http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/tomdispatch/2007/06/klare_pentag
on_peak_oil.html?src=email&hed_20070615_ts1_thepentagonsoilsuckingways
The Pentagon v. Peak Oil
Commentary: The wars of the future may be fought just to run the
machines that fight them.
By Michael Klare
June 14, 2007
Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier
in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly,
through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or
indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by
162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the
surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the
Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of
oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle
East war zone.
Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the
estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in
Southwest Asia. That's greater than the total annual oil usage of
Bangladesh, population 150 million -- and yet it's a gross
underestimate of the Pentagon's wartime consumption.
Such numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary gas-guzzling
expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for every
soldier stationed "in theater," there are two more in transit, in
training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the war
zone -- soldiers who also consume enormous amounts of oil, even if
less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to sustain an
"expeditionary" army located halfway around the world, the Department
of Defense must move millions of tons of arms, ammunition, food,
fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional
tanker-loads of petroleum. Add this to the tally and the Pentagon's
war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how much we
have no real way of knowing.
And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the
Pentagon's total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world's
largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored
vehicles, and support systems -- virtually all powered by oil -- the
Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer
of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the
DoD's daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense
contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon
might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every
day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or
Switzerland.
Not "Guns v. Butter," but "Guns v. Oil"
For anyone who drives a motor vehicle these days, this has ominous
implications. With the price of gasoline now 75 cents to a dollar
more than it was just six months ago, it's obvious that the Pentagon
is facing a potentially serious budgetary crunch. Just like any
ordinary American family, the DoD has to make some hard choices: It
can use its normal amount of petroleum and pay more at the Pentagon's
equivalent of the pump, while cutting back on other basic expenses;
or it can cut back on its gas use in order to protect favored weapons
systems under development. Of course, the DoD has a third option: It
can go before Congress and plead for yet another supplemental budget
hike, but this is sure to provoke renewed calls for a timetable for
an American troop withdrawal from Iraq, and so is an unlikely
prospect at this time.
Nor is this destined to prove a temporary issue. As recently as two
years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) was confidently
predicting that the price of crude oil would hover in the $30 per
barrel range for another quarter century or so, leading to gasoline
prices of about $2 per gallon. But then came Hurricane Katrina, the
crisis in Iran, the insurgency in southern Nigeria, and a host of
other problems that tightened the oil market, prompting the DoE to
raise its long-range price projection into the $50 per barrel range.
This is the amount that figures in many current governmental
budgetary forecasts -- including, presumably, those of the Department
of Defense. But just how realistic is this? The price of a barrel of
crude oil today is hovering in the $66 range. Many energy analysts
now say that a price range of $70-$80 per barrel (or possibly even
significantly more) is far more likely to be our fate for the
foreseeable future.
A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of
gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, home-heating oil, and
petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms,
businesses, and local governments. Sooner or later, it will force
people to make profound changes in their daily lives -- as benign as
purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as painful as
cutting back on home heating or health care simply to make an
unavoidable drive to work. It will have an equally severe affect on
the Pentagon budget. As the world's number one consumer of petroleum
products, the DoD will obviously be disproportionately affected by a
doubling in the price of crude oil. If it can't turn to Congress for
redress, it will have to reduce its profligate consumption of oil
and/or cut back on other expenses, including weapons purchases.
The rising price of oil is producing what Pentagon contractor LMI
calls a "fiscal disconnect" between the military's long-range
objectives and the realities of the energy marketplace. "The need to
recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment [from the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan] and to develop high-technology systems to implement
future operational concepts is growing," it explained in an April
2007 report. However, an inability "to control increased energy costs
from fuel and supporting infrastructure diverts resources that would
otherwise be available to procure new capabilities."
And this is likely to be the least of the Pentagon's worries. The
Department of Defense is, after all, the world's richest military
organization, and so can be expected to tap into hidden accounts of
one sort or another in order to pay its oil bills and finance its
many pet weapons projects. However, this assumes that sufficient
petroleum will be available on world markets to meet the Pentagon's
ever-growing needs -- by no means a foregone conclusion. Like every
other large consumer, the DoD must now confront the looming -- but
hard to assess -- reality of "Peak Oil"; the very real possibility
that global oil production is at or near its maximum sustainable
("peak") output and will soon commence an irreversible decline.
