In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, we're getting some direct benefits from the huge investments in our military. While it's easy to attack the vast amounts of money that the Pentagon consumes, there is no denying that it can't also be used for good purposes. Frankly, there are things that have come from the Defense Department that the private sector never would have bothered with, yet our economy now depends on them.
You wouldn't be reading these words now if not for the Pentagon's investment in the technology that became the Internet. We wouldn't have had so much warning about when/where Sandy was going to strike without the investments in rocketry that helped make weather satellites possible. Right now the military's expertise in moving large amounts of people and materials quickly is going to play a vital role in recovery. While power companies (at government insistence following their dismal performance after Irene) made real efforts to be ready to move in quickly, the military has resources that can respond in ways no one else can.
Think of it as a huge expenditure by the public into government infrastructure, being used in times of crisis for the public good. Think of all the people relieved to see troops patrolling our streets, handing out food and water, ensuring safety, and cleaning up a horrendous disaster. If that's socialism, if that's government actually accomplishing something, well let's see Republicans criticize that.
But beyond the immediate response to Hurricane Sandy (and Thank GOD we have a Commander in Chief ready to do what needs to be done, unlike some others...) the military is actively engaged in efforts that could have a big impact on sustainability and climate change, efforts that often go under the radar. There are some advantages to having a large government organization that has to think about the long term and come up with solutions not wholly based on ideological wishful thinking.
More below the Orange Omnilepticon.
New Scientist magazine has several timely articles on why the U.S. Military is a useful ally on Climate Change. As this editorial notes:
THE US military brings a whole new dimension to the phrase "gas guzzler". From the fuel efficiency of its battle tanks - measured in gallons per mile - to a total consumption of oil that exceeds that of most nation states, the Pentagon looks like an environmentalist's nightmare.
This appetite for energy is at last being seen as a threat, though not to the environment: the top brass understands that relying on dwindling oil supplies from unstable or hostile countries is a bad idea. That is why they are adopting ambitious goals for renewable energy (see "Eco-warriors: US military pushes for green energy"). [* Free account required to log in for article.]
The Pentagon's drive for green energy represents a tremendous opportunity. If the military meets its targets, it could transform the energy landscape to everyone's benefit. When it comes to creating markets for new technologies, the Pentagon's procurement machine has no equal. If it decides to pump money into green energy, the economics suddenly look more favourable. They don't call it the military-industrial complex for nothing.
emphasis added
The article linked in the block quote above has some striking observations.
"Energy is our soft underbelly," said Colonel Bob Charette of the US Marine Corps' Expeditionary Energy Office in Washington DC, speaking in September at a demonstration of fuel-saving technology.
This is why the Department of Defense has set a goal of supplying 25 per cent of the military's energy from renewable sources by 2025 (see "The Pentagon's green offensive"). The navy is even more ambitious, planning for 50 per cent renewables by 2020. While saving the environment isn't the Pentagon's main goal, military investments could foster innovations in clean energy that would ripple through civilian society. There are precedents: both the internet and the GPS technology used by your smartphone began life as US military projects.
This isn't just a matter of pie in the sky research to win the hearts and minds of tree huggers; logistics are literally a matter of life and death for military. A military relying on high tech systems to maintain an advantage over adversaries in combat and in deterrence needs must keep its forces supplied with the energy needed to run that gear. To work in the field it has to be rugged and as light as possible - and effective. Every gallon of fuel saved by more efficient equipment is a gallon less that doesn't have to be transported over global supply lines. Every pound of spare batteries that can be replaced by a solar charging panel is a pound less troops in the field don't have to lug around.
And this translates into civilian use in two ways: the technology gets developed and put into use, and the military creates a growing cadre of people who know how to put it to use and are ready to rely on it. Consider the people still in the dark after Hurricane Sandy for example; military expertise in powering bases in difficult conditions could have practical civilian uses right now.
As the war in Afghanistan winds down, the US military is expected to shift its main overseas focus to potential flashpoints in the Pacific - where powering coastal and island bases will be crucial.
In addition to investing in wave power, the Pentagon has commissioned research into ocean thermal energy conversion systems. These use warm surface water to turn a liquid with a low boiling point, such as ammonia, into a vapour that drives a turbine. The vapour is then recondensed using colder water drawn from deeper ocean layers.
Military investment may be crucial to create a market for such experimental energy technologies. The Pentagon's financial muscle has already provided a boost for companies that supply microgrids - self-contained energy generation and distribution systems that can operate independently of the main power grid. In 2011, a report by market research firm SBI Energy, based in Rockville, Maryland, concluded that military investments were crucial to kick-starting the growth of a microgrid industry with $4 billion in annual global revenues.
"We really have a mutual interest in this," says Tom Hicks, the navy's deputy assistant secretary for energy, embracing the idea that the military can partner with the civilian sector. "We can play the role we've played over many decades, which is to be that catalyst."
One of the things mentioned after Sandy is the idea of a smart grid - an electrical system that can detect problems as they are about to happen, shut itself down or reroute power flows to isolate damaged sections while keeping the rest of the grid up, and pinpoint where problems are to speed repairs. News videos of transformers blowing up as the storm flooded areas and took down wires show how valuable this would be in keeping power running and in recovery efforts. It's the kind of thing the military would want as a matter of course; when you have enemy action trying to knock out your power, you want it as robust as possible.
Some of the ideas are pretty exotic, and not likely to have application in the civilian world without the incentives that drive military missions - like using seawater and CO2 as base materials to make aviation fuel without petroleum. The joker of course is that this takes lots of energy that has to come from somewhere, but it's an example of the kind of research that could have unexpected payoffs and isn't being done elsewhere. (And if this military - funded project pays off, energy will not be a problem.)
Every time the cost of oil goes up, the military takes a huge hit to its budget. As a huge consumer of petroleum based fuels, oil shocks ripple through the entire DOD structure. It impacts readiness, training, combat operations, and it sucks money away from other programs. This is why the military is prepared to make the investment in alternative energy systems. While the high initial cost may deter buyers elsewhere, the military can budget for that and the much lower costs of relying on those systems over the long term. They provide a market that helps keep that technology viable and expanding.
It should be noted that military interest in energy technology is not the only reason DOD has a role to play in dealing with climate change. The Navy for example has installations around the world that will be affected by rising sea levels. Melting of the Antarctic and North Polar/Greenland ice caps will not only raise sea levels, they'll open new sea lanes and areas of potential conflict over resource exploitation.
Climate disruptions will affect global food supplies. Floods of refugees, massive crop failures, economic collapse, outbreaks of disease - these potential scenarios are all factors that military contingency planning must take into account. War over water between nation states with nuclear arms is not out of the question. The military doesn't have the luxury of believing God will sort it all out, or blaming it on Mother Nature.
In a rational world without Republican climate deniers in positions of power, or an energy complex that intends to market every last bit of carbon-based fuel it can get out of the ground despite the consequences, we wouldn't need to look to the Pentagon for help. We'd be investing in research for its own sake, passing laws and providing incentives to rebuild our economy purely on the merits of what we now know. It's a pretty serious indictment of our political system that we're not doing these things now. Clear thinking - at the Pentagon or anywhere else - is our most precious natural resource.
We damn well better hope we can muster enough of it in time.
UPDATE: For a measure of just how important this is, Wen Stephenson has a piece with the screaming hair on fire importance of how we are facing a crisis that is still not being reported with the urgency it should be getting.
First: We need to see a much greater sense of urgency in the media's coverage of climate change, including in the Globe's editorial and opinion pages. This is more than an environmental crisis: it's an existential threat, and it should be treated like one, without fear of sounding alarmist, rather than covered as just another special interest, something only environmentalists care about. And it should be treated as a central issue in this election, regardless of whether the candidates or the political media are talking about it.
Second: Business-as-usual, politics-as-usual, and journalism-as-usual are failing us when it comes to addressing the climate threat. If there's to be any hope for the kind of bold action we need, a great deal of pressure must be brought from outside the system, in the form of a broad-based grassroots movement, in order to break the stranglehold of the big-money fossil fuel lobby on our politics. And in fact, there is a movement emerging on campuses and in communities across the country — especially here in New England — and the Globe should be paying attention to it.
h/t to Atrios for the link.
What the Pentagon is doing is good and useful - but it's a freaking bandaid on a bleeding artery if we don't get serious about this NOW.