http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/articles/2005-12/ta120305a.html

The Department of Defense has been very quick to adopt alternative energy sources.

Many of their diesel vehicles are now operating on used cooking oil, etc.

Instead of using the term (surprising) which hints of disdain, how about applauding the DoD and maybe some articles on their efforts?

"surprisingly" was used to convey surprise (what a novel use of the word!), not disdain.

When I think of the air force, the first thing that comes to mind is not renewables.

I'm fairly sure we have articles on some of the eco-efforts of the military.

A follow up to my post.

Here is a start of projects by the DoD.

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Air/Climate_Change/EE/pnsebook.html

You should not be surprised. The US military services do an outstanding job of stewardship and have some of the most forward looking large scale environmental programs in the world. You should check out the Army's program: http://aec.army.mil/usaec/
it is very good.

Too bad they won't stop using depleted uranium shells in Iraq, though.

I, personally, have not fired a DU round since 2004, but I have helped to build solid and human waste treatment facilities here (Iraq) since then. I'm not even an engineer, I'm just an Infantryman working to build a better tomorrow.

Also, we usually only use the DU rounds for shooting at armored things, like tanks or armored personnel carriers. Lately, we've only been shooting at soft things, like people, so we use either an HE (high explosive) or a multi-purpose round where you normally would see a DU round used. In other words, DU rounds are rare now.

I think that people convey "surprise" in the sense that the military's reputation is for blowing things up, which as a sort of last-resort way of addressing problems, evokes a certain irony when combined with talk of "environmental stewardship".

That said, here in the heart of peacenik northern california, I always make it a point to mention that almost all the beautiful open space we've got for recreation and peace in the Marin Headlands, as well as the Presidio in SF remains a protected place because the military prohibited development wanted to keep it that way. Also, Hunter Lovins is currently working with Fort Carson in Colorado to come up with a top notch plan for achieving environmental sustainability and zero waste by 2027. (See interview here).

So it's important not to dismiss the military - regardless of your political opinions of the current situation, the US military is indeed doing a great deal in many places to advance an agenda of sustainability, energy efficiency, and waste reduction.

Yes, it's cool that the military does these things, but lets not forget that they are financed with public money and that there is an opportunity cost.

With 3-4% (or whatever) of the US military budget over a few years (not even including the classified budgets of the NSA and parts of the pentagon) you could probably buy a whole third world country, buy everybody a nice house and food, and cover the place border to border with solar panels and wind-turbines.

What is being done with that tax money instead?

EPA and scientific research budgets are slashed and politicians are saying Kyoto would cost too much to implement. The US is pretty much the only rich industrialized country without universal healthcare, etc.

Yet the six potential "enemies" of the US, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, plus Russia and China, spent $139 billion on their military. That's less than 30% of the U.S. military budget...

Well - I for one am pretty darned surprised to hear that my country's Air Force buys more alt energy than anyone except the EPA and Whole Foods. Gives me hope.

yep, and their bombs are filled with wildflowers and moringa seedlings.

Most of these positives are "trailing indicators" unfortunately. Predictably, Congressional committees have already looked into to cutting DOD environmental program budgets. And, there have been strong moves to lessen remedial action cleanup standards on contaminated bases; from one quarter even comes a request to universally exempt bases from EPA cleanup standards. All this after decades of progress. I am assuming this comes "top down" from a political perspective rather than "bottom up" from folks on bases who want to do the right thing.

For a little bit of history... The military in fact extended their hand to civilian environmental organizations back in 1992 when they organized the Defense & the Environment Initiative in Washington. Sadly it was overshadowed in the press because it was held the week Desert Shield became Desert Storm! I ended up as a civilian liason for that event, contacting dozens of citizen's organizations, urging them to participate. Some, like Ralph Nader, dismissed me as shill and a stooge, which hurt, because they had been heroes of mine and only demonstrated a complete lack of vision! A few years earlier I'd help set up the Pentagon's first Solar Energy for Military Applications office after a letter of mine describing the idea had been published by Military Logistic Forum, and picked up by Solar Age magazine as an editorial. It was the first time 500 people, a pretty even mix of military top brass and environmental leaders schmoozed in the same conference room at the same time. The result was the Pentagon became an avid participant in EcoExpo, and quickly set up a very effective green procurement program. It was also around that time that a Congressional hearing was held and four generals stood up to say the environment had become a matter of national security. It's not the army that didn't already want a hybrid humvee back in 97, it's GM and the oil companies.

The US defense budget includes all of the environmental programs and studies that have been listed above, it also includes programs on Environmental Security (as Remy C noted). The EV Security programs address issues like helping developing nations to manage land, water, and other natural resources. So instead of buying one "3rd world" country, the US military is working on helping all of them to manage their resources so that they will not fight over them in the future. I don't think that China, Iran, and the others budgeted that into their programs.

I worked at EPA Headquarters as an intern summer 2003 and their recycling program was pathetic. Not to mention the disposable plates and forks, etc. in their cafeteria. What I'd really like to know is if they've made changes on THAT stuff.

Hey, I said it's cool the army does these things, after all, it's made of people and a certan % of people will be eco-conscious, but lets not kid ourselves either; they may spend 0.01% of their resources (random number to make a point) on such measures and 99.99% on weapons and fuel and invading third world countries.

More than half a trillion dollars a year for decades, was it managed by democratically elected leaders, would certainly produce much bigger results to the average Joe and nature than the way it is used now. But the current democratically elected leaders (ah! You need a billion dollars now to run a presidential race.. representative of the people, sure) walk hand in hand with defense contractors, so of course they pour taxpayer money in there like there's no tomorrow and make sure the general population lives in constant fear and believes it's the only choice. Money talks.

Speaking of hybrid vehicles. ...findings indicate that a hybrid consumes more energy overall than a comparable conventionally powered model.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/01/new-study-full-size-suvs-consume-less-energy-over-lifetime-than/

Unless we are more interested in symbolism over substance, we would do well to think about information like this.

Mike, you've been had.

That Autoblog post is an April's Fools. Look at the date.

Ha ha! Just when you start to think you're not an idiot. Thanks (hiding face in shame). I thought the info sounded pretty surprising. So much so, if fact, it was complete hogwash!