October 30, 2007 | WebMemo on Department of Homeland Security
As the military fights a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress is attempting to open up a third front: emissions mandates. The proposed Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007 (H.R. 3221) would restrict all federal agencies to fiscal year 2010 emissions levels beginning in 2011. That presents a big a problem for the Department of Defense (DOD), which accounts for well over half the federal government's energy consumption.
Imposing CO2 constraints on the armed forces would hamstring the Pentagon's ability to train, sustain, and fight; the cost of operating and maintaining an already overstretched force would skyrocket. In addition to being disastrous for national security, the emissions mandate is unnecessary: DOD is already committed to alternative energy research and the development and fuel conservation measures. Rather than hamstring the Pentagon with unrealistic legislative mandates, Congress should encourage its research and conservation efforts and promote modernization initiatives that add new, needed combat capabilities while reducing energy demands.
Worse Than Pearl Harbor
H.R. 3221 could shift the Pentagon's primary mission from defending the nation to curbing emissions. To meet the environmental mandates, the services would have to divert funds away from maintenance, repair, research, and procurement. Beyond the initial freeze, the Pentagon would face the unrealistically stringent goal of reducing emissions annually-to the level of zero by 2050. The overly broad judicial review provisions could allow anyone to challenge DOD policies in court on the grounds that the resultant emissions may put it out of compliance. The DOD would spend time and money fighting endless CO2-related lawsuits.
Furthermore, the Pentagon is already at the forefront of
developing alternate energy sources, investing roughly $250 million
in such programs in fiscal year 2006. These programs include the
development of synthetic fuel, fuel cells, and lightweight
materials. As one of the world's largest consumers of fossil
fuels, the U.S. military already has every incentive to find ways
to conserve energy and reduce the vast logistical "energy tail"
that limits the agility of forces on the battlefield. In expending
resources, however, the Pentagon must balance the real-world needs
of current operations with efforts to refit and modernize the
force-all within the limits of what current technologies can
Room for Improvement
Without question, DOD can and should do more to reduce energy consumption. The armed forces would probably be better off if they burned fewer fossil fuels and were less dependent on foreign energy. In fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon spent $10.9 billion on energy supplies. Today, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the military an additional $1 billion in operating costs. In terms of operations, fuel represents more than half of the DOD's logistics tonnage and more than 70 percent of the tonnage required to deploy the Army. Consequently, reducing fuel consumption would alleviate both a significant expense and a strategic weakness.
The following initiatives would help address the DOD's energy issues:
Emissions mandates are an unnecessary and unrealistic way to reduce the military's energy demands. H.R. 3221 is an unfunded mandate that would hamstring the Pentagon and undermine national security. What the Pentagon needs is a robust and adequate budget. Funding defense at about 4 percent of GDP every year would provide sufficient resources for a trained and ready force, current operations, and preparing for the future.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Oliver Horn is Research Assistant in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.