Calgary Herald by Dan Healing.  … Seven Generations Energy Ltd., considered one of the bright lights of the Calgary oilpatch, announced it would postpone about $200 million of planned capital investment in 2016….


David Holt Commentary, FuelFix.  …a second major oil company was forced to abandon plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska…for those who live close by…, the news is devastating.

ON EVE OF AMERICA'S "STATE OF THE UNION" SPEECH, WE SEE A WEAKER NATION BECAUSE OF WHITE HOUSE ENERGY POLICIES

After rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline for the U.S., the Obama administration is now encouraging construction of an oil pipeline in Kenya, according to a WSJeditorial.

U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec reportedly told Kenya’s energy minister last week that the administration would help the African country raise $18B to finance its PowerAfrika pipeline project.

Meanwhile, TransCanada (TRP +0.4%) is bringing an international arbitration case against the U.S. for not treating the Canadian company the way it would a U.S. company as it is seeks to recover $15B in costs and damages

Today we have more evidence (Column right, lower story) that White House disapproval of Keystone XL was based, pure and simple, on politics — not on environmental considerations.   Remember, our first evidence was that the State Department (i.e. the jurisdictional agency since the pipeline would cross the international border) released multiple determinations that the project should be approved.

Such presidential policies cannot produce much of a record to be proud of during tonight's last State of the Union Speech.

Note as well that last year's disapproval of Keystone XL coincided with the administration's continuous delay and the eventual demise of Shell's Arctic Alaska oil and gas exploration program.  

Killing of these high profile energy projects was perfect preface to the President's participation in the United Nations' Paris Climate Change conference in December, 2015.  This negative, domestic energy policy strategy surely delighted the United Nations climate change cabal, whose leader* admitted that the goal of environmental activism is not to improve the environment but to destroy capitalism.  (*Christiana Figueres {Photo} Executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change)  Note: Figueres has now added another goal: depopulating the earth, except for her family, US funded UN coworkers and friends, we assume. -dh

Blocking these and other major fossil energy projects — which would have been good for American jobs and consumers — would also have pleased Arab countries intent on diminishing American energy competition.  

These dots may eventually connect to possible efforts of the outgoing president to purchase a Dubai mansion.  Could this possibly happen while bidding to become Secretary General of the United Nations?  

The sooner the United States withdraws funding, support and even participation in the United Nations, the better.  With China, Russia, Arab and liberal coalitions in charge, the interests of America — including energy interests — cannot be achieved.  

Tom Harris

From reader Tom Harris we have this commentary on tonight's State of the Union Speech: "…But what Obama did not tell Americans, and will undoubtedly not admit tonight, is that the accord is dangerously flawed. It is, in effect, another Kyoto Protocol since, like all United Nations greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction agreements, it provides an opt-out clause for developing nations, the source of most of today’s man-made GHG.   More

Think about it: the U.N. energy producers wish to diminish North American oil and gas production, purely to reduce competition.  The liberal countries vote and work against (i.e. the climate change activist states) coal, oil and natural gas production to reduce supply and increase costs so consumers will use less.  The world's poor countries cast their votes in favor of the climate change agenda so long as the U.S. pays its taxpayer dollars VIA THE UNITED NATIONS to their officials who may or may not responsibly transfer those dollars to the intended alternate energy projects.

There is also another beneficiary of diminished North American oil and gas wealth and economic strength: ISIS.  ISIS has oil money.  The stupid or devious (i.e. take your choice) action of United States leaders is unfreezing billions in cash to terrorism state sponsor Iran.  These facts logically lead to a weaker North American defense capability and a stronger terrorism capability.  

Accordingly, we do not look forward to a very pithy, last State of the Union performance this evening.

Putting the nail in the coffin are current Canadian and U.S. leaders who wholeheartedly endorse the anti fossil fuel, transfer of North American wealth programs.  

With such leadership, can economies be expected to perform better than they now are?

-dh


Original Story Here, with videos.  Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently stated in an interview that the Earth is already over burdened with people and that we should look at depopulating the planet.

“There is pressure in the system to go toward that; we can definitely change those, right? We can definitely change those numbers,” Figueres stated.

“Really, we should make every effort to change those numbers because we are already, today, already exceeding the planet’s planetary carrying capacity.” she claimed.

“So yes we should do everything possible. But we cannot fall into the very simplistic opinion of saying just by curtailing population then we’ve solved the problem. It is not either/or, it is an and/also.” Figueres continued.

Figueres also blatantly stated earlier this year that the true purpose of the entire global warming scare is to kill off capitalism. Now, even after this admission, she’s claiming we need to get rid of a large percentage of the world’s population due to climate change. Of course, most of the sheeple in the world will ignore her admission as well as the undeniable evidence that climate change is the greatest science scandal of all time – as illustrated by the fact the someone has been ‘fudging the numbers’ that give credit to this scam.

The other great lie is that we have a problem with the Earth’s population. Actually fertility rates are falling. More below the video.

 

Climate One is a self described public affairs forum which advocates extreme action to combat climate change. It is a branch of The Commonwealth Club of California based in San Francisco, essentially a talking shop visited regularly by heads of government and corporate business.

Figueres is no stranger to controversial statements when it comes to climate change. The UN official previously described the goal of the UNFCC as “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

She has also repeatedly said that a Chinese style communist dictatorship is better suited than the U.S. constitutional system to fight “global warming.”

Figueres told Bloomberg News last year that the Chinese government (which continues to enforce forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization) is “doing it right” when it comes to climate change, even though China is by far the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses.

Figueres noted that a partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing climate related legislation, while the Chinese Communist Party, sets policies by decree. President Obama clearly agrees given that he continues to bypass Congress by issuing executive orders on climate change.

As InfoWars has continually noted, there is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.

Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

In addition, as highlighted by the Economist, global fertility rates are falling.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the Earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.

The real solution would be to help increase the standard of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.

Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.

In addition, Climate legislation continually pushed by the developed world has those nations taking on less of a burden than anticipated demanding more of poorer countries, despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions will further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

Previous legislation, such as the Copenhagen agreement, allowed people in developed countries to emit twice as much carbon per head than those in poorer countries, who have not caused the rise in emissions said to be threatening our existence on the planet. The revelations have led third world leaders to accuse the developed world of “climate colonialism”.

Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.

One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has previously launched initiatives urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.