Please give careful consideration to these key energy questions.  Who is it that wants:

1) U.S. nuclear energy facilities to close down?

2) U.S. fossil fuel reserves to stay in the ground (onshore and offshore)?

3) the costs of fossil fuels to go up (e.g., with a carbon tax)?

4) a high percentage of the U.S. electric grid to be based on unreliable sources?

5) the U.S. to waste trillions of dollars on unreliable electricity?

6) to have our national security weakened by wind energy interference with our military?

If you answered, "The Sierra Club and its allies," you're right.

However, the correct answer is also our opponents: Russia and China.

Consider the fact that when it comes to energy policy, there is an almost identical agenda between these two groups.

Here is last week's amazing congressional report about this collusion.

This is not new news, but information that the national media have (for some reason) not been interested in pursuing and publicizing.  Consider this report last year.  And a similar report back in 2014.

You would think anyone concerned about purported collusion between Russia and President Trump would be extremely concerned about documented proof that the Russians are purposefully trying to undermine our economy and national security by supporting the environmental movement's six-point energy agenda (above).

Fossil fuel exports account for around 16% of Russian GDP, 52% of government revenue, and 70% of Russian exports (see here), so it makes sense that Russian propaganda efforts would be focused on protecting Russia's fragile economy.

The U.S. is the biggest threat to China's political and economic aspirations, so it makes perfect sense that Chinese would also love to see our economy and national security undermined – and a frivolous, counter-productive national energy policy is an effective way to do that.

Right now this is playing out regarding U.S. offshore drilling.  For example, in North Carolina, environmentalists are aggressively opposing any and all offshore fossil fuel exploration (e.g., here and here and here).

One side wants U.S. fossil fuels to stay in the ground, so our costs will go up and we will be forced to rely on expensive and unreliable sources of electricity (like wind energy). 

Via Wikimedia Commons.

This will harm our economy.

The other, pro-American, side wants us to get more energy independence, to expand our economy by having lower-cost, reliable electricity, and to be able to give our European allies an alternative to Russian natural gas.

The wind energy matter is a proxy fight over these issues.