The U.S. National Security Risks of Imposing Idealistic Green Initiatives

Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Ray Mabus delivers remarks during the opening ceremony for the Great Green Fleet, a Department of the Navy year-long initiative that demonstrates the sea service’s efforts to transform its energy use. Photo by Official U.S. Navy Imagery.

While the urgency to reduce global carbon emissions is prevalent in today’s society, American policymakers must resist the urge to implement aggressive green energy policies without carefully assessing the collateral damage it may impose on the United States’ national security. Such initiatives in particular are those aimed at the Department of Defense and the U.S. oil shale industry.

Pushing overly aggressive green initiatives on the military is both dangerous and unrealistic given the military’s current and predicted future dependence on fossil fuels, along with the financial impracticalities of funding such aggressive policies. Likewise, similar initiatives aimed at the U.S. shale industry – responsible for maintaining the United States energy independence – could set the U.S. back into a geopolitically constrained era of energy dependence in the Middle East once again. While the climate crisis does need to be addressed, those in Washington who see the world with an overly optimistic lens must consider the consequences of pushing aggressive green initiatives in a world that consistently fights for hegemony.

U.S. MILITARY RELATIONSHIP WITH OIL

A fleet of F-22 Raptors prepared for training missions on the flight line at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va. Photo by AirmanMagazine.

Dependence on Oil

Unfortunately for the sake of reaching carbon neutrality, U.S. military oil consumption remains substantial. For starters, the U.S. military is, and continues to be the largest institutional consumer of oil in the world. While the exact figure of oil consumption remains unknown, estimates predict that the Department of Defense consumes nearly 4.6 billion gallons of fuel per year. Furthermore, while some green initiatives can be applied to reduce the U.S. military’s overall carbon footprint without threatening the integrity of its national security, current military operations still demand a large amount of oil consumption. Estimates show that nearly 70% of fuel consumption by the Department of Defense is used for operational purposes. This significant percentage of consumption is unfortunate, however, reducing oil consumption for operations should be non-negotiable. For the U.S. military to be able to carry out its essential duty of protecting U.S. national security interests, it must remain fully mission capable; that cannot happen if the supply of oil ceases. Furthermore, if the Department of Defense were to reduce its operational capabilities, other great powers would take notice and may see the U.S. as an illegitimate threat, prompting a series of aggression toward the United States and its interests abroad. Other great powers could push the U.S. out of key areas of interest, such as the Middle East or Asia, creating a power vacuum for its hegemonic contenders and other adversaries to fill, allowing them to spread their influence and build alliances against the United States. While only hypothetical, history has demonstrated that this exact scenario is possible if U.S. operational capabilities were to reduce; the reduction of British and French influence in the Middle East following WWII was, among other things, a result of reduced operational capabilities and overall presence in the region which allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to fill the power gap. The possibility of the U.S. succumbing to similar events should serve policymakers in Washington as a reminder of what could happen if military operational capabilities were to take an absolute back seat to climate reform.

Financial Impracticalities

Another unfortunate reality in the push to reduce the military’s carbon footprint is that the U.S. cannot financially afford to take on such substantial transformative projects without facing serious economic repercussions. The first issue is that the U.S. has already invested in expensive state-of-the-art military equipment reliant on fossil fuels with a long shelf life. For example, the United States invested considerably in a fleet of oil-dependent F-22 Raptor fighter jets worth $350 million each, reaching a total of around $66 billion in all. While no longer in production, representatives from the United States Air Force announced plans to utilize the aircraft until 2060. The United States Army also plans to add 103 additional oil-reliant aircraft through 2022 worth an estimated $5.2 billion. By this account, the U.S. military has locked itself into a long-term commitment with oil-reliant machinery. Pivoting away at this point would leave the Department of Defense nearly insolvent with nothing to show for it. Starting from scratch would neither be economically feasible nor geopolitically advised as the setback could potentially put the United States at a disadvantage to its foreign contenders. For this sort of transition to be practical, the U.S. defense budget would have to grow substantially.

Not only has the Department of Defense locked itself into an oil-dependent future, but also talks about a reduction in defense budgetary discretion under the current U.S. government leadership could further hinder attempts to create a greener military. Progressive Caucus chair members in the House are urging the current administration to “seek a significantly reduced Pentagon top line.” This indicates that any aggressive plans to reduce the military’s carbon footprint will have to be done without significant spending; an unlikely scenario given the historically high costs of previous attempts to do so.

Even if the Department of Defense had not already invested heavily in fossil fuel machinery, the costs of funding green military initiatives are substantial and not always guaranteed to work. For instance, the Obama administration's Great Green Fleet project – designed to break the U.S. naval fleet’s dependence on oil by 2020 – both failed to meet expectations while costing the U.S. taxpayer an excess of $12 million per exercise alone; more than six times the traditional method of using conventional oil. Furthermore, even less sophisticated and simpler initiatives, such as the Biden administration’s plan to replace the Department of Defense’s fleet of vehicles with cleaner electric models, would cost nearly $20 billion alone. If the current administration decides to implement similar aggressive green military projects, they will have to either increase the defense budget or risk diverting funds from other military projects responsible for keeping the U.S. military fully mission capable.

