[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2451-H2452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATIONAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, climate deniers have buried 
their heads so deep in the sand they can't hear the Secretary of 
Defense warning us about the risk of climate change.
  Last week, Secretary Panetta gave a speech about the impact of 
climate change on national security. He said,

[[Page H2452]]

``The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national 
security. Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar 
caps, and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for 
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.'' And he might have added, 
and threaten military bases, especially naval bases, all around the 
world.
  Americans are experiencing that severe weather already, including 
record-breaking droughts in the South and Southwest and unprecedented 
tornadic activity in the South and the Midwest.
  Severe weather manifestations of climate change have a direct impact 
on our armed services and national security. Secretary Panetta focused 
on the geopolitical risks of increased flooding, drought, famine, and 
hurricanes. These troubling events create new demands for humanitarian 
intervention but can also destabilize political regimes and enable the 
rise of extreme elements.
  Congress may be fiddling while Texas and wildfire regions of the 
mountain west burn, but the armed services are responding aggressively 
to the threat of climate change.
  The Navy is leading the effort to boost production of biofuels and to 
protect the military and taxpayers against rising oil prices. The 
Department of Defense consumes some 350,000 barrels of oil every day. 
Each $10 increase in a barrel of oil costs our Department of Defense 
and the taxpayers $1.3 billion every year. By creating a supply of 
biofuels, the Navy's protecting taxpayer interests from volatile oil 
prices, while reducing greenhouse gas pollution associated with fossil 
fuels. The Navy also is reducing its own dependence on Middle Eastern 
oil, since it makes no sense for the DOD to be providing business to 
governments that support terrorism.
  The Army and the Air Force have also made groundbreaking investments 
in renewable energy and energy efficiency, reducing global warming 
pollution while strengthening our national security posture. At Fort 
Detrick, for example, and other installations, the Army is deploying 
energy efficient retrofits and renewable energy generation to achieve 
net zero energy consumption, meaning that the bases produce as much 
energy as they consume. These efforts reduce global warming pollution 
and protect critical facilities from a cyberattack on the grid.
  The Army's implemented numerous energy savings performance contracts 
at other bases, including in my district at Fort Belvoir, to reduce 
energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas pollution. By reducing 
the $24.5 billion every year that Federal agencies spend on electricity 
consumption, these efforts protect taxpayers.
  In today's fiscal climate, the Secretary of Defense is aware that the 
Federal Government needs to make better use of limited resources. He 
recognizes that investing in clean energy will reduce the Department of 
Defense's oil dependence and lower its fuel costs to free up resources 
for other priorities and to reduce the burden on taxpayers.
  I'm surprised by the resistance of a few Members who wrap themselves 
in the mantle of fiscal responsibility, even while opposing the Defense 
Department's efforts to save money on energy costs.

                              {time}  1010

  The DOD's success in this area is actually a model for other agencies 
to follow.
  There used to be a bipartisan consensus here, and we should address 
the threats posed by climate change. John Warner, who served as the 
Secretary of the Navy in a Republican administration before serving as 
the Republican Senator from my home State of Virginia for 30 years, 
introduced the first bill to address global warming which came to the 
Senate floor. Since his retirement in 2008, he has been a leading 
advocate for reductions in global warming pollution in order to improve 
our national security. Sadly, the House Republican leadership would 
take America in the opposite direction by blocking the Clean Air Act 
enforcement of carbon pollution limits and by reversing energy 
efficiency standards for lights and appliances.
  As the impacts of climate change become more apparent with each 
passing season, we should heed Secretary Panetta's warning and take 
action to control the pollution, which endangers our warfighters abroad 
and threatens communities here at home.

                  [The Cutting Edge News, May 4, 2012]

   Panetta Warns Climate Change Having `Dramatic Impact' on National 
                                Security

                            (By Carlo Munoz)

       Climate change has had a direct effect on national 
     security, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this week.
       Panetta told an audience at the Environmental Defense Fund 
     that climate change has raised the need for humanitarian 
     assistance and disaster relief, hitting national security in 
     the process.
       ``The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on 
     national security,'' Panetta said. ``Rising sea levels, 
     severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more 
     frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand 
     for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.''
       Panetta spoke to the Environmental Defense Fund on Tuesday 
     at an event honoring the Defense Department for advancing 
     clean-energy initiatives.
       In recent years, the Defense Department and the services 
     have spearheaded a number of alternative-energy initiatives 
     and seemingly embraced environmentally friendly practices on 
     the battlefield.
       President Obama effectively put the Pentagon at the 
     forefront of an ambitious alternative energy strategy during 
     the State of the Union speech in January. The Navy and Air 
     Force have already spent billions to integrate biofuels into 
     their fleets of fighter jets and warships.
       Marine Corps combat units in Afghanistan are using mobile 
     solar panels to recharge batteries for their night vision and 
     communications in the field. Solar power is also helping to 
     run a number of Marine Corps combat outposts in the country.
       But the Pentagon's adoption of environmentally sensitive 
     practices was driven more by the department's dire fiscal 
     situation than politics, Panetta said on Tuesday. DOD spent 
     roughly $15 billion to fuel its fighters, tanks and ships in 
     2012, the Defense chief said. The Pentagon spends $50 million 
     on fuel each month to keep combat operations in Afghanistan 
     going, Panetta added. As oil prices continue to skyrocket, 
     the department ``now [faces] a shortfall exceeding $3 billion 
     of higher-than-expected fuel costs this year,'' according to 
     Panetta.
       In order to dig its way out of that financial hole, DOD has 
     no choice but to look to alternative fuel technologies. 
     Pentagon officials plan to invest more than $1 billion into 
     developing those technologies in fiscal 2013, he said. 
     However, Republicans on Capitol Hill have taken issue with 
     that decision, arguing the department will be sacrificing 
     needed much-needed combat systems in favor of alternative 
     energy work. In March, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) claimed the 
     Navy's ongoing biofuels work was devolving into another 
     ``Solyndra situation.''
       During a March 13 hearing of the Senate Armed Services 
     Committee, McCain compared the now-bankrupt solar-energy 
     company, into which the White House sank $535 million in loan 
     guarantees, to Navy-led efforts in alternative energy. Rep. 
     Randy Forbes (R-Va.), a member of the House Armed Services 
     subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, took Navy 
     Secretary Ray Mabus to task in February over the service's 
     plans. ``Shouldn't we refocus our priorities and make those 
     things our priorities instead of advancing a biofuels 
     market?'' Forbes asked at the time. Before Mabus could 
     respond, the Virginia Republican took a clear shot at the 
     secretary: ``You're not the secretary of the Energy. You're 
     the secretary of the Navy.''

                          ____________________