Innovation. It’s the new buzzword. Haven’t you heard. It’s the rage. Ten times … The President used the word “innovation” ten times in the State of the Union speech.
The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do — what America does better than anyone else — is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We’re the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It is how we make our living.
The other “in” phrase, “Win the Future”, made six showings in the State of the Union address:
to win the future, we’ll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.
Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future -– if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas -– then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.
One of those arenas of “innovation” to “win the future” is “especially clean energy technology -– (applause) — an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.”
One has to wonder whether the Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, truly paid attention to this speech and the core of its meaning as it made its way through the Administration prior to the actual speech. After all, just days before the State of the Union, the Department of Interior made it be known that it planned to exile from a place of prominence one of the greatest examples of innovative clean energy approaches that is helping “to win the race to educate our kids”.
The Solar Decathlon is, quite simply, an incredibly amazing event, bringing together 20 university teams who have constructed (often) beautiful buildings that function 100 percent off solar power. To achieve this, they are incredibly efficient and well-designed structures with a variety of solar systems to power them. Judged in 20 different categories, these buildings function, are all innovative in their own ways, and provide a picture on paths forward — with many of these innovations heading into commercialization after the festival.
Visiting the festival is an incredible experience for young, old, and in-between. I have been to the four previous Decathlons and have been wowed even more each time with the increasingly sophisticated and high-quality entrants. The events are ever more crowded … with all age groups. I take my children there and it is one of the rare events where they have asked to go back to and queried as to when the next one will occur. And, even years later, my children recall specific items at houses and specific comments from students giving tours and answering questions.
Now, to provide another perspective, I am one with a close relationship with The National Mall. I have been, since before being weaned, going to Smithsonian Museums and taking strolls on the Mall from before I can recall. I have played sports on the Mall. Watched fireworks on the Mall. Seen concerts … Joined protests … Watched parades … Been wowed by sunsets and sunrises … Studied for exams … Worked … And even been married on the Mall. (Okay, as to the last, sort of … marriage at the Jefferson Memorial.) The National Mall matters to me and I understand a desire — a need — for protecting it and repairing it.
But, I also understand the power and necessity of “innovation”.
But, I also understand the urgent need to engage our youth in the drive for developing clean energy systems.
If we wish to “Win The Future,” we should not be exiling The Solar Decathlon from The National Mall to some less visible and less meaningful location.
Rather than exiling The Solar Decathlon, we should be heightening its prominence.
The entire cabinet should visit the Decathlon.
As much of the Congressional leadership, as possible, should visit.
And, the President should — as he did the other day to the Chamber of Commerce — should walk over to take a look at real innovation and provide a boost for visionaries who are struggling to Win The Future.
NOTEs:
1. The Secretary of Interior, starting today, is holding a two-day workshop on onshore renewable energy (available to watch live here starting at 0900 EST). In his remarks, will Secretary Salazar speak to the symbolic power of exiling The Solar Decathlon from The National Mall?
German Solar Rides Power Surge to a Win discusses how certain variables advantaged the German team against its U.S. competitors to provide the margin of victory in the 2009 Solar Decathlon.
As per Guardian reporting, U.S. diplomats in Saudi Arabia have picked up very serious information over the years calling into question
Saudi abilities to increase oil production in line with what energy agencies (such as IEA and EIA) have predicting they could accomplish to meet growing world demand in the coming years,
whether the Saudis will be able to maintain their high percentage of exports in light of rising Saudi internal demand, and
the real extent of Saudi reserves and implications for Peak Oil projections.
For those aware of Peak Oil issues, the ‘revelations’ aren’t new but simply additional nails in the coffin for the urgent necessity to take measures to address our liquid fuel challenges (as some say, the need to turn oil into salt). The news is that this information was moving around the U.S. government during the Bush Administration even as the nation takes what can be, politely, called half-measures to address our addiction to oil and too many politicians are actually pushing fossil-foolish agendas that serve to increase our dependency on a depletable resource that (almost) certainly will become more expensive and less available with each passing day.