THE ROLE OF SHALE IN U.S. ENERGY SECURITY

A shale gas well being drilled in Tioga County, Pennsylvania in early summer 2012. Photo by SkyTruth.

Shale and Energy Independence

Along with limiting the efficacy of the United States’ defense capabilities, aggressive emissions reductions – particularly those aimed at dismantling the shale industry– threaten U.S. energy independence; a fundamental component in both preserving energy security as well as the economy. It is no secret that the American shale revolution favorably shifted the U.S. from being a mass importer of fossil fuels to a relatively self-reliant producer within a few years. Data released by the Energy Information Administration demonstrate a massive drop in gross energy imports around the same time the shale revolution began to take roots in 2011. Furthermore, for the first time in 67 years, U.S. energy exports exceeded total imports in 2019, thanks in part to the shale industry. In all, the shale revolution has been predominantly responsible for facilitating energy independence within the United States.

What Energy Independence Means for the U.S.

Given the current administration’s aggressive war on climate change and the level of pollution produced through fracking, it is easy to overlook the vast security and economic benefits that the shale industry has brought upon the United States. According to the Harvard International Review, the shale revolution has enabled the United States to break its dependency on Middle Eastern oil, freeing the United States from having to conduct highly unpopular operations in the region or supporting unruly dictators solely for the sake of ensuring a constant supply of oil. As the former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo puts it, “the shale revolution has provided the United States with a flexibility in international affairs that it had not had for decades.” In summation, the shale industry has given the United States the ability to conduct international affairs on grounds favorable to the United States. For example, instead of exhausting resources in the Middle East – while still an important region for the United States– American policymakers can now expand their horizon and focus on other areas of interest that were once neglected. In his book, The New Map, Daniel Yergin expresses the fact that the shale revolution has allowed the United States to become “present” in Asia. While not directly stated, one can infer that the Obama administration’s pivot to East Asia policy can be partly attributed to the shale revolution. By this accord, the current administration must fully appreciate the meaning of energy independence before potentially gambling away its geopolitical freedom.

Despite the shale industry’s contribution to the United States, shale has recently been deemed a threat to U.S. climate change initiatives under the current administration. Reports suggest that the level of methane released as a byproduct of fracking and drilling is a cause for concern, however, exact measures of the shale industry’s contribution to overall emissions remain uncertain. While it is ideal in theory, switching from shale to sustainable energy alternatives still remains a challenge, as fossil fuels continue to rival sustainable energy sources in terms of reliability and efficacy. Nevertheless, the Biden administration has set its course toward a new United States that is pivoting from shale as much as possible. The problem lies within an unfortunate dilemma for the current administration: impose strict regulations to hinder shale pollution and risk reverting back to an energy-dependent nation or ignore these environmental concerns and guarantee U.S. energy independence. When confronted with this fragile decision, the correct path for U.S. national security begins to blur.

Implications of Reverting back to Energy Dependence

Reverting to a state of energy dependence will, among other things, force the United States to get involved in politically charged regions with unsavory partners. It is safe to say that most Americans today, and in the future for that matter, would not enjoy knowing that the United States prior to the shale revolution had imported nearly $150 billion worth of oil in 2008 from countries listed by the U.S. Department of State as “dangerous or unstable” toward the United States. By this account, American policymakers would have to decide whether or not dismantling the shale industry for the sake of the environment is worth potentially sending the United States back to supporting these hostile and unfriendly regimes. Another consideration is whether or not the decision to revert back to supporting the oil production of U.S. adversaries truly benefits the environment, as these countries produce oil with far fewer environmental regulations than the United States. Putting the United States back in a position where it has to finance its adversaries, all while possibly causing more destruction to the environment, seems like a significant risk with an abysmal reward at best.

A BETTER APPROACH

When analyzing the big picture, whether from the lens of an optimist or pessimist, it appears that everyone wants the same thing; to save the environment while ensuring the prosperity of the United States. The problem, however, lies within the aggressive utopian ideas toward a greener world that happen to gather momentum with little regard to the realities of international politics. These policies, if executed, pose a serious threat to U.S. national security. Therefore, the best approach involves implementing a sense of cautious optimism when considering green initiatives that affect the nation’s military institutions, along with the shale industry, which is the United States’ primary driver of energy independence. Only by eliminating these unrealistic ideals can U.S. policymakers begin to react within realistic bounds that truly benefit the climate without jeopardizing the United States’ geopolitical posture. Progress toward a cleaner world can and should be made, yet it requires that policymakers proceed carefully.

Derek Hammack (GS’22) is a student at Columbia studying political science. Prior to attending Columbia, Derek served in the military and was deployed across the globe as a special warfare boat operator (SWCC) and medic.