Department of Defense

KBR, Halliburton sued over war-zone’s toxic burn pits

Confronted with the need to dispose of enormous quantities of war-related trash including batteries, pesticide containers, medical waste and even human body parts, but lacking proper incinerators, private contractors working for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan came up with a simple solution. They burned the trash in big, open pits. But now soldiers, […]

DARPA to investigate geoengineering

Oh, great, DARPA — the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an arm of the Defense Dept — is convening a meeting to look into geoengineering. Count me with Ken Caldeira: “The last thing we need is to have DARPA developing climate intervention technology,” says Caldeira. He says he agreed to go to the meeting “to […]

Energy efficiency saves lives

The New Yorker's Steve Coll is reading through the stimulus bill. This is interesting:

The energy-efficiency issue is the most interesting [in Title III, "Department of Defense"]. In 2008, a Defense Science Board Task Force studied the Pentagon's use of energy and how its dependence on costly (in lives and budgets) convoys hauling gasoline and jet fuel in war theatres might be reduced. The report found that one of the most fuel-sucking practices of the military is its use of generators in the field to run air conditioners to cool highly energy-inefficient tents and trailers. In Iraq alone, the report implies, more than a few soldiers have died on roads where their mission was hauling fuel to cool down tents and barracks that, if properly insulated, might not have required so much energy in the first place. There are many other fascinating findings about war-fighting and energy, if you don't already possess enough ridiculously dense and wonky material for your book club.

NYT columnist makes a late bid for dumbest paragraph of the year

It’s widely agreed that Bill Kristol’s tenure as a New York Times op-ed columnist has been a fiasco — not for Kristol, whose flat-footed, me-too hackery is old news, but for the Gray Lady, who showed the extraordinary bad judgment to pick him. Most of Kristol’s stuff is instantly forgettable, but yesterday brought what I […]

Cut defense spending in favor of clean-energy investing

Conventional wisdom, that dour specter, seems to be saying we don’t have enough money to fix many of our biggest problems, such as global warming or shifting to carbon-free energy. But wait! The Pentagon itself has determined that there are plenty of resources that the Defense Department could do without, according to the Boston Globe: […]

DOD slows condemning research into its polluting behavior

Back in April, a Government Accountability Office report explained how the White House Office of Management and Budget was holding up the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System assessments. According to GAO, the OMB started requiring an "interagency review" process allowing agencies that might be affected by the IRIS assessments to provide comments on the documents. As a result, some of these outside agencies can effectively block completion of IRIS assessments, which inform federal environmental standards and many environmental protection programs at local, state, and even international levels.

The GAO explained that this interagency review process came about because the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and NASA were upset about how EPA was addressing "controversial" chemicals such as perchlorate, napthalene, and trichlorethylene (TCE). These departments and agencies view these hazardous substances as "integral to their missions." IRIS assessments could lead to regulatory actions that will require lots of protection and clean-up spending by the responsible agencies.

Last week, the House Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held its second hearing on the IRIS process. One witness was particularly vocal about DOD's foot-dragging on TCE.

Challenging the militarization of U.S. energy policy

This essay originally ran on TomDispatch; it is reprinted here with Tom's kind permission.

-----

American policymakers have long viewed the protection of overseas oil supplies as an essential matter of "national security," requiring the threat of -- and sometimes the use of -- military force. This is now an unquestioned part of American foreign policy.

On this basis, the first Bush administration fought a war against Iraq in 1990-1991 and the second Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003. With global oil prices soaring and oil reserves expected to dwindle in the years ahead, military force is sure to be seen by whatever new administration enters Washington in January 2009 as the ultimate guarantor of our well-being in the oil heartlands of the planet. But with the costs of militarized oil operations -- in both blood and dollars -- rising precipitously, isn't it time to challenge such "wisdom"? Isn't it time to ask whether the U.S. military has anything reasonable to do with American energy security, and whether a reliance on military force, when it comes to energy policy, is practical, affordable, or justifiable?

How energy policy got militarized

The association between "energy security" (as it's now termed) and "national security" was established long ago. President Franklin D. Roosevelt first forged this association way back in 1945, when he pledged to protect the Saudi Arabian royal family in return for privileged American access to Saudi oil. The relationship was given formal expression in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter told Congress that maintaining the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was a "vital interest" of the United States, and attempts by hostile nations to cut that flow would be countered "by any means necessary, including military force."

Disagreement over threat to national security

Cape Wind claims to have cleared another hurdle today. From their press release:

Today's Department of Defense (DOD) report is good news for Cape Wind. The report clearly finds Cape Wind to be outside of the wind-turbine offset zone being proposed for PAVE PAWS radar systems.

Now the DOD has reached the same determination as the U.S. Air Force -- that Cape Wind will not negatively impact the Air Force PAVE PAWS radar system. This report puts to rest in a final form any reasonable concern about this issue.

The reality is that projects like Cape Wind strengthen national security by making America more energy independent and less reliant on foreign sources of energy.

That's not how the Alliance for Nantucket Sound sees it, unsurprisingly, claiming that this report is final proof that the turbines would threaten missile defense systems and therefore, national security.

These two just can't agree on anything.

Finally recognizing environmental threats to national security

Building on Dave's link yesterday: Last week, the Senate's number two Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel proposed a bill calling for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to assess the threat of climate to the United States and abroad.

Refreshingly, the bill requires a 30-year time horizon. Climate scientists will still find this window painfully small, but security analysts (and the rest of government, frankly) will recognize this as progress in comparison to the normal Washington policy timelines (a few years, or until the next election).