I am proud of our Navy’s aggressive and innovative approach to reducing our dependence on oil, largely from unfriendly and unstable regimes, by finding clean energy resources to enhance our nation’s security.
Of course, the Navy’s leadership in finding alternative energy sources is not new. The Navy was among the first to move from sail to steam; it built coaling stations around the globe to support the Great White Fleet, which opened the world to U.S. commerce and diplomacy; the Navy later led the transition to oil to power ships, and more than a half-century ago, developed nuclear power for submarines and surface ships.
Each of these innovative efforts was met with resistance at the time, and calls of “Navy foolishness and excessive spending.” Back then, coal and steam were much more expensive than wind, and nuclear power more than oil, but each provided significant strategic advantages, first to the Navy and then to the nation.
So I am not surprised that today some are questioning the Navy’s latest ambitious goals to enhance the energy independence, efficiency and sustainability of its fleet, which will provide new strategic advantages and potentially improve operational flexibility.
Recently, a group of lawmakers wrote to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, objecting to the latest efforts to “green” the Navy “just for the sake of greening the Navy,” in their words. They further stated that “procuring fuels today at drastically greater costs than market prices is not within the Navy’s mission” and urged Mabus to “capitalize on readily available domestic resources for fuel ... before entering into risky propositions such as biofuels.” Basically, the advice was to take a “business as usual” approach.
But we don’t live in a business as usual world. Our dependence on a single commodity to mobilize most of our fleet is a strategic vulnerability. We know this and so do our enemies. I served for many years on the front lines and witnessed firsthand how readiness decreased each time the price of oil increased. Because we had no alternatives, oil price volatility created significant threats to our security.
Since retiring from the Navy, I have had the privilege of serving with some of America’s most distinguished retired military leaders on the CNA Military Advisory Board. We have intently studied this issue and concluded that one of the most critical, long-term security issues for the United States is our over-dependence on oil.
In a 2009 report, the CNA MAB concluded that “America’s current energy posture constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security — militarily, diplomatically and economically.” Further, this creates an ongoing unacceptable level of risk to our nation.
Mabus recently noted that “for every dollar charged for a barrel of oil, the Department of Navy spends $30 million.” He further stressed that “when unrest in some oil producing regions broke out last year,” the increased price per barrel drove up “Navy’s fuel bill by over $1 billion.” That increase “that we could not have planned for ... [meant that] our Sailors and Marines steamed less, flew less and trained less.”
The CNA MAB’s latest report highlights that “a sustained disruption of our nation’s oil supply would reverberate through our economy and limit our freedom of movement throughout the country.”
Leaders from military and veterans service organizations joined Sens. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Kelly Ayotte , R-N.H., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at a press conference to urge the Senate to replace a provision in the budget proposal that cuts retirement benefits for veterans. Wicker, Ayotee, and Graham earlier called for a bipartisan solution to replace the $6.3 billion in cuts to military retiree benefits.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.