This cross-post from Steven D addresses, with some passion, Charles Krauthammer’s shallow and ignorance promoting sense of humor when it comes to the realities of climate change science. Those who are rejecting science — as does Krauthammer — in their blind assertions of falsehoods and truthiness are exemplifying ideologically driven religious passion above scientific knowledge.
Is Charles Krauthammer, a man with a degree in Medicine (psychiatry) and Economics who plays a know it all on TV simply Ignorant, Stupid, Lazy, Evil or All of the Above?
February 8th, 2011 · Comments Off on AOL-HuffPost and you get the story you’re looking for
With Arianna Huffington’s (massive) cashing in as AOL buys Huffington Post for over $300 million, a number of stories are at play. One of the questions:
Will the horde of (reported) 6000 bloggers who posted without financial compensation still post there?
As one of that horde, a number of people have asked that question of me … including reporters.
The President’s speech is unlikely to satisfy many.
It preemptorarily sacrificed much rhetorical (and substantive) ground in the continued discussion of “a government-wide review [for] outdated and unnecessaryregulations” and that “another barrier government can remove is a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest rates in the world” (even though effective payments are far lower …).
But ultimately, winning the future is not just about what the government can do to help you succeed. It’s about what you can do to help America succeed.
For example, even as we work to eliminate burdensome regulations, America’s businesses have a responsibility to recognize that there are some safeguards and standards that are necessary to protect the American people from harm or exploitation.
Few of us would want to live in a society without the rules that keep our air and water clean; that give consumers the confidence to do everything from investing in financial markets to buying groceries. Yet when standards like these have been proposed, opponents have often warned that they would be an assault on business and free enterprise. Early drug companies argued that the bill creating the FDA would “practically destroy the sale of … remedies in the United States.” Auto executives predicted that having to install seatbelts would bring the downfall of their industry. The President of the American Bar Association denounced child labor laws as “a communistic effort to nationalize children.”
Of course, none of this has come to pass. In fact, companies adapt and standards often spark competition and innovation.
When it came to highlighting the value of public-private partnership and the meaningful impact of government standard setting, President Obama (his speech-writers?) turned to Secretary Chu’s realm (energy) with the case of refrigerators:
Look at refrigerators. The government set modest targets to increase efficiency over time. Companies competed to hit these markers. And as a result, a typical fridge now costs half as much and uses a quarter of the energy it once did, saving families and businesses billions of dollars.
The paragraph above comes from the prepared remarks released to the press. Thus, are those the President’s or his speechwriters’ words? I don’t know. However, the President’s actual comments to the Chamber are revealing as to his understanding of this case:
None of these things came to pass. In fact, companies adapt and standards often spark competition and innovation. I was travelling when I went up to Penn State to look at some clean energy hubs that have been set up. I was with Steve Chu, my Secretary of Energy. And he won a Nobel Prize in physics, so when you’re in conversations with him you catch about one out of every four things he says. (Laughter.)
But he started talking about energy efficiency and about refrigerators, and he pointed out that the government set modest targets a couple decades ago to start increasing efficiency over time. They were well thought through; they weren’t radical. Companies competed to hit these markers. And they hit them every time, and then exceeded them. And as a result, a typical fridge now costs half as much and uses a quarter of the energy that it once did — and you don’t have to defrost, chipping at that stuff — (laughter) — and then putting the warm water inside the freezer and all that stuff. It saves families and businesses billions of dollars.
So regulations didn’t destroy the industry; it enhanced it and it made our lives better — if they’re smart, if they’re well designed. And that’s our goal, is to work with you to think through how do we design necessary regulations in a smart way and get rid of regulations that have outlived their usefulness, or don’t work.
What the President might not be aware of is that this is not just the case of cutting energy demand, but it is a case of reversing significant energy demand increases while improving quality for a combination of reduced costs and increased capability:
In 1973, refrigerators were the largest single use of electricity in the home and the demand had been growing at 9.5% per year since WWII. Energy efficiency had been declining as manufacturers sought to cut costs. Utility planners had, at that time, carved out a 9.5% growth rate in refrigeration power demand indefinitely. In the face of the oil embargo, California began to drive standards that were followed by five state and national standards (Energy Star as latest round). In 1972, the average refrigerator used about 2000 kilowatt hours / year. Today, with ice makers & water cooling & increased average size & inefficient side-by-side models, the average refrigerator uses under 500 kwh/year. And, by the way, in current dollar terms, the price of refrigerators has dropped per cubic foot in part because the requirements for energy efficiency have led manufacturers to redo production lines & drive improved efficiency in construction.
Refrigerators are a poster child for the power of invisible energy: that we can truly transform our nation (and the global economy) through serious attention to energy efficiency. And to do so will require government action to regulate, set standards, to create the conditions for private businesses to find that the right choice (lower-cost and cleaner energy choices — including energy efficiency) becoming the easy and preferred choice for their own businesses and for the products (and services) that they offer their clients.
We can hope that some of the business leaders in attendance had their ears and minds open. Every time an American buys or opens a refrigerator they are experiencing the benefits of productive public-private interaction. We need to make the power and value of this collaboration understood and better leveraged for achievement of the common good.
He’s the coworker who was your friend until he got promoted and “went corporate.” He’s the athlete who played to bring a championship to his home town before following a larger contract to a bigger city. He’s the buddy who was always around until he got into a relationship and didn’t have time for you any more.
Fred Upton is the Republican congressman who used to have interesting ideas about reducing emissions and fighting climate change. But then he ran for chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Now, he has staffed his committee with lobbyists and today he is introducing a bill that seeks to roll back Clean Air Act protections against pollution from factories and power plants.
February 5th, 2011 · Comments Off on Deception re Texas Blackouts threatens American Prosperity and Security
In the face of the winter storm that hit the nation, Texans suffered a series of rolling blackouts as some 50 fossil-fueled power plants (coal and natural gas) shut down due to frozen pipes and other problems. (See: Blacked Out Texas: Seeking understanding or Falsely laying blame?) In the face of readily available information, including from Texas’ own grid-managers (ERCOT), there is a bevy of fossil-foolish commentators falsely asserting that ‘greening’ efforts are to blame for freezing Texans. For example,
The Drudge Report has suggested that the Texas blackouts were “a direct consequence of the Obama administration’s agenda to lay siege to the coal industry, launch a takeover of infrastructure under the contrived global warming scam, and help usher in the post-industrial collapse of America.”
Rush Limbaugh has put the blame on ‘federal red tape’. “It’s not just in Texas, that’s everywhere. And, folks, let me tell you something: If Obama gets his way, rolling blackouts will be the new norm. What do you think ‘green energy’ is?”
These political motivated and, well, simply false attacks threaten American prosperity and security.
In one of those outrageous attacks on American exceptionalism, The Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, gives the US Electric Grid a rating of D. Its summary says the following:
The U.S. power transmission system is in urgent need of modernization. Growth in electricity demand and investment in new power plants has not been matched by investment in new transmission facilities. Maintenance expenditures have decreased 1% per year since 1992. Existing transmission facilities were not designed for the current level of demand, resulting in an increased number of “bottlenecks,” which increase costs to consumers and elevate the risk of blackouts.
When it comes of the threat to American national security, in 2008 (hint: under President George W. Bush), the Defense Science Board issued a report on energy (pdf) which identified two critical issues: reliance on liquid fuel (e.g, oil) and
Military installations are almost entirely reliant on a fragile and vulnerable commercial power grid, placing critical defense and Homeland security missions at risk of extended outage.
Often derided as environmentally driven “greening” of the military, military measures for improved fuel efficiency and to improve base electrical systems (smartgrids, energy efficiency, renewable energy produced on base, energy storage, (improved) data and control systems for power management, islanding of bases to keep them operating if the civilian grid is disrupted) are fundamentally about improving military capability (think longer range ships due to more efficient engines) and secondarily about (often significant) financial savings … and, well, they offer the tertiary benefit of reducing the military’s carbon footprint.
The Department of Defense views (and did even during the Bush Administration) the antiquated electrical system as a threat to national security — which extends well beyond the risk to military bases.
To rectify this — to raise the grade (other by simply claiming that America has the ‘best’ electrical system via blind exhortation of exceptionalism) requires investment. That investment, however, must be based on serious efforts to identify lessons from outages to help identify the most valuable paths forward to improve the system and reduce the blackout conditions too often suffered by Americans, which represent a drag on American economic prosperity, and are an indication of a fundamental threat to American national security.
Texans, in the wake of the massive storm that hit so much of the country over the past week, are suffering through a series of rolling blackouts due to inadequate electrical supplies caused -it seems — by a combination of natural and man-made disaster.
Sadly, however, there seems to be too much false blame laying by important national figures rather than serious interest in understanding what is happening and why to lay the basis for an improved situation moving forward.
The Drudge Report has suggested that the Texas blackouts were “a direct consequence of the Obama administration’s agenda to lay siege to the coal industry, launch a takeover of infrastructure under the contrived global warming scam, and help usher in the post-industrial collapse of America.”
Rush Limbaugh has put the blame on ‘federal red tape’. “It’s not just in Texas, that’s everywhere. And, folks, let me tell you something: If Obama gets his way, rolling blackouts will be the new norm. What do you think ‘green energy’ is?”
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has issued a statement calling the blackouts an unacceptable safety risk that’s the result of federal energy policies run amok. “We have the desire, the resources, the knowhow and the will to build new plants, but federal red tape has blocked construction.”
Simply put, one has to choose between utter ignorance or bald-faced desire to misrepresent the situation for political purposes when assessing comments like these.
Based on reporting to date, Texas’ blackouts are not due to federal regulation of greenhouse gases or due to clean energy or due to any “Obama Administration agenda”. In fact, with the information on hand, the reverse looks to be the case.
The blackouts occurred due to cold-weather causing traditional power plants to go offline, starting with two of Texas’ largest coal power plants. Water intakes froze, requiring the plants to shut down. Natural gas lines faced risks due to moisture in pipelines, leading them to shut off. Some 50 fossil-fuel plants went down representing 7 gigawatts of production capacity and taking about 14 percent of planned power production off line.
Wind power production has met (and, it seems, actually exceed) its commitments to the Texas power grid — wind-power has been producing its promised electricity service, unlike coal and natural gas systems. Wind maintained delivery of 3.5 to 4.0 gigawatts (about 7 percent of Texas’ requirements) to the grid.
In line with Governor Perry’s dreams of secession, Texas’ electrical grid remains the most independent of the regional grids in the United States from the overall electrical system. Other states’ power production couldn’t feed in to compensate for Texas’ inability to meet its own requirements and help keep Texans warm and out of the dark.
Wednesday’s rolling blackouts were not caused by a failure to predict demand accurately or to keep enough plants online, Doggett said, but by a widespread mechanical failure of more than 50 power generating units all over the state.
There was no single reason for the failures and no particular location, plant operator or type of power plant behind the problem, he said.
Frozen water pipes burst in some instances, but many of the problems emerged as ice locked up equipment that sends signals to valves, pumps and other device
Yup, truly does seem that the cause and effect is Obama Administration efforts to modernize and strengthen the national grid and policies that encourage energy efficiency, development of more secure and healthier energy systems, and greater resiliency in our electrical system.
As for item 3 above, Texas’ electrical independence from the United States, this might actually be a key factor driving the rolling blackouts. The best public analysis of the Texas blackouts, to date, lays out a more robust Texas connection into the national grid would have created essentially automatic compensation for Texas fossil-fuel power plants going offline.
If Texas had been more interconnected with the US, the way the entire Eastern Interconnection (MISO, SPP, PJM, NY, NE, etc) are interconnected, it’s entirely possible that the combined system would have automatically fixed the problems before the lights in Texas went out. It’s just physics.
When an operating plant trips off, standby operating reserves automatically kick in, and if those trip too, other plants should kick in. Further, in a fraction of a second, the voltagefrequency drops across the transmission grid, and voltage support may also suffer. When that happens, the ISO’s system dispatch automatically sends signals to many other generators to ramp up, to bring supply back in balance with demand and raise voltage levels to reliable levels.
Again, we don’t know the exact sequence of the Texas failure. But it’s likely that if Texas had been more strongly interconnected with the US, the entire Eastern Interconnection would have instantly responded to the frequency/voltage dips and immediately brought more generators on line in surrounding states. So even if other plants in Texas tripped off, as they apparently did, extra power from plants in Missouri and Illinois and Ohio would have kept the lights on in Texas.
That would have avoided rolling blackouts in Texas’ cities. It would have kept the electric compressor/pumps running in northern Texas that send natural gas to Northern New Mexico, which lost gas supplies for heating in the middle of winter.
In unity, there is strength, safety, reliability. We know this. We’ve had 100 years of electricity system developments to prove it, over and over.
While it will take awhile to track exactly what happened in Texas and why, the early honest lesson to identify is not a need to reject 21st century technology and double-down bets on an inadequate system but the importance of increased investment in American infrastructure, the need for intelligent interlinking of the national grid, and the value of a Smart Grid to help manage disasters — whether natural, man-made, or both.
Construction and use of buildings account for a major share of global warming emissions. Depending on how one calculates, allocating roughly 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to this built infrastructure is roughly correct. Heating … cooling … lighting … building materials … etc, it all adds up (and up … and up). A good share of the building GHGs relates back to energy usage — where, after all, does the lion’s share of coal-generated electricity end up other than illuminating our entertainment systems and over-cooling during summer heat?
A simply reality: tremendous room exists for efficiency measures at not just cost effective but, in fact, profitable financial rates of return. That energy efficiency has remained an under-exploited a good example of a win-win-win space for strengthening the economy (and increasing our international competitiveness), cutting into our fossil-foolish addictions, creating jobs (putting people in the building sector back to work), improving our health due to reduced pollution, saving individuals money, and helping address our climate challenges. Paying serious attention to building energy efficiency just makes sense (makes lots of CENTS!) — that this is a great path for sparking serious movement forward in climate mitigation could almost be said to simply be a corollary benefit.
Today, as part of his “Win the Future” campaign introduced during the State of the Union, the President announced a major initiative for improving building efficiency at Penn State University, which is at the center of the Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster which was one of the winners of the federal Energy-Regional Innovation Cluster (E-RIC) and which will be focused on energy efficiency.
And right here, right here at Penn State, a university whose motto is “making life better,” you’ve answered the call. (Applause.) So today you’re preparing to lead the way on a hub that will make America home to the most energy-efficient buildings in the world.
Now, that may not sound too sexy until — (laughter) — energy-efficient buildings. (Laughter.) But listen, our homes and our businesses consume 40 percent of the energy we use. Think about that. Everybody focuses on cars and gas prices, and that’s understandable. But our homes and our businesses use 40 percent of the energy. They contribute to 40 percent of the carbon pollution that we produce and that is contributing to climate change. It costs us billions of dollars in energy bills. They waste huge amounts of energy.
So the good news is we can change all that. Making our buildings more energy-efficient is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest ways to save money, combat pollution and create jobs right here in the United States of America. And that’s what we’re going to do. (Applause.)
A 20 percent improvement in commercial building energy efficiency.
At least $40 billion per year in reduced energy costs — based on today’s energy prices (not inflated estimates).
Let us be clear: while meaningful to put into place, these are very achievable targets that should be viewed as base minimums rather than stretch goals. (Invisible Energy provides some indication of just how far we could go if we took energy efficiency very seriously.) In other words, we must do at least this much — and we can do so while improving American business competitiveness, putting Americans back to work, and reducing our pollution loads.
That this target is short of what is possible seems to be something President Obama realizes and he wants to push the envelope further. As he said today,
This is where we need you to push the envelope and ask just how efficient can our buildings be. Can they be self-sufficient, producing just as much energy as they consume? What new discoveries can we make? And soon you’ll have a new place to answer these questions, a clean energy campus in the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
What is the President proposing as paths forward to achieve the targets introduced today? What are the proposed tools that will make this happen?
New tax incentives for building efficiency: The President is calling on Congress to redesign the current tax deduction for commercial building upgrades, transforming the current deduction to a credit that is more generous and that will encourage building owners and real estate investment trusts (REITs) to retrofit their properties. These changes could result in a ten-fold increase in commercial retrofit take up, leveraging job- creating investments.
More financing opportunities for commercial retrofits: Access to financing is an important barrier to increased retrofit investment in some market segments. To address these gaps, the Small Business Administration is working to encourage existing lenders to take advantage of recently increased loan size limits to promote new energy efficiency retrofit loans for small businesses. The President’s Budget will also propose a new pilot program through the Department of Energy to guarantee loans for energy efficiency upgrades at hospitals, schools and other commercial buildings.
“Race to Green” for state and municipal governments that streamline regulations and attract private investment for retrofit projects: Much of the authority to alter codes, regulations, and performance standards relating to commercial energy efficiency lies in the jurisdiction of states and localities. The President’s Budget will propose new competitive grants to states and/or local governments that streamline standards, encouraging upgrades and attracting private sector investment.
The Better Buildings Challenge: The President is challenging CEOs and University Presidents to make their organizations leaders in saving energy, which will save them money and improve productivity. Partners will commit to a series of actions to make their facilities more efficient. They will in turn become eligible for benefits including public recognition, technical assistance, and best-practices sharing through a network of peers.
Training the next generation of commercial building technology workers: Using existing authorities, the Administration is currently working to implement a number of reforms, including improving transparency around energy efficiency performance, launching a Building Construction Technology Extension Partnership modeled on the successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership at Commerce, and providing more workforce training in areas such as energy auditing and building operations.
Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) pay attention to money. Moving energy efficiency investments from tax deduction to investment credits will make it quite clear to them that they can make some serious green by going green. The fact that energy efficiency often offers far faster returns on investment (ROI) than other investments has a hard time translating through to many in the business community due to stove-piping, a focus on investment growth rather than for controlling business costs, and a lack of understanding as to the opportunities. The shift to a tax credit will break through this perceptual — and, well, substantive financial planning — gap to foster more aggressive business planning attention to energy efficiency opportunities.
Another challenge is the wide variety of building codes around the country and, what can seem like, snail-like process of adapting advanced building codes with stricter energy efficiency guidelines. Well, state and local administrators are also being offered a carrot: pay more timely attention to updating building codes and you’ll be rewarded.
And, well, truth be told is that there is a shortfall of knowledge in terms of energy efficiency opportunities and prioritization. Expanding the competent workforce will ease business and local government implementation of appropriate energy efficiency measures.
The Better Buildings Initiative can leverage energy efficiency measures that the Administration is already executing based, in no small part, on the ARRA $20 billion in funding for building energy efficiency:
600,000 residential homes are being retrofit through Weatherization Assistance Program and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant programs.
The proposed HOMESTAR program would provide incentives to encourage homeowner energy efficiency.
