Vets: Clean Fuel Standard Good for National Security

Standard would reduce dangerous US oil dependence, save Americans billions at the pump

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, in response to the release of the draft NESCAUM economic analysis of a Clean Fuel Standard, Michael Breen, an Iraq and Afghanistan War veteran and Vice President of the Truman National Security Project, made the following statement on behalf of Operation Free:

“America’s addiction to oil is a clear threat to our security. We send more than a billion dollars a day overseas for oil, and a dangerous amount of that money ends up in the hands of hostile regimes that don’t have our best interests in mind. We need to do all we can to end our risky oil dependence, and a Clean Fuel Standard will help do exactly that. The analysis released this week makes it clear: a Clean Fuel Standard will reduce our dangerous oil dependence.”

Clean fuel standards create jobs, reduce carbon emissions and help address the US addiction to oil. Extremists and hostile regimes get a great deal of funding from the sale of oil, the price of which is driven up by American demand. A Clean Fuel Standard will also reduce carbon emissions, the root cause of climate change. The Department of Defense, State Department, and CIA all recognize climate change as a direct threat to American security.

Operation Free is a coalition of veterans and national security organizations dedicated to securing America with clean energy. Operation Free sponsored the Veterans for American Power National Tour, a 29 state tour by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans making the connection between energy policy and national security. Operation Free is an advocacy campaign of the Truman National Security Project.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 22, 2011

CONTACT
Benjamin Lowe, (607) 280-5693, ben@trumanproject.org

Veteran in Ad: Christie Surrendering to
China on Clean Energy
Statewide campaign includes radio, mail focused on Christie’s leadership failure

NEW JERSEY— Today, veterans group Operation Free released a 30 second radio ad “Retreat” in New Jersey which targets Governor Christie’s leadership failures on clean energy jobs. The initial buy on Trenton WKXW 101.5 in Trenton will runs for a week.

In the ad, Former US Army Captain Terron Sims highlights Governor Christie’s failure of leadership on clean energy jobs. Recently, Governor Chris Christie chose to retreat from successful clean energy efforts when he pulled the state out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.  The ad also highlights suggestions in Christie’s recently-released Master Energy Plan that America should wait for China and Europe to perfect clean technology first. Sims reminds Christie that “Americans don’t settle for second place.”

The ad is part of a statewide campaign by veterans to highlight the connection between clean energy and national security.  Other recent events included a telephone town hall which connected tens of thousands of New Jersey restident to veterans and legislators, and a capitol press conference calling for Governor Christie to support clean energy initiatives that strengthen America’s economy and security.

Michael Breen, an Iraq and Afghanistan War veteran and Vice President of the Truman National Security Project, said, “It’s outrageous that Governor Christie would sound the retreat from RGGI when it’s proven so successful at spurring critical investments in clean energy. By pulling out of this important program and surrendering to China on clean energy, his failure of leadership will not only cost New Jersey countless clean energy jobs, but, by doubling down on dirty fuels and doing nothing to fight our dangerous oil addiction, will also make America less safe. New Jersey and our entire nation both deserve more from their leaders than reckless political game-playing and surrendering in a fight we need to win.”

Truman National Security Project

NAME: “Retreat”

LENGTH: 30

RADIO

The Energy-National Security Connection. The Department of Defense, the CIA, and the State Department all publicly recognize the threat of climate change, and have adopted ambitious policies to pursue clean energy initiatives, in stark contrast to the reckless abandonment of clean energy by Governor Christie. Since its inception, RGGI has raised more than $800 million for clean energy initiatives in the ten-state region of the program, funding which has been used to spur job growth in the clean energy sector while reducing carbon emissions and helping to address the American addiction to oil.

Operation Free is a coalition of veterans and national security organizations dedicated to securing America with clean energy. Operation Free sponsored the Veterans for American Power National Tour, a 29 state tour by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans making the connection between energy policy and national security. Learn more at www.OperationFree.net. Operation Free is an advocacy campaign of the Truman National Security Project.

###

My decision to purchase an electric car was driven by a variety of reasons, but the simplest reason was this: The cost of filling up with gas is just too much. I’m not just writing about the price we’re paying at the pump; I am also referring to the cost to our future generations, our national security, and our economy. As a veteran, I have seen the toll these costs take and I am doing what I can to stop contributing to the problem.

