White House Putting Green Energy Ahead of Defense - The Green Monster - Billions For Climate, Not One More Cent For Defense
Battle over military green energy efforts heads to the Senate
| By EPW Blog (Bio and Archives) Monday, May 21, 2012 | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us |
Inhofe EPW Press Roundup
Link to Inhofe EPW Press Blog
WATCH: Fox News: White House Putting Green Energy Ahead of Defense:
Link to Inhofe Speech: Inhofe Outlines Plan to Stop Obama Imposing Costly Green Agenda on DoD:
E&ENEWS: Battle over military energy efforts heads to the Senate: The fight over the military’s alternative energy programs shifts to the Senate this week, after a pair of provisions targeting the efforts passed the House in the defense authorization bill Friday. Contending that their reliance on foreign sources of oil poses a national security vulnerability, the military branches have undertaken an ambitious effort to certify their ships and planes on American-made advanced biofuels.
The Navy has taken a particularly proactive role, setting aggressive goals for its use of alternative fuels and seeking to use its purchasing power as a way of sparking the industry. But the Defense Department’s efforts have turned controversial among Republicans, who say they take money away from more vital security programs at a time when the military budget is already absorbing $487 billion in cuts over the next decade and still has the threat of sequestration hanging over its head.
Markup of the Senate defense authorization bill begins in subcommittee tomorrow and moves to the full Senate Armed Services Committee in a closed session Wednesday. Both sides have been gearing up for battle. In a floor speech last week, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the committee, vowed to push amendments aimed at blocking the military’s green power programs. “I have had growing concerns about how President Obama’s global warming agenda is harming our military,” Inhofe said Thursday. “In reality, it is President Obama’s war on affordable energy that is having a dramatic impact on our national security—a war that is further depleting an already stretched military budget and putting our troops at risk.” Link:
NationalJournal: INHOFE, MCCAIN LEAD FIGHT AGAINST PENTAGON’S GREEN AGENDA: Two senior Republican senators-one a decorated military veteran and the other a relentless critic of President Obama’s clean-energy agenda-are teaming up this week to criticize the Pentagon’s green-energy efforts. Senate Armed Forces Services Committee Ranking Member John McCain, R-Ariz., and Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe, R-Okla., are expected to work together on at least one amendment to the Defense Authorization bill markup this week to address their joint concern that the Pentagon should not be spending money on alternative energy when the military is facing deep budget cuts. Link:
IBD EDITORIAL: Billions For Climate, Not One More Cent For Defense: A new report shows we have spent $70 billion on climate change since 2008 while our strapped military is ordered to become energy-efficient. Imagine weapons that don’t harm the environment. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor Thursday to decry the green agenda being imposed on the military by the Obama administration at the same time the defense budget is being sacrificed on the altar of runaway deficit spending. Inhofe produced a Congressional Research Service report that showed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. During that time the Defense Department spent nearly $4 billion on energy efficiency and climate change activities.
We wonder if the environment is the uppermost thing on the minds of soldiers being shot at by the Taliban and avoiding being blown up by IEDs. But it does seem to be on the mind of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. “The area of climate change,” he recently told the Environmental Defense Fund, “has a dramatic impact on national security.” Spending money on climate change reduces the amount of money that can be spent on defending the United States and its interests. We suspect Panetta will have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran long before rising sea levels threaten the Pentagon. “Which would you rather have?” Inhofe asked. “Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force Base solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-35s or modernized C-130s? “Would you rather have $68.4 billion spent on pointless global warming efforts or would you rather have more funds put towards modernizing our fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and help defend our nation against the legitimate threats that we face?” Certainly fuel and energy costs have risen for the military as for the rest of us. But wouldn’t we be better served by tapping into the 200-year supply of oil under our feet and within our borders? Link:
DailyCaller: Federal government spent nearly $70 billion on ‘climate change activities’ since 2008: Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.” Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe presented the new CRS report on the Senate Floor Thursday to make the point that the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military. The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period. Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the expenditures are foolish at a time when the military is facing “devastating cuts.” “[E]veryone agrees that energy efficiency in the military is a worthy goal,” he said. “In fact, I have been a strong supporter of some of DoD’s alternative energy solutions that are affordable and make sense, including their initiatives on non-algal bio-fuels and natural gas. But forcing our military to take money away from core programs in order to invest in unproven technologies as part of a failed cap-and-trade agenda is not only wrong, it’s reckless.” Inhofe, who believes climate change is an unproven scientific theory at best and a hoax at worst, expressed concern about recent statements by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressing the department’s focus on making and keeping the military “green.” Link
HumanEvents: The Green Monster: Inhofe sat down with Human Events in his office last week and countered one by one each of Panetta’s climate change claims, reading from a ring-bound folder of research drawn from academic journals: there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past century. The oft-cited severity of the 2011 drought, which covered 25 percent of the country, was nothing compared to one in 1984, which affected 80 percent of the land mass. Hurricanes, a common natural disaster, have been on the decline since the U.S. started keeping records of them in the 19th century. Everything Panetta said, Inhofe concluded, was a talking point cribbed from Al Gore’s 2006 global warming opus “An Inconvenient Truth,” and each, he said, has been refuted…The senator doesn’t expect Panetta to be as well-versed on climate change as he is, saying Panetta’s role is to lead the troops, not create environmental policy. Nor does Inhofe attribute all the far-left language and green initiatives to the defense secretary, who Inhofe said knows better than to spearhead such programs. “I’ve always liked Panetta; I served with him in the House and he’s always been one who has been very straightforward, very honest,” Inhofe said. “However, he has a commander in chief named Obama, so he has to say what Obama tells him to say.” Panetta has publicly and strongly defended the climate change and green energy talking points to critics, however, such as when he responded in March to criticism from Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) at a House Armed Services Committee that Conaway’s premise for disagreement was “absolutely wrong” and that embracing the green agenda would make for a better military. Link
HumanEvents: Inhofe delivers Senate floor takedown of military ‘green’ agenda: A Congressional Research Service report, published on Inhofe’s request last month, found that DoD had to spend $300 million for energy efficiency projects in addition to $3.7 billion in stimulus funds marked for energy saving measures at military installations, and that the department has spent at least $4 billion on global warming and energy initiatives. That money, Inhofe said, could have been used to buy 30 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters or modernize the military’s fleet of C-130 Hercules planes. And rather than having the military funnel money into biofuels, Inhofe said the administration should pursue the numerous energy alternatives that are both affordable and close to home, including approving the Keystone pipeline, ending attacks on hydraulic fracturing, and repealing limitations on the ability of federal agencies to purchase petroleum products that have a greenhouse gas footprint exceeding that of crude oil.
“Secretary Panetta’s admission about the ongoing green energy agenda at DoD comes just after a 2010 video revealed the former EPA Administrator in Region 6 admitting that the Obama EPA’s “general philosophy” was to “crucify” and “make examples of oil and gas companies,” Inhofe said. “The EPA official quickly resigned but there are plenty more (Al) Armendarizes in this administration who are working hard to stop American energy development.” Inhofe said he plans to introduce a number of amendments to the Senate version of the Fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act to counter the military’s green agenda as markup on the bill begins next week. Link:
WUWT: The “well funded” climate business - follow the money: Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe presented the new CRS report on the Senate Floor Thursday to make the point that the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military. The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period. Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the expenditures are foolish at a time when the military is facing “devastating cuts.” Link: