Republicans Put Oil Money Above Troops' Lives

In 2009, I went on TV in a debate against Congressman Phil Gingrey, the Georgia Republican who wanted to fund the purchase of F-22 fighter jets that the Pentagon didn't want, and said were useless in the wars we were fighting and will be fighting in the future. The Pentagon said it needed more, less expensive, F-35 fighters. Gingrey and Republicans wouldn't relent, at a time when our troops in Afghanistan desperately needed equipment on the ground. They were trying to force the military to sacrifice equipment it needed in favor of planes it didn't need.

I thought of that this week when I read that Republicans in Congress are introducing a load of measures that would prohibit the military from using renewable sources of energy in the field -- something the military is doing in an attempt to save lives.

Fuel convoys in Afghanistan are a frequent target of the Taliban and insurgents. According to Brigadier General Steven Anderson (Ret., U.S. Army), who was the senior logistician in Iraq, there are casualties in one out of every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan, and 47 fuel convoy drivers were killed there in 2010. Overall, convoys resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 Americans, as he said in this VoteVets ad in 2010.

For the military, then, finding renewable sources of energy -- especially those which don't require fuel to be transported, like solar power -- is a matter of saving the lives of Americans. While we all love the environment and want to be good stewards of the earth, the military isn't on some kind of ecological mission when it comes to renewables. They're trying to help ensure men and women come home to their loved ones.

This is not to mention that if units are energy efficient, they can go farther and do more in the field and worry less about refueling. That helps them be more effective in their missions.

You would think that Republicans would be on board with that, and allow the military the flexibility it needs to experiment with solar, wind, and biofuels in an attempt to save lives and be more effective.

Not so.

Last week, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee's budget contained a proposal that would forbid -- yes, forbid -- the military from purchasing alternative fuels that cost more than traditional fossil fuels.

Senators John McCain and James Inhofe went even further, introducing an amendment which would ban military construction of any refinery to process biofuels, unless specifically authorized by law. Meaning every time the Pentagon wanted to build a facility to make biofuels it needed it would have to ask Congress, and go through a whole fight, again.

This would effectively kill programs in the Army, Navy and Air Force, which are all developing technology aimed at putting more renewable vehicles in the field.

In particular, the Navy was very well underway with its "Green Strike Group," which would be entirely powered by biofuels, on its way to a goal of its entire fleet being off fossil fuels by 2016. The project is the hallmark of Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who has been focused on creating a force that is more mobile and easier to fuel, so the Navy can be as quick and effective as it needs to be in 21st century wars. The Army would have to end its "Green Warrior Convoy" project, which is testing various fuels and vehicles that wouldn't depend on frequent refueling from fossil fuels. The Air Force would have to stop using blends of fuels.

In short, Republicans would be forcing the military to go back to using the same fuels that hampered it from doing its job -- and the same fuels that have resulted in the deaths of so many Americans.

Why? That's the question that must be asked. And the answer is pretty simple. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Oil and Gas interests have donated 88 percent of their political contributions to Republicans this cycle -- nearly $18 million. That's the highest percentage they've given to Republicans since at least 1990.

And, boy, are Republicans delivering for them. Even if it means forcing the Pentagon to stop developing programs that could make our military more effective. Even if it means banning programs that would save the lives of our troops. There is nothing, it seems, that they value more than delivering for their dirty oil campaign donors.

 

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

Comments

[Carl Martin]

02:39 AM on 06/08/2012

Wake up people. It's not Republicans. It's not Democrats. It's the Corporate Party! And most Dems and Reps are card-carrying members of that other party. They're catering to the needs of the Beast, rather than to the needs of the citizens.

Motive? Money and power! Hasn't it always been so?

We still have a chance to save America from the creeping tyranny (loss of Constitutional rights). What are we protecting with these wars? Not the Constitution! That's being slowly shredded by first Bush and now Obama. And Romney is no help; that clueless flip-flopper looks good in Hollywood, but not the White House.

Another danger is the skyrocketing debt. Both Bush and Obama have been crazy like drunken pirates with a stolen credit card. Like AIG's insanely skyrocketing risk, before the housing bubble burst, taking on speculators, the Congress and President are running the country into the ground. The reason for this insanity? Could it be to wrest all power from the people by creating a National Debt Bubble Burst?! In fear, the people will do anything to solve the massive problem. Yes, we're being played -- Problem-Reaction-Solution. And wouldn't you know, they likely have a solution all prepared for us -- Slavery!

