How Russia Prevented Western Energy Independence By Funding “Rabid Environmental Groups”

I feel like people are finally waking up to the damage being done by the radical woke progressive agendas that are being pushed. Big Blue Cities that defunded police are seeing a massive exodus due to people hating the now dangerous and squalid cities. Parents are taking back school boards that are indoctrinating their children. And now, we find out that radical woke progressive climate activists, who have been influencing and even dictating energy policy globally, are probably working for Russia. Yep, you read that right. Russia’s been playing the energy long game, and Western nations have been too consumed with kissing up to radical woke progressivism to notice they were being played like Tevye’s fiddle.

James Carafano, Vice President of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox New,

“The Russians actually fund some of the most rabid environmental groups in Europe because they sic them on the energy projects that aren’t Russian.”

This has actually been discussed for years, but now it’s really coming to a head as the West finds itself in a very tight spot, sanctioning Russian oil while also being dependent on it. The accusation is that Russians are paying people to force a scripted radical climate agenda on Western nations, pressuring them into energy policies that actually damage their energy independence. For example, Michael Shellenberger explained to Fox News that if we look back about 15 years, “Europe produced more natural gas than Russia.” But in response to radical climate change activists, “Russia increased its natural gas production and Europe reduced it.”

“Europe decided not to frack in large part in response to climate activists. We now think there is strong evidence suggesting [the climate activists] were supported directly through financing from Russia.”

Russia certainly didn’t want Western countries to increase fracking and therefore be more energy independent. They wanted them to still be dependent on Russian oil and natural gas. And one way to make that happen was to pressure them to voluntarily abandon the things that would increase Western energy independence. But how could a foreign nation possibly pressure you to voluntarily abandon something that is in your own country’s best interest, while making you more dependent on a hostile foreign nation? Easy. Just take advantage of your nation’s obsession with kowtowing to radical woke progressive agendas. Hijack the radical climate change agenda to serve your own purposes. Get them to do your dirty work for you. Get them to convince entire nations to damage their own best interests by screaming about climate change.

All the way back in 2014, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former prime minister of Denmark and then-secretary-general of NATO, told the Guardian,

“I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas. We don’t go into the details of discussions among allied leaders, but Russia has been using a mix of hard and soft power in its attempt to recreate a sphere of influence, including through a campaign of disinformation on many issues, including energy.”

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton knew about these “phony environmental groups” funded by Russia. In 2017, Republican Representatives Lamar Smith and Randy Webber sent a letter to then-Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin about Russia’s efforts to “suppress the widespread adoption of fracking in Europe and the U.S.,” and they cited Clinton’s email statements which were obtained through the 2016 WikiLeaks dump.

“We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”

Predictably, these “rabid environmental groups” vehemently deny any ties to Russia. Of course they would. I’d expect nothing less. Now, I’d also be willing to consider the possibility that some of these groups, or at least their most screechy radical zealots, may not even realize they are being funded by the Russians or that they are pawns in a global energy manipulation. Have you met these people? A lot of them aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. They are just zealots for the cause.

But now that it’s all hitting the fan with Russia, I think people are realizing they’ve been played and trying to assess how extensive the damage really is.

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, led by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, are now demanding that three U.S. environmental groups, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, disclose their ties to a nongovernmental organization based in San Francisco called Sea Change. Allegedly, Vladimir Putin uses this organization to influence the energy narrative in the U.S.

“Provided the public reporting of Putin’s dark money influence in Europe and the concerns surrounding similar efforts in the United States, we write today to explore your connections with Sea Change. Any action by President Putin, the Russian government, or Putin’s allies to undermine American energy security must be addressed.

It is vital to our national security to know if Vladimir Putin, the Russian government, or Putin’s allies are meddling with America’s energy affordability and security. If the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, or Sierra Club have nothing to hide, then we look forward to seeing the evidence they provide by March 25th.”

In response to Fox News contacting them about the situation, the groups claimed the accusations are “completely false,” “rooted in a smear campaign,” and are just a “conspiracy theory.”

Conspiracy theory, eh? Well, we all know what happens with those these days.

What’s the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth? About 6-12 months.