Normally reliable on the issue of finding efficiencies and responsibly cutting military expenditures, as we've noted in this space a few times, Rep. Mike Coffman surprisingly--or maybe not surprisingly--isn't very happy with the recent push by the Department of Defense to embrace renewable energy. From Rep. Coffman's press release following President Barack Obama's speech on the topic in Colorado yesterday:
"No doubt, the military needs to do everything it can to reduce what it spends on the energy necessary to support our troops and they should use renewable energy sources whenever it is cost effective to do so.
"Unfortunately, so far the president's Green Energy initiative for the Department of Defense has everything to do with scoring political points with environmentalists and very little to do with supporting our war fighters.
"By forcing our military to adopt high-cost renewable energies, [Pols emphasis] while at the same time pushing for reductions in military personnel, the president will ultimately force further reductions to achieve his costly Green Energy initiative while also meeting his demands for a smaller military."
"Scoring political points?" Funny, that's not what the American Forces Press Service said in their story about the same presidential visit:
Obama recognized that DOD isn't embracing clean energy simply because "it feels good," but also because it makes economic sense.
"Our number one priority is always the security of this nation," he emphasized. And "what our military understands is that if we're smart on energy that saves DOD budgets that allow them to do a whole bunch of other things."
...Obama also noted that the Navy's F/A-18 Green Hornet is powered by a 50/50 biofuel blend. And last year, the Air Force flew an A-10 Thunderbolt entirely on alternative fuels - a first for the military.
"Overall, the Air Force is on track to save $500 million in fuel costs over the next five years because you guys have changed the way you operate. Think about that: half a billion dollars," he told the audience, drawing big applause. [Pols emphasis]
Scientific American explains another important consideration in making this switch:
The Department of Defense burns more oil than any other single entity on Earth: as much as $18 billion worth a year, or 80% of the federal governments' energy tab. So when they decide to limit that oil in favor of renewables, it's going to create a massive and instantaneous market. And while the cost in dollars is driving some of the armed forces' well-publicized moves into clean energy, there is a more sober factor: The cost in lives.
A significant share of American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have occurred guarding fuel convoys, and resupply missions threaten operations around the world. Sierra Magazine's extensive reporting reveals just how much defending fuel resupply lines in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us in terms of lives: One out of every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan (and one out of 38 in Iraq) led to the death of a soldier in 2007. In 2007 alone, that adds up to hundreds dead given the 6,000 recorded fuel convoys. Between 2003 and 2010 more than 3,000 troops have been killed or wounded while moving fuel, states Lt Col Melinda F. Morgan of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. [Pols emphasis]
Saving soldiers' lives? That's something we thought Mike Coffman would care about. The fact is, the military's push for energy efficiency and renewable fuels predates the Obama administration, though Obama has expanded the program. The Department of Defense supports it to save money, effort, and lives on the battlefield--not some hippie feel-good pursuit.
Bottom line: you've got to keep it in mind at all times. Coffman's job this year is to complain. |
