Lean Green Fighting Machines

Defending Our Environment, Defending Our Country

By Thomas Armstrong

1 | Page

CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
MY POSITION ON A GREENER MILITARY

HISTORY OF FOSSIL FUEL USAGE

CAUSES OF OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE MILITARY

CONSEQUENCES OF OIL DEPENDENCY

6-7

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

8-9

OPPOSING POSITIONS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

10-11

DATACOLLECTION

12-14

WORKS CITED

15-18

2 | Page

MY POSITION ON A GREENER MILITARY

My position is that the military should start using biofuels more as it is a cleaner, safer
and efficient method as it means less spending on oil and guarding routes which in turn leads to
the American lives being saved and more research can be conducted to help save American lives
and train soldiers. I believe that with biofuels the military will be able to become more advanced
and environmentally friendly which makes the military an efficient force. In addition, by the use
of advanced biofuels, i.e. those not ethanol based, it does not necessarily interfere with food
production by using ethanol which is corn based.
Furthermore, our carbon footprint would be drastically reduced. If for example the oil
used by the US Military was burnt as jet fuel, this accounts for about 38,700,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide! (Savage, 2015)
Finally, most of our oil comes from overseas as the oil consumed by the US Military is
far greater than the domestic oil production. This makes up dependent on other countries in
terms of our security, our economy and also our military

3 | Page

HISTORY OF FOSSIL FUEL USAGE

Fossil fuels have been used to power military vehicles since it was discovered they could
run vehicles cleaner and more powerful than wood could at the time. They were used in trains,
steamboats and as more fossil fuels were found and harnessed to create energy and technology
has advanced more and more military vehicles have relied on fossil fuels to get the best results
on the battlefield to do the job and protect our troops. However, because of the rate fossils fuels
are used, the military would need to invest a lot of money to get the fuel they require to run their
vehicles and equipment, which could be used towards protecting troops or researching new
technology. It also means protection of transporting these fuels would need to increase as they
would be on high demand and a very big target for anyone wanting to steal or destroy the fuel
transport so more money would have to be invested to protect these fuels which means more
lives are at risk.
The government, companies and the military have started to make efforts to limit the
usage of fossil fuels by developing more advanced biofuel/hybrid equipment and vehicles suited
towards becoming more fuel efficient like the Fuel Efficient Demonstrator or FED for short, a
Humvee. (Sheftik, 2011) The Navy has started using technology that uses algae as a fuel.
Additionally, even a green bullet has been invented which replaces the lead alloy cores with
copper cores instead, which is more environmentally friendly.

4 | Page

CAUSES OF OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE MILITARY

Causes of this fuel problem is society's dependency on fossil fuels. The United States gets
84% of its energy from fossil fuels (USDE, 2004). The military uses a lot of fossils fuels for their
equipment currently the biggest consumer is the air force. With our military using these fuels at
this rate and consumption may call for a rationing of these fuels and then how will the military
be able to get around if their fuel is being rationed? The military has always looked to energy
savings e.g. when it converted ships from coal to oil 150 years ago, but often the military is
criticized for using funds to find alternative energy sources and can be blocked by legislation. In
2012, republican senators tried to block spending by the military on biofuels but in 2013 this
amendment to stop $60 million in biofuel spending was overturned. (Voegele, 2013)
This dependency is one that will cost the United States a lot of money and in the military
it is costing them $17.3 billion. (Defense, 2015) This is expensive and fossil fuels will not last
forever and once they are gone that's it for them and the world will have to find new methods of
meeting their energy needs. This was caused by high demand in technology especially with
vehicles in the military. They needed to be faster tougher and deadlier and more efficient in the
field which means bigger engines which means more oil to move the military vehicles because of
how heavy some had become to become stronger. Aircraft need a lot of fuel to keep themselves
elevated and efficient in battle so they can be ready to strike when needed.

5 | Page

CONSEQUENCES OF OIL DEPENDENCY

As we know nonrenewable fuels are being depleted to the point where we will have to
stockpile fuel and distribute as necessary which means products that need fuel in the military's
case their vehicles and aircrafts, what will they use to power these vehicles that are essential to
their operations and protection of our soldiers if fuels are depleting then what would the military
do without these fuels? How will soldiers get to the places they need too? How will soldiers be
extracted from hot zones or how will civilians be extracted or even high ranking authorities with
protection? How safe would our troops be? These are just a few of many questions that could be
asked in this situation. Even now there are consequences of nonrenewable fuels being used in the
military, even though it is efficient for the military it is not environmentally friendly and large
amounts are used to power these large vehicles that require a lot of fuel.
In the next 5 years US fuel supplies will be depleting no matter what, but it will be a
bigger issue in the future where these fuels are going to eventually run out as the worlds sources
are depleted and the world will need to turn to another fuel that is renewable and efficient. In
addition, Iraq will be the biggest source of oil in the future, which puts us at a disadvantage
based on our relationship with Iraq. Another consequence that can increase over time is the
spending on these fuels oil alone costs the military $17.3 billion dollars with fuel costs rising by
$10 million with every barrel of oil price increase of 25c. (Cunningham, 2013) This is money
that the military could spending on cleaner technology to make their vehicles better and use it to
protect our troops while on the battlefield. With oil reserves decreasing, prices will only go up.
Another consequence is the military spends $83 billion additionally on protection of oil
routes because of how dangerous these routes could be (Adams, 2012). This also puts Americans

6 | Page

lives at risk and this is more money put into the oil dependency of our country that could be
spent training, researching and protecting our soldiers.

