Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times.
The United States Navy has embraced climate change ideology. In an interview with the Boston Globe on March 9, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, the Navy’s top officer in the Pacific, stated that climate change was the biggest long-term threat in the Pacific region and “probably the most likely thing that is going to happen…that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.” It’s troubling that the top officers of our Navy have accepted the misguided theory of man-made climate change.
Admiral Locklear continued, “Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.” Unfortunately, the admiral is only looking at part of the tropical storm picture. While 2012 was an active year for typhoons in the Pacific, global tropical storm activity continued to be at a low level for the seventh year in a row, according to storm expert Dr. Ryan Maue. Further, satellite data shows no increase in tropical storm frequency or strength over the last 30 years.
Not only is the Navy concerned about climate change, they are attempting to do something about it. Both the Navy and the Air Force have established goals to use a 50/50 blend of biofuel and petroleum-based fuel for planes and ships. Navy plans call for establishment of a “Green Strike Group” task force by 2016, fueled by the biofuel blend, and for alternative fuels to power half of all energy consumption by 2020.
In 2011, the Navy and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture publically committed to invest $510 million to create an “advanced biofuel industry” based on algae. Algae-based biofuel will be purchased for the “bargain price” of $26 per gallon, or more than six times the price of current petroleum-based fuel. But, according to a 2011 study by the Rand Corporation, “…the use of alternative, rather than petroleum derived, fuels offers no direct military benefits.”
So why does the Navy want to fly fighter jets on algae-based fuels? If domestic sourcing was the reason, fuel could be produced from US coal at much lower cost than from algae. It’s to reduce emissions of those nasty greenhouse gases, of course. US Navy Secretary Ray Mabus makes this clear: “We’re gonna be using American produced, American energy that…will make us better environmental stewards because we will be contributing less to climate change and burning much cleaner fuel.”
Admiral Locklear is also concerned about sea level change, stating in the interview: “You have real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level…If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.”
It is true that sea levels are rising. According to NASA, ocean levels have risen about 390 feet since that last ice age 20,000 years ago. Levels rose about 7‒8 inches during the last hundred years. But no scientist can tell when natural sea level rise ended and man-made sea level rise began. Nor is there any empirical evidence that sea level rise is accelerating. The 20-foot sea level rise predicted by some for the year 2100 is highly unlikely.
On March 5, Admiral Locklear told Congress that the automatic budget cuts from the sequester that went into effect on March 1 are already impacting his operations. He warned of cuts to aircraft flight hours, pay levels, and civilian jobs. He told the committee that the sequester cuts limit the ability of the Pacific Command to deter, assure, operate, and maintain its forces.
But the admiral did not mention impacts to the Navy’s algae-based biofuel program during his testimony. Could it be that futile efforts to stop climate change are a higher priority than the readiness of the United States Navy?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
This is nothing new when the “Brass” gets involved. Active or retired. They are bought and paid for. I always wondered what the reason was though. Just politics?
http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/apr/security_climate.pdf
JZ
When my country is invaded I can die a happy man knowing that the bomb which killed my children was carbon neutral.
You can bet your boots China, Russia and all aspiring enemy’s of the USA are laughing their heads off. Why? Because it means less money for new aircraft and weapons for the eventual showdown. On second thoughts maybe that’s a good idea.
Snarc off!
I wonder why climate change, or any other possible event, never is likely to threaten or weaken the other side. Will it make NK or China stronger? Or just leave them alone while hurting us?
Joke about “military intelligence” all you want but for the most part by the time someone achieves flag rank (star rank in the other services), there are very, very few stupid or lazy people left. It’s extremely disappointing that a senior US admiral would be making these statements; even more disappointing if he actually believed them.
Admiral Locklear is a four star admiral whose service background is the surface fleet. You can read about him here .
Rather than pursue biofuel (algae), I would prefer the Navy to push for thorium reactor retrofits for support ships, where fuel endurance already constrains operations. That and support expanded domestic production for the other liquid fuels the military needs.
Was this Admiral trying to look embarrassingly stupid so our enemies would conclude we are really that stupid. If so he has succeeded.
Why cannot someone just tell these military MORONS to shut up and stick to the grunting. poiticians are one thing, but having some dork whose entire life consists of obeying orders and bullying juniors and knows fat all about fat anything lecture us is beyond tolerable.
They aren’t stupid or lazy, they are the best backstabbing conniving excuses for bureaucrats known to god. They are actually discouraged by the academy system from pursuing challenging academic subjects and most graduate with a “military sciences” degree. “Military Sciences” is the study of getting ahead in a bureaucratic culture and nothing more. The ones who do pursue engineering or sciences are usually gone by their 10th year of service. Most of the flag officers I served with were excellent at spotting someones weaknesses and picking them to death, but not much on some of the details of how weapons systems worked. All they cared about was how big was the blast and how tightly could it be aimed. Anything beyond that was out of their interest area.
I like the image in the article, but the Tomcat has been out of service for about 20 years now.
And these people are supposed to be defending your country!
Confused Photon…you are a bit er confused there. The other guy cleartly means airplanes, which helicopters arent. Also, as a matter of fact, one of them wont have helicopters even and the other probably will either not be finished or sold on completion. Both are 50% French concerns now anyway.
The British military is now just a token. Belgium has more frontline aircraft than the RAF. Pacifist Japan has a vastly bigger navy.
Before long, I suspect, the British Army, navy and air force will be dissolved and replaced by a unitary territorial and coastal defence force. Given economic reality its the only sensible course. look, even I have had to abandon my tentative plan of buying a Saracen APC for its nostalgia value .
