Killing Capitalism?  

Have several oil and gas CEOs now joined the enviro-governmental-industrial cabal?

Commentary prepared on Friday, October 16, 2015


Dave Harbour

Today, we have what is to us a disturbing announcement by some of the globe's largest oil and gas companies.  

They have formed a new consortium.  Not to build a pipeline.  Not to develop an oil and gas reservoir.  Not to permit a new LNG facility.  No, these companies have formed a new consortium to support a conflicting interest, the "Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI)".  

We can imagine hundreds of environmental activists across the globe tweeting, "OMG!",  rubbing their hands, laughing, celebrating!  They will now have a new industry bureaucracy to lobby, insult, beg for money, coerce into supporting legislation.  A bright new target with a clearly visible bulls-eye.  More oil guys and gals dressed 'business casual' with wine and dine expense accounts.  Just think of the meetings, parties and interaction among the mostly European members of OGCI and the elite members of the United Nations, OPEC, Government ministers, etc.  The atmosphere must be both politically correct and intoxicating. 

We can also imagine the more cynical among enviro-activists saying between ironic smiles, "If these guys are so into challenging global climate change, why don't they just stop producing oil & gas, liquidate their companies and go home to enjoy cleaner air to breathe!" 

While well intended, the stalwart OGCI CEO's seem nevertheless to be kowtowing to the global warming crowd that worked so hard to delay and destroy Shell's vital Arctic exploration program off Alaska's Northern coast–and countless other industry projects.

We believe that this effort could be designed to endear the companies, if not the industry, to more favored treatment by politically sensitive world regulators and by the environmental gadflies that have continuously sought to delay or destroy their projects.  If so, our much respected oil and gas industry becomes just another member of the Crony Capitalist Cabal.

But it is a government relations/PR strategy designed to backfire.  The regulators and enviro-activists will never compromise.  They will always want more: more fund raising dollars, more restrictive bureaucracy and more governmental power.  It is foolish and naive to think otherwise.  

Think about it a minute: if industry believes one way and the socialist-enviro faction thinks another, which side ends up compromising…paying more money…accepting more regulations…bowing to more permitting conditions…supporting more politically correct policy positions?  Answer: not the other side.

We also believe that this oil industry climate change consortium effort opens the way for a higher level of direct and indirect corporate contributions (i.e. pay-offs to environmental groups and powerful elected officials).  Those familiar with American history, particularly in big city crime syndicate areas, have known this process as, "paying for protection." 

Shell — a member of this new global warming consortium — spent over $6 billion on Alaska OCS leases and massive expenses along with over a half decade of tireless work to overcome the regulatory and legal roadblocks put into place by a hostile federal government and its environmental allies.

Those roadblocks included bureaucratic timing delays, bogus air quality issues, wildlife issues, drilling season restrictions, enviro-extremist protests and a gauntlet of conditional permit requirements.

No company ever worked harder or spent more corporate treasure on stakeholder communications and project expense to drill one single well than has Shell.

Did that most monumental effort of all time placate federal regulators and enviro-activists?  

One should conclude that the massive, OGCI PR program violates the well-known definition of insanity: repeating the same actions while expecting a different result.  

In recent months, we have seen more and more prestigious challenges to the so called, 'proven science of climate change/global warming', including:

Here is the OGCI report.

The oil company CEO "Declaration" shows how OGCI will coordinate with like minded partner organizations/initiatives, most of which are of European/United Nations descent, including:

  • The Sustainable Energy Initiative For All initiative, a powerful group including OPEC, Russia, European and UN Executives…and, former Democratic Senator Tim Wirth, a dedicated Climate Change advocate
  • The Global Methane Initiative which opposes production of Natural gas.
  • The anti-flaring initiative of the World Bank.  Here is its proposed role, which has connotations of a new bureaucracy funded by (oil companies and developed countries?) so that it can keep track of company flaring.
  • the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, is also a "partner" of our OGCI oil friends; it is focused on "national and regional" actions against short term pollutants, including methane, black carbon and HFCs.
  • The Low-carbon Technology Partnerships Initiative aims to: "break down the climate challenge into manageable business and policy actions; and, shape specific policy asks and partnerships which will support actions and mobilize finance to make a material difference to global emissions reductions
  • Caring for Climate, seems to be where the OGCI idea must have originated, for it was, "Launched by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2007 and is the UN Global Compact, the UN Environment Programme and the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change‘s initiative aimed at advancing the role of business in addressing climate change.

