Image: Wikimedia Commons/Harald Hansen
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The U.S. military's elite forces have always pushed the envelope. And this summer will be no exception, as the Navy deploys SEALs with $2 million of new gear on missions to save hostages, combat pirates, and counter terrorism around the world. What sort of next-generation weaponry, armor, or transportation will the funds provide?
None.
The cash will pay for solar technology, enabling the SEALs to power up equipment and purify water while on the move, and even refrigerate medical supplies and food.
"It's really the first step in the Navy's effort to make the SEALs net-zero energy and net-zero water (use) down the road," said Thomas Hicks, the Navy's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy.
Making the SEALs into a leaner, greener tactical force is one of many such steps being taken by all branches as the U.S. military reduces its environmental footprint. The Army is targeting net-zero energy use at several bases, and the Navy and Air Force are experimenting with running jets on biofuels that use wood waste and algae and less petroleum. In Afghanistan, patrols now carry eco-friendly solar blankets and LED lamps.
Connecting the military's fossil-fuel and overall energy use with risks to our national security hasn't been easy in this political environment, especially with the presidential election looming. Congressional Republicans have repeatedly questioned and criticized the Armed Forces' new-energy strategies, portraying initiatives as political favors to clean-energy businesses.
But current and retired military leaders insist the policies are essential. The efforts protect soldiers and help them carry out missions. They also help curb climate change and its potential to intensify military conflicts.
"There is not a shred of political correctness in what the military is doing with energy efficiency or renewable energy," said Dennis McGinn, a retired Navy vice admiral who now serves as president of the D.C.-based American Council on Renewable Energy and as vice chair of the military advisory board for CNA, a 70-year-old think tank that began as a Naval antisubmarine research group during World War II. "From lance corporal to general, they are on board. They live with the problems from the over-reliance on fossil fuels."
Hicks, who previously worked at the U.S. Green Building Council and the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, says the green benefits are meaningful. Energy investments are not about "advancing an environmental agenda," he said. "They're about improving our combat capability, improving our mission effectiveness, and reducing our vulnerabilities to foreign sources of fossil fuel."
"It's about returning more of our brave sailors and Marines back home to their families safely."
A 2010 Defense Department review identified climate change and energy security as "prominent military vulnerabilities," noting that climate change in particular is an "accelerant of instability and conflict." It was the first time the Pentagon addressed climate in a comprehensive planning document.
A subsequent assessment by the National Research Council found that even moderate climate shifts will impact Navy operations. Sea-level rise and more severe storm surges will hit coastal military bases, and marine forces could also face more work in responding to an increase in humanitarian crises following disasters. The opening of the Arctic as sea ice disappears will likely require more patrols in harsh conditions as nations and industry interests are expected to vie for control of new trade routes and energy resources (Sidebar: The new geopolitics of global warming).
"The severe weather effects of climate change aren't going to start conflicts per se," McGinn said. But it will put added pressure on political, religious, economic and ethnic fault lines, particularly in fragile societies. "It's not a pretty picture for the United States."
Researchers suspect climate change could be an even greater catalyst than military planners have anticipated. Solomon Hsiang, a post-doctoral researcher studying social responses to climate change at Princeton University, linked large-scale climate patterns, such as El Ni–o, to a rise in civil conflicts.
Hsiang and his colleagues determined that social unrest is 6 percent more likely to deteriorate into warfare during periods of El Ni–o activity, which tends to bring drought and extreme weather, such as cyclones and floods that slam the tropics. This periodic, global climate shift, which previews projected climate transformations, has played a role in one out of every five civil conflicts since 1950, making it as significant as any geopolitical or economic factor, according to Hsiang.
McGinn says it's "huge" to include climate change in considering national security, yet he and other officials acknowledge it's just as essential to steer clear of the political morass over the issue. Climate change is politically toxic, forcing military planners to frame their concerns and efforts in terms of energy and troop security.
Attacks on fuel resupply convoys, for instance, accounted for more than one-third of the U.S. Army casualties in Afghanistan in 2007, according to the Council on Renewable Energy. By employing renewable and energy-efficient technologies and practices - such as solar blankets used to recharge new instruments or batteries - soldiers and contractors cut down on resupply missions and also lighten their loads on patrols and at bases. Solar modules at frontline bases have already significantly cut diesel use, reducing the number of convoy trips - and the potential for ambushes and roadside bombs.
"Whether there was climate change or not, we'd still want to do 90 percent of the stuff for energy and economic security and national security writ large," McGinn said.
Hicks, the Navy energy secretary, adds that volatile fossil-fuel prices also threaten military readiness. Increased oil prices will add $1 billion to the Navy's projected fuel budget for the coming year, he said. By developing and using new-energy innovations, the Armed Forces can minimize such overruns and direct funds elsewhere.
Detractors of the military's clean-energy efforts have taken another view, focusing on the immediate, higher costs and uncertainties of developing and testing technologies, like running jets on biofuels, while the Pentagon faces cuts to weapons programs and other areas. After President Obama doubled Defense Department energy efficiency spending to $1 billion in his 2012 spending plan, Republican lawmakers hauled Navy Secretary Ray Mabus before Congress in February to justify his department's programs.
Mabus told Congress that biofuel prices could be competitive with oil by 2020 - and that cost parity could be helped along as the military's different branches test alternative fuels and work with researchers and scientists.
After all, GPS, Internet, microchips and nuclear power all got a boost from the Navy's nuclear submarine program, McGinn noted. "The military had mission needs and they made investments."
"They paid more than the private sector would ever consider," he added. "But the results were benefits for larger society."
On the web:
American Council on Renewable Energy
2010 Defense Department quadrennial review
Mabus' 2011 Congressional testimony
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
33 Comments
Add CommentIt will be interesting to see the denier's comments on this article...I picture this heuristic:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnthropic global warming = fraud
Military = highly esteemed
Military preparing for global warming and reducing carbon emissions = *phttszzzz*
There is no downside to reducing carbon emissions, unless you consider eventual US energy independence a liability. If you don't find the huge amount of interlocking data from many different disciplines to be convincing, there are sound political reasons for it. Unless you are in the fossil fuel industry, or course.
What a bunch of liberal, tree-hugging, socialist ninnies, those armed-forces people (irony).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is cold, realistic, crystal-clear logic from people who actually put their lives (not just their livelihoods) on the line, and aren't too blinded by ideology to miss the obvious solutions.
I am really looking forward to advances with biofuel, if only for the selfish reason that the spell of JP-8 gives me a headache.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisspell... or smell.. >.<
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHA!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConservatives only like the military when it's killing people. Just look at the response when the military leaders said gays should be able to serve openly.
I predict more inane conspiracy theories.
Climatewire is such a great source for biased reporting - this story might have little to do with "combating" climate change!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe military gains very real operational benefits from minimizing their dependence on foreign suppliers. While biofuel production for consumer use can conflict with agricultural production of affordable food, in the case of the military it offers reduced dependency on supplier countries. It seems that our foreign policies have been inordinately concerned with protecting petroleum supplier countries at any cost...
As mentioned in the article, solar power generation in the field offers tactical advantages over transporting motor-generators and fuel, disregarding any climate change.
Water purification offers independence from local suppliers for potable water (I recently saw a TV news story about an Israeli developed tank mounted purification unit using the heat from its engines as the catalyst) - critical for desert operations.
While the 'greening' of the military may offer some publicity opportunities and some ecological benefits, this Climatewire story deemphasizes the very sound operational justifications for the military's energy project plans.
The conservatives wanted Americans to fight in Iraq with stones and sticks like Palestine is with Israel, and if the conservatives get back in power, our soldiers will go back to fighting with stones and sticks...watch and see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost politically correct military force in the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the days of the Revolutionary War, the military has always had to take the politics of their civilian masters into account in their planning, they know what side their bread is buttered on.
Big news here.
