Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Wednesday, Senator Elizabeth Warren released her concept of how she would leverage the Department of Defense (and introduced legislation) as part of a larger effort to address the climate crisis if elected President. Entitled Our Military Can Help Lead the Fight Against Climate Change, this ‘plan’ is a troubling mix of accurate problem definition, reasonable ideas, and misguided concepts.

Upfront, Senator Warren

• correctly identifies climate chaos is a serious issue for the Department of Defense, that DOD is the largest single U.S. energy user, and there is much ground/need for both mitigation (reducing pollution) and adaptation (improving resiliency in face of climate risks;
• proposes many useful items, such as creating policy positions focused on climate and requiring more robust examination of/reporting on DOD and climate;
• mistakenly promotes DOD as a lead agency in addressing climate change, buying into a false conception of DOD as more effective than any/all other government activity; and
• gets some critical items wrong, such as treating the contractor/industrial base as a unity rather than addressing its complexity.

All-in-all, much useful material but meriting revisiting to deal with its problems.

Problem Definition strong yet …

Team Warren correctly lays out that climate change

• is already
  • costing the Department of Defense (and the taxpayer) $billions in terms of damages to and repairs to bases from climate-driven catastrophes;
  • impacting operational requirements and realities;
  • undermining readiness; and
• will have mounting impacts in the years and decades to come in terms of driving mission requirements, undermining readiness; and creating high costs.

In short, climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is undermining our military readiness. And instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is ignoring it?—?and making it worse.

The military’s heavy energy usage is outlined (largest single user of liquid fossil fuels in the United States (and, by the way, globally) and vulnerabilities from that fuel use (not just financial but also operational, as fuel convoys are susceptible to enemy attack).

While the problem definition is correct, there are framing issues. Two examples:

• Throughout, Team Warren starts with bases and base implications. This is ‘supporting infrastructure’. Such infrastructures matters (a lot) but it is not ‘what’ the military is about, not why the taxpayer is investing $700B (or so) in DOD and related expenses per annum. A better approach: start with mission and work back to supporting infrastructure.
• “Washington is ignoring” misrepresents the problem. Why obfuscate? The problem is not “Washington” but the Republican Party’s steadfast allegiance (for a host of reasons but notably the financial interests of major campaign donors) to climate science denial and tooth-and-nail obstruction of sensible policy to mitigate climate chaos and adapt to inevitable climate change.

Reasonable concepts are within the plan

With this background, Elizabeth Warren lays out that action is required.

I am introducing my Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act to harden the U.S. military against the threat posed by climate change, and to leverage its huge energy footprint as part of our climate solution.

Excellent that Warren is emphasizing both mitigation (“climate solution”) and adaptation (“harden”): core to any meaningful climate efforts is investing in both (even though mitigation should be first and foremost).

Among the proposals are staffing and office requirements within DOD that would heighten the visibility of climate issues within decision-making and enable incorporation of climate sensible actions within DOD activities and procurement.

To improve readiness and resilience to climate-related events, we should also create a dedicated source of funding to adapt our bases in the United States and around the world. Let’s save money by budgeting for climate change on the front end, so that the Pentagon doesn’t have to ask for more only after a base is flooded or equipment damaged when natural disasters strike.

Absolutely. Well past time to be serious about Benjamin Franklin’s “an ounce of prevention” especially since this ‘insurance’ investment will pay for itself through lower utility bills, better operational capacity, and greater resiliency to threats beyond ‘just’ climate change.

Within this, Warren’s focus is on “non-combat” base infrastructure. While ‘hardening’ matters there and there is much value (financial, resiliency, reduced pollution) in addressing their resource use (not just energy but water and trash as well), these facilities are a fraction of the overall DOD energy use (which is dominated, first and foremost, by aviation liquid fuel requirements). The proposal is for these facilities to be “Net Zero” by 2030 — powered 100% by renewable energy ‘in accord with the Green New Deal’. With this, Senator Warren is beginning to get into more tenuous ground by, for example, emphasizing “renewable” rather than “clean” energy.

Misguided concepts requiring reconsideration and change …

While renewable vs clean and the 2030 target are part of larger debates, here are several examples of misguided concepts.

I’ll invest billions of dollars into a new, ten-year research and development program at the Defense Department focused on microgrids and advanced energy storage. The Pentagon has been responsible for countless technological breakthroughs, working together with colleges and universities, our national labs, local governments, and private companies. Let’s put that effort toward new clean energy solutions that will improve our security by allowing military bases to remain operational when traditional power sources fail, and save taxpayers money through lower overall energy consumption.

