“The DoD fuel bill came to some $14 billion in 2010. “For every dollar the price of a barrel of oil goes up, the Navy spends $31 million more for fuel,” Mabus noted. “Our dependence on fossil fuels creates strategic, operational and tactical vulnerabilities for our forces.”

That’s Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, on why the US military is moving away from fossil fuels at lightning speed. Seems like maybe regular folks should probably be doing the same!

House Democrats reaffirmed President Obama’s call to end oil industry subsidies yesterday during a hearing that party leaders called as part of their effort to present an alternative to the GOP’s economic agenda.

“There are no more critical challenges facing this Congress than these two: creating jobs and reducing the deficit,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), calling for “smart investments in clean energy industries that will create new jobs for America’s workers.”

“We are urging Republicans and Democrats to come together to eliminate the billions we are currently sending to oil company coffers, invest federal dollars where they’ll do the most good in jobs that cannot be outsourced and [put] jobs in the hands of American workers,” she said.

The undertone of the hearing was of a party looking for a message that will appeal to voters as the Democrats strive to retake the House.

While the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing centered on job creation, it also delved into how the country should secure its energy future with an eye toward security, innovation and financial health — even as the party has no say in the chamber’s agenda.

Ryan Alexander of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense laid out the amount of money that the oil industry gains through tax breaks. She added that, all told, the oil companies receive billions of dollars but noted that the true cost of the subsidies is hidden because many of them are a century old and reliant upon oil companies’ voluntary reports.

“Our policy toward oil companies right now is essentially corporate welfare,” Alexander said.

House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) focused on a recent Government Accountability Office report that examined the lack of payments by oil and gas companies extracting from federal lands.

“The American taxpayer should get a fair share of what oil companies drill on federal lands, that is just common sense,” Cummings said, adding that the GAO report says that including direct subsidies, the country essentially gives as much as $50 billion to oil companies.

“A much better approach would be to invest these funds and create new jobs here in the United States not only to reduce unemployment but to help out on our dependence with regard to oil,” Cummings said.

The two-hour meeting was packed with Democratic leaders. At one point a staffer even had to fetch an additional chair as more than a dozen lawmakers filled the dais, including Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

Amidst the backdrop of political unrest in the Middle East, a drop in oil production and a spike in oil prices, Drew Sloan, an Army veteran and Truman National Security Fellow who works for the energy efficiency company OPower, spoke about the national security interests at play as well as the leadership role that the military has taken in advancing technology.

“The strength of our security relies on the strength of our economy,” Sloan said, adding that its reliance on oil stifles the United States’ ability to respond appropriately to global crises when oil is involved. Additionally, Sloan noted that much of the Republican rhetoric like “drill baby, drill” is too simplistic. Such statements, he said, fail to look at oil globally, because no matter how much domestic production there is — even without environmental regulations — it would still not be enough to steer a global market.

Calling the hearing “critically important,” DeLauro said afterward that the country is ready to move forward to new technologies that will place the country at the “cutting edge of [energy] development and not have to be dependent on countries in a great deal of turmoil and with a great deal of unrest.”

But domestic politics were never far from the discussion.

At one point, Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said, “Everything that you told us today simply reinforces everything that is so painfully obvious to those of us who are sitting here.”

“My question is, is there any industry that seems to be so powerful as to literally stymie what would be totally rational for the public good efforts on the part of the federal government?” she wondered. “How do we bring that power? How do we enact these kinds of laws that make sense to us? How do we change the royalty relief law and get rid of that and the huge subsidies? What do we need to do besides regaining the majority?”

Leave it to the climate hawks at Operation Free to produce the best message yet about the dangerous and unpopular Republican assault against the EPA.

After you watch the video—and trust me, it’s well worth watching—click through to Operation Free’s Oil Addiction Disorder site to learn more about how oil addiction costs lives, how the EPA de-funds terrorism, and how many conservatives are ignoring the military’s warnings. And then take action and sign the petition to let the EPA do its job and help protect America from oil addiction.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The honorable patriots behind Operation Free are simply the best at explaining why clean energy and climate change matter to all Americans.

Permalink

Don’t worry, though. The organization, Operation Free, says it has the perfect prescription: the Environmental Protection Agency.

In a web campaign designed to go viral, the group says Barton, R-Texas, and two other House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders have an “oil addiction disorder.” The Jib-Jab-esque video shows Barton, panel chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and John Shimkus, R-Ill., guzzling crude out of barrels wielded by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Read the full story here, and visit the site!

