If you look up the term “strategic liability” in the dictionary, there should be a picture of oil under it.

Oil costs are prohibitive and unpredictable. Gas costs us $400 per gallon in Afghanistan; we pay $88 per soldier per day in Iraq for fuel costs. While defense spending has long been a sacred cow, it is now on the chopping block. A smaller budget means a smaller military where every dollar counts; even small increases in fuel costs translate to thousands of dollars. As oil prices continue upward and remain volatile, our commanders might have to worry if they can afford the gas to conduct operations or will have to use a smaller force than necessary for the job. This may put our troops downrange and our security at home in jeopardy.

Read the rest at PolicyMic.

The world is crisscrossed with hundreds of thousands of miles of oil pipelines and experts consider them an easy and vulnerable target for terrorist attacks.  Their great lengths through harsh terrain make them impossible to adequately protect and if a single break can shut a line down for weeks, imagine what a well-placed explosive device can do. 

Just this month, Qaddafi’s forces in Libya attacked rebel-held oilfields there to halt production.  There have been multiple insurgent attacks on pipelines in Iraq this year.  Yemeni oil production has declined since 2006 due to attacks there and pipelines are a favorite target of the Kurdish PKK rebels in Turkey.  Outside the Middle East, there have been multiple militia attacks against lines in Nigeria, a major oil supplier to the U.S., and rebel attacks on oil targets as close to the U.S. as Mexico.

Our own pipelines here in America show the vulnerability as well.  In 2002 a drunken Alaskan hunter was convicted for shooting an oil pipeline, one bullet causing a hole that halted flow for three days.  In 2006 a break spilled 250,000 gallons across the North Slope.  A government report identified the trans-Alaska pipeline, which carries 12% of America’s domestic oil supply, as a major safety concern.

Our continued dependence on oil leaves not only our wallets vulnerable to price spikes, but puts our economy as a whole in danger and remains a threat to our national security.  We need to turn off the pipelines for good and move away from oil.

All major energy and oil companies claim to be taking steps to address climate change caused by the use of their products.  The American Petroleum Institute touts its members’ efforts on the issue.  A look at the television ads and websites for oil firms such as ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron state these firms believe climate change is occurring as a result of their products.  They may disagree as to how much fossil fuels are contributing to carbon emissions, but they acknowledge they are and climate change is happening.

All of America’s national security institutions have taken action to address climate change and private-sector oil companies acknowledge it is a truth and are acting as well.  So why can’t some Congressmen accept these facts?  A look at their records on the issue is instructive.  Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee and four of his top five campaign contributors are energy or auto companies.  He and former chair Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) also own thousands in stock in energy companies.  Barton is famous for apologizing to BP’s CEO after they agreed to pay for their Gulf oil spill.  Committee member John Shimkus (R-IL) is also remembered for his stated belief that God won’t allow climate change and that reducing carbon will take away plant food.

With these characters in charge of America’s climate and energy policy, it isn’t hard to see why nothing gets done.  These guys aren’t climate “skeptics”; they’re climate cranks.

Oil trade with Iran continues elsewhere, too. Some European oil firms have continued to stretch the rules of the embargo. Just last week the U.S. sought to stop a German bank from transferring Indian oil payments to Iran and the State Department ‘blacklisted’ a Belarus oil firm for continuing to trade with Iran.  This shows the importance not only of why America must break its oil dependence for our own security, but why America must also lead the rest of the world to cut the oil tether as well. As long as enough states continue to purchase oil there will be a market for it and regimes such as in Iran and dictators such as Qaddafi will remain in power.

The President’s new Energy Security Blueprint sets out a plan to do that. The U.S. has led in developing electric vehicles and America will soon be producing 40% of the world’s rechargeable batteries. We are leading and cooperating with other nations throughout the Pacific and South America in biofuels development. U.S. programs promote the use of alternative fuels in mass transit in developing countries such as Egypt, Thailand, and Colombia.  As long as America, its allies, and developing nations continue to depend upon oil, Iran and other regimes will continue to stay afloat atop their sea of oil. In order to sink Iran, America must lead the world away from oil for our own national security and the safety of the world.

Operation Free was represented by Ashkan Bayatpour and Chris Miller.  We both spoke of the national security repercussions of our continued dependence on oil and the consequences of continuing to send billions of dollars overseas, money which we could greatly use here.  Despite being only four percent of the vehicles on the road, medium and heavy duty trucks account for twenty percent of fuel use.  Increasing fuel efficiency standards would save truck drivers themselves an estimated $74, 000 over the lifetime of their truck.  The fuel conserved by the measure alone would be equal to the entire amount of oil the U.S. imported from Iraq last year. In addition, it would reduce carbon output from trucks that lead to climate effects which result in destabilizing events in developing countries that contribute to conflict and extremism.  Its passage would pay real dividends for the transportation industry and its employees, savings that would be passed on to consumers and families, not to mention helping our troops downrange who have to fight to protect our energy supplies.

