[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.''
____________________