Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Defense Department’s Environmental Agenda to Come Under Fire
Defense Department’s Environmental Agenda to Come Under Fire
By Sandra I. Erwin





Anticipated actions by the Trump administration and Congress should lead to a significant rollback of the Pentagon’s renewable energy and climate initiatives.

With the incoming administration poised to dismantle Obama’s clean energy and climate policies, the Pentagon could soon begin to phase out controversial programs like military biofuels and portable nuclear reactors.

Trump has pledged to end policies that “undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers,” rescind “job-destroying executive actions,” end the “war on coal” and scrap Obama’s “climate action plan and the clean power plan.” The president-select has nominated leaders for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department whose views are diametrically opposed to those of the outgoing administration.

Many of the Pentagon’s clean-energy programs, however, might be hard to undo as they are tied to the military mission or meet a specific tactical need. The military and intelligence communities’ climate focus also is rooted in security concerns.

As a war commander, defense secretary nominee retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis was a vocal advocate of energy-saving initiatives. He made headlines for speaking out about the military’s heavy dependence on fuel and calling for new approaches to manage and provide energy in the battlefield.

Pentagon energy initiatives that reduce the military’s logistics burden should continue to receive support, but more comprehensive efforts by the Defense Department to increase use of renewable energy and curb the effects of climate change — programs that served as an extension of Obama’s national energy policies — are not likely to survive, experts say.

“It’s not uncommon for an incoming administration to want to clear the slate,” says Sharon E. Burke, a senior adviser at New America, a Washington think tank.

“I just hope they have common sense about it and don’t throw away projects and programs that really support war fighter needs,” says Burke, who in 2010 was named the first-ever assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs.

Burke speculates that Mattis will stick with energy programs that are clearly “core defense,” she says. When he led troops in Iraq, “Mattis considered operational energy issues to be in support of the war fighter.”

Mattis commanded the 1st Marine Division in 2003 in Iraq and worried his troops were slowed down by fuel resupply lines that could not keep up. He later commented that the Defense Department should take action to “unleash us from the tether of fuel,” a sound bite that became part of the war’s lore. As the military became more deeply entangled in war zones, policies to address energy dependence became a top priority of the George W. Bush administration. Military officials grew frustrated during deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan as forces became highly dependent on fuel convoys that were frequent targets of enemy attacks.

Mattis’ quote about the tether of fuel has been interpreted to mean different things, Burke says. “I got it from the source that he was talking about battlefield limitations, the way fuel demand affects your ability to conduct a mission,” she says. That reality has not fundamentally changed 15 years later. “I wouldn’t presume to know what’s on his mind now but I don’t see any reason to believe he would have changed his thinking,” Burke says. “He’s a brilliant strategist. If he makes a statement like that based on his experience in combat, unless the situation has dramatically changed I don’t think he would have changed his mind.”

The military over the past decade has embraced renewable energy — such as portable solar panels to charge radios and cell phones — as a tool of war. “There is an authentic demand for [non-fossil] battlefield energy sources,” Burke says. “I don’t see this as being ideological about energy, it’s about the war fighter and the mission.” For organizations like the Marine Corps that regard themselves as quick-response forces, reducing fuel demand is “existential, it’s part of their identity.”

The Pentagon will probably not abandon these efforts, but some of the more ambitious renewable initiatives pushed by the Obama administration likely will be axed, Burke says. Congress in recent years has been particularly critical of a costly effort to develop drop-in alternative fuels for military aircraft and ships. “I don’t expect the Trump administration will continue to invest in military biofuels.”

The Pentagon has led the Obama administration’s push to increase the federal government’s use of renewable energy. Some of the nation’s largest military bases across the country have signed long-term deals with private companies to provide clean energy. The Trump administration may find that these privately financed projects make sense from a business standpoint, Burke says. Third-party financed programs have been effective, she adds, and do not drain government resources. “You wish they wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Market driven changes in the energy market cannot be reversed by executive order. “It’s the policy driven change that they will likely do away with.”