If Ms. Figueres' goal is to destroy capitalism and "not save the world from environmental calamity", it looks like her UN colleagues have figured out how to do it.  Form a bewildering, interlocking array of "Initiatives" populated by UN managers and other "power organizers" all designed to focus control of "regions and nations" within the World Bank and the United Nations.

Last spring, global warming alarmists tried to scuttle Shell's scheduled use of the Seattle Port, a staging area for the Alaska project this past summer.  

At a Port hearing, most of the environmental witnesses cited Shell's alleged threat to global warming, whatever that is interpreted to mean by listeners.  

We documented at the time an admission from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.  (Unfortunately, the OGCI consortium is working with Figueres {Photo here}, whose focus is not on the environment but on killing capitalism.

We have always defended the energy industry as the foundation of modern civilization, the essence of free enterprise and capitalism.

Apparently, the worldwide assault on freedom by enemies of capitalism have figured out that if they can make 'global warming' a rhetorical — if not scientific — reality, they will have more leverage to raise funds for their efforts and at the same time continue the steady, little-by-little killing of capitalism.

When I served as Gas Committee vice chairman of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) almost ten years ago, I saw first-hand how this climate change mania began to ramp up.

At the last minute before an Annual meeting, liberal commissioners from around the country sought to and were successful in ramming through a last minute 'climate change' policy statement that had not been fully vetted via NARUC'S usual and thorough resolutions procedure.

This action gave aid and comfort to certain Members of Congress and state lawmakers around the nation for saying, "See, NARUC thinks it is in the interest of consumers to support climate change legislation."

This was also a high water mark for armies of lobbyists seeking government aid for solar, wind, geothermal and all kinds of other alternative energy ideas–a big ramp up for crony capitalism.

Legislatures could say, "NARUC and a hundred scientists think action on climate change is in the interest of consumers, so we will pass a law minimizing use of fossil fuels used to produce electricity."  (Note: consistent with the President's campaign promise: see video.)

All over the country states undertook anti-fossil fuel measures.  These measures were mostly known as, "renewable portfolio standards".  This state status report illustrates how effective the anti-consumer liberal agenda has been to  1) cause utility rates to "necessarily skyrocket!", by 2) paying homage to the concept of global warming/climate change.  

Along the way, this insidious, anti – competitive RPS concept kills free enterprise jobs while creating, nourishing and sustaining crony capitalist companies loyal to their political benefactors.

On the federal front, the Administration and Congress tried to push through cap-and-trade legislation; failing that, the EPA is attempting to use its own regulatory power to achieve the same result.  Coal is producing over a third of the electric power in the country and it is very clean burning now…and, the cheapest way to produce electricity for consumers.  But the 'war on coal' is also, little by little, beginning to accomplish the Administration's goal of causing utility rates to, "…necessarily skyrocket…."

Here's the perverse effect on consumers.  Regulatory commissions everywhere are bound to produce utility (i.e. including electric) rates for consumers that are found to be "just and reasonable" after public notice, commission hearings, expert witnesses, establishment of a legal record of the proceedings, adjudication and the opportunity to appeal decisions.

But what if a Legislature passes a law that says, "defending against climate change is in the consumers' best interest: we are passing anti-coal, anti-fuel oil, anti-natural gas, etc. legislation and giving grants to solar, wind and other alternative energy companies?" 

Well then, the Regulatory Commission is forced into a corner.  The commission must allow utilities to recover the higher cost of securing alternative energy-produced electricity by passing on those costs to industrial, business and residential (family) consumers.  Adding insult to industry, utilities will also be allowed to charge customers for obtaining random, high priced fossil powered electricity to make sure customers have light and heat when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.  In short, pay double/triple for the same electricity.

Triple, yes.  For rate payers, as taxpayers, must also have their earned income redistributed by elected officials via grants and subsidies to their crony contributors/voters.