One of the highlights of our trip there came when we were approached by an older woman after our testimonies.  She thanked us very heartily and said that she had feared that no one would speak about the consequences of our oil addiction to our troops fighting downrange and was so glad that we had put the issue front and center.  This is a point that many people are beginning to catch on to and that Operation Free is at the forefront of speaking to.  Some citizens and even environment advocates are often surprised when they hear from ‘climate hawks’ regarding the negative impact of oil addiction on national security that they don’t hear it more often.  There is agreement on all sides of the political spectrum that this issue must be addressed and Presidents of both parties since the 1970’s have called for ending our addiction to foreign oil.  This EPA/NHTSA was a perfect opportunity for government officials to hear from average Americans, industry, and climate groups on the issue and they certainly heard about its impact on national security from Operation Free.  The message is getting across, loud and clear.

This post is the fourth in a series about the Progressive Military

The smell that will always take me and many other vets back to the old Army days is diesel exhaust fumes.  When you spend many years of your life rolling around the muddy trails of military training areas in 5-ton trucks or the bumpy roads of Iraq and Afghanistan in armored Humvees, the smell brings on instant nostalgia.  It is my hope, and the hope of many senior military leaders, that our next generation of servicemembers won’t know that smell because they won’t be using oil.

There is widespread agreement by institutions on all sides of the political spectrum that energy independence, security, and planning for the repercussions of climate change must be addressed.  Former CIA director James Woolsey has called this “the first war since the Civil War that America has funded both sides.”  However there is still opposition, mostly from the GOP Congressional minority, to taking real comprehensive steps.  Their opposition to a comprehensive energy and climate bill, such as the American Power Act, has stifled momentum on the issue.  Too many in Congress want to ensure nothing get done on the issue for quite a while.

Despite Congressional impasse, the military is looking at the issue from top to bottom and pushing forward.  The Army is investigating using the safflower as a biofuel and began its Fuel Efficiency Demonstrator (FED) program to develop new vehicle technologies in response to battlefield calls for the need to reduce the number of dangerous convoys that use and transport fuel.  The effort doesn’t extend solely to vehicles and equipment; it also extends to the power grids on it installations at home and downrange.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, strongly committed to the issue, has promised that the Navy and Marine Corps will get less than half of its power from fossil fuels within ten years.  As far as new energy and combat power are concerned, the electric hybrid ship USS Makin Island and the hybrid-fueled FA-18 “Green Hornet” fighter jet have already made their maiden voyages.  The Navy is also committed to making all of their installations energy self-sufficient by 2020.

Not to be outdone, the Air Force has developed an A-10 “Thunderbolt”, a ground attack aircraft, that also runs on a biofuels mixture and plans to test at least three other aircraft models this year.  This is a significant development as the Air Force is the military’s top energy consumer.  On the ground, Langley Air Force Base has installed a geothermal energy system as part of the Air Force goal to reduce its energy consumption 20% by 2020.

The Pentagon has begun to “wargame” the consequences of climate change that the military may be called upon to address.  As resources become scarce, it may lead to conflicts on several continents.  U.S. bases may be threatened by rising sea levels.  It may also lead to conflict between allies and destabilize stable states and further ruin already shaky ones.  It is also no secret that American dependence on oil from unstable regions leaves us vulnerable every time there is a hiccup in the supply caused by unrest or terror attacks.

There may be continued debate as whether we have already or will reach “peak oil”, whether the alarms raised about “foreign” oil are an overreaction, or, most of all, whether climate change is actually happening at all.  The U.S. military doesn’t seem to be willing to take the chance that these things aren’t or won’t happen.  In the words of energy security advocate and retired Army Chief of Staff General Gordon Sullivan, “We never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

If Congress and the American people trust the military to keep them safe, hopefully they will trust the military on energy independence and climate change.  General Anthony C. Zinni, retired U.S. CENTCOM commander, has said, “We will pay for this one way or another.  We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today . . . or we will pay the price later in military terms and that will involve human lives.”

Chris Miller is a Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge recipient and eight-year U.S. Army veteran, having served two tours in Baghdad, Iraq. He is currently a law student and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.

Read the original article here.

As a U.S. Army veteran I am used to dealing with the military, an organization that, by necessity, takes swift and decisive action when necessary, despite the fact that many see it as a conservative organization that is resistant and slow to change.  In Washington, I am becoming used to dealing with another organization that is much more conservative and even more resistant and slower: the United States Senate.  I am proud to say that the U.S. military is once again taking decisive action on energy independence and security, as well as addressing the military repercussions of climate change.  The military is taking action where the United States Congress will not.