…

Through these experiences, I came to see that our foreign policy needs to evolve in order to provide smarter national security here at home. After all, how much sense does it make to spend $400 per gallon getting gas to our service members in remote regions of Afghanistan? How much sense does it make to send money to countries that don’t like us, don’t share our values, and sometimes find ways to get that money into the hands of terrorist organizations? The Rand Corporation found that US armed forces spend up to $83 billion annually protecting vulnerable infrastructure and patrolling oil transit routes. US Navy Secretary Roy Mabus recently said, “The Army did a study and found that out of every 24 fuel convoys we use [in Afghanistan], a soldier or marine is killed or wounded guarding that convoy. That’s a high price to pay for fuel.”

His decision to go electric is also featured in a blog post at the Mother Nature Network. Thanks for spreading the message, Tim, that getting away from using oil isn’t just a good idea for your bottom line — it’s also critical for America’s security.

A bill crafted by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) was introduced in the House yesterday after it had been floated in draft form last month. The final bill, in addition to having the support of Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), also netted the support of four Democrats as co-sponsors: Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Reps. Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Dan Boren (Okla.).

“The EPA has gone unchecked for far too long,” said Boren in a statement. “Administrator [Lisa] Jackson has tried to legislate rather than take direction from Congress that is elected by the people.”

For his part, Rahall said that he is “dead-set” against EPA moving ahead with greenhouse gas regulations. “The Congress — the place where the People’s will reigns — is the appropriate body to design a program with such sweeping ramifications,” Rahall said in a statement. Peterson, too, said that he believes EPA “needs to be reined in.”

Click here to read the rest of the article at NYTimes.com.

This behavior is more than a little bit worrying, considering he is the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. His symptoms — opposing clean energy initiatives, trying to halt critical carbon-dioxide regulation — have been so clear for so long that we felt confident making an unfortunate diagnosis: Congressman Upton suffers from Oil Addiction Disorder.

Even more unfortunately, rather than making a much-hoped-for recovery, today Upton’s symptoms got even worse: along with fellow O.A.D. sufferer Jim Inhofe (R-OK) in the Senate, he proposed legislation today which would take away the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

What besides O.A.D. could it be? What else could make him ignore the fact, well known across the entire political spectrum, that our dependence on oil leaves us vulnerable to higher and higher oil prices, while oil dollars flow to dictators and terrorists actively plotting to attack the US and our allies?

What could distract him from the negative effects of carbon emissions, such as recent flooding in Pakistan which has been linked to climate change and has displaced millions of people whose desperation is being actively used as a recruitment tool by al Qaeda?

The will of his constituents doesn’t seem to matter much to him, either: a recent Public Policy Polling survey (PDF) found that 62% of Upton’s constituents oppose the legislation he’s proposing, and 67%, including 60% of Republicans, believe that “Congress should let EPA do its job.”

Do not despair: there is something you can do to help. Get the word out about Congressman Upton’s condition — watch the video we made about Upton’s Oil Addiction Disorder here, and then use the links at the bottom of that page to let others know through Facebook, Twitter, and email. Spread the word about this disease — or the next Member of Congress to suffer may be yours!

I actually did something rare for me last week: I finished a book! The one is At The Abyss: An Insider’s History of the Cold War by Thomas C. Reed and published in 2004. It’s a book filled with Cold War incidents, many of which brought little attention when they occurred but looking back on them seem rather frightening. One of the incidents Reed recalled was the brilliant sabotage of a Soviet gas pipeline in the early 80s that I’d read about before (see: The Farewell Dossier).

Reed helped design nuclear weapons earlier in his career and a narrative runs through his book about the dangers of nuclear weapons. The most frightening parts detail the shocking lack of security that surrounded these ominous weapons during some of mankind’s biggest crises. We are all very, very, lucky to be here now.

One thing I found of particular interest is in the epilogue of the book. Here Reed discusses the problem America has with oil:

Iraq is one of the oil-rich states of the Middle East. That fact draws American attention, not because Western oil companies covet the production – which they do. Our global concern is that petrodollars, flowing to dictators with more money than sense, can fuel mischief on a scale unreachable by other third world despots. Fifty to sixty million dollars a day, flowing to Iraq when it restores full production, could have supported a lot of nuclear research, industrial development, and terrorist field work.

