Contributors

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Semper Fi!

The other day someone used the term "warmists" in comments. I had never heard this term before but apparently it refers to people who have succumbed to "climate change hysteria." They refuse to accept the "truth." You know the "truth" I am talking about, right? The one Thomas Friedman astutely defines as "a fraudulent, anti-science campaign funded largely by Big Oil and Big Coal." Those silly warmists....how can they not see the facts? Well, guess who else doesn't see the truth and the facts.

The United States Marine Corps.

Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, has directed both the Marines and the Navy in strategies that will "out green" Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and petrol dictators like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Apparently, going green is going to save the lives of our troops.

Fewer fuel convoys in theater can mean saving the lives of soldiers, said Katherine Hammack, the new assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment. Last week -- at the start of October's energy awareness observance -- the word "energy" was added to the name of that office. It's a reflection of the Army's new focus on energy.

There was one casualty for every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2007, according to a 2009 Department of the Army study.

Maybe there are other reasons to go green. Huh. I guess the hysteria over the "warmists" must have overlooked this fact. The article also details how the military is going to figure out ways to use less energy. One way is going to be solar power and more energy efficient buildings. All of this translates into better security for the troops.

The Navy is also up to some pretty cool shit as well. They've recently tested a biofueled Green Hornet (50 percent conventional fuel and 50 percent camelina, a hard plant that can grow in difficult soil) that flew above Mach 1, a critical threshold to clear the jet for operations. The Navy has also launched the USS Malkin Island, an amphibious assault ship powered by a hybrid engine. They also have the RCB-X combat boat which runs on 50 percent algae.

"Going green is about combat capability and assuring Navy's mobility," said Rear Adm. Philip Cullom, director of the Chief of Naval Operations Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, which leads the Navy's Task Force Energy. "It is not just about natural security; it also strengthens national security. By having reliable and abundant alternate sources of energy, we will no longer be held hostage by any one source of energy, such as petroleum."

No shit. Thankfully, there are people out there that are actually THINKING about the myriad of positive outcomes from green technology as opposed to being obsessed with winning arguments and not being wrong. It's important to also note that camelina and algae are biofuels that don't compete with ethanol (a food related biofuel).

All of this is part of Secretary Mabus' overall plan to increase security, reduce costs, and make our military more efficient by having a "Great Green Fleet."

We are moving towards alternative fuels in the Navy and the Marine Corps for one main
reason, and that is to make us better fighters. Strategically we have got to break the
dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. We would not let countries that deliver our
energy today build our warships, we would not let them build our weapon systems, we would not let them be responsible for our defense and yet we’re willing to let them power those same warships, those same airplanes, those same weapon systems.

So strategically there’s a compelling case to be made for changing the way we get and the way we use energy. Tactically you can make the same case, every time you cut a ship away from an oiler, every time you produce the energy where you are you’ve made us better war fighters.


Semper Fi!

9 comments:

juris imprudent said...

There are two possible motives behind this: 1) the military is concerned about AGW, 2) the military is concerned about the economics of fossil fuels.

Everything you quoted points to the latter.

Prior to WWI, Churchill was First Lord of the British Admiralty. He had the entire fleet converted from coal to oil. That probably doesn't seem like a big deal now, but it was brilliant foresight on his part, and gave the British fleet a significant operational advantage.

Anonymous said...

I guess by this logic, the Navy admitted to AGW back in 1954 with the first nuclear submarine.

Or was it global cooling back then?

dw

GuardDuck said...

Carbon footprint? Emissions? Greenhouse Gases?

No?

That's because this story is about logistics not environment.

Mark Ward said...

I think all of you need to review the DoD's assessments of international security issues as they relate to climate change.

Anonymous said...

I think you need to find out for me if it was global warming or cooling that was the impetus for the USS Nautilus.

dw

juris imprudent said...

I think all of you need to review the DoD's assessments of international security issues as they relate to climate change.

Why should I do a fucking thing when what you posted didn't have a damn thing to do with that? This is what is so fucking aggravating about you - you link to stuff that does not support your point and then say so something so fucking stupid and childish as "look it up yourself".

Do you own homework, M. And next time, rather than post the link when I comment (as with the 1933 Securities Act), I'm going to ask the question so you don't throw out that bullshit line of "I knew that".

Tess said...

Wow, juris, really not getting it. When was the last occasion you spent some significant time on the DoD web site. It's all about security and it's all related to climate change.

Anonymous said...

Tess, was the first nuclear sub made to cure global cooling or warming? It was so long ago, I can't remember. Perhaps YOU aren't getting it.

Merry Xmas to all, btw.

dw

Damn Teabaggers said...

And of course there's no possibility that their website reflects anyone's political position.

Just like when East Anglia investigates itself and finds that there was no wrongdoing, there's no possibility of it being a less than objective judgment.

Just like "Inside Job"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_%28film%29

"rip-snorting [and] indignant [with] support from interviews with professional Cassandra Nouriel Roubini, Barney Frank, George Soros, Eliot Spitzer, Charles R. Morris and others"

can't possibly be biased. After all, it's a documentary, it has to be factual and objective, right? Just look at "An Inconvenient Truth".