That global oil output will eventually reach a peak and then decline
is no longer a matter of debate; all major energy organizations have
now embraced this view. What remains open for argument is precisely
when this moment will arrive. Some experts place it comfortably in
the future -- meaning two or three decades down the pike -- while
others put it in this very decade. If there is a consensus emerging,
it is that peak-oil output will occur somewhere around 2015. Whatever
the timing of this momentous event, it is apparent that the world
faces a profound shift in the global availability of energy, as we
move from a situation of relative abundance to one of relative
scarcity. It should be noted, moreover, that this shift will apply,
above all, to the form of energy most in demand by the Pentagon: the
petroleum liquids used to power planes, ships, and armored vehicles.
The Bush Doctrine Faces Peak Oil
Peak oil is not one of the global threats the Department of Defense
has ever had to face before; and, like other U.S. government
agencies, it tended to avoid the issue, viewing it until recently as
a peripheral matter. As intimations of peak oil's imminent arrival
increased, however, it has been forced to sit up and take notice.
Spurred perhaps by rising fuel prices, or by the growing attention
being devoted to "energy security" by academic strategists, the DoD
has suddenly taken an interest in the problem. To guide its
exploration of the issue, the Office of Force Transformation within
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy commissioned
LMI to conduct a study on the implications of future energy scarcity
for Pentagon strategic planning.
The resulting study, "Transforming the Way the DoD Looks at Energy,"
was a bombshell. Determining that the Pentagon's favored strategy of
global military engagement is incompatible with a world of declining
oil output, LMI concluded that "current planning presents a situation
in which the aggregate operational capability of the force may be
unsustainable in the long term."
LMI arrived at this conclusion from a careful analysis of current
U.S. military doctrine. At the heart of the national military
strategy imposed by the Bush administration -- the Bush Doctrine --
are two core principles: transformation, or the conversion of
America's stodgy, tank-heavy Cold War military apparatus into an
agile, continent-hopping high-tech, futuristic war machine; and
pre-emption, or the initiation of hostilities against "rogue states"
like Iraq and Iran, thought to be pursuing weapons of mass
destruction. What both principles entail is a substantial increase in
the Pentagon's consumption of petroleum products -- either because
such plans rely, to an increased extent, on air and sea-power or
because they imply an accelerated tempo of military operations.
As summarized by LMI, implementation of the Bush Doctrine requires
that "our forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and
expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and
prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world"; at the same
time, they "must transition from a reactive to a proactive force
posture to deter enemy forces from organizing for and conducting
potentially catastrophic attacks." It follows that, "to carry out
these activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy
intense.... Considering the trend in operational fuel consumption and
future capability needs, this 'new' force employment construct will
likely demand more energy/fuel in the deployed setting."
The resulting increase in petroleum consumption is likely to prove
dramatic. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the average American
soldier consumed only four gallons of oil per day; as a result of
George W. Bush's initiatives, a U.S. soldier in Iraq is now using
four times as much. If this rate of increase continues unabated, the
next major war could entail an expenditure of 64 gallons per soldier
per day.
It was the unassailable logic of this situation that led LMI to
conclude that there is a severe "operational disconnect" between the
Bush administration's principles for future war-fighting and the
global energy situation. The administration has, the company notes,
"tethered operational capability to high-technology solutions that
require continued growth in energy sources" -- and done so at the
worst possible moment historically. After all, the likelihood is that
the global energy supply is about to begin diminishing rather than
expanding. Clearly, writes LMI in its April 2007 report, "it may not
be possible to execute operational concepts and capabilities to
achieve our security strategy if the energy implications are not
considered." And when those energy implications are considered, the
strategy appears "unsustainable."
The Pentagon as a Global Oil-Protection Service
How will the military respond to this unexpected challenge? One
approach, favored by some within the DoD, is to go "green" -- that
is, to emphasize the accelerated development and acquisition of
fuel-efficient weapons systems so that the Pentagon can retain its
commitment to the Bush Doctrine, but consume less oil while doing so.
This approach, if feasible, would have the obvious attraction of
allowing the Pentagon to assume an environmentally-friendly facade
while maintaining and developing its existing, interventionist force
structure.
But there is also a more sinister approach that may be far more
highly favored by senior officials: To ensure itself a "reliable"
source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts
to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oil
fields and refineries in the Persian Gulf region, especially in Iraq,
Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This would
help explain the recent talk of U.S. plans to retain "enduring" bases
in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing
infrastructure in these other countries.
The U.S. military first began procuring petroleum products from
Persian Gulf suppliers to sustain combat operations in the Middle
East and Asia during World War II, and has been doing so ever since.