Here's the outcomecertain alternative energy companies have been enriched, elected officials supporting alternative energy companies receive contributions, TAXPAYERS PAY MORE TO PROVIDE THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY GRANTS and CONSUMERS PAY MORE, MUCH MORE FOR ELECTRICITY UNLESS THEY FIND THEIR OWN WORKABLE SUBSIDY.  Never forget the President's statement about utility rates.

Speaking of the President, the current Administration, elected a year after NARUC's action, was heavily supported by environmental and alternative energy lobbies.  

The Administration has served those lobbies well.  It has violated Congressional jurisdiction by managing the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge like a 'Wilderness'.  It has blocked energy activity in half of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska.  It has pre-emptively and illegally stopped a mining project designed on Alaska state land leases before that project could even file for permits and enjoy a Constitutionally protected 'due process'.  It illegally (i.e. without due process) imposed a moratorium on oil and gas activity in the SHALLOW WATER of Alaska's Arctic after similar restrictions were legally imposed on Gulf of Mexico DEEP WATER drilling activity following the Deep Water Horizon tragedy in 2010.  It has illogically and irresponsibly blocked approval of the Keystone LX Pipeline even following successive State Department environmental clearances.

But more relevant to this discussion, the Administration has funneled huge, multi-hundred million dollar grants and subsidies to both producers of and consumers of alternative energy by tapping taxpayer pockets.

*     *     *

Now, imagine yourself flying 37,000 feet above and looking down upon this situation.

What you are seeing is a massive fundamental change in the free enterprise system that made America great.  Now, many crony capitalist companies compete for government and political favor, not against competitors in the market place — or at least that is secondary.

President Eisenhower cautioned the country in his farewell address that, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

We can be sure that if he had known about the crony capitalist/environmental, governmental cabal described herein, he would have modified his speech to include a broader warning that includes the energy sector.

However, later in that speech, he did say something that should sober every public official and every citizen.

Just as we have cautioned in this webpage about intergenerational inequity, so did the good President say in 1961,"…you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Can't you picture Ike turning in his grave now, over five decades later? 

*     *     *

We know that the companies involved in today's announcement mean well.  They might be concerned that without "being on the correct side of this issue we could injure shareholder value".  Or, many of the leaders themselves could now be leaning toward 'green' or socialist philosophies.  For even if government controls their companies through partial ownership, bureaucratic regulation or fiat, they still have mighty fine jobs, still have viable companies.

Well, I cannot pretend to be in the minds of the decision makers whose rationale for this landmark decision must surely vary from board room to board room.

But I will offer this "free advice" to the companies of the OGCI Consortium, from a number of background perspectives:  

  • You should focus your management attention on aggressive, environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration and development.  As demonstrated in the OGCI report and company web pages, your individual efforts are admirable.  You should vigorously defend your accomplishments and not apologize for them as the organization of OGCI suggests.  
  • The group OGCI effort is likely to distract you from shareholder work without solving the problems you imagine will be solved.
  • You are likely to find those hired or promoted to OGCI work in that communal organization or in your individual company will be voices that more and more influence changes contrary to your traditional corporate culture and mission.
  • Rather, why aren't you focusing on supporting political leaders and parties committed to responsible resource development?
  • Avoid the temptation to have OGCI become a new conduit for money to environmental causes. Never make contributions to organizations that do not support your efforts; that is not to say you must always publicly oppose them, but active support is illogical and detracts from shareholder value.
  • You should redouble your financial support for business related NGOs that support your traditional mission and values.  Help them become more influential, credible and persuasive–with the general public and especially with younger generation issues, like STEM education.
  • Don't let liberal criticism of the Koch brothers intimidate you into supporting their critics.  Your policies should more closely emulate their principled convictions.
  • You will likely be pressured to compromise your positions beyond which OGCI has agreed to; remember that in the socialist or environmental arena, capitalist leaders are the ones compromising.  It's like a big buffet wherein OGCI brings the food while environmentalists and allied socialists bring the appetite, the energy, the arguments and the willingness to use any legal and some illegal means that they think are justified by the ends.  You cannot but lose position in the OGCI environment.

