[This originally ran last Aug. 1, hence the dated reference to would-be Queen Hillary.]

I’d rather nap than watch a political speech by anybody, but the airwaves were filled with Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination. She mouthed the usual stale liberal bromides, among them “clean energy.”

Tom Gantert, writing at Michigan Capitol Confidential, did some digging and found out the Sierra Club opposes or is trying to severely restrict sources producing 91% of that state’s power. In other words, the Sierra Club wants you to hug trees while you freeze to death on the Upper Peninsula. (In Detroit, you’d be mercifully shot before frostbite set in.)

The Sierra Club, of course, realized it was caught red-handed and wouldn’t comment, but Mr. Gantert found the evidence on the organization’s website, which starts out nobly, “We have a vision of a world powered by clean energy, where dirty and dangerous fossil fuels are a thing of the past and everyone can enjoy cleaner air and water thanks to renewable energy resources.”

He went on to cite the page that calls natural gas “dirty, dangerous, and run amok.” The Sierra Club has championed shutting down coal plants; don’t ding them for that, they are true believers.

The puzzling thing is the unequivocal opposition to nuclear plants, which provide almost a third of Michigan’s energy. The Sierra Club’s executive director, Michael Brune, called nuclear power “dangerous” in The Wall Street Journal. But why? Because Fukushima, where a design flaw contributed heavily? Because Chernobyl? Because Homer Simpson? Because “The China Syndrome,” which turned out to be more about TV news than nuclear energy?

For fairness and balance, we present rebuttal from the flack for the Nuclear Energy Institute, also from the article: “After more than 60 years of commercial nuclear energy production in the United States, including over 3,900 reactor-years of operation, there have been no radiation-related health effects linked to their operation. Studies by the National Cancer Institute and The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation show that U.S. nuclear power plants effectively protect the public’s health and safety. Nuclear plants also are safe for workers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is safer to work at a nuclear plant than at a fast food restaurant, a grocery store or in real estate.”

Environmental wackos never want to face facts or reality. BTW, keep those tax-deductible donations coming.