ARRA provided GSA $5.5 billion to improve the energy performance of existing buildings and to start building a new generation of energy efficient buildings.
ARRA gave the Department of Defense significant funding for ‘greening’ military facilities.
The President’s sustainability Executive Order directs federal agencies to achieve zero net energy by 2030 while showing constant improvements, as agencies, in energy (and other resource) efficiency from year-to-year.
Of course, these new initiatives will cost money — even as they help businesses and individuals save money to use for things other than unnecessary energy costs. Considering the budgetary environment, spending new money isn’t easy — unless you have a good idea where it will come from:
tax credits mean lost revenue for Treasury. It costs money. Since we’ve got big deficits, we’ve got to pay for it. So to pay for it, I’ve asked Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars that we currently give to oil companies. (Applause.) They are doing just fine on their own. (Laughter.) So it’s time to stop subsidizing yesterday’s energy; it’s time to invest in tomorrow’s. It’s time to win the future. That’s what our project is.
The President is quite right. “It is” well past “time to stop subsidizing yesterday’s energy”.
When it comes to security planning one of the oldest adages is “Plan for the worst, hope for the best.” For example, in the business management real, IT managers plan need to plan and prepare for back-ups of all data in the event of catastrophic failure of the main system.
This adage certainly has its place in national, especially military, security. During the Cold War, the principal focus was not on the challenges of Soviet integration of minorities into the military and the implications of that on military effectiveness, but on the number and capabilities of Soviet systems. At times, that led to the “ten-foot tall” Soviet phenomena. The same can occur when it comes to considering, today, the Chinese, Iranian, terrorist and other threats. This enables, however, testing capabilities against plausible threats to aid decision-making about force structures and concepts of operations. “Plan for the worst, hope for the best” has a long and valid history as being a core element of security planning.
Even with mention of climate change in the Quadrennial Defense Review and increased attention to climate issues in many military commands (and even a Navy Task Force Climate), the defense communities work on climate change tends toward the rather optimistic forecast space rather than examining quite plausible worst case situations. (For an excellent discussion of assessing risk, see Dr. Jay Gulledge, Scientific Uncertainty and Security Risks of Climate Change, pages 47-58 in L. Dean Simmons, editor, Climate & Energy: Imperatives for Future Naval Forces, 2010, Proceedings, Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, 2010) Even this limited attention to climate change does not have deep support in the defense community (and is ridiculed by some). Based on personal experience in war games, conferences, discussion groups, and otherwise, the number of otherwise intelligent and educated people within the national security community who, quite viscerally, reject the Scientific Theory of Global Warming is remarkable. Considering the plausible threats that Global Warming portends and the security environment that could create, this goes beyond notable to gravely concerning.
And, to lay my views clearly: I would love for the scientific Theory of Global Warming to be proved wrong as this would remove the specter of this very serious threat from the future concerns of my nation and my children. Sadly, I do not expect this to happen as almost every day brings new evidence, new data, and new studies strengthening the science and highlighting the risks we face from catastrophic climate chaos.
Skeptism and No Regrets Strategy …
If one is skeptical about the Theory of Global Warming, this should not mean an utter rejection of the plausibility or possibility of the scientific community being correct on the core issues. And, these core issues (from disrupted weather patterns, (gradually) rising seas, acidification of the oceans, threats to water supplies, increasingly severe storms, disruptions to agriculture, mounting threats to infrastructure, etc …) create a multiple of quite real and, additionally, plausible (dealing with 100s of millions of ‘climate refugees’ as a potential) national security concerns and resulting military missions.
Considering these risks drives a question: At what point of uncertainty is one ready to move from “Plan for the Best, ignore the worst …” to “Plan for the worst” when it comes to Global Warming?
