猫咪社区

This article from the 猫咪社区! Media archives was originally published in the Summer 2012 issue of 猫咪社区! Magazine. It has not been updated.

Retired Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson calls himself 鈥渁n accidental environmentalist.鈥�

His epiphany about climate change started with a tactical problem. In 2006 and 2007, when he served as the military鈥檚 chief logistician in Iraq, he coordinated the transport of millions of gallons of fuel across the country to power everything from vehicles to the large compressors used to cool individual tents鈥攐r, as Anderson puts it, for 鈥渁ir conditioning the desert.鈥� He was taking one casualty for every 24 fuel convoys, and he was doing 18 convoys a day. That鈥檚 one casualty every other day. He needed to get the trucks off the road. He needed to find a way to reduce the military鈥檚 fuel use.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a direct relationship between energy and the military. The more energy consumed, the less effective you are militarily because you鈥檙e more vulnerable,鈥� said Anderson, who reported to General David Petraeus. 鈥淭hey love to take out our field trucks. They make a big boom when they do.鈥�

Since then, Anderson, like many military leaders, has realized that guzzling oil makes the United States vulnerable in other ways. 鈥淚鈥檓 a soldier,鈥� Anderson said. 鈥淲hy should I be concerned about climate change? Climate change brings about global instability. That makes the world more vulnerable and it鈥檚 more likely that soldiers like myself will have to fight and die somewhere.鈥�

The question remains, can the weight and pragmatism of military leadership sway political leaders in Washington?

Never mind D.C. conservatives who claim to be tough on defense and suspicious of climate science: The Department of Defense isn鈥檛 denying that climate change is a major national security threat. 鈥淭he change is happening. It鈥檚 just a reality,鈥� said retired Marine Col. Mark Mykleby, a former strategy assistant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 鈥淪cience tells us it鈥檚 coming our way.鈥�

The Defense Department first acknowledged climate change as a factor in its operations in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. 鈥淸Climate change] may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world,鈥� read the report.

Now the military is going green. Taking fuel trucks off the road. Developing solar energy.

Their reasons are strategic, not altruistic. 鈥淭he Department of Defense is involved in this area for national security reasons,鈥� said Dan Nolan, co-author of the blog dodenergy.blogspot.com, which monitors the department鈥檚 positions on energy use. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not economic. It鈥檚 not environmental. It鈥檚 a national security mission.鈥�

But the message is clear. From the most practical standpoint, the United States cannot afford to ignore climate change or rely heavily on fossil fuels any longer. The question remains, can the weight and pragmatism of military leadership sway political leaders in Washington?

The Long Fight Against Oil Addiction

The military has been concerned about oil dependence for decades. 鈥淭his isn鈥檛 some newly green military,鈥� said Andrew Holland, senior fellow for energy and climate policy at the non-partisan American Security Project. 鈥淲hen they do have to fight a war, they want to mitigate risks to their personnel and equipment.鈥�

And foreign oil use has long put the United States at risk. 鈥淓ight presidents have declared addiction to foreign oil a threat to national security,鈥� said Bill James, an Army veteran who now runs a company that offers a solar-powered transportation system. 鈥淭he military cannot consume at the scale it is consuming and still defend the nation. If you鈥檙e not self-reliant and able to defend the nation within its resources, you鈥檙e not able to defend the nation.鈥�

James goes even further, noting that if the eight presidents, from Nixon to Obama, are correct, then foreign oil is an enemy of the Constitution. That would mean anyone using foreign oil is aiding and abetting an enemy. 鈥淎nyone,鈥� he said, 鈥渨ho doesn鈥檛 aggressively cut oil consumption to within domestic production is technically committing treason.鈥�

Climate change simply brings the question of alternative fuel development into sharper focus.

鈥淸Climate change is] a threat multiplier, increasing instability in some of the most volatile regions in the world,鈥� said Lt. Gen. Norman Seif, a retired U.S. Air Force commander who is now active in promoting clean energy. 鈥淭hat can be a threat to us and our own national security.鈥�

Shrinking Carbon Bootprints

The military imperative is to prepare. In many ways, it鈥檚 leading the way in the development of new energy sources, said Brandon Fureigh, advocacy director for the Truman National Security Project. And with a massive budget and an oversized carbon bootprint, the military is in a good position to drive innovation. 鈥淭he military has always been a good testing ground for technology in general and one reason is they have a large budget,鈥� he said, noting how ideas sparked by military research trickle into the general business arena. Its budget for clean energy has tripled in the last four years to $1.2 billion.

The Pew Project on National Security, Energy, and Climate breaks down the different approaches each military branch is taking to reduce dependence on oil in its report, 鈥淔rom Barracks to the Battlefield. Clean Energy Innovation and America鈥檚 Armed Forces.鈥�

For example, the Army is working toward a 鈥淣et Zero鈥� Initiative, starting with 17 bases that, by 2020, will use only as much energy and water as they can produce. It has added 4,000 electric vehicles to its arsenal and installed its first wind turbine.

