Military leaders testify about energy efficiency
Mar 20 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Onell R. Soto The San Diego
Union-Tribune
Cutting Americans' addiction to fossil fuel isn't a tree-hugger issue
but a national security one, a retired Navy vice admiral told state
lawmakers yesterday.
The United States consumes a quarter of the world's oil, and much of
that comes from countries that aren't friendly to us. Meanwhile, we have
a military that increasingly marches on oil, to the point where long
convoys must cross dangerous territory to deliver fuel for troops in
vehicles that get 3 miles a gallon.
Two top military leaders told state senators that the armed forces are
taking energy issues seriously -- by working on ways to make their
operations at home and abroad more efficient.
The testimony, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, was part of a
hearing by a state Senate committee on climate change designed to gather
more information on how energy use affects national security.
Getting more oil within the United States is not a solution,
said retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, a consultant on energy security
issues.
"We cannot drill our way to sustainable prosperity and security," he
said.
And because oil is a commodity, deciding to avoid buying it from
countries that don't like us doesn't solve the problem, because other
people will.
Whenever we gas up, he said, "part of that money inevitably is getting
to states that fund terrorism."
Oil extraction in developing countries causes instability between haves
and have-nots, he said, showing a slide of an impoverished fishing
village next to an oil terminal in Nigeria.
And global warming can lead to fights over scarce resources like arable
land.
"The pressure of climate change, left unchecked, will create many more
Darfurs," he said.
For the Marine Corps, a big issue is making sure that fighting forces
are supplied with the fuel and energy they need to move around and
communicate, said Maj. Gen. Anthony M. Jackson, who commands Marine
Corps Installations West, including Camp Pendleton.
"It is critical to those Marines and soldiers to accomplish the missions
this country sends them on," he said.
Modern warfare has increased energy use dramatically. Fighting vehicles
have to be heavier to survive roadside bombs and as a result, use more
fuel.
Troops are equipped with GPS, night-vision goggles, radios and other
devices, all with batteries that must be charged.
"It is energy-intensive," Jackson said.
Half of the tonnage in supply lines, he said, is fuel, and nearly a
third is water. Getting fuel into a place like Afghanistan makes it cost
about $15 a gallon, and that jumps dramatically, to $400, to get it to
troops in forward operating bases.
To deal with that, the Marines are looking at using water purifiers and
solar chargers, plus making their vehicles more efficient, he said.
The Navy, meanwhile, is also working on lowering its energy usage, said
Rear Adm. William French, commander of Naval Region Southwest. He
oversees installations in California and Nevada, where conservation
efforts have reduced energy usage by 18 percent since 2003.
The Navy is working on using biofuels in new ships, he said, plus
generating power from the sun and the wind on its bases.
The state's climate change laws -- designed to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions -- are under attack from politicians who say
they should be put on hold until the economy recovers.
The Democratic senators who put together yesterday's hearing, Christine
Kehoe of San Diego and Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills, disagree.
"We have no time to waste," Kehoe said.
Onell Soto: (619) 293-1280;
onell.soto@uniontrib.com
(c) 2010,
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
|