It was, in part, to protect this vital source of petroleum for
military purposes that, in 1945, President Roosevelt first proposed
the deployment of an American military presence in the Persian Gulf
region. Later, the protection of Persian Gulf oil became more
important for the economic well-being of the United States, as
articulated in President Jimmy Carter's "Carter Doctrine" speech of
January 23, 1980 as well as in President George H. W. Bush's August
1990 decision to stop Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, which led
to the first Gulf War -- and, many would argue, the decision of the
younger Bush to invade Iraq over a decade later.
Along the way, the American military has been transformed into a
"global oil-protection service" for the benefit of U.S. corporations
and consumers, fighting overseas battles and establishing its bases
to ensure that we get our daily fuel fix. It would be both sad and
ironic, if the military now began fighting wars mainly so that it
could be guaranteed the fuel to run its own planes, ships, and tanks
-- consuming hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could
instead be spent on the development of petroleum alternatives.
Michael T. Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at
Hampshire College, is the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and
Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum
(Owl Books).
>I wonder if you could look at the carbon output and extrapolate backwards
>to get a rough idea what the cost is.
>
>Interesting side note: I was at the bus stop in my neighborhood, which is
>for lack of a better word, one of the more exclusive suburbs in the
>country, mosty due to its proximity to DC. Many people are tearing down
>their small houses and building huge ones, or substantially remodeling
>what they have. I fell into conversation with one neighbor doing the
>latter. As the conversation started on the subject of the cost of gas and
>energy in general, I asked if they'd thought about solar for power, heat
>and hot water, a multi-fuel furnace - such as a Tarm and extra insulation,
>etc. They'd thought about it, but realized that the $50,000 or so for the
>above was about the cost of granite counters and Sub Zero appliances in
>the kitchen, and after all, this was their dream house - wasn't it?
>
>"High efficiency" gas heating and cooling along with better windows are as
>far as most people here will go.
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg18995.html
> > [biofuel] The Railroading of Amtrak
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg12055.html
> > [biofuel] Subsidizing Trains, Planes And Automobiles
> >
> > (The whole discussion thread is linked at the end of the page.)
> >
> > Trains are a great way to travel, even better than ships. And the
> > best way to commute.
> >
> >>Like Keith stated so succinctly in a prior post,
> >>the USA isn't addicted to oil, it is addicted to
> >>waste.
> >
> > I didn't check it and I didn't download it either, but somebody was
> > saying that people bandied the figure around a lot these days that
> > the US had 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of the energy,
> > but he'd seen data years ago that the US used 45% of the world's
> > energy and he didn't think it had shrunk.
> >
> > I got to wondering what the figure might be if you included the full
> > energy costs of the war in Iraq, for instance, or the full energy
> > costs of the Empire's global military establishment, as someone like
> > Chalmers Johnson might put it, along with all the support stuff that
> > goes with it. For starters. What's the global energy bill of the US?
> > (Or am I looking at it all wrong?)
> >
> > I don't suppose we'd ever find out. I'm not very surprised when
> > energy data turns out to be mostly smoke and mirrors. That's been the
> > case with oil reserves for a long time, especially with what Matt
> > Simmons has had to say about it more recently. Nobody really knows,
> > but that doesn't stop them lying about it.
> >
> > Whatever, a lot of list members have talked about the waste of energy
> > in the US. Hakan, for instance, who'd know, said the US was IIRC
> > about 30 years behind Sweden with energy efficient buildings. The
> > section on world energy use at our website (which might be where the
> > 25% came from) says "The average American uses twice as much energy
> > as the average European or Japanese and 155 times as much as the
> > average Nepalese. In terms of production, Americans produce more per
> > head than Europeans and about the same as Japanese, but they use
> > twice as much energy as the Japanese to do it."
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_404.html#energyuse
> >
> > I wouldn't say the Japanese are exactly paragons of energy
> > efficiency. In some ways yes, with solar and K-trucks, for instance,
> > but they've got a long way to go. There are way too many cars here,
> > K-trucks notwithstanding, recycling's good in some sectors, but not
> > much reduce, very little re-use, too much needless consumption - a
> > popular book here tells you all sorts of ways to throw things away
> > more creatively (which doesn't necessarily mean being more
> > eco-friendly about it).
> >
> > Still, millions of people ride their bicycles to the rail station
> > every day to go to work. Japanese trains are great!
> >
> > From a previous message:
> >
> >>[Japanese] Foreign Minister Taro Aso pointed out Friday that Japan's
> >>oil efficiency is eight times better than that of China, quoting
> >>data from International Energy Agency, an energy policy adviser to
> >>26 industrialized countries.
