Powered by Max Banner Ads 

The Idiocracy of Fractivists and Their Junk Science

Screen Shot 2014-09-02 at 3.45.08 PM

K.J. Rodgers
Crownsville, Maryland  


Regardless of the facts, those who are in opposition to gas refuse to believe that it can provide any good – unless it has electrolytes.

Some days I feel as if I had been put in a cryogenic chamber and have wakened up 500 years in the future like Luke Wilson in the movie Idiocracy. I feel as if the truth is right there in our face, yet some of us are too ignorant to realize it.

For those who are not familiar with the movie, Luke Wilson is the most average guy in the Army. Luke was selected for a suspended animation experiment; he comes to 500 years in the future where everyone is dumb. They are so dumb, that he is the smartest guy alive as he helps them grow plants without using sports drinks.


This is how I feel every time I read something by an anti-gas activist. Instead of rational discussions based on real data, they just continue to use the same fear mongering tactics they always use. A recent post on the Guardian is no exception. In fact, the piece nearly irritated me.

The author, George Monbiot, an author and conspiracy theorist who offers awards to those who can make a citizens arrest of Tony Blair, is the definition of smug. His post, “No fracking, drilling or digging: it’s the only way to save life on Earth” is nothing more than another “Keep it in the Ground” call to action from the Moonbat side of the world. Monbiot the Moonbat calls for all fossil fuels to remain in the ground or else we will certainly all die.

Based on the Paris Agreement, he argues the 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature is completely unavoidable with the use of any fossil fuel. He says “burning the oil, gas and coal in the fields and mines that is already either in production or being developed, is likely to take the global temperature rise beyond 2C. And, even if all coal mining were to be shut down today, the oil and gas lined up so far would take it past 1.5C.” With a quick sleight of the hand, he points to a report by Oil Change International as the basis of his facts, then immediately masks it, as if this was an industry report, by saying, “Using the industry’s own figures.” Those who take information at face value probably never noticed, but the report is sponsored by the usual suspect fractivists: 350.org, Earthworks, et al.

The idiocracy of this idea is multi-tiered. You cannot rid the world of any conventional fuel source overnight, not only because the infrastructure of the entire world is at play, but also because there is nothing viable to take it’s place. Leo DiCaprio was recently schooled on this point about the real world by none other than President Obama.

farctivistsUnderstanding the second flawed aspect of this idiocracy requires some to read something other than Mother Jones. Natural gas is the single biggest reason CO2 emissions are decreasing. By nearly 20 to 1, natural gas is outperforming renewables in addressing CO2 emissions reductions. From the moment of fracking to the moment the gas heats our home, gas is cheaper, safer, and more reliable than any other form of fuel.

The third aspect of this dangerous idiocracy has to do with the rest of the world. The United States is blessed to have the gas reserves that we do. Not too many countries have this option, but we are here to help. Just as we shipped our LNG to Brazil and soon thereafter went worldwide, natural gas gives resource-lacking countries an ability to change as well and still grow.

They can now implement electric plants, gas lines, and infrastructure to facilitate clean gas without overhauling their lives to accommodate impractical international regulations. Imagine how soon this 2 degree threshold would lose bearing if more 2nd and 3rd world countries went from coal to gas. Imagine, too, if their governments were asked to provide subsidies for SolarCity. It wouldn’t happen.

“It’s got electrolytes” is the catchphrase of the Idiocracy movie when they try to explain why they have been using a sports drink (“Brawndo”) on their crops. They completely stopped thinking about whether it was good or not; they just did it because “everything needs electrolytes.” The same thing is happening with fractivists. They’re trying way too hard to fight against with facts, just repeating their own talking points about their own Brando. Fractivism is the new Brawndo, in fact. Hopefully, one day, they can think for themselves and we won’t see any more of this:


Brawndo sports drink tank used to irrigate fields and water plants, from Idiocracy

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 thoughts on “The Idiocracy of Fractivists and Their Junk Science

  1. As a disclaimer, I respect neither you, your article, nor your stance on environmental issues. That said; I have some problems with your arguments.
    Your statements about the costs of overhauling infrastructure directly conflict your enthusiastic support for overhauling existing energy infrastructure in order to replace it with natural gas. This leads me to conclude that you have a remarkably weak grasp on the concept of civil engineering, and should not be writing about it.
    Your own metaphor betrays your argument: just like the plot from that movie you keep going on about, anyone who arbitrarily and inflexibly believes in something can be wrong. You need to understand that anyone can be either side to the “Idiocratic” dichotomy. Take it from someone who has very likely done more research into energy than you: you just might be among the metaphorical electrolyte zealots.
    You are correct in that there is no perfect source of energy, but that’s where your insight begins and ends. Yes, solar and wind power require vast amounts of resources and have the potential to do harm to the environment. Has it never occurred to you that Methane might do the same?
    I would post links to studies about comparative GHG emissions, air, soil, surface and groundwater contamination, infrastructure comparisons between energy sources, water usage and depletion, habitat loss and alteration, et nauseam – all damning the natural gas industry – but I know that you don’t care about evidence that might usurp you from this lonely hill you’ve decided to die on.
    You know why there are so many people in the anti-fracking movement? You know why it seems like their numbers keep growing? It’s because every one of their arguments has more substance than all your articles combined.
    If you think reading anti-fracking rhetoric is hard to bear, imagine what it must be like for them to read whatever insulting affront to the written language this website is.

    • Con·de·scend:
      – to show feelings of superiority; be patronizing
      – to do something in a haughty way, as though it is below one’s dignity or level of importance

          • I used a fake name because I was angry and I didn’t think I would be writing more than one comment.

            It’s easy to pretend that you lot aren’t real people, and I’m sorry that my writing is abrasive and unkind.

            Still, I don’t take back the substance of what I said, because that would be dishonest. I really am frustrated with your convictions, and I really do think that this website is an unprofessional way to express your views. If you’re going to say something and call it an article, the least you could do is make it appear like you know what you’re talking about.

            So how about this: I’ll start thinking of pro-pipeline activists as human beings if you do the same for anti-fracking activists. As much as I disdain the notion, we all have a lot in common. We all want peace, economic prosperity, a stable future, and to be right. We just have conflicting ways of achieving those things. Then, if you don’t want me to post any more comments, I won’t post any more comments.

      • I really agree with your statement Tom. You really have to knock these guys down a notch. They’re going to push their agenda no matter what.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Powered by Max Banner Ads