The Pentagon’s Energy Plan

Energy security has long been the U.S.’s Achilles heel.  The Pentagon released today a new strategy aimed at developing fuel-efficient weapons, embracing non-oil energy sources, and requiring troops to behave in a more energy-responsible manner.  These plans are fleshed out in two news articles below.

Pentagon Presents Its First Energy Plan (Wall Street Journal)

Pentagon to Prioritize Energy Use in Acquisition (Defense News)

In addition, the National Strategy Forum Review has focused on energy security and energy strategy in recent issues.  The articles below amplify the Pentagon’s new approach.  The U.S. economy is already undergoing changes to its energy infrastructure and consumer behavior.  Given that the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the U.S., if not the world, the Pentagon’s new plan is a welcome step in the right direction.

Energy Performance in the Department of Defense by Oliver Fritz

Energy Security: Protecting Our Environment, Our Economy, and Our Independence by Endy Zemenides

CNA Corporation: National Security and the Threat of Climate Change

The environment has evolved from a domestic social issue to a national security issue.  As a consequence, the military is now paying closer attention to the challenges and consequences of  global environmental instability.  Addressing these new challenges requires a revision of traditional military planning and strategy.

In 2007, the CNA Corporation produced an important report titled “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” on the environment and national security.  The report explains how these two subjects are interconnected in the 21st Century, and attempts to link the importance of environmental instability to national security strategy.

Read the full report summary by Peter Gatziolis, CNA Corporation: National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.

Green Coal?

As Sam complained in that famous Dr. Suess poem, “I don’t like green eggs and ham,” so too have environmentalists not preferred the terms “green” and “coal” on the same page.  Unfortunately, the reality of the environmental and energy challenges are growing more difficult by the day.  The U.S. and China—both the largest consumers of energy and the largest producers of carbon emissions—are facing unpalatable tradeoffs in their strategic energy portfolios as they plan for increased energy consumption in the future.  The link between the environment and national security is clear.  Environmental instability must be incorporated into a national security strategy. In the case of energy, the difficult tradeoff is providing the massive power necessary to fuel the world’s largest economy while remaining mindful of the damaging effects on the environment.

Are you willing to turn off your refrigerator or computers for the next 30 years while alternative energy technology catches up to power needs?  Would you expect the Chinese to do the same?  Riding the wave of alternative energy is satisfying, but it is bound to end in disappointment—at least for now.  Better to hitch a ride on “dirty” coal to power the economy of tomorrow, so argues James Fallows in his new article featured this month in The Atlantic, “Dirty Coal, Clean Future.” Fallows presents one of the most clear-eyed, realistic approaches to the energy and climate change problem in a long while.  It is time to seriously consider America’s strategic approach and financial investments in the energy economy of tomorrow.  Before betting the farm on alternative energy, a realistic assessment of this problem and the available solutions may save both the environment and a few bucks in the process.

Read the full article by Eric S. Morse: “Green Coal?  The Environmental / Strategic Tradeoff.”

BP Oil

With the BP oil disaster still in flux, it is valuable to think through the various policy options  for the future of America’s energy security.  Are we learning the right lessons from the BP oil spill?

BP Oil Disaster: The Right Lessons Learned?
By Eric S. Morse