But don’t worry. The organization, Operation Free, says it has the perfect prescription: the Environmental Protection Agency.

In a web campaign designed to go viral, the group says Barton, R-Texas, and two other House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders have an “oil addiction disorder” that should be treated — stat.

Read the full story here

Mideast Unrest Shows Need For Alternative Fuels: Mabus
By Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters
WASHINGTON — Oil price rises spurred by spreading unrest in the Middle East underscore why the U.S. military should reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, said U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

Every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil adds more than $300 million to the U.S. Navy’s annual fuel costs, said Mabus, the former governor of Mississippi and the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under former President Bill Clinton.
“All you have to do is read the headlines every day to see why we need to do this,” Mabus told Reuters in an interview at his Pentagon office. “Just from the situation in Libya, oil prices have gone up more than $7 a barrel.”
U.S. crude futures eased slightly on Wednesday in Tokyo after hitting their highest levels in two-and-a-half years as unrest in Libya reduced production there and exacerbated worries about global supply.

“It’s not just availability of fossil fuels and the fact that we’re getting them from potentially or actually volatile places on earth, but it’s also the price shocks that can come from it,” said Mabus, who drew up a recovery plan for the U.S. Gulf coast after last year’s BP Plc oil spill.

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2012 budget sent to Congress last week assumes a price of $131 per barrel of oil. NYMEX crude for April delivery rose as high as $96.08 on Wednesday, the highest for any nearby month since October 2008.
Mabus said the Navy and Marine Corps were making dramatic changes to meet his ambitious energy saving goals, including one to ensure that by 2020, half of all energy the Navy uses would come from non-fossil fuel sources.
The Navy uses a third of the fossil fuels bought each year by the U.S. federal government, which in turn uses about two percent of fossil fuels consumed in the United States each year.

Mabus said one Marine Corps base in Helmand province in Afghanistan had reduced its energy consumption by over 20 percent and eliminated 700 pounds of batteries by using solar panels and implementing other energy-saving technologies.
The ability to run on biofuels could also prove an important selling point for U.S. weapons exports, said Mabus, whom some defense analysts consider a leading contender to replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates when he retires later this year.

For instance, the Navy last year flew a Boeing Co F/A-18 fighter jet on a biofuel blend at supersonic speeds.
Mabus said he highlighted the fighter jet’s ability to run on biofuels during a recent visit to Brazil, which is considering the Boeing plane and several European models in a competition for new fighter jets.
He said the Navy had also developed a hybrid electric drive for the USS Makin Island, a Navy warship, that would save up to $250 million in fuel costs over the ship’s 30-year life span, and was partnering with other federal agencies to develop biofuel production and other alternative fuel sources.

The Navy could play an important role in creating a market for such alternative fuels, helping to drive down the price and make non-fossil fuels more affordable.

Reducing the U.S. military’s dependence on fossil fuels could also save the lives of troops, Mabus said.
Last year he told Congress that one American was killed or wounded for every 24 convoys that transported fuel to military bases in Afghanistan.

“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” the President said. “…We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.”

At Operation Free, we couldn’t agree more, and we are thrilled to join the President’s call in making our country more secure through clean energy.

We know that our national security depends on meeting the President’s goals. We have the team to help make this inspiration a reality. I look forward to an exciting year ahead, and I encourage you to read more about the President’s energy challenge here: http://www.operationfree.net/blog/

Read straight from the President’s State of the Union address below:

President Obama:

“Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist.  But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal.  We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.

Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert’s words, “We reinvented ourselves.”

That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge.  We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities.  With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.”

In October 2009, as Secretary of the Navy, I established five ambitious goals to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the Navy and Marine Corps and increase the use of alternative energy to at least 50% of our energy requirements no later than 2020.  These goals support the President’s objective to create a new energy future and a clean energy economy for the United States, and the reasons for doing so are clear and compelling:
Reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy makes the country more secure.  Competition over fossil fuel resources has been one of the leading sources of conflict for thousands of years.  Today, little has changed – whether it is oil, natural gas, or electricity – disruptions in the flow of energy can cause major economic havoc and negatively affect both our national security and international stability.
* Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels makes our people safer.  Getting fossil fuels to our troops on the front lines is one of the most dangerous things we do.  In fact, we import more gasoline into Afghanistan than any other product. Moving fuel to our Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) means convoys, which means protecting our convoys with Marines and Sailors, taking them away from doing what we sent them to Afghanistan to do and making them vulnerable to IEDs and ambush.  If we can reduce the number of convoys by making our systems more efficient, or generating power from solar energy at the FOBs, we make our troops safer.
* Increasing energy efficiency makes our ships, aircraft, and vehicles more tactically capable.  A better engine on a plane means it can go farther, and stay airborne longer.  Better engines on ships results in less time spent refueling in vulnerable locations in port or at sea – a lesson we learned all too clearly with the USS COLE.
* Increasing alternative energy use by the Navy and Marine Corps helps create an alternative energy market.  The Navy uses a third of the fossil fuels consumed by the Federal Government, which in turn uses about two percent of fossil fuels in America.  The Navy and Marine Corps’ plan helps spur private investment and ultimately moves the country toward a clean energy economy.
* Reducing the energy footprint of the Navy and Marine Corps significantly reduces our carbon footprint.