Finally, if you continue to pursue this OGCI course of action, you will:

  • be disappointed that all the executive time devoted to it will cause not less environmental opposition, but more hassle; and
  • going to the COP21 Paris meeting itself, will likely require a significant amount of your time dealing with mostly unproductive follow-up communication and meetings with advisors (COP21 goal, "a binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world"); and
  • your external affairs folks will be flooded with new contribution requests from public officials and NGOs (i.e. "We're on the same side now; help me help you!"); and
  • find that many of your loyal employees will be wondering why precious corporate assets are moving toward initiatives that are opposed to the company's values and operations; and
  • know that much of the traditional, business support in communities you serve everywhere, will be disappointed.  Your community stakeholders will be put in the awkward position of either supporting your global climate change adventure or opposing that expediency.  Those who are intimidated into supporting you will be working contrary to their philosophies and sense of intellectual integrity; and
  • while you may not wish to compromise on a critical issue, the OGCI majority may want to not only give away part of their farm, but part of yours as well (i.e. the danger of working in "majority rule", communal groups sometimes outweighs the advantages, particularly where CEO egos and reputations are highly visible); and
  • lastly, many experts now concur that there is not 'settled science' on global warming although there is much evidence on changing temperature cycles over millennia.  And the modern fossil fuel industries in OGCI-developed countries at least, are very clean.  If human activity were proven to produce permanent warming owing to 'greenhouse gasses', it is not certain that Western Europe or America provide a major increment of that effect (i.e. especially compared with the oceans' overshadowing output). It is even less certain that your company's activities are negatively significant greenhouse gas producers.  It is completely certain, however, that if human activity is to "blame", we've mostly to look at China, India and other developing countries as sources, not at your company work.  I am not a scientist trying to present a clinical, peer-reviewed perspective…only the viewpoint of one community member who hates to see you move from a generally sympathetic but politically agnostic position on environmental protection, to a more controversial advocacy role that may be in such conflict with your traditional support base and ultimate shareholder interest — and even the public interest.

Your position, if unaltered, will change the overall balance of opinion on this matter and lead to significant, hopefully unintended consequences, such as:

  • higher industry taxes to combat the perceived climate challenge to which your CEOs are now wedded;
  • more regulatory burdens with bureaucrats arguing that, "even OGCI knows that stronger steps must be taken";
  • more liberal majorities in political bodies around the world, courting your increased support; and
  • less likelihood that the oil and gas industry can survive (i.e. intact) the worldwide enviro-industrial-governmental cabal that is seeking to amass socialist power and kill capitalism using various tools, such as environmental activists and apologists

Let's face it.  Capitalism, free enterprise and our way of life depend upon the energy foundation, cemented firmly together with fossil fuel building blocks.  If that foundation is controlled by competing private sector companies, the public is — certainly not perfectly — but very well served in the best possible way.  

The capitalist system will change if our energy sector falls lock, stock and barrel into the arms of socialist architects (i.e. of whom there will be plenty in Paris at COP21).

To faithful readers:

If I have misinterpreted the case against OGCI or misrepresented the companies' intentions or perspective, I hope you will enlighten me.

The purpose of this energy archive is to provide accurate history, facts and reasoned commentary.  We have always supported the competitive energy industries with our commentary and best wishes.

If we are ever inaccurate we will make a immediate changes as required and even reconsider editorial positions that readers might demonstrate, persuasively, to be logically flawed.

Feel free to communicate here.


One can expect companies farther down the food chain to, one by one, move in the direction of their Industry employers and clients.  What then happens to citizens whose livelihoods depend on those companies; won't they tend to drift in that new direction?  And what about political systems depending on industry and individual voters; is the drift toward the environmental-industrial-governmental cabal their only alternative.  

Who will be left standing for freedom, and it's first son, capitalism, if not you and those responsive to you?

The answer is that without the energy industry remaining independent, competitive and avoiding the tempting siren call of environmental-socialist seduction, it will abandon its free enterprise allies in the smaller business sectors.  Capitalism's days become fewer as free enterprise is replaced by authoritarianism.