As for “No Regrets,” this refers to measures that will produce value irregardless of their benefits in addressing climate change. The preeminent example of a “no regrets” value is the “low hanging fruit” of energy efficiency. There are broad opportunities for cost-effective implementation of more energy efficiency systems across the entire spectrum of the U.S. (and, generally, global community’s) use of energy. This includes the military force. And, efficiency (and, potentially, renewable power) has very clear implications for operational effectiveness. If after Desert Storm, a growing community focus turned to reducing the “iron mountain of supplies” with the resulting cost and operational implications of this huge cargo movement, we still face a “sea of oil” when it comes to fuel requirements. Addressing that “Sea of Oil” is at the centerpiece of the Secretary of the Navy’s five energy initiatives (Navy Task Force Energy) and something that greatly concerns, for example, the Commandant of the Marine Corps who recognizes that the primary cargo moving into Afghanistan is fuel and that Marines die protecting fuel convoys. Reducing fuel demand directly correlates with increased combat effectiveness while reducing casualties.
While there is increased focus on the technological and planning options that will foster lower energy demand, this has yet to truly penetrate the services’ cultures. Any non-commissioned officer (NCO) would berate, heavily, a private smoking a cigarette in a foxhole in a way visible to an adversary. Would that same NCO berate privates for leaving lights on (or for having incandescent light bulbs rather than LEDs) in a tent powered in a forward operating base via a diesel generator? Almost certainly not, even though the second likely places more American lives at risk due to the requirements to move (and escort / defend) diesel fuel in the operational theater to get to that generator which is then supporting often (very) wasteful / inefficient uses of the electricity.
Again, across the Department of Defense there are efforts to reduce deployed electricity demands in no small part to reduce the risk due to moving diesel fuel around the theater.
And, this efficiency is not just a question for operating bases or just US military forces. Could we not inculcate a focus in this domain on how we interact with (train) other militaries? Could not the Kazakhs, Iraqis, Botswanans and others gain from having more energy efficient approaches to the military operations?
A much stronger emphasis on energy efficiency presents a good example of a type of win-win-win strategy that “skeptics” about Global Warming should embrace, support, and engage in wholeheartedly.
Within the military force, itself, this offers the potential for
Improved operational effectiveness due to reducing fuel movements, reducing forces/personnel dedicated to moving / securing fuel and other benefits (such as less generator noise). These all enable either smaller force deployments or deployed forces that can focus more on missions other than supporting (fuel) logistics movements, etc …
Financial savings (avoided cost) which will enable resources to be used for other requirements.
For the nation, this energy efficiency focus provides an improved operational force, reduced risk of casualties, higher likelihood of operational success, and a reduced cost of military operations. And, to the extent it matters, it helps to (slightly) reduce liquid fuel demand amid a general global supply/demand curve tension that – all things being equal – drives higher gas prices at the pump. And, as an ‘oh by the way’ benefit, it helps move the military down a path of reducing its “Global Warming footprint”.
Thus, a strong pursuit of “energy efficiency” provides an operational effectiveness win option, a financial/economic win path, and a global warming mitigation win path. And, the first two remain high-value “wins” even without considering Global Warming.
Returning to Plan for the Worst
It remains a major issue to consider if one is in the national security arena and ‘fighting’ the science on Global Warming. What degree of uncertainty is acceptable and still not be taking major “insurance” action against Global Warming risks and threats to the very existence of the United States of America? What degree of uncertainty is acceptable without tackling, with real urgency, at a minimum, a ‘no regrets win-win-win’ strategy?
The strenuous efforts that occur, all too often, by many within the national security committee to deny Global Warming and take it off the table as a real issue to tackle seem fundamental at odds with the core premise of “Plan for the Worst, hope for the Best …”
truly paid attention to this speech and the core of its meaning as it made its way through the Administration prior to the actual speech. After all, just days before the State of the Union, the Department of Interior made it be known that it planned to exile from a place of prominence one of the greatest examples of innovative clean energy approaches that is helping “to win the race to educate our kids”.