Mr. McGinn is not only wrong about there being no politics behind the "greening" of the U.S. Military, he is also wrong about there being unanimity in support among the leadership and troops. Those who care to read and do math know that it doesn't make sense to install a $100 million solar array at Nellis Air Force Base when the annual utility bill reduction is only a $1 million, requiring it to last 100 years with zero maintenance to pay for itself. Some troops also know the Department of Defense has so far purchased 1.3 million gallons of biofuel at an average cost of $48 a gallon ($2,016 a barrel), while conventional diesel and jet fuel has not exceeded $2.50 a gallon. They also have read the RAND report that came out in January of 2011 (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG969.html) that clearly explained why biofuels were not helpful to national security, but were likely have a negative impact upon food security and the environment because of land use changes. This report also makes clear that all the aircraft and ship biofuels tests are meaningless political stunts that should be discontinued along with all large-scale testing because they fail to address the real issue: it is easy to burn biofuels; what is hard is to produce them economically, in quantity, and without damaging the environment. 55 blends had already been proven by industry testing before the military got involved. The "Green Hornet" and the "Great Green Fleet" are as political as it gets. Federal aid to oil and gas production in this country in terms of subsidies, grants, and tax breaks totals 27 cents a barrel. Biofuels are currently being subsidized by the federal government at a rate per the energy they deliver that is 39 times higher than oil and gas. Wind energy is being subsidized at 116 times the rate of oil. Solar at 221 times. This kind of nonsense only happens when someone is spending someone else's money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I see it, this is all just more smoke and mirrors from the big brass. The military is run by big money conservatives who could care less about environmental concerns. Efforts to improve the effectiveness of deployed Navy Seals is just a drop in the bucket. I once took a ride on an aircraft carrier from Hawaii to California as part of a 'tiger cruise' and what I saw was beyond all reason and hope for a environmentally responsible military in this country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will never forget the tons of refuse dumped off the fantail every day into the ocean and we wonder where all this trash goes? I will tell you, it goes into the stomachs of every bird, mammal and fish that mistakes it for a real meal. With 6 or 8 reactors on every aircraft carrier where do you suppose they dump low level radioactive waste? Flight opts running 24/7 can't keep up with the millions of gallons of fuel burnt every day so they travel with a fleet of tankers shuttling fuel from ports all over the world just to feed the jets and choppers, even in peace time.
When the military mentality starts to take green power seriously, it is time to look at the handwriting on the wall. Peak oil is already here and they all know it. To the military this is just another propaganda ploy to confuse the masses that control their purse strings while at the same time enriching their contractors with massive purchases of $3000 water purifier bottles that Walmart will sell to the public for 29.95.
What the military is really after is votes from the liberals who know the score already. Good luck with that.
Good comment, right on target.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"..With 6 or 8 reactors on every aircraft carrier where do you suppose they dump low level radioactive waste?.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive me a break, do you even have a clue? Now what low level "waste" would that be? A ridiculous comment.
Stupid post. Really stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe USS Enterprise (CVN 65) has 8 reactors. That is the one I rode on. What do you think they do with the low level radiation that leaks out every time some 20 year old nuclear 'specialist' causes a leak? Sell it to North Korea? When the reactors get old they cut them loose and bury them in a shallow grave to decay for the next 10,000 years or so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Cliff Claven
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said.
@ Cliff Claven
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said.
"..What do you think they do with the low level radiation that leaks out every time some 20 year old nuclear 'specialist' causes a leak.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! That would be incredible, some minor leak of cooling system water into the ocean - so trivial that you would have to be some sort of Greenie Wackjob Nutball to even mention it.
I'm beginning to think you have no capability for honesty or rationality, posting gibberish like that. Show us some serious citations of ACTUAL significant waste issues with military Nuclear Power. Show us citations on your claim that they just "..cut them loose and bury them in a shallow grave to decay.." OR admit that you just made that up, like most of what you post.
What makes you say this leak was minor, especially if the same thing is going on in with many ships?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you should practice what you preach and provide some evidence that the leak being described is minor?
@ Cliff Claven - I agree, good comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ marcher - Not that many ships are nuclear, and having been on board them, I don't believe anything about 'leaks', the navy is extremely careful.
Admiral Dennis McGinn - "From lance corporal to general, they are on board." Something fishy here, The Navy doesn't have corporals and generals. I can't picture a Navy Admiral making this statement about Navy Seals.