7 | Page

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
The Military is already researching and putting into action, new technologies despite
budget cuts and government not always supporting these technologies. As one the largest single
fuel consumers in the world, the Department of Defense can become the leader in biofuel usage.
A strong argument has always been the cost of biofuels which still exceeds the cost of oil but, as
with all markets, the larger the market, the more prices are driven down as it is the consumer
driving the prices as well as the supplier, not just the supplier demanding whatever price they
feel like.
The military is on-board with this overall, but it of course needs backing and funding
from all of the government departments, who in turn could be accused of being influenced by
conventional fossil fuel supplying companies. With budget cuts being forced on the military,
there is greater need for biofuels, so they are not at the mercy of oil price fluctuations.
The US Navy has set a goal of using biofuels to supply about half of the nonnuclear fuel
requirements by 2020, which is about 8 million barrels per year. The USS Makin, a hybridelectric propulsion assault ship, saved nearly one million gallons of fuel in its first year of service
(UCS, 2015). The Army has developed a hybrid-electric ULV (Ultra-Light Vehicle) which
performs the same as a regular Humvee, but with 90% better fuel efficiency and it runs silently, a
huge strategic advantage in the war zone (UCS, 2015) .
The US Air Force has stated that all aircraft are to now be on a 50:50 fuel blend and in
addition, up to 50% of its AV-Gas must be obtained from biofuel sources (Cunningham, 2013).
In addition, it creates jobs at home as well as supporting our farming and related
industries by using biofuels, which only make our economy stronger, as by committing to using
8 | Page

these fuels, it provides long term partnerships with other domestic industries and businesses. The
Department of Defense has budgeted to invest over $170 million to support advanced biofuels
and both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy have agreed to match that
amount, which is good news and hopefully will be continued under future governments
(Cunningham, 2013).

9 | Page

OPPOSING POSITIONS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

There are of course people who oppose biofuels both in general and in the use by the US
military. A big opposition to ethanol based biofuels is that by using the corn feedstock, we risk
our farming industry and their ability to feed their livestock. This is because the military would
require vast amounts of ethanol based biofuel in addition to the domestic market for it by car
users for example. This is false as the military would need what are known as advanced
biofuels to be used in their equipment, whether a fighter jet, a naval ship or an Army Humvee.
They require more superior type biofuels that are developed from woody biomass or waste
animal fats or even algae. Early results from studies done by the US Air Force show that aircraft
using these fuels burning a lot cleaner and cooler (Holland, 2012). This means aircraft would
potentially last a lot longer, saving billions of dollars in replacing conventional engines etc.
Another argument is that the R&D associated with biofuels would cost the Department of
Defense millions of dollars and therefore in turn cost the tax payers more, as they would have to
fund it. In fact, a lot of the technology is there and mass production would reduce costs as
competition would be high between companies to produce the military equipment needed,
driving down costs.
Biofuels are seen though as costing more than oil and so it is worth the fluctuating oil
barrel prices as for the most part they will always be lower than advanced biofuels. However, it
is the indirect costs of using oil that must be considered. For example, the military costs of
protecting strategic shipping lanes that carry the oil from foreign countries to us. Many of these
are in unstable regions of the world, where our relations can be strained at times. A recent report
by RAND shows that 12-15% of the DoD budget is spent protecting the Persian Gulf supplies
lanes, around $100 billion (Adams, 2012)! In addition are the lives that can be lost providing
10 | P a g e

this protection, of which they are priceless. Higher biofuel costs therefore are hugely offset
when looking at the indirect and direct costs of oil consumption.

11 | P a g e

DATA COLLECTION
Approximate oil usage and cost by the US Military showing its overall increase in use.

Below is a forecast of where oil supplies in the next twenty years will come from. These mainly from countries
that we have a tenuous relationship with or where we would still need to protect oil flow shipping lanes.

(Hoeven, 2012)

12 | P a g e

A map showing the US military presence over the world, with a large presence in the Middle East, meaning a
huge carbon footprint

(Fabros, 2008)
An in-depth look at the US military presence in the Persian Gulf protecting shipping lanes (Hedge, 2015)

13 | P a g e

Ultra-Light Vehicle (Army, 2014)

USS Makin Island (Lane, 2014)

(Lane, 2014)

Using biofuel made with Camelina (a flower) (Biofuel, 2011)

