Skip to main content

Someday, in the not-too-distant future, our country will be getting more than half of its power from energy that is safe, secure, and sustainable. We're not there now, and in fact we have a long way to go in many sectors of the economy. But it's clear to anyone who is paying attention that the countries that lead in the race to implement clean-energy technologies will be more resilient and more prosperous in the years ahead.

When I studied history in school, and in learning about successful social movements of the 20th century, I've always been fascinated with turning points. What was it that finally helped women's suffragists to prevail? When was it clear that apartheid would certainly crumble? What will finally "bend the arc of history" to help our country end its dependence on dirty energy?

The U.S. military is likely to play a key role. More than just about any other U.S. organization -- public or private -- the U.S. Armed Forces are pushing the envelope when it comes to clean-energy technologies. That's thanks in part to the leadership of people like Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. His goals include cutting oil use by the Navy's commercial vehicles in half by 2015 and procuring half of its energy from alternative sources by 2020. But it's not just about goals. Results matter even more.

As a recent Sierra magazine article noted, "The Air Force and the Navy are taking the lead in developing biofuels for aircraft (vehicles, ships, and generators are next in line) from nonfood crops such as the camelina seed and algae." Ever wondered how we can get off oil and still fly jet airplanes? The military is already on it, with tough regulations that ban biofuel sources that would displace food crops. At the recent Blue Angels air show in Maryland, the jets were running on 50 percent biofuels.

And just last week, the Department of Energy announced that it was backing plans -- with a loan guarantee -- to put solar panels on as many as 160,000 military-housing rooftops. In the heat of the day, when air conditioners are on high, these solar arrays will collectively produce as much power as a small coal plant.

In August, Army Secretary John M. McHugh said, "We think we've made a great start," referring to the 126 existing Army-led renewable projects. "But to meet our longer-term objectives," he added, "we have to do better." Part of doing better means working with private businesses in the clean-tech industry -- and that means lots of good jobs for civilians.

The Air Force isn't lagging either. The Los Angeles Air Force Base just announced that it will be "the first federal facility to replace 100 percent of its general purpose fleet with plug-in electric vehicles." Where will the electricity for those vehicles come from? The base already uses solar power, and it's expanding that infrastructure, too. So they're not just cutting out oil, they're also avoiding dirty energy from coal-fired power.

And in June, the Pentagon unveiled its comprehensive "Operational Energy Strategy," which includes plans to reduce the military's reliance on oil across the board. The strategy is a giant step forward for an organization that can push Americans toward a clean-energy future.

Are you surprised that the military is taking the lead in adopting clean and renewable energy technologies? I'm not. The military operates in a world where relying on dogma rather than facts can result in casualties. As the Sierra article noted, being forced to rely on dirty, 19th-century fuels like oil puts our soldiers in danger -- and that's something no one wants.

This isn't the first time the military has been on the forefront of change. In 1948, President Truman's Executive Order 9981 paved the way for a desegregated military, six years before the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Now, as then, the military is basing decisions on common sense, not ideology. It's time for the rest of society to catch up.

Originally posted to Michael Brune on Thu Sep 15, 2011 at 09:37 AM PDT.

Also republished by Military Community Members of Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Your diaries are always interesting, but it would (5+ / 0-)

    really help if you'd stay around and participate after publishing.  I think it would increase the readership if there was the possibility of interaction.

  •  Well the military always leads (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, Lujane, Ice Blue

    when it comes to scientific research and advanced research.  I know military funding is often frowned on by people from the left, but the truth is military research tends to be rather cutting edge.  Furthermore, unlike the private sector, the military isn't really concerned about costs, profits, or drawbacks.

    Green energy tends to be massively overpriced.  Your average family would see a massive spike in their electric bill and for states worrying about their budgets it doesn't make economic sense.  The military has money, they don't care how much more it costs, they'll do it anyways.

    It's never really been the energy giants that were against solar, wind, hydro, whatever.  They'd be the same ones selling those technologies to us so they'll get their buck no matter where it comes from.  The issue has always been that while it looks good on paper, driving peoples and states electrical bills through the roof is a non-starter for cash strapped states and working class people.  The Navy and the Air Force have all the money they want, so they don't care about the cost.

    "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

    by overclocking on Thu Sep 15, 2011 at 10:02:46 AM PDT

    •  This was true in the past, but (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angelajean, jimstaro, Ice Blue, llbear, JeffW
      Green energy tends to be massively overpriced.
      it isn't any longer.  Solar photovoltaic (PV) power, the most expensive renewable. is now slightly less than the cost of power from a new (as opposed to existing) nuclear plant.  Existing plants, nuclear, coal or natural gas, produce cheaper power than new plants because their construction loans have been paid off.  And the price trend for PV is still going down.  
      Your average family would see a massive spike in their electric bill....
      Wrong again.  Families that can install rooftop PV solar will see their electric bill drop.  All others will see their bills creep upward as old electrical generators need repair and coal mines get deeper and harder to dig.  

      Your information is out of date.  

      Renewable energy brings national global security.      -6.25, -6.05

      by Calamity Jean on Thu Sep 15, 2011 at 11:54:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

        nuclear is still cheaper than solar and would be even more so if government didn't have a hard on for solar.  Solar is OK to add power, but it sucks for the base grid.

        And families that can install PV solar and pay for it are rich mother fuckers.  Who cares.  The poor and working class get fucked by it.   Green energy is anti poor.

        "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

        by overclocking on Thu Sep 15, 2011 at 07:48:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This was also true in the past: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jimstaro, Ice Blue, llbear
      the military isn't really concerned about costs, profits, or drawbacks.

      Today's military is very concerned about costs. One of the reasons they have expanded research into sustainable energy is that they understand that the cost of oil is unsustainable in a military setting. They consider not only the dollar value, but the logistic value as well. That's why we are seeing Marines carry solar panels out to the middle of the desert - it means less time and money spent on hauling fuel for generators.

      As to profits - I agree. There is no profit motive in the military. Though some of the companies they partner with definitely have a profit motive in mind.

      Not quite sure what you mean by they aren't concerned by drawbacks? Drawbacks are a concern in any scientific endeavor. Maybe you mean that the military is more likely to see them as obstacles to overcome rather than reasons to quit.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site