More controversial alternative fuel research programs like portable nuclear fusion reactors might be sidelined by the Trump administration. The Defense Science Board has studied the applicability of this technology, says Burke, but it is a “stretch as far as a military necessity. The case for military utility is not there.”

Congressional Republicans — who years ago put a bull’s eye on the Navy’s high-profile biofuels program — will be taking action to terminate the project as soon as the new Congress is sworn in. The conservative bloc known as the “freedom caucus” announced that it will move to reverse environmental regulations across the federal government in its first 100 days. An Obama 2013 executive order directs government agencies to prepare for climate change.

Projects to develop and test alternative fuels are especially disliked by conservative lawmakers. “Billions of dollars have been sunk into this program for years,” noted a freedom caucus report. Clean energy mandates are characterized as “corporate welfare … burdensome, costly, implausible to comply with. … And part of the green agenda being pushed by the left.”

Obama’s Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has been the administration’s most visible champion of military green-energy programs. A spokesman for Mabus declined to comment for this story. In an interview with Defense News this month, Mabus rejected criticism of biofuels as luxury items. He said green fuels now cost about the same as conventional jet fuel. “I think that’s going to be a lasting legacy,” he said of the military biofuel program. “To roll that back just means you're going to make us a less effective force.”

A strong anti-science bent in the Trump administration regarding climate change could collide with military strategy that considers the effects of global warming — like rising sea levels and devastating storms — a security concern as forces often must respond to natural disasters and provide humanitarian assistance in areas like the Caribbean and Asia Pacific. U.S. Pacific Command has adopted policies to ensure the readiness of U.S. forces to respond to increasingly destructive storms in the region.

Burke predicts the Pentagon, and especially the uniformed leadership, will continue to champion energy and climate efforts. “They may not put out press releases but I think they will keep going.”


PHOTO: U.S. Navy

Comments

Re: Defense Department’s Environmental Agenda to Come Under Fire

Using less fuel is operationally beneficial, because it allows more troops fighting with fewer tied down in supply convoys.  Flexible-fuel engines capable of using locally-sourced fuels cuts down on the supply convoys as well.  Those are good military reasons for actions that also may be environmentally beneficial.

Biofuel made in the United States, which has to be shipped forward like conventional fuels, gains the military nothing over conventional options.  Use whatever is the best value for cost.
James B. at 12/31/2016 5:21 PM

Re: Defense Department’s Environmental Agenda to Come Under Fire

Can someone provide backup to Secretary Mabus' suggestion that green fuels cost about the same as conventional fuels?  I've search for substantiation and can find nothing. Thanks.
Craig Crandall at 1/3/2017 9:10 AM

Re: Defense Department’s Environmental Agenda to Come Under Fire

Time to get back to being the Department of Defense, not the Department of Everything, every pet project, every social experiment.

Is better fuel efficiency good?  Of course because it simplifies logistics; but it needs to be pursued where it makes sense not stuffed down the services throat not matter the cost.

Capabilities in the DoD should trump politics but it never did in this past misadministration. 
Thor at 1/3/2017 9:48 AM

Re: Defense Department’s Environmental Agenda to Come Under Fire

"A strong anti-science bent in the Trump administration regarding climate change"

And the current administration is pro-science? Science is advanced in the free and open expression of competing theories and analysis. In the current administration, we have seen:

1) Attorneys general trying to bring corruption charges against anybody who disagrees with the concept of catastrophic global warming.

2) Michael Mann suing people for (in his own words) committing the crime of disagreeing with him.

3) Respected climate scientist who questioned AGW have been attacked not for their research, data or publications, but for personal or professional associations. Just today, Dr. Judith Curry resigned due to extended (>10 years) harassment.

4) The current administration has floated the idea of incarcerating people who do not believe in AGW. Once they have been "reformed", they could be released.

Any person who uses the term "settled science" is anti-science. Trump represents a needed backlash.
Todd at 1/4/2017 4:05 PM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *

Title

Attachments

Name: *


eMail *


Comment *


 

Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *

  

Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 

 

Bookmark and Share