“If you see something, say something.” That is what our political leaders have told us repeatedly in the last couple of decades. The message is that as ordinary citizens, we all have roles to play in helping to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. More broadly, safeguarding our national security, against both internal and external threats, should be everyone’s responsibility.

I am an ordinary citizen. My life and professional experiences have allowed me to see some things that I believe are worth saying. As I have followed the national discussions about the transition to a clean energy future, there is one question that I have often wondered about: To what extent do climate activists factor national security and geopolitics into their thinking in their advocacy?

In my graduate engineering studies, I focused on energy sources and systems. Since obtaining that education, I have had three decades of professional experience in the energy industry. I therefore know a thing or two about energy. Because of where I grew up and my extensive travels, I also happen to have a fairly good amount of knowledge about international politics and the realities that people face in different parts of the world. That wide-ranging background is what allows me to see this energy-transition debate in a light that is perhaps a bit different from other people’s viewpoints.

Every energy source has drawbacks. Those of coal, oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels are well documented. People who oppose wind farms point to their harmful effects on birds and marine life. On the surface, solar arrays appear harmless. But they cover so much ground that I suspect they have some disruptive impacts on ecosystems. The worms and numerous other organisms that live in the soils that solar panels cover probably have some grievances that they are unable to express to us.

I have said many times that I am a fan of renewable energy. The fuel is free, when it is available, so there is a lot to like about it. But, based on everything I know and have seen, it is nowhere near the point where it can solely power the global economy and allow us to live the way we do today.

Politicians will always be politicians. They will say anything that will help them win votes. They knowingly sell policies that are completely detached from reality. With green energy, they have set all kinds of target dates that, they must know, are totally unachievable. They simply move the goalposts as the dates approach.

One of the biggest problems with the energy-transition debate is the total silence about the monetary cost. Little is also said about the level of sacrifice, in terms of lifestyle changes, that will be required from all of us to have any hope of meeting the set goals. A University of Edinburgh professor who is also a former adviser on energy to the World Bank made that point recently. He said this: “Very clearly the cost of the transition has never been admitted or recognized.” He added: “There is a massive dishonesty involved.”

The professor is frustrated because as the biggest champions of green energy, his country, the U.K., and Europe generally, are paying the highest prices in the world for energy. Citing International Energy Agency and U.S. Energy Information Administration data, the Wall Street Journal says that industrial customers in the U.K. pay more than four times as much for electricity as their counterparts in the U.S. do.

The high cost of electricity has suddenly become a hot-button issue not only in Europe, but here in the U.S. Politicians in both places are scrambling for answers.

The attention that fossil fuel emissions and their negative environmental effects receive is fully deserved. However, because the emissions that originate from one part of the world impact the whole planet, the West cannot unilaterally disarm on this issue. China has decided that it will do whatever is necessary to advance its goal of global dominance. It still uses enormous amounts of coal, oil and gas to power its economy. Chinese leaders have amply demonstrated that they don’t care what anyone thinks or says.

Until recently, India was close enough to the West that it could be seen as a constructive partner in the debate about climate change. No longer. After President Trump carelessly alienated India by imposing punitive tariffs on it for its Russian oil purchases, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is now all-in on the axis of autocracy. Just a week ago, he warmly welcomed Vladimir Putin to New Delhi despite the Russian leader’s status as an indicted war criminal. Also, Mr. Modi has lately become quite chummy with Chinese President Xi Jinping. India, like China, has decided to rely on whatever energy source it can find, without much consideration to climate change. Bloomberg recently reported that India plans to build new coal-fired power plants all the way to 2047.

America is now locked in a fierce battle with China for economic supremacy. Artificial intelligence (AI) is arguably the most important domain in that contest. There is broad agreement today that this battle will be won by whoever has abundant and cheap energy. Advantage China. Goldman Sachs estimates that by 2030, China will have about 400 gigawatts of spare electricity generation capacity, around three times the expected global data-center power demand at that time. The U.S. and its allies should be careful about doing things that will worsen their already weak position with regard to energy.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Ebba Busch, the Swedish deputy prime minister and energy minister, was quoted as saying: “You can’t afford, in top global competition, to be ideologically driven in the way you decide the energy system.” She added: “Without energy we have no industry, and without industry we have no defense.”

It is quite heartening to see a Western political leader talk in such pragmatic terms about energy. Ms. Busch eloquently makes the link between energy and the health of a nation’s industry and ultimately the strength of its military. The autocrats are hell-bent on taking over the world and determining how everyone thinks and lives. The free world needs more leaders like Ms. Busch who see the geopolitical threats clearly.

In the lives that I lived elsewhere before coming to the U.S., I saw enough to make me appreciate America the way I do. I went all-in on America when I became a naturalized citizen nearly three decades ago. Despite our recent wobbles, my faith in this country remains unshaken. I want the U.S. to win the battle for both economic and military supremacy. That is why I will continue to speak up whenever I see something that has the potential to jeopardize our national security.