Exclusive: Responsible Environmental Policy Is Responsible National Security Policy


Author: Tom Ordeman, Jr.

Date Published: 2008-03-11


Responsible Environmental Policy Is Responsible National Security Policy

Tom Ordeman, Jr.

 

As many Americans scramble to recover from the unexpected shift of Daylight Savings Time, it's worth taking a few minutes to discuss the impact that responsible and forward-thinking environmental policies have on America's national security.

After successful lobbying efforts, Congress passed a bill in 2005 extending Daylight Savings Time by several months beginning in 2007. While billed as an energy saving measure, the actual benefits of this change, or the use of Daylight Savings practices in general, are controversial and murky – indeed, in America's modern round-the-clock operational state, the claim of energy saving benefits appears to equate to little more than a shell game. This is not the only recent change to American energy policies that has proven controversial and demonstrated to be ineffective.

The use of ethanol as a substitute for petroleum-based fuels has gained widespread attention in the United States, to the point that ethanol is now used throughout the country as both a substitute for and complement to conventional fuels. However, ethanol has failed to live up to its hype. A recent article in The Times pointed out several issues. Not only does ethanol usage reduce carbon output by only about 13%, the immediately-increased demand for the substance over the last several years has led to countless acres of food crops around the world being re-tasked for producing ethanol. With the increasing price of corn and wheat becoming severe enough to threaten American food aid to developing countries, the impact of biofuels on the situation can't be ignored. In one of his last major statements of his long administration, communist dictator Fidel Castro railed against American ethanol initiatives. For all of his many faults, Castro was right about the conflict between biofuels and food crops; and although Castro's rhetoric is no more credible or conciliatory than that of Osama bin Laden, a striking problem exists with the knee-jerk substitution of biofuels for petroleum. Americans should not assume that the troubling oil-based problems of the Middle East could not develop a parallel from reliance on South American ethanol. The promises of cheap diesel alternatives from the deep fat frying vat of your neighborhood fast food restaurant were, it seems, inaccurate.

For security, economic, social, and political reasons, what Americans truly need is energy independence; and it must come in a form that leaves either a negligible or acceptable carbon footprint, for both political and environmental reasons. Despite the constant rhetoric, and the unacceptable conduct of overzealous environmentalist groups (like the Greenpeace activists who threw acid at Japanese whalers this week, and then claimed to have been shot by at Japanese coast guards) and like-minded eco-terrorists (like the Earth Liberation Front "activists," whose favored method of carbon footprint reduction is the fire bombing of Hummer dealerships and tree farms), solid, sustainable, responsible environmental policies are something that both environmentalist progressives and security conservatives should be able to agree on. After all, Americans of most stripes enjoy pristine natural spaces, and support energy independence and national security. Like security, this topic is far too complex for a single article.

Even though Western involvement in the Middle East is not "blood for oil," no one can deny that America's energy and industrial needs are a factor in the massive American footprint in the Middle East. This causes anxiety not only from the perceived "theft" of Middle Eastern natural resources, but also from the seemingly-unconditional support that American governments give to nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Although the West is in no way stealing Middle Eastern oil, and support for troubled Middle Eastern governments exist in tandem with quiet requirements, perception is still important, and America can not afford to generate similar angst through comparable offenses, perceived or otherwise, in places like South America. Trading one problematic partner for another (or worse, relying on two troublesome regions simultaneously) is not an improvement. Further, without a need for imported energy and industrial lubricants, America could not only reduce its total foreign energy needs, but simultaneously put itself in a better position to promote improved human rights. This is a winning plan for all concerned: environmentalists, human rights campaigners, industrialists, politicians, and security specialists.

Of course, the answer to America's need for energy independence is nuclear – but that's another article entirely.

The world is a complex place, and many of our local, national, and global concerns are inexorably linked. Just as diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means, a relevant and responsible environmental policy is a continuation of both diplomacy and armed conflict. Progressives and conservatives see the overarching problem in different ways, and from different vantage points – but really, we should all, as Americans, see this challenge as an opportunity. More than 232 years after the founding of our nation, Americans should understand without question that American ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit, when properly applied, can be the answer to any local, national, or global challenge.

# # #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. is a technical writer for a major defense contractor. He holds a B.S. in History and Naval Science from Oregon State University. He specializes in military affairs and international terrorism.

read full author bio here


If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Note -- The opinions expressed in this columfn are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.




Click here to support Family Security Matters