After a spike in late 2009 propelled by the Copenhagen climate conference, mainstream media coverage of climate change dropped off steeply. One dimension of the issue, the intersection of climate change impacts and national security, has been increasingly accentuated in an attempt to give the issue greater immediacy. This perspective highlights the potential for climate change impacts to increase instability in volatile regions of the world, with major implications for U.S. resources, military readiness, and foreign aid. Yet this frame defines threats to human welfare in terms of U.S. national interest, potentially restricting how the American public connects U.S. energy usage with the global extent of the climate problem and envisions the U.S. role in addressing it. Can the national security perspective bring urgency to the climate and energy issue while broadening its scope beyond U.S. self interest?

The Center for Science & Technology Policy Research compiled one analysis of the downward trend in media coverage of climate change worldwide, showing a return to 2005 levels.

Matthew C. Nisbet, a professor of communication at American University, attributed the decline to both “the reduced capacity of news organizations to cover climate change” and to what has been termed the loss of the story’s “perceived dramatic qualities.” Climate change has historically received the greatest media coverage around “dramatic political focusing events” that fulfilled reporters’ need for a dramatic narrative with conflicting interests, Nisbet said, exemplified by the political wrangling surrounding the Copenhagen conference.

Nisbet argues that climate change is unlikely to regain prominence in the media unless a new “frame” is established for the issue that can define it in terms of immediate, locally relevant impacts, such as human health risks.

However, one crucial challenge in communicating the issue has been exactly that: the perceived lack of certainty in regional and local impacts, which saps the urgency from the problem for many. One approach for increasing relevance, especially in making the case for climate and energy legislation, has been the strategic use of a national security frame. A number of groups have leveraged the expertise of military leaders to communicate the risks posed to national security by the destabilizing impacts of climate change in volatile regions (see Center for Naval Analysis, the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate, Operation Free).

The national security frame has been used to cultivate support for both the transition away from fossil fuels and the need to maintain robust climate monitoring capabilities.

Read the full article here

When Danger Room last checked in on India Company of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment in September, it was preparing to head to Helmand’s Sangin District with a passel of solar panels called the Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy System, or “Greens.”

The Humvee-transportable panels might be green, but they had a distinct tactical use: power up Marine operations while cutting back on the amount of fuel resupply that insurgents can target. The system hadn’t been used in a war before, so it was an open question how well it would perform.

Pretty impressively, if a Marine press release is to be believed. One of the company’s squad leaders, Staff Sgt. David Doty, said that the energy generated by the solar panels has dropped his generators’ fuel consumption from 20 gallons a day to just 2.5 gallons. And the more gas the Marines save with solar power, the less they’ll have to truck in through convoys that insurgents shoot at and blow up. The panels also allow Patrol Base Sparks to use its generators less at night, cutting down on noise that can tip insurgents off to the Marines’ positions.

Those tactical gains make the military virtues of energy efficiency more plain than anything policymakers or think-tankers can say, according to Christine Parthemore of the Center for a New American Security. “The benefit to the lack of noise and attention drawn to the [base] because of not having to run the generators — no one was talking about that six months ago,” Parthemore says.
The Greens deployment isn’t the only renewable-energy technology the Marines have in Sangin. To recharge radio batteries, they’ve got a flexible solar panel that’s light enough for a single leatherneck to carry, called a Solar Portable Alternative Communication Energy System. A photovoltaic tarp called PowerShade fits over a standard tent to light it up. And a large power source called the ZeroBase Regenerator sucks up enough sunlight to run more than 20 lighting systems and 15 computers.

Before India Company made it to Sangin, the military didn’t have ground units using renewable-energy tech in the spartan conditions of a war zone. The Navy has set a goal for itself of cutting its petroleum use in half by 2015, something that shipboard nuclear power allows. And the Army recently set up a 500-megawatt solar plant in California.

