A report produced by the Sierra Club, subject of a Time magazine article on Thursday, revealed the club intends to build an environmental coalition to halt the next wave of the country’s natural gas expansion: over 200 planned natural gas power plants and pipeline projects, the club told Time. . . Many environmental groups—including the Sierra Club—once considered natural gas as part of the solution to decarbonize the electric sector.
Yeah, but that’s back when natural gas was expensive, and it could be used as a nice club against coal—especially when natural gas companies like Chesapeake Energy were willing to finance the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign. I warned here on Power Line two years ago that the natural gas sector would their next target. It looks like that day has come. (Never mind that cheap natural gas is the chief reason coal power is in decline, and why U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have been falling.)
So if foolish natural gas companies have stopped paying tribute to the Sierra Club, who has stepped in to take their place? News item: Newsweek—Newsweek!—actually seems to be on the case.
Here in the United States, a Senate report found that the Sea Change Foundation funneled more than $43 million to environmental causes in 2011 — padding the budgets of ardent anti-fracking organizations like the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Foundation is heavily funded by a Bermuda-based shell corporation with direct ties to Putin and Russian oil interests. The shady firm is currently under indictment for offshore money laundering. . .
The influence of Russian propaganda and the influx of money funneled from the Kremlin to many of America’s most extreme environmental outfits helps explain why anti-fracking attacks continue even though science has confirmed fracking poses no threat to public health.
I’m sure the rest of the media will follow up on this story. Maybe if some clever person can think of an angle involving Trump.