On July 27 I attended the White House Forum on Energy Security along with a group of veterans from Operation Free, a nationwide coalition of military veterans from all eras and ranging from Privates and Airmen to Generals and Admirals – all of whom support the goal of energy independence, security, and addressing the national security repercussions of climate change.

We have collectively been touring and speaking throughout the country and in Washington, D.C. in support of breaking our dependence on largely foreign oil and pushing Congress to take real steps toward a comprehensive clean energy climate plan.  We have come to support the American Power Act developed through a bipartisan effort by Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham with Senator Joseph Lieberman and cooperation from the White House.

July 27 was supposed to be the day that the Senate finally took real action on the issue we have all been working hard for over the past year.  It didn’t happen.  As we all got on airplanes throughout the country in high spirits, something was happening on Capitol Hill: nothing.

By the time we hit ground in Washington, D.C. we learned that everything had changed.  The Senate didn’t have the sixty votes needed to proceed to an up-or-down vote on the bill.  We went to the Hill again to meet with fence-sitting Senators and their staff.  The opinion we encountered there was disappointing, but not surprising: we need to do something about the issues of energy security, energy independence, and climate change, but we’re not going to do anything now.

Some, echoing Republican sentiment, said the issue hadn’t been discussed enough yet, that the Senate process of debate and hearings needs to be completed, that it would force them to choose ‘winners and losers’ and they are not ready to do that.

Hadn’t been discussed enough? We’ve been talking about energy security and independence since the 1970s.  Other countries are taking action while we are being left behind. The CIA includes repercussions of climate change and our dependence on foreign fossil energy in its assessments.  The State Department does as well.

Now the U.S. military is taking serious steps to address the issue.  It devoted an entire section of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report (p. 84) to responding to climate change issues.  Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has expressed a clear vision of a force independent of fossil fuels.  The military is taking action by reducing the use of fossil fuels, researching the use of alternative sources, and increasing the efficiency of its energy use, whether on battlefield outposts in Afghanistan or home installations in Texas.  Speakers from each branch of the U.S. military have discussed similar opinions, expressing that action on this issue shouldn’t be taken for political reasons, but for security reasons.  The money we pay for oil goes to regimes opposed to our interests. The cost of procuring, transporting, and securing that fuel is extreme, in dollars and to the lives of our troops.

This contrasts greatly with the attitude of too many Senators, who continue to choose politics over security.  The U.S. Congress trusts the military and veterans on other security issues.  Energy independence, energy security, and planning for the possible consequences of climate change are national security issues.  The military is taking action, even if Congress won’t.  If they’ll listen on other national security issues, let’s hope they’ll trust the military when it comes to a comprehensive clean energy climate plan that makes us energy independent.

Full article here.

As veterans, we are used to dealing with the military, an institution that will take quick and decisive action to change as necessary to deal with and respond to challenges.  We are also becoming familiar with the slow and deliberate pace of change in the United States Senate.  The events of the 27^th exhibited this perfectly.  Senators Pryor and Lincoln expressed to us that while they support eventually putting a price on carbon, they cannot agree on how it should be done.  They also expressed their support for clean, renewable energy sources but refuse to ‘pick winners and losers’ as far as which sources should be developed.  The overall message was that something needs to be done, but nothing will get done right now.

This contrasted greatly with the message we heard at White House Forum from the Pentagon and Department of Energy.  Secretary Mabus and Deputy Secretary Poneman both expressed a joint, clear vision of a military committed to breaking dependence on oil, increasing energy efficiency, and developing and implementing new clean energy sources to fuel the fight.  The military seems to be committed to getting done what the U.S. Congress cannot.

Our hope is that if Congress listens to the military on all other national security issues, it will eventually listen on this issue.  We are disappointed that the Senate could not get the votes for a stronger comprehensive clean energy bill that fully addresses the issues of climate change and energy independence, but feel that we are at least facing in the right direction now.  The U.S. intelligence establishment, the State Department, and the Pentagon acknowledge that this is an issue and the military is taking steps to address it.  Let’s hope that Congress follows their example and listens to the military and veterans on this important national security issue.  We need stronger measures and leadership in the Senate; Congress is not off the hook yet.

Senator Risser and Representative Hilgenberg both expressed their thanks to Operation Free for bringing attention to the issue of green energy and said that they had come to learn and listen to views and information that they could use in their own push for comprehensive clean energy reform in the state of Wisconsin, the culmination of which may come soon in a bill coming up for vote in the state legislature.  Sen. Risser also spoke to the fact that Wisconsin currently imports 100% of its energy from outside of the state and that Wisconsin and states like it have much to gain from energy independence.

The questions raised by the audience ranged from veteran involvement in new green energy jobs to the astronomical cost of fueling the fight against terrorism and what the U.S. military itself is currently doing to develop new energy sources and reduce its use of oil. We really enjoyed our time in Wisconsin, now we’re off to Indiana!