I heard a handful of people wittering away about “Climate Change”
the other day, and I asked them whether they thought it was meant
to describe a cause or an effect, and none could venture an opinion.
Anyone out there know ?
The military does not think or “believe”, they do what they are told.
Viz Ben D;
Theirs is not to reason why, but to do and deny.
Sea level rise is highly variable (implies accelerating) since 1807;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.G21B0805J (full paper not available, pity)
rate at 3.2 mm/yr since 1994;
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Not scholarly but a seemingly comprehensive for an encyclopedia;
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Sea_level_rise
and one, seems credible, that basically suggests another 13,000 years for Greenland to melt away…so no worries…based on GRACE data
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2963892/posts
So as usual maybe possibly…sheesh
and NASA hold the info cards close to the chest.
Rex says:
March 13, 2013 at 7:34 pm
===============================
I can give an opinion….
Climate change is an effect of our lovely, not fully understood, star (The Sun) and our cosmic dance hereabout an AU.
and North Korea walks away from The Truce.
Unfortunately for the US Military, reaching the ranks of general officers is about being skilled politically. With an administration that holds belief in ‘Climate Change’ (to whatever political/financial end), acting and aspiring general officers must support that belief for the sake of their careers.
Within this seemingly absurd policy is a nugget of reason. The testing and use of non-petroleum based fuels is important to establish plans and programs to augment/replace fuel supplies in the event of conventional fuel shortfalls/disruptions.
I’m going to remember the name “Locklear.” These people who will say anything to get ahead need to recognize that, if you speak complete balderdash to get ahead, you may someday face a day of reckoning. People may forgive, but won’t forget.
Admiral Sammy seems to think the old Navy term, “toeing the line” is actually “towing the line,” and he should behave like a mule named Sal, pulling a barge on the Erie Canal. He is hauling a load of -bleep- for political nitwits.
Some think “toeing the line” means standing at attention along a line, and being obedient. However that ignores the war-like purpose of the military. The start of a battle is like the start of a race, and the line you toe is the starting line.
Long ago a boxing match began by “drawing a line in the sand.” It was called the “scratch line.”
It may well be that the terms “up to scratch” and “toeing the line” both come from the moment when the fighters squared off, and dared each other to “step over the line.”
When Admiral Sammy faced the anti-military reporters of the Boston Globe he was neither up to scratch nor toeing the line. However he was exceedingly, supurbly, DEVINELY politically correct.
What a wuss.
Hummm, it is about perspective by direction in the end, no?
If you can make it past the “Witch Hunt” part, I think most will thoroughly enjoy this 🙂
You’ve just got to remember who the ‘Commander in Chief’ of the USA Military is (hint, it’s the Pres).
When your career is on the line; it is much easier to say “Yes Sir!”.
The Defense Logistics Agency-Energy (DLA-E) has consistent stated that they will purchase alternative fuels at current fuel prices. The Navy will not spend more on these fuels than for conventional fuels, but have purchased test volumes of fuels for varying prices from just above conventional fuels to very high prices. But those high priced fuels were purchased to basically support building a pilot plant needed to make the fuel. Supporting development programs is often done by the DOD and other government bodies. Nothing new here.
What I find troubling is the bind belief that the volume of fuel needed to reach 50% biomass content in the F-76 distillate fuel or JP-5 jet fuel still persists despite the fact that only on plant currently exists that can produce commercial quantities of biofuels meeting military specifications. Much like California and their Low Carbon Fuels Standard, just because you invite people to the dance doesn’t mean they will come. If there isn’t a process for producing hydrocarbon drop in fuels for military applications, then how can they be purchased, at any price?
This is not really very different, but possibly dumber, than when eugenics was the obsession of the ruling elites.
To the extent that preparations for AGW are taking up time that could be spent getting ready for N. Korea, China, Russia and other real threats, this Admiral is derelict in his duty.
Martin M says:
March 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Within this seemingly absurd policy is a nugget of reason. The testing and use of non-petroleum based fuels is important to establish plans and programs to augment/replace fuel supplies in the event of conventional fuel shortfalls/disruptions.
================================================
That’s a good point, it will drive the technology forward and iron out the bugs, so to speak.
I’d like to see them do something else with their jets. Threaten an air strike closer to home might be nice… Yeah, yeah, I know, but does anyone wonder why funding is disappearing from the armed forces? Australian forces have been gutted by Gillard. I reckon she doesn’t want the people protected, but more importantly she doesn’t want a military rising. Makes me think it is deliberate everywhere. Hollow them out then there’s nothing left when you need them the most. We live in frightening times.
The ridiculous in all this is that there is indeed a likely short term climate change that will have very severe consequences for air transport and most other things: a Laki or Tambora scale eruption. A slow, dirty, basaltic spout like Laki is the last thing anyone needs, and why should it not happen in the medium term? We’re going to feel mighty silly with our feeble whirlygigs and grimy solar panels for a couple of years. Coal and nukes – please! Potency – please!
We shouldn’t start bedwetting, but we should be doing far more about volcanism than worrying about a two century old upward trend in sea levels.
What a travesty when senior military officers resort to playing the political climate game. The admiral is scrabbling for money, “millions to be displaced by sea level change, refugee and trans-migration in the pacific! The only solution is a strong, well-trained, well-equipped US Navy!” Boo ha! Transparent and disingenuous Admiral, I’d take your stars for that.