14 | P a g e

WORKS CITED
Adams, John. "Support Biofuels Now Or Pay The Price Later." American Security Project. ASP,
11 July 2012. Web. 11 May 2016. <http://www.americansecurityproject.org/supportbiofuels-now-or-pay-the-price-later/>.
Castellaw, John. "Investing in Biofuels: Strengthening our Militarys Energy Security."
American Security Project. ASP, 2 July 2012. Web. 11 May 2016.
<http://www.americansecurityproject.org/special-guest-ltgen-john-castellaw-usmc-retinvesting-in-biofuels-strengthening-our-militarys-energy-security/>.
Fabros, Cora. "US Military Bases Overseas." Bases of Empires. N.p., 2008. Web. 12 May 2016.
<http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr37-1721.html>.
Formiche. "Il Pentagono finanzia la ricerca sui biocarburanti." FOrmiche. Formiche, 28 May
2013. Web. 8 May 2016.
<http://formiche.net/thumb/580x950/2013/05/10051/a/zc1/q100/Military-BiofuelProduction_0.jpg>.
Holland, Andrew. "Fueling the Future? Militarys Biofuels Program at Risk." American Security
Project. ASP, 13 June 2012. Web. 15 May 2016.
<http://www.americansecurityproject.org/fueling-the-future-militarys-biofuels-programat-risk/>.
Holland, Andrew, and Nick Cunningham. "DOD's Biofuel program." American Security Project.
ASP, Jan. 2013. Web. 10 May 2016. <http://www.americansecurityproject.org/dodsbiofuels-program/>.
Karbuz, Sohbet. "The US Department of Defense Oil Cost by Service, and Oil Prices." Daily
Energy Report. N.p., 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 May 2016.

15 | P a g e

<http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/how-much-energy-does-the-u-s-military-consumean-update/>.
Karl. "Air Force Thunderbirds to perform using Camelina blend biofuel - See more at:
http://www.makebiofuel.co.uk/air-force-thunderbirds-to-perform-using-camelina-blendbiofuel/#sthash.fL8lCJU8.dpuf." Make Biofuel. Make Biofuel, 22 May 2011. Web. 13
May 2016. <http://www.makebiofuel.co.uk/air-force-thunderbirds-to-perform-usingcamelina-blend-biofuel/>.
Kerrick, Don. "Time to stop the stranglehold of oil on our national security." American Security
Project. ASP, 9 July 2012. Web. 11 May 2016.
<http://www.americansecurityproject.org/guest-post-lt-gen-don-kerrick-usa-ret-time-tostop-the-stranglehold-of-oil-on-our-national-security/>.
Lane, Jim. "Inside the US Navys new cost-competitive military biofuels program." Biofuels
Digest. Biofuels Digest, 21 Sept. 2014. Web. 10 May 2016.
<http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/09/21/inside-the-us-navys-new-costcompetitive-military-biofuels-program/>.
- - -. "Special Report on Military Biofuels." Biofuels Digest. Biofuels Digest, 30 May 2013. Web.
10 May 2016. <http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/05/30/special-report-onmilitary-biofuels/>.
Lydersen, Kari, ed. "In race to develop aviation biofuels, Midwest wants to win." Midwest
Energy News. RE-AMP, 27 Nov. 2012. Web. 15 May 2016.
<http://midwestenergynews.com/2012/11/27/in-race-to-develop-aviation-biofuelsmidwest-wants-to-win/>.

16 | P a g e

"Military Branches." Hawaii Life. Hawaii Life Real Estate Brokers, 21 May 2013. Web. 10 May
2016. <http://www.hawaiilife.com/articles/2013/05/memorial-day-military-trivia/>.
Savage, Lisa. "Elephant in The Room: The Pentagons Massive Carbon Footprint." Counter
Punch. CP, 23 July 2015. Web. 14 May 2016.
<http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/23/72279/>.
Sheftik, Gary. "Demo Humvee FED." US Army. army.mil, n.d. Web. 9 May 2016.
<https://www.army.mil/article/67467/>.
UCS. "US Military Oil and Fuel." Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS, 2015. Web. 11 May
2016. <http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/us-militaryoil-use.html#.VzjJqJErKhe>.
United States. Department of Defense. National Defense Budgets for FY2016. Washington: GPO,
2015. Print.
- - -. US Dept. of Energy. Petroleum and other liquids. Washington: EIA, 2016. US Energy
Information Administration. Web. 10 May 2016.
<https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=a>.
US Army. "ultra-Light Vehicle." Army. US Army, 2 July 2014. Web. 15 May 2016.
<https://www.army.mil/article/129285/Ultra_Light_VehicleResearch_Prototype/>.
Van der Hoeven, Maria. "Iraq is the largest supplier of oil." LinkedIn. LinkedIn, 29 Feb. 2012.
Web. 15 May 2016. <http://www.slideshare.net/internationalenergyagency/mexicoseminar>.
Voegele, Erin. "Senate votes to maintain military biofuel spending." Biomass Magazine. N.p., 20
Mar. 2013. Web. 12 May 2016. <http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/8750/senate-votesto-maintain-military-biofuel-spending>.

17 | P a g e

Zero Hedge. "Straits of Hormuz." Blacklisted News. N.p., 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 8 May 2016.
<http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/04/hormuz
%201.jpg>.

18 | P a g e