Re: [CPEO-MEF] ENERGY: New CNA report on Energy Security

[Peter Strauss <petestrauss1@comcast.net>]

I find that this report is rather weak in it's details about how to  
transform the current system.  In a lot of ways the report  could be  
retitled "The Risks to National Security from Foreign  Oil  
Dependence".  Barely a word is dedicated to coal and nuclear power. I  
would have liked them to tackle waste and wastefulness as a key  
component to a strategy for lowering the carbon footprint of the  
military, from reducing or eliminating such thinks as the Blue Angels  
and Fly-Overs during sporting events,  unnecessary testing of weapons  
systems and unneeded new weapons.  I would also like to see a study on  
the greenhouse gas contribution to fighting the war in Iraq.

Peter Strauss
On May 26, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Lenny Siegel wrote:

> Last week I posted the press release for "Powering America's  
> Defense," the powerful new report on climate security from Sherri  
> Wasserman Goodman and CNA's Military Advisory Board. See http://www.cna.org/nationalsecurity/energy/ 
>  to download a copy.
>
> The report contains a solid list of findings and recommendations,  
> but I would like to call attention to its strategic perspective:
>
> "The Military Advisory Board calls on the Department of Defense  
> (DoD) to take a leadership role - for government and the nation - in  
> transforming America's energy posture. The DoD is the nation's  
> single largest consumer of energy, and is seriously compromised by  
> the nation's current energy posture. By addressing its own energy  
> security needs, DoD can stimulate the market for new energy  
> technologies and vehicle efficiencies. In policy and technology  
> areas that would benefit the Department's operational capabilities,  
> the Department's historical role as a technological innovator and  
> incubator should be harnessed to benefit the nation as a whole."
>
> I suppose that there are still people in the military who are  
> skeptical. The purpose of the United States military, they feel, is  
> to prepare for and to fight wars. The Generals and Admirals who  
> authored the report by no means reject the Defense Department's war- 
> fighting missions, but clearly they see the military's overall goal  
> as protecting the United States: its land and resources, its people,  
> and its institutions. And in an era when climate change is emerging  
> as the number one threat to the United States, they are willing to  
> rise to the occasion.
>
> I know many people on the other side, who think the U.S. military is  
> too ready to go to war. They believe, as I do, that our preparedness  
> makes it easy for our political leadership to seek military  
> solutions to problems that require more comprehensive approaches.  
> Particularly aware of the legacy of contamination created by the  
> rise of the U.S. military industrial complex, they mistrust any  
> effort to enlist the military in the fight against climate change.  
> That view, too, is shortsighted. As the CNA report demonstrates,  
> there are many from the military-industrial-complex who understand  
> the threat of climate change. It is possible to work with the  
> Defense Department to address climate change while challenging the  
> current wars and other military campaigns.
>
> Nominally, the Department of Energy is responsible for leading the  
> fight for energy security, and nominally the Environmental  
> Protection Agency is responsible for addressing the release of  
> greenhouse gases.
>
> But the Defense Department is the single largest user of energy and  
> emitter of greenhouse gases in the United State. It owns and manages  
> tens of millions of acres. It owns or leases tens (hundreds?) of  
> thousands of housing units. It is among the largest sponsors of  
> scientific research.
>
> With the potential to make a huge difference simply by changing the  
> way it uses and generates energy, the Defense Department is poised  
> to take a leadership role in the battle for climate security. That  
> should encouraged.
>
> Lenny
>
> --
>
>
> Lenny Siegel
> Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
> a project of the Pacific Studies Center
> 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
> Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
> Fax: 650/961-8918
> <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
> http://www.cpeo.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Military mailing list
> Military@lists.cpeo.org
> http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.org