But while the military gives lip service to reducing its overall energy consumption by a third over a decade, it exempted its bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as gas-guzzling ships, trucks and planes.

It’s obviously much different to power a base back home than it is to light up an operations center on a combat base. But demonstrating the wartime utility of saving energy crosses an important threshold.

“With any new technology, weapons or whatever, you don’t really know the full benefits, the tangential side effects, or the net plus for war-fighting capability until you get the stuff in the field and start using it,” Parthemore says. “These testimonials — why it’s working to our benefit, how much fuel they saved gallon by gallon – that’ll go very far in convincing Congress” to invest more in alternative fuels for the military.

It turns out there are lessons from Afghanistan that might not have anything to do with the war.

1/13/2011 – LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE, Texas  — If they’re not providing top cover on Air Force bases already, chances are they will be soon.

With the Air Force’s continued emphasis on sustainability, energy conservation and environmental consciousness, green-roof technologies, and other efficiency measures are high on the priority list for new military construction and ongoing roof repair and replacement programs, said Paula Shaw, the Air Force Sustainability Design and Development Program manager at the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment.

The most common technologies used by the Air Force are cool roofs, vegetative roofs and renewable-energy generation. They are designed to create more sustainable infrastructure that reduces energy use, lessens the impacts of storm water runoff, and allows for water conservation. Of current Air Force construction projects, almost 200 of them, at more than 100 locations, incorporate these new, efficient technologies.

Cool-roof technology is the most commonly used roofing innovation in the Air Force. Using a variety of solar-reflective materials to lower the temperature of the roof, cool-roof technology supports the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design criteria.

Cool roofs save energy costs associated with chilling the air inside the buildings. They are installed at various locations around the Air Force, including Offutt AFB, Neb., Nellis AFB, Nev., and recently on a new fitness center at Tyndall AFB, Fla., according to officials.

A vegetative roof, one that is covered with low-growing plantings that require little maintenance, reduces storm water runoff by as much as 80 percent, reduces the roof’s temperature to save energy and extends the life of the roof, according to engineers.

“The (Peterson AFB) project was set up to validate the usefulness of green-roof technologies to the Air Force,” said Randy Hawke, facilities excellence architect at Peterson AFB. “Along with the roof, a one-year study was conducted to evaluate possible benefits to the Air Force.”

The payback, Mr. Hawke said, is probably considerably better than the one-year study reflected. A study over a 3-5 year period would need to be accomplished to fully understand all of the savings, he added.

“In my opinion, the technology is great,” he said.

Vegetative roofs are also in place at Andrews AFB, Md., and Ramstein Air Base, Germany, and although there are no other vegetative roofs planned currently at Peterson AFB, there are six active projects that include these types of roofs across the Air Force.

The third technology, renewable energy, uses solar technologies to generate electrical power and heat water. Thirteen current projects include these types of roofs.

Because of their very nature, not all sustainable roof technologies are suited for all areas.

“Not one technology is right for all locations and all building types,” Ms. Shaw said. Engineers consider various factors to determine the feasibility of using green-roof technologies. These factors include, but are not limited to, both the location of the base and the location of the building on the base. For example, a building close to a flight line may not be compatible for a vegetative roof as it may attract birds, which would cause a hazard to flying operations. Additionally, although the initial start up costs for sustainable roof technologies may be higher than a standard roof, engineers look at the overall life-cycle cost to determine if the technology is appropriate, Ms. Shaw said.

Going forward, Ms. Shaw said she expects architectural compatibility to evolve to include sustainable roof strategies as part of the design philosophy.

“Green roofs are a wonderful opportunity that we’re only beginning to explore,” she said. “The next step is to understand how to combine these and other sustainable roof technologies to maximize the benefits and performance.”

(325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs at Tyndall AFB contributed to this story)

Defend America with clean energy bills

Jason Whitaker
Special to the Star

Our heroic service members are in harm’s way each day they wear the uniform of the United States military. Around the globe, they defend our national security interests so that we can be safer here at home.

America’s fighting men and women signed up for this because they care for our country and want to keep it stronger for future generations. Yet in the face of this enormous sacrifice, our troops encounter perils beyond wildest imagination, threats that undoubtedly can and must be prevented. In order to make this happen, Senators must start leading and work to end our addiction to oil.

