1) control of world’s energy resources without immediate overt military action
2) attempt to leverage the US into a “climate control technology leader”
3) prevent developing nations from developing very fast (inexpensive electricity is the key)
4) a clever (like OPEC) way to increase the size and power of governments (the natural tendency to return to pre-democratic, free enterprise styles which are relatively new – 232 years old).
5) cover for some larger political, military, geologic or terrestrial indication or threat the public can’t handle.
6) A precursor to expressing the (eventual or current) need to arrive at a sustainable human population globally and for each region (continent, biome, etc.).

I am most definitely a climate denier as Holdren defines it, and am 100% confident man made CO2 today is not a climate driver. Even if it is, then transcontinental transport of goods should be the first target. Look what sea freighters put into the air!

and even if it is (which it isn’t) the WINDMILLS are about the WORST investment we could make to reduce CO2! My word, they require either massive scale energy storage (dangerous and not even invented yet) or much larger spinning reserves to kick in when weather calms. They produce so little when we need the most electricity it is pitiful.

Regionalization – proximity of manufacturing and agriculture production to markets, along with an investment in non-fossil mass transit and controlling air and sea traffic make way more sense than windmills!