Defense bill undermines US energy security

10.06.12 The $631.4 billion Pentagon Budget Bill, H.R. 4310 which recently passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House effectively excludes the armed forces from gaining energy independence in foreseeable future.

One amendment to the bill locks the Pentagon from using 2013 funding to buy alternativefuels that are more expensive than conventional fuels. Another amendment prevents the Defense Department from building a biofuels refining facility unless required by law. The bill also exempts previous restrictions on liquid alternative fuels derived from coal and natural gas.

Wrong premise
To Reuters U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed his disbelief:
"It's beyond me why we wouldn't help this industry that will create higher farm income, more jobs in rural America, reduce the costs for consumers, satisfy commercial airlines ... and make our military less reliant on a foreign supply of energy."
The Agriculture Secretary claims that the Republican premise that biofuels are and always will be expensive is simply wrong. In fact costs have already come down. In October 2010 the Navy purchased biofuels $424 per gallon, a year later prices plummeted to $26.67 per gallon. Later this month a 50/50 blend of this biofuel and petroleum will be demonstrated at Rim of the Pacific Exercise in Hawaii. Price: $15 per gallon.
According to Vislack the biofuel industry is still very much in the research and development phase, prices cannot drop without continued support.

400 dollars per gallon
The Armed Forces are the single biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the US, and have in recent years stepped up efforts to reduce their dependency on them. The US Navy wants half of its bases to be self sufficient by 2020 and - and if possible - produce energy for the grid, exploiting local wind, sun, wave and geothermal resources.

The advantages of promoting alternative sources of energy are obvious. In 2010 gasoline cost about a dollar a gallon, but getting that gallon to remote operating bases in Afghanistan cost up to $400. Fuel convoys are often referred to as "sitting ducks" and according to Pentagon 1000 US soldiers have lost their lives transporting fuel to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2000.

Reducing dependence on (fossil) fuel transports would save lives. And the less casualties the less risk there is to lose public support for military operations. The less expenses for fuel, the longer Pentagon can afford to keep forces in key areas. The longer American forces are present, the longer US interests are represented.

Sources:
U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels
House armed services committee proposes ban on biofuels
Military biofuels ban moves forward ignites criticism backlash
U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels''

See also:
Grøn oprustning