Our forces deployed the Middle East are all too familiar with IEDs – Improvised Explosive Devices – which have killed many military personnel and countless numbers of innocent civilians. My lieutenant was a victim of such an IED during one of our convoys in Afghanistan. His Humvee exploded just two vehicles in front of me. And the newest, and most deadly of these weapons are called EFPs, or Explosively Formed Projectiles. Able to penetrate our best armor, these roadside bombs are brutally effective.

These deadly weapons are being paid for by oil money and came to Iraq from oil-rich Iran. In fact, for every $1 increase in the price of a gallon of gas, Iran makes another $1.5 billion to use against our soldiers. The connection between energy, our national security, and the sacrifices made by our military couldn’t be more obvious. Our reliance on their vast oil reserves enriches the extremists who directly threaten our military and way of life.

One of the best ways everyday Americans can decrease our dependence is by driving more fuel efficient cars. It will save America billions in oil money sent overseas and each of us thousands in the cost of running our cars. That’s exactly what the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules on car fuel efficiency, due out in October, will accomplish – and it’s why their action is so important.

The Department of the Defense, the CIA, and the National Intelligence Council have all noted that energy security and climate change pose significant strategic threats to America’s strength and safety. From the vulnerability of our oil supply, to the threat of weak nations destabilized by climate disruptions, we are threatened by our continued use of dirty energy from dangerous places.

The US Senate failed to act on comprehensive energy legislation this summer, which is why the EPA’s action on car efficiency is all the more important. It is time for us to staunch the flow of money landing in the hands of our enemies by making cars more efficient, and creating the jobs that come with new technology innovation. This is a major opportunity to begin to free us from oil dependence, strengthen Missouri’s economy, and prevent the long-term impact of climate change. From both sides of the aisle and all parts of the country, veterans are speaking out in support of clean energy– not because of environmental reasons, but because our dependence on oil and carbon pollution pose a threat to our national security.

Our brave men and women in our armed forced have displayed unparalleled signs of courage and conviction in the face of adversity. Lawmakers in Washington can honor their commitment and stand with the men and women of our armed forces to prevent more oil-funded attacks by supporting the EPA’s strong action. This is not rocket science; it is an issue of paramount importance to support our troops, defend our nation and de-fund our enemies. After all our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have done for America, this is the least we can ask of our Senators.

Jason Whitaker is an Afghanistan war veteran who grew-up in Warrensburg and Knob Noster, MO. He is currently a member of Operation Free – a coalition of veterans advocating for clean American energy.

Read more: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/defend-america-clean-energy-bills/#ixzz10ShlEAU9

Part 1

Part 2

A progressive veterans group is making a provocative push to get comprehensive energy reform passed, launching a new ad that ties oil consumption to Iranian-backed attacks against U.S. troops.

Read more…

Demand that your Senator take action! Click to be connected directly to their office by phone
Today Americans all over the country, from dozens of organizations, are picking up the phone to demand that the Senate pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. The Senate has this chance to put us on the path to energy independence and national security.

Be connected directly to your Senator’s office and demand action TODAY.
America’s military leaders and veterans have seen the impact of our addiction to oil firsthand and understand how important action is. It’s time to heed their warning.
Tell the Senate to stop sending billions overseas to our enemies and invest in clean, American power. We can’t wait any longer. The security of our nation depends on it.

Make the call today – click to be connected to your Senator’s office!

Check it out

Group links energy, national security

Monday, January 18, 2010

By GINNY WRAY – Bulletin Staff Writer

Alternative energy producers such as Red Birch Energy can help increase national security.

That is the message of the National Veterans for American Power Tour, which stopped in Henry County on Sunday.

“I don’t want to send friends into a war over energy,” said Lela Graham of Charlottesville, an Army veteran who was among those on the tour, which stopped at Red Birch Energy in Bassett Forks.

Graham and three others rode on a blue bus with “More jobs, less pollution, greater security” written on its side. The bus had been in Charlottesville on Saturday, and it was headed to Danville later Sunday where 5th District U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello was to meet with the veterans.

From there, the bus will travel to Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio, according to its Web site. The trip is sponsored by Operation Free, a coalition of veterans and national security organizations who see climate change as a threat to national security.

The veterans believe that America’s dependence on oil is providing funding to its enemies. Or, as Graham put it, the nation is “funding both sides of the war on terror.”

At the same time, climate change is destabilizing countries, “creating failed states which provide breeding grounds and recruiting opportunities for terrorists around the world,” Jon Powers, chief operating officer of the Truman Project and an Iraq war veteran, states on Operation Free’s Web site.