[aligatorhardt]

10:33 PM on 05/31/2012

When Republicans work directly against the citizens needs, they can only be considered traitors. To force the loss of lives in the military is the last straw in the Republican pandering to their oil company bribes. Not only does better efficiency relate to less costs and fatalities in the field, the availability to charge batteries with solar power,instead of carrying disposables saves each soldier 20 pounds in their back packs on foreword missions. Biofuel may be a little higher cost then diesel here, in remote locations biofuel is not more expensive. The military can make use of local farm products where ever they may be instead of sending fuels from far away. They need to get through the initial trial periods to find the ways to make their biofuel operations more cost effective. Stopping this research and development now would raise costs in the long run and leave us at the mercy of oil tycoons. The best thing we could do for our troops is to remove the need for wars for oil, by becoming more self sufficient in providing alternative fuels. The troops are happy to have renewable energy at the bases and in the field.  The US Army Has the 'Land and the Demand' for Renewable Energy | Renewable Energy News Article

NREL Helping the Army Be as Green as it Can Be

Army's Vision for Net Zero

Marines thrive in employing renewable energy, saving lives

[Cliff Claven]

12:46 AM on 06/02/2012

Again, no one in Congress on either side of the aisle is objecting to increasing energy efficiency or to solar power on the battlefield. All the ranting on this in the story and in these comments is baseless. This article by Jon Soltz is counter-factual and a partisan hit piece, not a meaningful discussion of the issue Congress is fighting over at the moment, which is military spending on liquid biofuels. Anyone in favor of slowing climate change and saving the environment should be an enemy of liquid biofuels. A raft of rigorous life-cycle studies over the past 10 years show that liquid biofuels are worse than fossil fuels across the board. 1.They are more damaging to the environment (deforestation and land use change, increased land and water poisoning from fertilizer nitrates, same or worse combustion emissions) 2.Larger greenhouse gas footprint (from carbon and nitrous oxide released from fossil fuels and fertilizers in cultivation). 3.Huge water footprint (~10,000 liters of water per liter of fuel, compared to less than 7 for gasoline). 4.Negative energy balance (costing more energy to make than they provide back to civilization). 5.Lower energy density (energy per gallon) which would require more rather than fewer trucks on the battlefield, 6.More volatile in price than oil. 7.Consume more fossil in their production than fossil fuels do (e.g., 2.6 times for algae biodiesel). Come on folks. You've got to be more sophisticated critical thinkers than this.

[aligatorhardt]

10:11 AM on 06/02/2012

You make up false numbers, then draw false conclusions, and act like you have done something. Get real.

[fredrdr]

07:44 PM on 06/05/2012

Combat is not green and it is not safe. If solar powered battery chargers are used, that reduces the combat load of a grunt. If local waste can be converted into fuel, that reduces convoys which reduces risk. Fuel going into the SW Asia combat zone costs 600 a gallon. Air-to-air refueling is the most expensive fuel in the world. The reason why the are against is because as the technology improves, it will have widespread civilian application. That will cut down on oil use. The US military is the largest single customer of oil. If we had used his logic in 1890, motor vehicles never would have been used. After all, with horses, just let them graze.

[Genders]

09:13 PM on 05/30/2012

Thank you for a great article.

Our military KNOWS oil is the problem, and have spent big money on green energy alternatives.

Our MILITARY IS TIRED OF DYING FOR OIL.

Please where is the petition to stop these GOP/Tea traitors?

[Melinda Brunner]

02:01 PM on 05/30/2012

For every 1,000 "likes" to this page through July 4th, we will donate a service dog to a war veteran!

http://www.facebook.com/exploredogs

[Melinda Brunner]

01:58 PM on 05/30/2012

To the repubs, supporting the troops means financing the war. Is SHOULD mean supporting the soldiers in whatever way is necessary. Including when they come home. Repubs seem to forget them when they return to the US.

[Cliff Claven]

01:16 PM on 05/30/2012

Anyone in favor of slowing climate change and saving the environment should be an enemy of biofuels. Rigorous life-cycle studies show that liquid biofuels are worse than fossil fuels across the board. 1.They are more damaging to the environment (deforestation and land use change, increased land and water poisoning from fertilizer nitrates, same or worse combustion emissions) 2.Larger greenhouse gas footprint (from carbon and nitrous oxide released from fossil fuels and fertilizers in cultivation). 3.Huge water footprint (~10,000 liters of water per liter of fuel, compared to less than 7 for gasoline). 4.Negative energy balance (costing more energy to make than they provide back to civilization). 5.More volatile in price than oil, and their price tracks with oil (when oil went up 6% over Libya crisis, ethanol went up 8%). 6.Consume more fossil in their production that fossil fuels do (2.6 times for algae biodiesel). You can't trust the "PC Institute of Technology" or the "University of Hollywood" or "Encyclopedia Mainstream Media" on these issues. The truth is out there in the science journals if you want it.