Why have we granted the petrodollar despots this control over our lives? That is a central question for this new century, and it is the reason I joined James Schlesinger in 1977 in organizing a new U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). We envisioned an energy policy that would wean the United States, if not the Western world, from its dependence on Middle Eastern crude. That has not happened because oil is not a commodity – it is a narcotic. Americans are neither willing to make rational choices nor to accept energy-conservation tax policies if any of those strictures interfere with their daily low-cost energy fix. Every one cent of an expanded federal gasoline tax would add a billion dollars to the annual federal revenue stream. Gasoline taxes at the European level could solve the Social Security and Medicare deficits in one stoke while encouraging energy independence within our lifetime. But Congress has no stomach for such action. The DOE has spun off into irrelevance; “pump more oil” seems to be our only energy policy. And so, in time, our children will pay the terrible price. The continuing imbalance of payments to pay for this oil will one day burn through the dollar’s thick skin. The buildup of cash in the hands of nuclear wannabes could one day vaporize a major city.

This is exactly what the group Operation Free has been telling Congress and the public. I’ve been very proud to be working with Operation Free to help folks see that America’s oil addiction gets paid not just in money but in lives. Reed is a Republican who served not only as Reagan’s Secretary of the Air Force but also as a political consultant to other Republican presidents. To have him make this case says a lot, I think.

I enjoyed Reed’s insights into the Cold War, especially knowing how lucky we are to have come out of it relatively unscathed. I only hope we manage the battle to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons as successfully.

Heritage Foundation estimates are not simply slightly more pessimistic than those of more neutral sources; they are nowhere near them.  Their estimate of annual per-household costs of cap-and-trade, for instance, ranges up to 2,611% higher than the projections of the EPA.  And while analyses by UMass Amherst and others show that investing in green energy sources will create nearly two million jobs over the next decade, the Heritage Foundation projects that addressing climate change and modernizing our energy portfolio will cripple our economy.

Thankfully for those of us who don’t enjoy reading inaccuracy in small print, the Heritage Foundation made it clear on the first page that reading the subsequent twenty pages would not be necessary.  There, scrawled in fine print in Footnote #1, the Heritage Foundation concisely confesses to the complete irrelevance of their analysis:

Scientific questions about global warming, its causes, and the seriousness of the consequences are not discussed in this report.

How can the Heritage Foundation issue a report critical of efforts to stem the potentially disastrous impacts of global warming, but blithely fail to consider the costs of continuing without addressing these risks?  The NRDC estimates that, by the end of the 21st century, the direct impacts of global warming could cost the United States $1.9 trillion per year in energy- and water-sector costs, hurricane damages, and real-estate losses.  A 2006 Tufts University study (PDF) found similar, dire potential consequences waiting for us should we choose not to act: according to those estimates, if left unchecked, global warming could cost the global economy $74 trillion.  How can the Heritage Foundation ignore these massive risks when discussing climate change?

If the Heritage Foundation were truly interested in strengthening America’s economy, they would stand alongside those calling for sensible actions on climate change.  They would applaud policies such as cap and trade that allow the free market to operate but also make sure that, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the environmental costs of doing business are borne by those doing business, rather than by the delicate chemistry of our climate.

For now, with publications like this, the Heritage Foundation appears less interested in helping American businesses adapt and succeed to the realities of the 21st century, and more interested in simply continuing a futureless vision of business as usual.

The best hope for pushing through meaningful legislation to stem global warming?  Broadening the climate change discussion among policy makers from purely an environmental issue to one of national security concerns as well, thus broadening the base of support for climate change policy.

The argument that climate change will have impacts on our military readiness is already gaining traction in the military community.  In 2007, the Pentagon-funded CNA Corporation released a report detailing the serious military ramifications of climate change, and, as the Times reported two weeks ago, the military has already started conducting exercises focused on the wide-ranging geopolitical impacts of global warming, including religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure.

What is next, argues the Times, is for this way of thinking to start gaining supporters in Congress, especially among Republicans who have so far resisted climate change legislation on the grounds that it will hurt domestic economic interests:

This line of argument could also be pretty good politics — especially on Capitol Hill, where many politicians will do anything for the Pentagon. Both Senator John Kerry, an advocate of strong climate change legislation, and former Senator John Warner, a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, say they have begun to stress the national security argument to senators who are still undecided about how they will vote on climate change legislation.

Proponents of climate change legislation have already begun to argue that “drought, starvation, disease and mass migration… could unleash regional conflicts and draw in America’s armed forces.”  Hopefully those in Congress who have rightfully declared our national security a priority, but have yet to do so with our climate security, will soon realize they are increasingly one and the same.