“There are 157 families in Virginia who would say that the cost of moving from fossil fuels to clean power is negligible” compared with the cost of the lives of Virginians lost in recent wars, said Chuck Tyler, an Army veteran traveling on the bus that stopped here. He was referring to the 157 Virginians who have died in recent wars.

During the bus tour, Operation Free volunteers are urging residents to ask their senators to vote for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, Senate Bill 1733, Tyler said. He called it a “first step in a move toward clean American power.”

That also is a goal of Red Birch. Graham, Tyler and National Guard veteran Stefan Stent of Washington, D.C., toured the energy company Sunday, three days after it received $750,000 in federal stimulus funds to install a system to use glycerin to generate electricity.

Glycerin is a byproduct of the biodiesel fuel produced and sold at Red Birch. Glycerin has little value now, but Red Birch part-owners Gary Sink and Dean Price plan to burn it to generate electricity to power their refinery and the Red Birch Country Market next door. If they have electricity left over, they will put it on the national electric grid, Sink said.

The beauty of the system, in terms of national security, is that it decentralizes energy production and removes the threat of terrorism, said Sink, a Vietnam-era Army veteran who said he “absolutely” agrees with Operation Free’s stands.

Sink pointed to the fuel tank farm outside Greensboro, N.C., as an obvious type of target for terrorists who want to strike at the nation’s transportation system and infrastructure.

“This model (at Red Birch) dispels the need for tank farms” because the electricity would be produced and sold on site, he said.

In addition, he said, for every $1 spent to make fuel in this country, 90 cents stay where the fuel is made and the other 10 cents go for taxes. “If you make it in this country, the money stays in this country,” he added, rather than funding terrorists around the globe.

The system also poses no environmental threat, Sink said, because all its raw materials are biodegradable.

He and Price said they had funded the operation themselves so far, but they could go no further. Their options were to wait for the economy to improve or ask the government for help, which they did.

But, Price added, they would not have received the money if they had not had a working model to show the viability of their idea.

They will use the money to develop a prototype for commercial burners. If that is successful, they hope to replicate the model at other Red Birch Markets by forming cooperatives with local businesses, Sink said.

It is, according to Price, a “world-changing idea” that is rooted here in Southside Virginia .

Perriello, veterans unite to share support for clean energy

By Tara Bozick
Published: January 17, 2010

Army veteran Lela Graham would like to be able to show veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan how America is investing in energy independence.

Graham and other veterans visited Red Birch Energy in Bassett and the Institute of Advanced Learning and Research in Danville on Sunday as part of the Veterans for American Power national bus tour sponsored by Operation Free.

“I just see a lot of potential,” Graham said.

Graham, of Charlottesville, National Guard veteran Stefan Stent, of Washington, D.C., and Army infantry staff sergeant veteran Chuck Tyler, of Pittsburgh, will spread the word nationally about bioenergy projects and energy and education initiatives occurring in Southside.

The biodiesel-fueled bus tour highlights the connection between climate change and national security and supports clean energy legislation. The veterans toured the Institute with Rep. Tom Perriello, D-5th District, and thanked the Congressman for supporting clean energy.

“At the intersection of American patriotism and American entrepreneurship is the new energy economy,” Perriello said.

Other countries aren’t waiting to see if America is going to lead. They’re trying to beat us, Perriello continued.

“We have the opportunity in Southside Virginia to lead the new energy economy,” Perriello said. “I want the jobs to be grown right here in Southside instead of India or China.”

Secondly, creating energy gives Americans the chance to make the country more secure in terms of energy independence, Perriello said.

Additionally, the implications of climate change are important. As sources of water dry up, conflicts over water or other resources could arise, Perriello said.

Stent said he saw how climate change and natural disaster could affect countries like Indonesia.

“Climate change and the lack of action thereof makes the world a dangerous place,” Tyler added.

The veterans, Perriello and other community leaders learned Sunday how the Institute works to help Southside in alternative energy. Barry Flinn, Ph.D., of the Institute for Sustainable and Renewable Resources showed how researchers work to create crops that regional farmers can produce, including crops used for bioenergy production.

Executive Director Liam Leightley shared plans for the Institute’s new Sustainable Energy and Technology Center, which would serve not only as a place of research but a demonstration in itself. The building will be LEED-certified and specially designed for energy efficiency, using LED lights and solar panels.

Students touring the facility can see how alternative energy works in practice.

“This will serve as a center for excellence,” Leightley said. “It will serve as a proving ground.”