• Proposed microgrid research program
  • likely should not be DOD lead but, rather, could be run within the Department of Energy (with DOD and other agency involvement);
  • shouldn’t be a leading-edge item of discussion
    • When it comes to climate mitigation, an appropriate mantra is ‘deploy, Deploy, DEPLOY’ what we already have with then, as #4, investing in creating (researching, developing) the options for deployment tomorrow; thus,
    • Should a 10-year research effort be a priority in discussion (with a ‘2030 deadline looming and need for urgent action?) rather than emphasizing deployment of and learning from existing technologies and options; and
  • is indicative of a serious problem:
    • the Department of Defense is not some perfect panacea and best run government agency that should have leadership of anything and everything.
    • As per above, this is likely far better done within DOE with then military research organizations focused on working with and leveraging that research for DOD-specific/priority arenas (such as micro-grids for deployed forces rather than micro-grids for university campuses).

The DOD awards hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of contracts every year, so if we’re serious about climate change then industry also needs to have skin in the game. I’ll ask contractors that have not achieved net zero carbon emissions to pay a small fee?—?one percent of the total value of the contract?—?and I’ll use that money to invest directly in making our military infrastructure more resilient.

• Penalizing contractors based on ‘net zero’ fails to consider the complexity of the DOD contractor ecosystem.
  • The defense contractor world is huge, complex, and multifaceted. An analytical consulting firm is not the same as a cloud storage provider is not the same as a logistical services company is not the same as a shipyard — in business model, contract structures and timeframes, and energy requirements to execute the required contracts. The first likely could be ‘net zero’ today while the last (with steel fabrication, requirements to move 1000s of tons around, etc …) might be hard pressed to get there (without major support) over a several decade period.
  • Defense contractors are likely ready to work with an Administration on paths to lowering their climate impacts.
    • In 2012, the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) adopted as part of its policy priorities, for discussions with Congress, a concept for putting defense contractors on an energy/resource efficiency planning process like the Obama Administration required for governmental agencies.
    • Such a plan would accommodate the complexity of the contractor environment — requiring all firms to ‘clean up their act’ according to auditable plans — rather than creating a one size (doesn’t) fit all system.

Some final thoughts

As one who has spent (sigh) decades as (a minor) part of the effort to get the US military (and other military) forces to tackle energy (and water and waste and …) in a smarter way, while there is much of value in Senator Warren’s laydown, this could have been a stronger and more on target proposal.

• The military should NOT be the lead … 
  
  • even as being less damaging to the environment, due to better/smarter practices, can be a corollary to a more effective military force,
    • the military is ‘not’ about being clean (nor ‘green’) but about being prepared to kill people and destroy things (hopefully enough to dissuade others from conflict so that it won’t occur) in support of national strategy.
  • when it comes to climate chaos, lead agencies should be Energy, Interior, Transportation, State/USAID, Treasury … even as there are serious roles for mitigation within DOD investments and serious climate chaos implications for DOD readiness and operational requirements, “climate change’ is not the DOD mission.
    
• This messaging — in specific ways — can/will turn off many w/in ‘traditional’ national security: even those who take climate change seriously
  • Most importantly: even those most passionate about climate issues w/in the armed services don’t necessarily think DOD should “lead” while most in the defense world see this as peripheral to core mission sets; and
  • Why should DOD — rather than DOE — as an example, run a ten-year program on micro-grids?
• This whole messaging buys into/reinforces a mistaken societal belief that DOD is better at running things than elsewhere in government/society.
• The approach to contractors fails to consider the complex nature of the contractor / industrial base.
• Despite everything, DOD is roughly 1% of US energy use/pollution
  • With contracting, this might rise to as much as 5% (or so)
  • A very high share of that energy use and pollution is embedded into capital assets (ships, tanks, planes … oh, and buildings/bases) that
    • either are stranded assets to be abandoned or …
    • will take a long time to turnover/replace
  • E.g., DOD facility energy use and pollution matters, BUT
    • There are many arenas that matter (FAR) more …
    • It takes time to have massive change — even within a WWII-like mobilization to address the climate crisis.
• Framing matters and research is showing that stronger terms (climate crisis, climate chaos, climate emergency) aren’t just merited but foster stronger support for action on the scale necessary to address the climate crisis.

• Less critically, “green” is not a productive word to use when discussing the military.
• Etc …

This proposal has strengths but the gaps in understanding the DOD (energy issues) and climate are frustrating and merit addressing.

A note: The above puts aside a discussion of whether the DOD should be radically restructured (reduced in size, scope), roles/missions, etc that is clearly a related/associated subject/debate. Even w/in ‘traditional’ DOD terms, the Warren proposal is at best a mishmash that merits revisiting

Others on the Warren plan

• In Elizabeth Warren presses Pentagon on its planning for climate change, Kate Aronoff provides useful background and discussion specifically on recent hearings before this announcement.