[Cliff Claven]

12:38 PM on 05/30/2012

Yellow journalism lives. This is the most incendiary headline and counter-factual story on this subject yet seen. First, no one in Congress on either side of the aisle is objecting to increasing energy efficiency or to solar power on the battlefield. The issue is liquid transportation fuels. Not one liquid biofuel (ethanol, biodiesel, or pure liquid hydrogen) has greater energy density (energy per gallon) than conventional diesel, gasoline and jet fuel. Using any liquid biofuel would require more tankers on the battlefield and expose more Soldiers and Marines to IED attack, not fewer. Biodiesel would require 5-10% more tankers, ethanol 33% more, hydrogen 3 times as many. Even in this time of high prices, the U.S. military has been able to buy conventional diesel and jet fuel in bulk at $2.31 a gallon per 2010 Defense Logistics Agency numbers. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy just set a new record in February by paying $4,454.55 a gallon to Albemarle Corp. for biobutanol jet fuel, surpassing their previous record of $427.53 a gallon for Solazyme algae oil in 2009. The lowest price the U.S. military has paid for biofuels since 2007 is $26.75 a gallon for Tyson chicken fuel from Dynamic Fuels for the "Great Green Fleet." Those millions should have been spent on things which could really help the troops on the battlefield. Congress finally saying "Stop!" is the first ray of light on this whole fiasco.

[aligatorhardt]

10:40 PM on 05/31/2012

I find your numbers to be likely made up out of imagination. If the military leaders did not think they were doing the right thing they would not be doing it. Why the Military Hates Fossil Fuels - Forbes

Algal Fuel: VG Energy Study Shows Price Parity Possible with Conventional Oil | Mitchell Anderson

Ethanol Prices Have Dropped, Will Grocery Manufacturers Follow? | Growth Energy

The 11 Top Biofuels Trends of 2011 | Renewable Energy News Article

[Cliff Claven]

10:48 AM on 06/01/2012

Don't confuse the military secretaries who must serve the political interests of their boss with the members of the military itself who prioritize national defense. Rather than the lobbying and opinion pieces you cite above, my facts come from objective data and studies in respected journals. The official government websites fpds.gov and fbo.gov are definitive sources for the fuel prices. Use their search functions to verify the data provided above. A RAND study that both debunks biofuels themselves and the notion that the military itself is universally supportive is available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG969.html). The National Academy of Sciences has also released a recent report documenting the issues with biofuels (National Research Council. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2011.). Data on huge water footprints and negative energy balances of biofuels comes from Argonne National Laboratory, the government's lead institution for fuel research. There are innumerable studies now out documenting the environmental damage of biofuels--one of the most cited is (Scharlemann, J. P. W., and W. F. Laurance. “How Green Are Biofuels?” Science 319, no. 5859 (January 4, 2008): 43–44. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1153103.) Again, you can't get trustworthy facts from the politicians and pundits and PC crowd. You've got to hit the books yourself to find the truth.

[mstraub]

11:31 AM on 05/30/2012

Still astounds me to hear anyone sticking up for oil and gas industry. I more than understand the world is dependent on fossil fuels, and probably will be for a very long time to come. But that's exactly why they need no help from politicians or anyone else. Oil companies will make their money with our without life risking convoys in Afghanistan. Heck, you'd think oil companies would prefer their products not be the target of enemy bullets, but then again, they buy the bulk of their raw product from Saudi Arabia and it's neighbors.

Politicians sticking up for oil is like arguing that the world is flat. It's out of date, and slowly on it's way out. Renewables will save lives on the battle field, and put less money in the pockets of countries who do not exactly have our best interests at heart.