What the heck is "El Ni–o"? Is that politically correct for "El Nino"?
You haven't even shown us that there has been any leak EVER and you want me to prove that hypothetical leak is minor. Are you kidding me. Every Wind Turbine with a gearbox has a hypothetical leak of carcinogenic gear oil prove to me that every leak is minor. Prove to me that each leak - on land near people and agriculture is less significant than hypothetical leak on Aircraft Carrier into the vast ocean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere you go troll:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89173/cvn65---enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier.html
Read it and weep.
Yep, I read it, no mention of any leaks. So after searching the entire internet that's the best you can do, I can probably find 1/2 million links to deadly carcinogenic fossil fuel leaks. So troll, start weeping.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you say something is minor, it must exist. If you're saying now that they don't exist, why did you just say they must be minor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say something doesn't exist right after insisting that it must be minor? Are you kidding me?
Clean energy subsidies look paltry when compared to the free ride fossil fuels get when they pollute our environment and harm our health. Think how much the elevated asthma and bronchitis rates in poor air quality areas cost the economy, bogging it down with needless healthcare costs and reduced worker productivity. Think of how much economic damage happens when someone dies years earlier than they would have in a cleaner environment. Heck, just try to calculate how much damage comes from elevated mercury levels from coal power in certain fish species, both in reduced sales for the fishing industry and in reduced I.Q.s all around! Why don't you incorporate THOSE subsidies on the ledger for fossil fuels?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, they're at least trying to solve the problem. You have to start somewhere, but you also have to keep military operations going regardless of the circumstances. Please try not to inject politics into places where it doesn't belong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Obama Administration worships at the Green Altar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey set the policies and political agenda that determines whose military career thrives or dies.
Simple Darwinian selection explains the result.
Really, is that why domestic oil production has expanded under the Obama administration?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the military discussed peak oil in the 2010 JOE report.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the military is really trying to solve the problem then they should downsize. What they are talking about in this article is merely making ground troops less dependent on transported fuel. Their alternative is more expensive and less reliable high tech gadgets that will most likely be made in China anyway. In a real world war scenario, it will be as useless as computers if the enemy resorts to EMP weapons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the military was run more like a defense department then a big business it would not be such a pending problem in the first place. We already have more then enough deterrent fire power to protect our country. We can no longer afford to be the worlds watchdog.
In the very near future man will have to face the reality that conservation is the key to our collective success as a species, not wasteful practices that we enjoyed in the past.
It's the old ant and the singing grasshopper lesson that will determine our fate in the future.
You won't find any mention of low level nuclear waste being dumped in the ocean, but it has been SOP for over 50 years now. What makes you think the military is always telling you the truth about anything? I know about it from a relative who was a nuclear rated welder for the navy. Of course you wouldn't know about it. You have have an open mind to realize the hazards of nuclear reactors in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt think it is important to mention that the military does now have much stricter regulations on the dumping of garbage and other waste products then it ever did in the past, but the shear volume of the trash it produces becomes a fuel wasting problem in itself just trying to transport and dispose of that waste in a more environmentally safe way. Illness documented by our own troops in Iraq who were assigned to incinerator duty shows how futile the effort is. In the end there is only one sure cure for our environment, conservation. It's just too bad the conservatives in big business who dictate to the conservatives in politics don't understand this simple concept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the end, any solution is all about politics. You would be a fool the think otherwise.
Sault, re your comment #25, you are on the mark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt only makes sense the military wants to cut it's fossil fuel addiction, just think about the countries producing most of that fuel.. not exactly friends with the U.S. military....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's also always impressive how our armed forces often lead the way in worldwide innovations, I'm hoping to see the moves they make in creating more energy efficient bases and posts take off in helping the rest of us have cleaner power plants and cities.
Hopefully the NAVY is already aware of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) for it's tropical outposts. OTEC creates endless emission free power and the only byproduct is clean drinking water. Truly clean power, no fossil fuels, and millions of gallons of clean water. Not a bad combo for anyone.
Lots more OTEC info, and the countries embracing it today at The On Project.
http://www.theonproject.org/?utm_source=scientificamerican&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mscomment