Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Pentagon study says oil reliance strains military
Urges development of alternative fuels
Bryan Bender, Boston Globe
WASHINGTON — A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil — the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks — will make the US military’s ability to respond to hot spots around the world “unsustainable in the long term.”
The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must “fundamentally transform” their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is “imperative” that the Department of Defense “apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations,” according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.
Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly, however, would be a herculean task — especially because the bulk of the US arsenal, the world’s most advanced, is dependent on fossil fuels and many of those military systems have been designed to remain in service for at least several decades.
Moving to alternative energy sources on a large scale would “challenge some of the department’s most deeply held assumptions, interests, and processes,” the report acknowledges.
But Pentagon advisers believe the military’s growing consumption of fossil fuels — an increasingly expensive and scarce commodity — leaves Pentagon leaders with little choice but to break with the past as soon as possible. Compared with World War II, according to the report, the military in Iraq and Afghanistan is using 16 times more fuel per soldier.
(1 May 2007)
Transforming the way the Department of Defense (DOD) looks at energy
An apporach to establishing an energy strategy (PDF)
Crowley, Corrie, Diamond, Funk, Hansen, Stenhoff & Swift; LMI Government Consulting
In an environment of uncertainty about the price and availability of traditional energy sources, DoD is facing increasing energy demand and support requirements that it must meet if it is to achieve its broader strategic goals-notably, establishment of a more mobile and agile force. However, recent technological advances in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies offer a unique opportunity for DoD to make progress toward reconciling its strategic goals with its energy requirements through reduced consumption of fuel-especially foreign fuel.
To capitalize on this opportunity, DoD needs to implement an energy strategy that encompasses the development of innovative new concepts and capabilities to reduce energy dependence while maintaining or increasing overall warfighting effectiveness. Recognizing that DoD must change how it views, values, and uses energy-a transformation that will challenge some of the department’s most deeply held assumptions, interests, and processes-the Office of Force Transformation and Resources, within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, asked LMI to develop an approach to establishing a DoD energy strategy.
LMI identified three areas of disconnect between DoD’s current energy consumption practices and the capability requirements of its strategic goals:
- Strategic. DoD seeks to shape the future security environment in favor of the United States. But, our dependence on foreign supplies of fuel limits our flexibility in dealing with producer nations who oppose or hinder our goals for greater prosperity and liberty.
- Operational. DoD’s operational concepts seek greater mobility, persistence, and agility for our forces. But, the energy logistics requirements of these forces limit our ability to realize these concepts.
- Fiscal. DoD seeks to reduce operating costs of the current force to procure new capabilities for the future. But, with increased energy consumption and increased price pressure due to growing global demand for energy, energy-associated operating costs are growing.
In parallel with the increase in the global demand for energy is an increase in concern about global climate change and other environmental considerations. Therefore, when identifying technical solutions to its energy challenges, DoD should also considered a fourth disconnect-environmental.
From our research, we concluded that DoD has the opportunity to address the four disconnects by fundamentally changing how it views, values, and uses energy.
Many actions are required to implement this transformation, but the highest-level requirements are straightforward:
- Incorporate energy considerations (energy use and energy logistics support requirements) in the department’s key corporate processes: strategic planning, analytic agenda, joint concept and joint capability development, acquisition, and planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE)
- Establish a corporate governance structure with policy and resource oversight to focus the department’s energy efforts
- Apply a structured framework to address energy efficiency, including alternate energy sources, to the department’s greatest energy challenges – those areas consuming the most fuel, requiring the most logistics support, or having the most negative impact on the warrior.
(April 2007) There were mentions of the report in Wired and in Energy and Capital, as well as in the Boston Globe (see previous item).
What’s Possible in the Military Sector?
Greater than 100% Reduction in Greenhouse Gases
Don Fitz, ZNet
The military is the only sector of the economy where emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) can be reduced by greater than 100%. This is because militarism is the only type of activity whose primary purpose is destruction.
When a road is bombed in Serbia, energy is used to rebuild it. Energy usage translates to the emission of GHG, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). When a home is leveled in Afghanistan, reconstruction requires energy. Every hospital brought down and every person maimed in Iraq means CO2 emissions during the treatment of patients and construction of new treatment facilities.
Military production is unique. If it were halted, GHG emissions would be reduced by (a) GHG from fixing up what’s in the path of military attacks, in addition to (b) GHG produced during its regular activities of building bases, using weapons and transporting troops and equipment.
Regular economic activity of the military is not exactly small. According to the February 2007 Energy Bulletin, the Pentagon is the single largest consumer of oil in the world. Only 35 countries consume more oil. Yet, the official figure of 320,000 barrels of oil per day used only include vehicle transport and facility maintenance.
Don Fitz is editor of Synthesis/Regeneration: A Magazine of Green Social Thought, which is sent to members of The Greens/Green Party USA.
(30 Apr 2007)
Bill Proposes Climate Study Focused on U.S. Defense
Mark Mazzetti, NY Times
Given the jobs of hunting Al Qaeda, tracking nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and monitoring the civil strife in Iraq, American spy agencies are not lacking for work these days. Should they also take on the task of analyzing global warming?
That question is being argued in Congress, as Democrats are fighting for a measure that would require intelligence agencies to produce a comprehensive study on the effects of global climate change on America’s national defense.
Democrats are arguing that large-scale crises caused by climate change, like drought, pandemics, famine and rising sea levels, will affect how the United States conducts foreign policy and where American military resources will be used over the next several decades.
(4 May 2007)
Rep. Bartlett Introduces Legislation to Require a National Intelligence Estimate on Impact of Climate Change on U.S. Security
Lisa Wright, Bartlett7 website
Representative Roscoe Bartlett joined Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, and introduced H.R. 1961, the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act. This bipartisan bill … will require a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessing the security challenges arising from global warming.
Rep. Markey said, “The nexus between global warming and the national security of the United States is a crucial, yet long-ignored, issue. The adverse consequences of rising global temperatures present not only a potential environmental catastrophe but also a national security emergency. A National Intelligence Estimate assessing the implications of global warming on U.S. security will jump-start U.S. defense planning for the consequences of global warming.”
The Markey-Bartlett legislation, the House companion to legislation already introduced by Senator Richard Durbin and Senator Chuck Hagel, will provide a crucial planning and risk-assessment tool as the Congress seeks innovative solutions to global warming. Developed to assess the most serious threats to the United States, NIEs are the most authoritative intelligence judgments concerning national security issues. This legislation will also fund research by the Defense Department into the consequences for U.S. military operations posed by global warming.
Rep. Bartlett said, “As a scientist and senior member of the Armed Services and Science and Technology Committees, I am introducing the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act with Congressman Markey because I support the first recommendation by a blue-ribbon panel of 11 retired generals and admirals for a National Intelligence Estimate of the impact of global warming on U.S. national and economic security. We need an NIE to inform our military planning for ourselves and with our allies. We also have to engage with other countries, particularly those who are leading or emerging contributors of greenhouse gas emissions and those who are oil producers or oil importers. To provide a safer, more prosperous world for our children and grandchildren, we have an obligation to examine cooperative ways to reduce emissions and to adopt mitigation and adaptation strategies including transitioning from reliance upon finite fossil fuels, such as imported oil and natural gas, to clean domestic renewable energy sources.”
(20 Apr 2007)