With creation of the OGCI consortium announced today, the well organized effort to kill capitalism may have taken an significant, unexpected and disappointing leap forward.




CEOs of 10 global oil and gas companies make collaborative declaration on climate change:      

Call for an effective climate change agreement at COP21.

  • Strengthen actions and investments to contribute to reducing the GHG intensity of the global energy mix.
  • Support the implementation of clear stable policy frameworks consistent with a 2°C future; these will help our companies to take informed decisions and make effective and sustainable contributions to addressing climate change.
  • Collaborate in a number of areas such as efficiency, natural gas, R&D and CCS
  • Report regularly and consistently on their progress.
  • OGCI report outlines member companies’ work to catalyze practical, meaningful and technology-enabled actions to address climate change.

Paris, France; October 16, 2015 – The chief executive officers of 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – which together provide almost a fifth of all oil and gas production and supply nearly 10% of the world’s energy – today declared their collective support for an effective climate change agreement to be reached at next month’s 21st session of the United Nations (UN) Conference of Parties to the UN Framework on Climate Change (COP21).

In their milestone declaration, the CEOs of the 10 companies that currently make up the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – confirmed that they recognize the general ambition to limit global average temperature rise to 2 degrees centigrade and that the existing trend of the world’s net global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is not consistent with this ambition.

The OGCI member companies have taken significant actions to reduce their GHG footprint, with combined GHG emissions from their operations reducing by around 20% over the past 10 years.

In their declaration the 10 CEOs said:

“Our shared ambition is for a 2°C future. It is a challenge for the whole of society. We are committed to playing our part. Over the coming years we will collectively strengthen our actions and investments to contribute to reducing the GHG intensity of the global energy mix. Our companies will collaborate in a number of areas, with the aim of going beyond the sum of our individual efforts.”

(Helge Lund, BG Group; Bob Dudley, BP; Claudio Descalzi, Eni; Emilio Lozoya, Pemex; Mukesh Ambani, Reliance Industries; Josu Jon Imaz, Repsol; Ben van Beurden, Royal Dutch Shell; Amin Nasser, Saudi Aramco; Eldar Sætre, Statoil; and Patrick Pouyanné, Total.)

The OGCI also today launched its collaborative report – ‘More energy, lower emissions’ – highlighting practical actions taken by member companies to improve GHG emissions management and work towards improving climate change impacts in the longer term. These actions include significant investments in natural gas, carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy, as well as low-GHG research and development.

Together the declaration and report set out key areas where the OGCI companies will focus their collaboration, including:             

  • Efficiency: optimizing efficiency of their own operations; improving the end-use efficiency of their fuels and other products; and working with manufacturers and consumers to improve the efficiency of road vehicles.
  • Natural gas: contributing to increasing the share of gas in the global energy mix, ensuring it results in significantly lower lifecycle emissions than other fossil fuels for power generation; eliminating ‘routine’ flaring and reducing methane emissions from their operations.
  • Long-term solutions: investing in R&D and innovation to reduce GHG emissions; participating in partnerships to progress carbon capture and storage; contributing to increasing the share of renewables in the global energy mix.
  • Energy access: developing projects to provide people with access to energy in partnership with local and national authorities and other stakeholders.
  • Partnerships and multi-stakeholder initiatives: seeking opportunities to accelerate climate change solutions by working collectively or individually in industry and other initiatives.
  • The OGCI is a CEO-led, voluntary, oil and gas industry initiative that aims to catalyze practical action on climate change through best practice sharing and collaboration.
  • The OGCI was established following discussions held during the January 2014 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting and was officially launched at the September 2014 UN Climate Summit.