> >>
> >>"I have told (Chinese Foreign Minister) Li Zhaoxing that China would
> >>be able to curb its oil consumption to one-eighth (of the current
> >>level) if (it) becomes like us," Aso said when asked to comment on
> >>China's energy problems.
> >
> > So China's more wasteful than the US?
> >
> > I wonder if China will take that to mean that they can cut
> > seven-eighths of their oil consumption if they do it like Japan or
> > that they'll be able to produce eight times as much with the amount
> > of oil they're using now.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> >>Dawie Coetzee wrote:
> >> > This from another group:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/message/10256
> >> >
> >> >> Fuel-sipping trains
> >> >> June 11, 2007
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> With energy prices high and likely to go higher in the years ahead,
> >> >> it would make sense for the nation to embrace a transportation
> >> >> policy that puts a premium on energy efficiency. Transportation,
> >> >> along with electrical power generation, is the country's biggest
> >> >> consumer of fossil and renewable fuels. So what is the most fuel-
> >> >> efficient form of transportation available in the U.S. today?
> >> >> Believe it or not, it's Amtrak.
> >>
> >>This is kinda a no brainer.
> >>
> >>How long ago was it that Bush1 made up the
> >>transportation policy for 'the next 20 years'
> >>for the US?
> >>
> >>All I remember, is that I recently out of the service
> >>having spent the previous 18 months in (then) western
> >>Europe, and was already a big fan of bicycling.
> >>
> >>I was really hoping to hear about major investment
> >>in light rail, revamping heavy (freight) rail lines
> >>and of course the idea that is so good it's almost
> >>stupid, radical investment in bike-friendly transportation
> >>infrastructure.
> >>
> >>Having seen this all over Europe, I was convinced
> >>that my home country, the USA would embrace this
> >>approach, it just makes so much sense.
> >>What a naive fool. Even then, in my 30s, I had
> >>yet to grasp how idiotic my culture can be.
> >>
> >>Bush1 gave it all away, gave a great speech
> >>about revamping our then crumbling interstate
> >>highway infrastructure, to the joyful salutations
> >>of the automobile, trucking, and local porkbarrel
> >>contractors and industries. How insane! I thought,
> >>can't anyone see how much economic growth could
> >>be garnered by targeting these alternative approaches?
> >>
> >>Uhh, probably, probably all too well. As I listened
> >>to CSPAN and all the elected folks railing about
> >>the 'taxpayer burden' of continued subsidy of AMTRAK.
> >>As if all the hundreds of billions spent on backing
> >>the airlines and interstate systems, as well as the automotive
> >>industries was nothing. Even at that point I was
> >>pretty ignorant of the staggeringly huge subsidies
> >>expended on the fuel industry in the USA.
> >>
> >>How this is actually seen.
> >>
> >>NPR recently did the inquiry I was hoping someone would
> >>do. It was so close to what I was hoping for I was
> >>a bit taken aback when I heard about it.
> >>Basically, the transportation cost of taking
> >>a family of 4 one-way from the Washington DC region to
> >>Boston Mass, via AMTRAK vs. driving.
> >>
> >>Make no mistake, not matter how hard you hit
> >>up the cost of operating a SUV, there isn't any
> >>comparison. Barreling (heh) up I95 in an SUV
> >>full of people, FROM THE CONSUMER POINT OF VIEW
> >>is MUCH less expensive than taking the same
> >>group of people on AMTRAK.
> >>
> >>Until this changes, meaning, in my mind, that
> >>until AMTRAK and other passenger rail systems start
> >>receiving the same kind of consideration that
> >>the car culture receives this will remain
> >>so.
> >>
> >>I could go on and on about this. Perhaps its the
> >>romance of rail travel (I quickly admit how much
> >>I enjoy travelling by rail, having been fortunate
> >>enough to have done so numerous times since I was
> >>a child) perhaps all these other things, but as
> >>has been hammered on by this list so many times
> >>in the past, Until the USA just simply gets over
> >>this childish/infantile NEED for immediate gratification
> >>this will be the continued suicidal direction. \
> >>
> >>Maybe in the 80s, when telecommuting was just starting
> >>to begin to make sense, but certainly now, where for
> >>so much of the commuting traffic here in the USA, it's
> >>a genuine alternative, held up only by corporate culture,
> >>esp in the east (where the laws are made) and so on,
> >>blah blah blah.
> >>
> >>I do love trains, even in view of their shameful
> >>past. The infrastructure is there. Not making
> >>full use of it, esp in view of what is currently known
> >>is criminal.
> >>
> >>Like Keith stated so succinctly in a prior post,
> >>the USA isn't addicted to oil, it is addicted to
> >>waste.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
