One might think that basic tenets of military science would dictate that access to the cheapest, most abundant energy sources should be unlimited for military objectives. “We can’t tie the hands of our fighting men and women,” many a congressman has blustered in stump speeches and committee hearings. The U.S. military is the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels, so it’s only natural to think that military leaders would agree with such timeless political declarations. The Pentagon, however, thinks otherwise. In fact, it wants its hands tied on carbon emissions, much to the dismay of the petroleum industry.
During recent hearings before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power on the possible repeal of section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which would prohibit government agencies from buying oil produced from processes that create more greenhouse gas emissions than would conventional petroleum (Canadian tar sands being the latest example), Tom Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for energy policy, said:
“We are comfortable with 526. It is an effective policy tool. It is having an effect on the market that I think is one that is the right direction in the sense that it is providing not only clean fuels, but fuels that ultimately will be competitive….”
In addition, Elizabeth King, the Pentagon’s assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, has written:
“The existing law has not prevented the Department (of Defense) from meeting our current mission needs….Further, repeal or exemption could hamper the Department’s efforts to provide better energy options to our warfighters and further increase America’s reliance on non-renewable fuels. Our dependence on those types of fuels degrades our national security, negatively impacts our economy, and harms the environment.”
So the Pentagon believes that dependence on non-renewable fuels actually degrades national security, and that policies regulating emissions are having a positive effect on the market. Why then would any congressman want to repeal section 526 if national security experts are testifying to the contrary? It’s simple: the American Petroleum Institute (API) is leading the charge for repeal, and, as we all know, they wield enormous political influence.
In my research for a documentary film I am producing on climate change as a national security threat, representatives from companies who design weapons systems and other materiel for the military, a.k.a. the military-industrial complex, have told me that they, too, are comfortable with section 526 (though they are apparently unwilling to fight for it like the API is doing). They are confident in their abilities to meet the military’s needs without further exacerbating environmental problems. The military is already deploying some units with sustainable energy technologies as well as retrofitting many of its installations both at home and abroad, much of which is designed, produced and installed by its private sector contractors.
And that’s where NESEA comes in. The military has often inspired the growth of private industry such as radar, aerospace, internet, GPS and robotics, much of which eventually become mainstream products for average consumers. It’s time for the domestic sustainable energy industry to take its place as the newest engine for economic growth, and start garnering the political influence its non-renewable counterparts have amassed over many years.
In the short term the military is offering significant opportunities for the sustainable energy industry, and members of the NESEA community should be aware of how to benefit from them. The term “military industrial complex” could get a real makeover should the sustainable energy industry muscle its way in, but first it must become a real economic powerhouse, and what more lucrative way to do so than by obtaining military contracts? Our political leaders would then certainly think twice about repealing legislation that would otherwise drive the success of this industry. Right now, unfortunately, it’s the petroleum industry that has the ear of Congress.
(This Friday I will be conducting on-camera interviews with top officials at the Pentagon including the assistant secretary of defense for operational energy. Please feel free to email me any questions you might have about their procurement process and how you might receive upcoming RFPs so that I may ask them on your behalf. I would like for NESEA members to be on the Pentagon’s radar screen and eventually benefit from military contracts they will be issuing in the coming months and years to, perhaps, conduct energy audits and retrofits for all of the military installations in the northeast — that sure would be a nice gig! I am committed to helping this industry in any way possible, so please let me know what I can do.)