For the declaration, report and information:

Photo caption: OGCI CEOs declare action on climate change: CEOs present at the event include : Helge Lund, BG Group; Bob Dudley, BP; Claudio Descalzi, Eni; Emilio Lozoya, Pemex; Josu Jon Imaz, Repsol; Amin Nasser, Saudi Aramco; Eldar Sætre, Statoil; and Patrick Pouyanné, Total. (OGCI member CEOs not pictured: Mukesh Ambani, Reliance Industries; Ben van Beurden, Royal Dutch Shell)


Media enquiries:

BG: Toby Bates – +44 118 929 2246 –

BP: David Nicholas – +44 7831 095541 –

Eni: Rosella Migliavacca  – + 39 345 67 75 323 –

Repsol: Kristian Rix – +34650496488 –  

Saudi Aramco: International Media Relations:

Shell: International Media Relations – +44 20 7934 5550

Statoil: Knut Rostad – +47 90548990 –

Total: Victoria Chanial – +33 1 4744 4699 –




President Obama’s Climate Change Message: “This Is All Real, This Is Happening Now” | Video | RealClearPolitics


If we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are expected to rise between six and twelve degrees by the end of the century, changing all sorts of industries forever. This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now.”


“Alaska’s governor recently told me that four villages are in imminent danger and need to be relocated. Already rising sea levels are beginning to swallow an island community.


According to the University of Alaska, temperatures in Alaska have fallen 0.1 degrees since 1977. That extrapolates out to a rise of zero degrees by the end of the century, not “six to twelve degrees” as Obama claims.


Seasonal_Yearly_Temp_Change_77_F (2)

Temperature Changes in Alaska | Alaska Climate Research Center


According to NOAA, sea level is falling at 14 out of 17 Alaskan tide gauges. Obama’s claim that sea level rise is “beginning to swallow an island” is absurd.


North Pacific _RegionalTrends_Plot_3

Sea Level Trends – Mean Sea Level Trends for North Pacific Stations


But Obama’s claim is that we can “do something about it.”  Do something about what? Falling temperatures? Falling sea level? What does he propose to do about that?




Faithful readers know that I have traditionally used the 'editorial we' in these commentaries.  But today, I regard this topic so critical to the wellbeing of the country and the Industry that I offer this counsel personally.

But as an independent observer, I have no industry clients and operate this website as a public service at, primarily, my own expense in the last quarter of life.  It is a labor of love, but one to which I am devoted.  Part of my devotion to this nearly 15-year project flows from my knowledge of how many thousands of friends and acquaintances throughout the world read these pages.  I would never want any reader to think that the opinions expressed here were less than well considered and, at least, factual.

Dave Harbour, publisher of Northern Gas Pipelines, is a former Chairman of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and a Commissioner Emeritus of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).  He served as NARUC's official representative to the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC).  The former Army officer is past Chairman of the Alaska Council on Economic Education, former Chairman of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, and past President of the American Bald Eagle Foundation and the Alaska Press Club.  He is Chairman Emeritus of the Alaska Oil & Gas Congress.

Harbour has served as a public/government/external affairs manager for three gas pipeline companies and an oil company and has owned several small companies in Alaska.  

He has addressed or chaired dozens of oil and gas conferences throughout the United States and Canada and hundreds of his editorials and articles have appeared in newspapers, magazines and electronic media throughout North America.

Harbour holds a Master of Science Degree in Journalism-Communications and is an accredited member of the Public Relations Society of America (APR).

Opinions or viewpoints expressed in this webpage or in our email alerts are solely those of the publisher and are not intended to reflect the opinion(s) of any affiliated company, person, employer or other organization that may, in fact, oppose the views stated herein.  -dh




Former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth worked with Vice President Al Gore on global environmental and population issues, supporting the administration's views on global warming. A supporter of the proposed Kyoto Protocol, Wirth announced the U.S.'s commitment to legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. From 1998 to 2013, he served as the president of the United Nations Foundation, and currently sits on the Foundation's board.  (Source)



The Global Methane Initiative works in concert with other international agreements, including the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change, to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Unlike other GHGs, methane is the primary component of natural gas and can be converted to usable energy. The reduction of methane therefore serves as a cost-effective method to reduce GHGs and increase energy security, enhance economic growth, improve air quality and improve worker safety.  (This "partner group" is working against the OGCI consortium goal of, "Contributing to increasing the share of gas in the global energy mix."​



Governments and oil companies that endorse the Initiative will publicly report their flaring and progress towards the Initiative on an annual basis. They also agree to the World Bank aggregating and reporting the same.



Investors Business Daily Editoral, 2-10-15

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and life spans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and life spans doubled.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: 
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook