(Sorry to have been a while away from the blog, but last week was pretty busy and then we got away for some lovely skiing. Snow can be a wonderful thing. My sympathies, of course, do go out to those of you who are suffering at home, or in your travels, from the very heavy weather hitting the US at the moment.)
I’ve been meaning, in any event, to flag an item in the news from last week: the RAND Corporation declaring that the US military’s efforts to research, develop and roll out biofuels was a vain effort. Alternative Fuels Don’t Benefit the Military, a RAND Report Says was the eye-catching, head-swiveling headline at the NY Times. In reading the article I was surprised to hear Rand’s arguments against the wisdom of weaning the military from its dependence on oil: unproven, too expensive, not sufficiently scalable. Funny, because, for instance, Exxon is sinking a lot of money into algae, US DOE is putting a lot of chips into the pot on biomass for power and fuel, the aviation industry is devoting much time and energy to alternative fuels, and DOD itself is gung ho about renewables and alternative fuels. In writing about what the federal government is doing to take the bull by the horns on climate and energy, I made full note of DOD’s exciting initiatives.
The RAND folks in their report add some insult to injury in suggesting that a coal-to-liquids process would benefit the military more.
Well, I thought, I wonder what the military itself has to say about this? Thomas W. Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of energy for the Navy, is quoted in the NYT article: “Unfortunately, we were not engaged by the authors of this report.” That’s an oversight. If you didn’t think the US military was serious in this regard, check out their website: DOD Goes Green. In fact, one blogger calls Navy Secretary Ray Mabus a “green hawk.” (I love that. It reminds me of “rainbow warrior.”) Only a day or two before the RAND report, the White House blog had an item on Mabus and his efforts: Moving the Navy and Marine Corps Off Fossil Fuels. This is not happening at the lower echelons, folks. It’s happening as a result of a very strong push from the White House, the Pentagon and the services themselves. (See also the excellent Libby Rosenthal’s article on this from the Fall at the NYT, and an effort to report on the Army’s initiatives, Move Beyond Green.)
Further reaction to the report included the Navy’s Hicks saying at a clean energy conference, as reported here: “We have some serious reservations about the report.” And, “Based on active engagement with the alternative fuel and biofuels industry, we have come up with far different conclusions than are indicated in the RAND report.” The Advanced Biofuels Association had a stronger take: “Shame on the RAND Corporation …..The RAND study clearly embraces the failed energy policies of the past. The technologies and benefits of advanced biofuels are real.” Ouch.
It doesn’t look, though, as if one poorly researched study is going to slow down the juggernaut of alternative transportation fuels, energy efficiency and renewables for the US military anyway.