The Air Force has set the aggressive goal of obtaining 50 percent of aviation fuels from 鈥渁lternative blends鈥� by 2016. About 99 percent of its aviation fleet is certified to fly on a 50-50 alternative blend of biofuels and jet fuel. The Navy has a goal of creating a 鈥淕reat Green Fleet,鈥� a strike group powered largely by biofuels, by 2016. It is also experimenting with algae-based biofuels. Not all of their new fuels are green: the options include a synthetic liquid fuel that is derived from coal or natural gas. And some crop-based biofuels have a major environmental impact because they divert land from forest and food cultivation. But the Defense Department requires that new fuels have a carbon footprint no greater than what they replace.

The Marines aim to reduce battlefield fuel demand by 25 percent by 2015 and 50 percent by 2025, in part through the introduction of solar-powered equipment. In March, Marine Col. Bob Charette, director of Expeditionary Energy for the Marine Corps, told States News Service that the solar-powered generators were also saving lives. 鈥淎 lot of our enemies can follow us around by the noise of our generators,鈥� he said. 鈥淢arines start using this, and they believe it scares the bad guys because they can鈥檛 hear where we鈥檙e at because there鈥檚 no generator running.鈥�

Fureigh noted that solar-powered equipment allowed the Marines to clear their packs of batteries, leaving more room for food and other supplies.

To those who say climate change is a myth, Dan Nolan says that, at the very least, the research and work the military is doing will result in cleaner air and better technology.

Politics or Pragmatism?

Of course, not everyone supports the military鈥檚 green policies. In February, Virginia Republican Representative Randy Forbes pounded his desk after hearing Secretary of the Navy Raymond Mabus Jr. detail some of the Navy鈥檚 plans for going greener during a House Armed Services Committee Meeting.

鈥淵ou鈥檙e not the Secretary of the Energy鈥攜ou鈥檙e Secretary of the Navy,鈥� Forbes told Mabus.

“If you鈥檙e not self-reliant and able to defend the nation within its resources, you鈥檙e not able to defend the nation.鈥�

Instead of spending money on biofuels, Forbes said the Navy should spend more money on new ships and airplanes.

鈥淚 love green energy. I鈥檓 not against it,鈥� Forbes said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a matter of priorities.鈥�

Mabus also caught an earful from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), during a March hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Inhofe, who is a vocal denier of human-made climate change, said the high cost of a 鈥�50/50 blend鈥� of diesel fuel and a biofuel supplement鈥�$15 per gallon versus $5 per gallon for regular fuel鈥攎ade its use prohibitive.

Similarly, Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) said the Navy鈥檚 biofuels push could become a 鈥淪olyndra situation,鈥� referring to the now-bankrupt solar energy company that benefited from millions of dollars in Energy Department loan guarantees.

To wean the military off foreign oil, the United States should drill domestically, some opponents say. But Fureigh, of the Truman National Security Project, said that won鈥檛 work.

鈥淥il is a global commodity,鈥� he said. 鈥淓ven if we flooded the market with the oil in our reserves, gas would still be high because OPEC would shut down production.鈥�

鈥淏eing reliant on a single source of fuel is a danger in itself,鈥� Fureigh said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a significant cost for the U.S. in life and treasure to be reliant on this particular source of fuel.鈥�

Democrats have come out in support of the military鈥檚 stances on energy efficiency. Senators Bernie Sanders and Sheldon Whitehouse recently held a hearing with the Environment and Public Works Committee that reviewed the military鈥檚 commitment to sustainable energy. 鈥淪ustainable energy investments by the military also benefit the taxpayer,鈥� said Sanders. 鈥淭he Department of Defense is the largest consumer of energy in America 鈥� So it is no wonder the military sees reducing reliance on costly fossil fuels鈥攊mported in some cases from hostile, unstable nations鈥攁s a priority.鈥�

When there are fewer soldiers spending their time protecting fuel convoys, there鈥檚 more time for them to do hearts-and-minds-type missions.

And the White House is pushing for more. Obama and the Department of Defense recently announced plans to invest in billions of dollars worth of renewable energy projects around the country. The department will develop 3 gigawatts of renewable power in the next several years, equivalent to powering 750,000 homes.

Cleaner Energy, A More Secure World

In the Middle East, realities in the field lend immediacy and urgency to new strategies that can break America鈥檚 oil habits. By Anderson鈥檚 count, more than 1,000 Americans have been killed moving fuel in Iraq and Afghanistan, usually in convoys that some soldiers call 鈥淭aliban Targets.鈥�

After writing an op-ed on the subject that appeared in The New York Times, Anderson received an email from an Army company commander in Afghanistan. The commander explained that every two weeks, he had to shut down his combat operations to get fuel and, while he was gone, the enemy would re-entrench their positions. 鈥淚 have to start over every two weeks,鈥� he wrote.

Energy efficiency and military effectiveness go hand in hand. When there are fewer soldiers spending their time protecting fuel convoys, there鈥檚 more time for them to do hearts-and-minds-type missions.

Anderson stressed it鈥檚 not just foreign oil that鈥檚 the enemy; fossil fuels, in general, are the problem. He has publicly come out against domestic developments like the Keystone XL pipeline because, he said, they would only feed our oil addiction.

In an editorial co-written with other former military officers and published in multiple newspapers, Anderson noted that 鈥渃lean energy is a solution we must pursue.鈥�

鈥淲ithout changing our energy mix,鈥� he wrote, 鈥渨e will continue to undermine our economic stability鈥攁nd with it, our stature in the world.鈥