Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on November 2, 2011

Bookmark and Share

Military thinktank urges US to cut oil use

Military thinktank urges US to cut oil use thumbnail

An influential military thinktank is urging America to cut its oil use by 30% over the next decade, as a national security imperative.

 

In its report, the Military Advisory Board said the US should aim to drastically reduce its energy imports over the next decade – or else risk exposing the economy to devastating oil price shocks.

 

“This is a national security threat that grows ever year, and we as a nation need to recognise is at such,” said vice admiral Dennis McGinn, a former deputy chief of naval operations, and one of the authors of the report.

 

“This isn’t just about the volatility of gas prices at the pump. This isn’t just about big oils vs the environment. This is a national security problem, manifesting itself economically, diplomatically and militarily, and it is not just going to go away.”

 

The report, entitled Ensuring America’s Freedom of Movement: a National Security Imperative to Reduce America’s Oil Dependence, describes America’s reliance on imported oil as the “Achilles heel of our national security”.

 

It deploys strong language to describe the consequences of this dependence. “Our reliance on this single commodity makes us vulnerable … We are held hostage to price fixing by a cartel that includes actors who would do our nation harm, and we are too often called upon to risk the lives of our sons and daughters to protect fragile oil supplies form this very cartel,” the report says.

 

It goes on to envisage a scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that is the entrance to the Persian Gulf, is subject to a shutdown for up to 60 days, detailing the impact on US prices and jobs.

 

“The thing that bothers us is that there are some circumstances in the world that could literally cause this cascading economic duress that would make the recession of 2008 and 2009 look like the good old days,” McGinn said.

 

The report, which will be formally unveiled on Wednesday at two briefings for members of Congress, is the fourth from the Military Advisory Board.

 

The group of recently retired three and four-star generals was first convened in 2006 by the Institute for Public Research and the Centre for Naval Analyses to help guide the Pentagon’s response to climate change.

 

Now, with all the branches of the military embarked on ambitious projects to reduce their own energy use, the thinktank is trying to exert some influence on civilian habits.

 

It puts forward nine different alternatives to conventional oil and gas – from algae-based biofuels to compressed natural gas, plug-in cars and propane. Most of those technologies are already available or will be within five years, the report says.

 

The most promising in the short-term are methanol, biofuel ethanol, electric vehicles and natural gas. But the report is cautious about the use of the most widely available biofuel in the US, corn ethanol, because of its effects on global food supply.

 

The report also offers policy guidelines for achieving the 30% reduction such as more rigorous fuel economy standards in passenger cars. Commercial trucking businesses could explore using compressed natural gas, it says. The government could expand the use of plug-in cars and biofuels on its fleets, it adds.

 

It dismisses the argument – put forward by Republicans and industry – that America can insulate itself by sourcing its oil from friendly sources such as Canada and Mexico or by increasing domestic drilling.

 

A disruption in oil supplies anywhere in the world will drive up the price of oil, it said. “We really can’t differentiate in a realistic way between oil from Venezuela or Iran or Canada,” said McGinn.

 

Since the board’s first report, the Pentagon has embarked on an ambitious project to reduce its own use of energy. The US navy is working to get half of its energy from nuclear and renewable fuels by 2020. The army wants to get 25% of its energy from renewables by 2025. The air force has been conducting test flights of its aircraft on a mix of conventional and biofuels, and the marine corps has been testing small solar power facilities in the combat zones of Afghanistan.

 

 

“I don’t really see myself as a treehugger in any way. I look at it as an issue of national security,” Howard Snow, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy who was not involved in the report, told a recent seminar.

 

The federal government has also been working to increase its use of renewable fuels – although with much more modest targets – since George Bush was president.

 

But the move away from conventional fuels is a harder sell among civilians, particularly in the current political climate, McGinn acknowledged. Still, he said he was hopeful that the recommendations would gain some traction. “We are going to do something about this as a nation. There is no other way,” he said. “It’s just a question of whether we do it proactively or find ourselves somewhere down the road facing disruptions because of a closure of petroleum supplies. It’s just a question of how much pain do we need to go through as nation before we really get it and fix this in a long-term way.”

Guardian UK



6 Comments on "Military thinktank urges US to cut oil use"

  1. Kenz300 on Wed, 2nd Nov 2011 4:35 pm 

    Quote — ” It puts forward nine different alternatives to conventional oil and gas – from algae-based biofuels to compressed natural gas, plug-in cars and propane. Most of those technologies are already available or will be within five years, the report says.
    It’s just a question of whether we do it proactively or find ourselves somewhere down the road facing disruptions because of a closure of petroleum supplies. It’s just a question of how much pain do we need to go through as nation before we really get it and fix this in a long-term way.”
    ————————–
    1. We need to collectively recognize the problem.
    2. We need to develop a plan of action to deal with it.
    Will we wait for the pain before we begin the transition in ernest?

  2. James on Wed, 2nd Nov 2011 11:00 pm 

    FINALLY!! Now Obama and the U.S. also have to realize that alternative fuels will not allow the U.S. to remain the “policeman of the World”. The U.S. may be able to produce enough alternative energy sources for peacetime use, but forget wartime use. There is no way the U.S. could produce that kind of energy on a sustained level to fight a war and not hurt the citizenry.

  3. Bob Owens on Wed, 2nd Nov 2011 11:05 pm 

    It’s sad that the one institution in the US that is making sense is our military. Their recommendations are not ideal but they have correctly identified the problems. Maybe we will wake up and start taking action?

  4. MrEnergyCzar on Thu, 3rd Nov 2011 3:33 am 

    Americans were raised to consume more to be happy. The military is asking to change this backwards formula. That’s like asking a 50 year drug addict to use less….

    MrEnergyCzar

  5. fiedag on Thu, 3rd Nov 2011 5:00 am 

    One way to radically reduce oil consumption is to cut funding to the miliary. Thanks thinktank!

  6. DC on Thu, 3rd Nov 2011 9:25 am 

    As usual, the amerikans love to point fingers and blame everyone but themselves, or more accurately, the US fossil-fuel mega-corporations that actually control the govt and set policy. No, the real culprits are those dirty arabs, or venuzualans or whoever the mass-media there is villifying that particular week. Everyone you see, is out to do amerika harm, but amerika inc. is essentially blameless.

    You see, according to these war-mongering idiots, its all the dirty foreigners that keep supplying amerika with the dirty oil it demands, that are the culprits here. Not exxon-mobil, nor wall-mart, or the road construction-suburbia complex. As for the idea that a 30% reduction in oil use is somehow required or amerika will suffer is hilarious on so many levels. If a 30% drop in oil use were to actually occur, amerika would collpse, and not in nice controlled manner either. If they dont cut 30% and keep paying ever higher prices, the economy craters anyhow as ever larger numbers of people get squeezed out of the game. What I really suspect, is these guys probaby know is that 30% drop is comeing sooner or later and amerika has little choice in the matter, and they also realize nothing is or will be done about it until its far too late. Running the US air-farce on hemp oil wont be option either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *