U.S. Military Cuts Through the Politics of Clean Energy
I’m not an advocate of war as a means of resolving disputes among nations, and I think the world would be a better place had we taken Dwight Eisenhower’s advice and not created the “military industrial complex” that he so specifically warned us against. That’s why I find it ironic that the military is arguably the strongest force in the U.S. pushing in the direction of renewable energy. This excellent article really nails what’s happening here and why it’s happening in this arena. Essentially, clean energy, at least as the military perceives it, is not a liberal or conservative issue, but one of saving lives and improving national security.
The military is behind some of our greatest achievements. That’s probably in part because it’s hard to argue against national security! The space program, the Internet, and now, some of our new advances in alternative energy.
You’re right, it IS hard to argue against national security. In fact, that’s how Eisenhower got public support for the highway system: to facilitate the movement of troops and supplies within our borders.
I have some reservations and reluctance to see the U.S. military entering the green energy store. They are not prudent shoppers. Remember the $1000 hammers or was it a toilet seat? Cost does not seem to be much of a factor when they can claim that our men and women’s lives are at stake and we need only the best which must be built to Mil Spec 000xxxxxxxx.1
The biodiesel that was purchased to produce aviation quality fuel was just one of many boondoggles that could have been scrapped in the initial proposal stage. Any cost accountant could have told them that no matter how much this was scaled up, it could never be viable as a substitute for regular aviation use, military or otherwise. The money, if we actually had some to spare, could have been used to produce hybrid diesel engines that would have actually saved money if they were adopted for MATV, emergency generators, tanks, Hummers etc.
These guys spend money like it is free. I guess to them, it is.
L
Next year, we will dump 57% of the federal discretionary budget into the military (that’s not including the 5% in veteran’s benefits, which is probably well beneath the level they truly deserve). More than $800 billion of our tax dollars, or over $1.5 million every sixty seconds, will be sucked up out of our economy for developing and maintaining the capability to destroy lives and property, and for exercising that capability across the world.
If we can see some small part (and it will be small) of that military money devoted to research on renewables and fuel efficiencies, that will be better than many other uses it might be put to there. After all, I read that a great many of our casualties – perhaps the majority – are directly related to the use and protection of fuel supply lines and fuel storage in theater.
So, if we can save the lives of some of our brave men and women, and develop and transfer some innovative energy tech to civilian uses at the same time, that’s certainly better use of military budget cash than pouring it into the failed F-22 program.
We don’t seem to be able to reduce military spending, nor can we get our Congress to establish stable and substantial subsidies for this research from the civilian budget. Given that – if it’s a choice between a little military funding, and civilian ‘wobbly slim to none’ – I’ll happily support the green camo-dollar.