Michigan 2008DoD Starter
DoD Procurement – 1AC
Observation One – InherencyMilitary energy consumption will increase with expanding the War on Terror
Eileen Westervelt, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 2005 [September Energy Trends andImplications for U.S. Army Installations, http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wcco/news/specialreports/projectenergy/06_0420_projectenergy_energytrendsreportfromarmycorps.pdf]Energy Trends Figure 1 and Table 1 show current demand, supply, and proportionate distribution of energy for theworld, nation, and Army. Table 2 lists world reserves. The Army and the nation’s heavy use of oil and natural gas isnot “in synch” with the nation’s or the earth’s supplies. The relative fuel shares of energy use vs. energy reservesunderscores our need to supplement oil and natural gas as our staple fuels. The domestic supply and demandimbalance would lessen if coal and/or nuclear energy were made more environmentally acceptable or if therenewable share of our energy portfolio were to increase. Worldwide energy consumption is expected to increase by2.1 percent/yr and domestic energy consumption by 1.4 percent per year. This will exacerbate global energycompetition for existing supplies. Army energy consumption is dominated by facilities consumption. Facilitiesconsumption may decrease in both total quantity and in intensity basis—but not without an aggressive energy program with careful planning, diligent monitoring, and prudent investment. The closure of European installationsand relocation of troops onto domestic installations will make this outcome especially challenging. The energyconsumption associated with Army mobility (tactical and nontactical vehicle consumption) is expected to remainconstant, but may potentially increase depending of future phases of the Global War on Terror and on geopoliticaltensions resulting from the world energy situation.
The Current DoD energy policy fails – it is uncoordinated and does not emphasize alternativeenergies
Gregory Lengyel, 21st Century Defense Initiative of the Brookings Institution 2007 [Department of Defense EnergyStrategy Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks August http://www.brookings.edu/~/media /Files/rc/papers/ 2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf Despite these trends there is no existing formal Department of Defense Energy Strategy and no single individual or organization responsible for energy issues within the Department. The DOD Annual Energy Management Report for FY 2006 lists the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) as the DODSenior Energy Official responsible for meeting the goals of Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and ExecutiveOrder (EO) 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management.22 However, this position has been vacant for several years and does not satisfy the need for a comprehensive Senior Energy Official for theDepartment. This is not to say the DOD is unconcerned with energy issues. The Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD) and the Services have recently conducted or sponsored numerous studies focusing on energy, many of whichhave been invaluable information sources for this paper: MITRE Corporation JASON Project, Reducing DODFossil Fuel Dependence (2006); Defense Science Board, More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden(2001), and soon to be released Energy Strategy (2006-2007); OSD Energy Security Integrated Product Team(2006); Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Technology Options for Improved Air Vehicle Fuel Efficiency (2006); Navy Research Advisory Council, Study on Future Fuels (2005); Army Corps of Engineers, Energy Trends andTheir Implications for US Army Installations (2005); and Defense Advanced Research Projects, Petroleum-FreeMilitary Workshop (2005), to name a few. Common recommendations include making fuel efficiency a moresignificant factor in determining new mobility platforms (e.g. miles per gallon for ground vehicles, nauticalmiles/pound (lb.) fuel/lb. payload for aircraft and ships) and creating incentives for energy efficiency throughout theDOD. However, none of the studies offered anything other than liquid hydrocarbons as the best fuel for DODmobility platforms for at least the next 25 years. Impressive groups of energy experts have produced many of thesestudies, but they are all either Service specific or temporary in nature, meaning the group of experts dispersed after writing the study’s final report. The lack of a full-time energy advocate within the DOD leaves a void in follow-upactions to study recommendations, or creation of directive guidance on energy issues within the Department.2