his Koch foundation backers.