CNBC Business | Eco warriors

Eco warriors

Defying expectations, the military is trying to reduce its carbon bootprint, says Sarah Wachter

The ‘green hawks’ have taken to the wing and suddenly the world’s militaries are battling carbon not just terrorism, led paradoxically by the US. Coined by Thomas Friedman in his recent book Hot, Flat and Crowded, the term ‘outgreening al-Qaeda’ is not idealistic lentil and sandal stuff wearing a Berkeley ID tag but the difference between life and death. “Nothing – and I mean nothing – will make you a believer in distributed solar power faster than having responsibility for trucking fuel across Iraq,” says Friedman. 

Fuel convoys are probably the greatest regular source of deaths and injuries for the US military, experts say. Convoys are especially vulnerable in a world of asymmetrical threats, easy prey to a widely dispersed enemy.  

Convoys are exorbitantly expensive in part because of the jets and tanks needed to protect them, as they snake through the mountains of Afghanistan and barrel through the deserts of Iraq.  

“Moving energy from where you buy it to where you use it represents three challenges,” says Tom Morehouse, an analyst with the Institute for Defence Analysis, which works for the US Department of Defence (DoD). There is the problem of securing lines of  telecommunication, the need to protect the supply lines themselves – ‘the soft underbelly’ of the army and the increased energy demands when making vehicles heavier and more armed. He speaking at a conference last November in Paris of military experts on climate change; all the experts cited in this article attended the conference. 

“Unleash us from the tether of oil,” Lieutenant General James Mattis, a US four-star general in charge of transforming NATO, recently said.  

Growing concerns over energy security for military readiness extend to the electricity system as well. In the US, years  of under-investment in the country’s electricity network of transmission and distribution lines amid deregulation has created concerns among the top brass that US military installations are almost completely dependent on an old, creaky network that may not be reliable enough. Extreme weather events believed to be related to climate change may also  place the power grid in peril. Last July in the UK a flood shut down the Walham power station, which powers listening capability for British intelligence. A flood barrier was quickly erected.  

Also focusing the minds of the US military brass is the recently enacted US 2009 National Defence Authorisation Act, which requires the military to take into account “the fully burdened cost of fuel”. That means military planners, from inception to battlefield operations, are expected to make decisions taking fuel efficiency into account. 

This shift represents a sea change in thinking and will take a lot of retraining, Morehouse and other military analysts say. What is more, an energy czar for the DoD is expected to be named within the next year. To stimulate collaboration among agencies and branches of the military on energy efficiency and climate change, the US military started last summer to incorporate energy and climate change scenarios into war games. 

Not all of this is new. The US military started examining energy and climate change issues after the oil shocks in the 1970s. The militaries of other countries have also been measuring and reducing their carbon bootprints as well, usually to comply with government-wide directives to curb emissions and exhibit model green behaviour.  

Other countries haven’t even started the process however, such as Denmark and Lithuania. Canada has been collecting energy and emissions data since 1998. The UK defence department issued its first comprehensive climate change report this year. 

As with defence ministries in the UK, France and the Netherlands, Finland has earmarked its real estate holdings as the most efficient way of slashing energy use and emissions, primarily by scrapping old buildings and getting rid of storage facilities that are not fully used. The Finnish defence ministry is tasked with reducing greenhouse emissions by 150% more than the private sector. The French defence ministry has earmarked four military sites where it is to exhibit exemplary green behaviour, and is experimenting with a  building that produces more energy than  it consumes. 

Many defence ministries are also turning to cleaner energy production to reduce emissions, and many have an array of pilot projects in place. The US military has installed a 140-acre spread of solar panels, some which sit atop a former landfill at Nellis Air Force base in Texas.  

At the front lines, there are several  measures military operations can take to cut energy consumption and emissions, the most obvious being to address soldier behaviour and wasteful practices. Many countries, including Germany, now train soldiers located near the battlefield to turn off computers and lights, behaviours said to waste 30% of the total energy consumed at an installation. 

A much bigger correction involves nothing more than spraying tents in the deserts of Iraq and in other hot climates with a polyurethane foam, which cuts electricity usage for heating and air conditioning as much as 70%. Installing micro-grids on forward operating bases conserves oil used to power generators, according to Nobilis, a consultancy that advises public sector agencies on measuring their carbon footprint.  

One of the most difficult challenges is to reduce the amount of jet and marine fuel consumed, experts agree. Militaries worldwide tend to use planes, ships, and helicopters for a long time – up to 60 years – before mothballing them. For new equipment still in the pipeline, energy efficiency has become a paramount consideration. France’s military procurement agency is now required to study all the ecological aspects of each new piece of military equipment in the concept stage.  To increase fuel efficiency on the ground, the US is currently testing a hybrid electric Hummer truck. 

In the skies, things are changing, too. Aircraft engines, the ‘energy hogs of the US air force,’ are being rethought. Among the projects the US is experimenting with are high-thrust engines that have a lean-burn mode, which can also extend mission time between refuellings. 

There is no doubt the war on terror is taking a new turn. Energy security has become paramount. Energy security has also become part of the strategy of outmanoeuvring the enemy.

The heavy burden of fuel

US military :

Spent $13.2 billion (€10.4bn) on energy during fiscal year 2007, with jet fuel, marine fuel and gasoline costing the most 
Fuel convoys are the greatest source of injuries and deaths  
For every 1% in fuel savings, 6,444 fewer soldier trips are needed 
75% of the energy the Department of Defence uses is for tanks, planes and ships 
25% is used for installations (mostly electricity) 
70% of the tonnage shipped to US forward forces is fuel 
Refueling in-flight costs $42/gallon; on the ground, $15/gallon 
80% of the tonnage taken off the battlefield is fuel or water 

Non-US militaries around the world 

The UK military produces 1% of the country’s emissions 
The Netherlands military emits 1% of the country’s greenhouse gases 
The Canadian military has the largest building inventory in the federal government: 9,800 buildings 
The Indian army is the country’s largest landholder 
The Indian army plants one million trees each year in its cantonment areas 
The Australian defence authority is the largest energy-consuming part of the government 
80% of military buildings in France were built before the 1976 oil shock that led to much more energy-efficient construction 

Sources: Military experts speaking at the Paris conference The Importance of Military Organizations in Protecting the Climate, 3-5 November 2008