New global climate deal could hit Alaska drilling

Millions of eyes, billions of dollars focused on Paris!

Note the dedication and focus represented by this video statement, then see the Crony Capitalism background, current status and conclusion commentary we have prepared for you.

See major UN Climate Change Organizer:

Christiana Figueres


Is Global Warming A Hoax:

IPCC Credibility

Deconstructing GW: Richard Lindzen, Ph.D.

Dr. Benny Peiser Testimony

Dr. Christopher Essex: GW Science

Nobel Laureate

NASA Scientist

Climate Science History

97% Consensus = Science?

Greenpeace Founder re: Fraud

Scientists Cheat on Data

Debate

Climate Always Changes

U.S. Senate Testimony

Michael Crichton

Scientific Bias

IPCC Computer Models

World Health Organization Faux Fear

Author Researches GW

Weather Channel Founder


Fun: What causes climate change: capitalism / democracy, but China is doing it right?!

Crony Capitalism

by

Dave Harbour

cro·ny. ˈkrōnē/close friend or companion.

“he went gambling with his cronies”.  Synonyms: friend, companion, bosom friend, intimate, confidant, accomplice, comrade
Capitalism.  an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Oxymoron.  a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

Socialism.  a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  …a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.


Background: Crony Capitalism is an Oxymoron

We at NGP are among the strongest of oil and gas and mining industry supporters.

Why?

Because without those industries, the United States would likely be just another third world country.  (i.e. Whereas we primarily address Alaska and Canada,  today we focus mainly on the United States as a whole, though the principles herein apply to both nations.)

And why did oil and gas and mining help propel America to its lofty social and economic heights?  Well, some of us begin with the 1) Declaration of Independence, 2) Constitution, and 3) intent of founders acknowledging that their experiment in freedom was wholly based on the grace of their omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator.

Sure, one recognizes the amazing array of natural resources within America’s borders, but, again, those borders evolved over time and under the protection and guidance of our founding fathers, their faithful descendants, our founding documents, and reliance on the rule of law.

Humankind is imperfect.  America is and always has been imperfect.  But part of the country’s ability to develop based on her bountiful resources was the rule of law embodied in our country’s creation: due process, protected freedoms, prohibitions against oppression.

With the passage of time, America has drifted away from its founding principles.  The rule of law has been manipulated to benefit those in power, away from founding values, particularly in the current administration: “Change to believe in”.

As a result, we are disappointed though not surprised to see many institutions of freedom gravitating toward socialistic alliances with government.  We described some of those alliances earlier this week that have developed within the public utility and oil industry sectors.

Institutions are bred to survive and their constituents need them to survive to preserve incomes and lifestyles and life itself.  So our modern institutions understandably fear a “sovereign” that presumes — without opposition — to define the Bill of Rights; make law by edict; declare and incarcerate enemies of the state secretly; access personal communication without valid warrant; misuse the IRS, EPA and other tools of government; redefine marriage, life, education and national security.

Being fearful for their survival, companies go to creative and great lengths to endear themselves to their regulators–even some of our esteemed energy companies.

Oil and gas companies are wealth-producing institutions subject to onerous government treatment and, thus, are natural targets of those amassing government power.  (For the time being, we shall not refer further to mining companies.  While they have much in common with oil and gas entities, the oil & gas industry is the foundation of America’s economic pyramid, producing the bulk of low cost energy enabling all other industries and services and pursuits — including mining — to exist productively.)

We have documented in these pages for years the efforts by government to exert tighter and tighter controls over the oil and gas industry.  While the ultimate goal of socialists might be nationalism / expropriation of oil and gas companies (i.e. as in Argentina {Repsol}), a good step in that direction occurs when government learns how to control companies through regulations and bleed them of their wealth through taxation: i.e. “Crony Capitalism”, or more accurately, “Socialism”.

Turning now to the definitions above, we see that, properly defined, “crony capitalism” is an oxymoron.

Crony capitalism is an illogical term since it suggests “free enterprise controlled by friends/conspirators, etc.”

When a free enterprise becomes controlled or influenced by others, it loses freedom by degree of — in proportion to — that control or influence.  When government becomes the crony “friend” of free enterprise, free enterprise dies as its freedom expires.  So a country or world filled with what we think of as “crony capitalism” is really a place wherein socialist governments have excised the freedom of others to control their means of production, distribution and exchange.

In the example of crony capitalist organizations like Solyndra and its relationship to our national leadership, success of the enterprise is not really the goal.  The goal is for the company to contribute to certain political campaigns, work with elected officials to create legislation earmarking subsidies or grants for a certain sector or business, supporting the reelection of those officials and the prosperity of the “business”… and so the circle of life sustains itself.  Until the enterprise goes bust, of course, and frustrates but does not deter all of those involved from transplanting the model into other vehicles.

Since socialism is defined as a transition into communism any realist would have to conclude that: “‘Crony capitalism’ is a convenient though incorrect way of describing socialist control over an economy leading to communist dictatorship.” 

We urge our readers to not ignore today’s warnings.

Last spring when environmental activists were protesting the temporary moorage of Shell vessels at the Port of Seattle, our research led us to a frightening reality: The master manipulators of ‘climate change’ in the United Nations and in our own federal government are led by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.  She confirmed that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

Ms. Figueres also appears to be the major organizer of the upcoming Paris conference — perhaps the major achievement of her lifetime if she can use it to have the UN exercise control over sovereign countries like the U.S. and Canada.  (Other must-see videos: 1 critical, 2 Australia, 3, 4 Renewable vs. Fossil, 5 Anti-democracy, anti-capitalism videos, etc.)

*     *     *

Current Challenge: Crony Capitalism, or, Killing Capitalism in Paris

I have a dream.  What if we could run into the the United Nations building and yell, “Climate Change”!  We could convince countries with money to give it to others without money to compensate the latter for the carbon the former are putting in the air so that the latter can install alternate energy or pay for fossil fuel.  In this way citizens of wealthy countries love their representatives for dealing with climate change; alternative energy companies make billions and contribute to political campaigns; certain ‘cooperative’ oil companies are accepted when their “initiative” leads to grants for all manner of environmental studies and loans/subsidies given to developing countries — processed via the World Bank.  The United Nations creates the mandatory, worldwide rules and the wealthy countries, via ‘dues’, pay the U.N. to enforce the international agreements.  So, everyone’s happy, right?  You’re not?  Just because you have to pay for someone else’s solar system in another country?  Too bad; pay up or go to jail.  (Dear readers: if this seems implausible or exaggerated, please send clarification after witnessing the results of the upcoming COP21.  -dh)

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) Begins In Paris, On November 30, 2015.

The COP21 goal threatens free enterprise and sovereignty of world nations by a number of “Initiatives” that could result in acceptance by nation representatives of “International Climate Laws”.  The end result: a binding and universal agreement / treaty on climate, from all the nations of the world.

These “initiatives” include an Oil & Gas Climate Initiative described earlier this week.  Its joint declaration states that, “As the international community heads towards COP21, we, the member companies of the Oil and Gas Climate initiative (OGCI), who together provide nearly 10% of the world’s energy, express our collective support for an effective global climate change agreement.”  Remember the above stated COP21 goal: “…a binding and universal agreement on climate, from all nations of the world.”  Note that in a majority vote, the U.S. and Canada can be easily outvoted, though with current liberal leadership the chance that they would oppose international consensus may be fairly remote.   Readers can join me in pondering this question: “What if it is in an oil company’s interest to support a particular U.N. climate initiative benefiting its shareholders at the expense of its host country taxpayers?

Liberal European countries like France are ‘all in’, and have insured that local companies will pay the lion’s share of costs for COP21 (See ‘Financing‘).

A dauntingly huge contingent of other worldwide companies have been seduced into lending their money and logos to COP21 goal of creating a binding and universal agreement / treaty on climate, from all the nations of the world.

In fact, the only/lonely constituencies I do not see represented in the mountains of COP21  information and web pages are the lowly “taxpayer” and “rate payer” constituencies.  But we NGP readers are comforted, aren’t we, in knowing that environmental activists are more than happy to classify themselves as “consumer advocates”, representing all of us.

The U.S. Administration — like many European governments — supports increased government control using environmental and other political tools.  We can envision the Administration publishing Executive Orders approving support of various international agreements; the term “treaty” will not be used because the Constitution requires a super majority vote of the U.S. Senate to approve treaties.

The U.S. has already developed a certain carbon emission goal effort with China, of which readers are probably unaware, and informed the United Nations THIS WEEK of an emission reduction goal that carries with it costs to utility and other consumers, of which readers are also probably not aware….

*     *     * 

Conclusion and Action Steps

We’ve now defined certain terms, interpreted them, applied them to the upcoming COP21 and suggested potential vulnerabilities to the sovereignty of the United States.

Readers will ask, “So what are we supposed to do about it?”

Our answer is “practical but realistic”.  First, as to “realistic”, you have to know that the United Nations — a huge organizational amoeba designed to eat, roam and grow — is the ultimate “community organizer” behind this effort.  The network the UN has organized around the climate change concept may shock readers for it is extraordinarily powerful, consisting of many governments, NGOs and government influenced corporations, among others (Reference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 89, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and many more).

But there will be wars in Paris.  Big electric utilities are lobbying hard; they say that, “…any Paris Agreement should embrace four core principles that will help drive the deployment of clean technologies: a commitment to deliver “secure, stable, clear, consistent and long-term policies”; a systemic approach to decarbonizing electricity systems (i.e. no natural gas, oil or coal); the promotion of public-private partnerships (i.e. government support); and urgent progress on clean tech R&D  (i.e. government support).

Some of the less enlightened oil companies put great emphasis on bashing coal, even ‘clean coal’ technology, selfishly focused not on consumer interests but on shareholder desires to sell more natural gas for power generation.

Some of the web pages noted above support less use of natural gas along with international agreements to enforce that goal.

As to the “practical” aspect of our advice to readers: Here are the action steps we recommend to our readers (i.e. many of whom we do realize are to one degree or another dependent on some of the oil companies joining in the Climate Change Paris parade):

  • Follow the Paris proceedings on the Internet.  You will be amazed at the resources being focused on convincing you that, 1) there is a “global warming” problem, and 2) that it is man-caused, and 3) that taxation or other sacrifice by Americans can make a material difference.
  • There will be no reference to other scientific evidence that the globe is not warming but, rather, continuously involved in millennial climate change cycles beginning long before man appeared.
  • After doing your homework write thoughtful, responsible letters to the editor.  Comment on blogs.  Engage in meaningful communication with community groups.  (Don’t simply become a reactionary, generally opposing/supporting something without the facts and logic to support your position.)
  • If you determine certain companies are working against the interest of you and your fellow citizens, tell them that you are on to them and oppose their actions for the thoughtful reasons and logic you have assembled.
  • Via your organizations obtain resolutions.  Encourage passage of legislative resolutions and/or proclamations from Governors and Mayors.
  • Make sure your U.S. Senators understand your reaction to having the Administration’s climate change devotees supporting “international climate change agreements” without properly submitting them to the Senate for approval as treaties.

If in monitoring the Paris conference you develop other ideas for how to effectively voice a responsible position, feel free to write us.

It’s a brave new world, folks.  Socialization of private enterprise is now developing into a fine art–not only in the world of environmental activism.  If you choose to ignore it, you will live with the result of a transformed society that you may or may not find either comfortable or consistent with Constitutional law and values.

Don’t be surprised when your favorite company or next door neighbor becomes involuntarily pressed into or “encouraged” into supporting certain favored, government programs.

Just become knowledgeable.

For in being prepared, you will best know how to react.


The Fifth Assessment Report was finalized in 2014. As had been the case in the past, the outline of the AR5 was developed through a scoping process which involved climate change experts from all relevant disciplines and users of IPCC reports; in particular representatives from governments. Governments and organizations involved in the Fourth Report were asked to submit comments and observations in writing with the submissions analyzed by the panel.

[1] The report was delivered in stages, starting with Working Group I’s report on the physical science basis, based on 9,200 peer-reviewed studies.[2][3] The summaries for policy makers were released on 27 September 2013 for the first report,[4] on 31 March 2014 for the second report entitled “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability”,[5] and on 14 April 2014 for the third report entitled “Mitigation of Climate Change”.[6] The Synthesis Report was released on 2 November 2014.[7] It is anticipated that the Fifth Assessment Report will pave the way for a global, legally binding treaty on reducing carbon emissions at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris during late 2015.

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 1937, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015 with bipartisan support by a vote of 254-177. Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) released the following statement:

China is winning and we are losing. Rather than harness our abundant mineral resources for the betterment of our national security, economic stability, and basic necessities, we have a senseless permitting process that promotes mineral dependence.  H.R. 1937 combats the lengthy permitting processes that hold up mining projects on average 7-10 years, exacerbated by the frivolous, unwarranted lawsuits from national special interest groups. The bill ensures a robust domestic mineral economy that is essential to our national security and economic well-being.”

The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV), sets a coherent national policy to create a domestic supply chain of minerals that are of critical importance to United States economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness.

“Our nation is rich in strategic and critical minerals. Permitting delays stand in the way of high-paying jobs and revenue for local, often rural, communities,”stated Amodei. “This legislation does nothing to circumvent environmental regulations or public input. It would simply streamline the permitting process to leverage our nation’s vast mineral resources, while paying due respect to economic, national security and environmental concerns. This legislation has received bipartisan support in passing the House four times the past three Congresses. I look forward to the Senate joining the fray this Congress and helping the House solve this important issue for the country.”


 

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