To see the future of how far off Naval posts will power themselves with clean, reliable power, and cut down the need to send fuel fleets all over the planet visit The On Project.

http://www.theonproject.org/otec/?utm_source=huffpost&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mscomment

[Cliff Claven]

07:11 AM on 05/30/2012

Yellow journalism lives. This is the most incendiary headline and counter-factual story on this subject yet seen. First, no one one in Congress one either side of the aisle is objecting to increasing energy efficiency or solar power on the battlefield. The issue is liquid transportation fuels. Not one alternative liquid biofuel (ethanol, biodiesel, hydrotreated renewable jet, hydrotreated renewable diesel, or pure liquid hydrogen) has greater energy density (energy per gallon) than conventional diesel, gasoline and jet fuel. Using any liquid biofuel would require as many or MORE tankers on the battlefield and expose more Soldiers and Marines to IED attack, not less. Biodiesel would require 5-10% more tankers, ethanol would require 133% as many, hydrogen 3 times as many. Even in this time of high prices, the U.S. military has been able to buy conventional diesel and jet fuel in bulk at $2.31 a gallon per 2010 Defense Logistics Agency numbers (latest available). Meanwhile, the Navy just paid $4,454.55 a gallon for biobutanol jet fuel, surpassing its 2009 record of $427.53 a gallon for Solazyme algae oil. The lowest price the U.S. military has paid for biofuels since 2007 is $26.75 a gallon for 450,000 gallons of Tyson chicken fat residue-based fuel for the "Great Green Fleet." Those millions should have been spent on things which could really help the troops on the battlefield. Congress finally saying "Stop!" is the first ray of light on this whole fiasco.

[aligatorhardt]

02:01 PM on 06/01/2012

Those numbers are a joke. $4454 a gallon? Was that the first laboratory biofuel ever made, with all research costs added on?

[Cliff Claven]

12:55 AM on 06/02/2012

This was the most recent biofuels purchase by the U.S. military. It happened this February. Look here https://www.fpds.gov/dbsight/fpdsportal?indexName=awardfull&y=9&x=17&templateName=1.4.3&s=FPDSNG.COM&q=VENDOR_NAME%3A%22albemarle%22+CONTRACTING_AGENCY_NAME%3A%22DEPT+OF+THE+NAVY%22

[willowtree3]

06:59 AM on 05/30/2012

"Republicans Put Oil Money Above Troops' Lives" So what else is new?

[fredrdr]

07:51 AM on 06/01/2012

Rmember USMC General S Butler's comments concerning Wall Street. Always been and will always be a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. What's a few deaths when there is money to be made.

[Bogstomper2]

04:32 AM on 05/30/2012

If we treated electronics the same way these Republicans want to treat alternate energy, your portable phone would still be the size of a brick and almost as heavy. That's because some of the IC technology that enables the modern cell phone was expensive to develop. Almost all new technologies are expensive to develop, because there's a lot of experimentation and testing going on.

Once the technology matures, however, the price comes down, and we can enjoy the benefits of the new technology, whether it's airplanes, cell phones, home computers, or biofuels. Opposition to "greening" our military is a classic example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

[felide]

02:11 AM on 05/30/2012

the republicans don't care because they know that not all americans have lost faith in the government yet. and they stand there grinning at the thought of all there american soldiers at their desposial , who will die in mass numbers or come back with legs blown off and theV.A. will say '' tough shit .! '' meanwhile there will be be american schools and hospitals shuting down and people who can't afford food and medicine so they tell their kids,'' don't you mention your birthday again . '' we have to get our clothes at the salvation army now.! '' and that's america. when we run out of brave soldiers to die in the middle east they will reinstate a draft. .

[MGhamma]

08:19 PM on 05/29/2012

Way to support the troops, repubs.

[John Nail]

07:34 PM on 05/29/2012

So 1000 troops have died on convoy duty or 1/9 war dead in these 2 wars. The cost of delivering a gallon of fuel is really $400.

If simple solar arrays could fuel any activities in a camp, say 10% then at least 100 soldiers would be alive.

So Repubs are in favor of more Americans dying vs. experimenting with other energy sources.

That sums it up.

The space program deliverec hundreds of breakthroughs for society and the Internet was a DARPA project so,tax dollars invested in new technologies have a strong history of success. What is wrong with alternative energy?

[fredrdr]

07:52 AM on 06/01/2012

The Old Guards always fights a delaying action. Remember the light bulb controversy.

[C Trucker]

07:03 PM on 05/29/2012

Come on don't you know it Cost the Federal Government Billions to house and feed the Military. And the GOP/Tea make all time BIG Profit from the Oil came on it only Common good sense to Go after the one that Make’s you Money not the one the you have to keep paying for. They Really don’t care about Anyone that makes under a Million. And have their Money offshore So they can leave here when thing get to bad for them. See Face Book Little man I’m a Globe Citizen and gave up his USA Citizenship.