Can the Pentagon be Ready, Lethal, and Also Green?

So there's a term in the military world called mission creep, and basically it refers to when the scope of one's goals slowly creeps outward, it eventually gets way too broad without anyone noticing. Is the Pentagon getting into mission creep territory when it comes to climate change? Some Republicans on

Capitol Hill think so. Last year, twelve GOP senator sent a letter to General Mark Millie, the Biden Administration's Joint Chiefs Chairman, saying that the Pentagon's climate adaptation plan is distracting from its mission to maintain a quote ready and lethal force. Millie and the rest of the An administration begged to differ. They say, not only is it not a distraction, but actually working on climate issues makes the military more ready and more lethal. That's what we're gonna

be talking about. Today with Bloomberg Law reporter Stephen Lee. He's been doing reporting on what the Pentagon is doing to reduce its own carbon footprint and also what it's doing to get ready for the effects of global climate change. And on that second point, I as Stephen to explain to me a war game the military recently conducted called a black start exercise. That is when the military basically pulls the plug on the power at a military base and then they try to start it back up to

see how resilient they are. You know, a lot of military facilities draw on the same power grid that we all use, so if there's a blackout, they need to know that the really mission critical systems that are crucial for homeland security national defense are still running on backup power and also that they can come back online quickly.

So they're trying to find weaknesses in the system and it's you know, this goes to the Pentagon's overall push to install micro grids so that they're less reliant on the sort of public utility network, and it's something that

they've been doing for a while. They've they've they've been gathering information to switch to seven clean energy, which would include both renewables and nuclear and they're trying to source this at a reasonable price, and they've gone big on solar and and what they say, really a big theme of the Defense Department's overall push here is that why are we doing this stuff? It's because it makes us a deadlier fighting force. They consistently say that, Yeah, it's

a means to an end, it's not the end itself. UM, tell me more about sea level rise though. That's something that you wrote about too. You're talking about, uh, some of these military bases that are in low lying areas. Uh. Then there's some talk. It sounds like it's just talk, but there's some talk of moving these bases. What's going on here? It is it is a reality that that obviously that they would prefer not to do that. Moving

a base would be obviously huge thing to do. You know, they'd have to get a lot of funding, they'd have to get environmental permits, there would be a ton of pushback from the local community that relies on that base for their economies and the politicians that represent those local communities exactly, so they would rather not do that, um, which is why right now they're they're focusing on the same kinds of resiliency steps that everyone else takes, which

would be building levees, hardening the infrastructure, in some cases raising the buildings and roads. But as you say, they are talking internally about moving bases if they had to, because it is a real problem that they are seeing. One of the basis that you mentioned was this Marine Corps facility at Paris Island, which is a really famous base where a lot of Marine Corps go to get trained. I'm sure if you're Marine you probably will never forget your time at Parris Island. But that's one of the

places that they're thinking about, you know, moving right. They have said that two thirds of their installations across the country are threatened by flooding, drought, or wildfires, and they have seen the impacts of climate change with their own eyes.

They they they have had um, you know, major damage happening at places like Camp le June in North Carolina that was hit by Hurricane Florence in it cost about three and a half billion dollars, and then a month later Tindall Air Force Base in Florida was hit by Hurricane Michael. That was about price sagon that was a four and a half billion dollars. So it is happening. They are seeing it right now. Um. So let's now move on to what the military is doing to address

its own contribution to climate change. Um, you talked about you know, several things. Can you highlight a few of the things that the military is doing. One of the things that caught my eye was it seems like they're really trying to electrify all of their vehicles and move towards uh, you know, electric tanks, electric armored vehicles. What's the status on that. That is something that they really do want to do. And again that they they say that the reason they do that is because it it

makes them more effective at completing their mission. Right. If you have an electric vehicle that is, as they say, forward deployed, then you don't have to have tankers going out to try to supply them. Uh. It reduces your vulnerability because you know, electric vehicles have a lower or a smaller heat profile and so they're harder for the enemy to spot. And as everyone who's driven on the

road knows, electric vehicles are quieter exactly right. Right, So again it's all about the mission, uh, you know, becoming a more effective fighting force. But there's lots of other things that the Pentagon is trying to do, you know, to to to sort of green their operations. Some of them are really minor, like adding uh sort of fins to the aircraft to make them, you know, more aerodynamic

and using less fuel. I think you wrote about how they they're at some basis they're just not mowing the grass there to turn it into more of a carbon sink and let you know, trees and forests grow. That's it's as much a small thing, but yeah, that does actually help reduce their their carbon footprint. Yeah, it's a good example of uh, you know, an effort that they are taking that is not a big ticket item, but the entire Pentagon is really bought into this and they

are really trying just kind of across the board. And then there's big ticket items too. Write like there's a lot of funding that is going towards R and D, different kinds of batteries, um, different kinds of fuels, you know, and as you say, moving bases, hardening aces. Uh. So it's just really there's there, it's a very broad range

of activities that are going on. And then there's also kind of strategic exercises, right, war game planning that they're doing to make sure that they are prepared for a sudden typhoon that comes up in the middle of a naval exercise, that kind of thing. So the Pentagon is bought in, as you say, but not everyone is happy about that. You reported that around a doesn't or so. Republican lawmakers signed a letter saying that the Pentagon should not be doing this, This is distracting from the mission

and a waste of money. Can you talk a little bit about the criticism there, um, what's the argument that they're making. Well, the letter that you're referring to came from twelve Republican senators last October, was led by Jim in Hoff. We know where he stands on climate chang exactly, uh, And Senator Roger Wicker at the time said that the Pentagon's move towards climate adaptation is part of what he called a woke agenda. So that is the kind of

messaging that you sometimes hear from Republicans. But I actually think that in general, most Republicans do seem to be on board with these efforts. They seem to get that d D needs to respond to coastal flooding that's in and dating basis. They seem to get that there does need to be more R and D two, for instance, helps soldiers who are suffering from extreme heat in the Middle East and Asia, and they want to make sure

that the military is strong and capable. But as you say, I mean, there is this kind of messaging that the military needs to focus on fighting wars, defeating the enemy. Let's set aside some of this green stuff. Is it possible that that messaging could take root and sort of that the whole issue could become politicized and that those

sorts of provisions get stripped out of the budget. I mean, I think that, given how politicize the issue of climate change already is, I don't think we can rule it out. But to this point it feels to me as though the Pentagon has done a good job of framing this, as you know, of of making the military case for funding, and that I think is what you need to do

to get Republicans on board. Yeah, I mean, I didn't think about this until just now, but it's worth pointing out that, you know, a dozen Republican senators signed on to this, but there are fifty Republican senators in Congress right now. That means that a majority of the Republican caucus probably saw this letter and said I don't want

to sign this, So that kind of speaks for itself. Um. There was one piece of criticism from a Republican this is in the House here in one of your stories that I wanted to address because it seemed like it was not just the typical sort of partisan back and forth. This was from Republican Michael Waltz, who's on the Armed

Services Committee. He mentioned that a lot of the rare earth metals that are needed for solar panels and needed for batteries that are going to be potentially going into these electric tanks are controlled by China, and that that doing this sort of increases the military's reliance on China, which could potentially be an adversary. What do you think about that? Is that does he have a point there or is this more sort of just sort of partisan posturing. Well,

I think he does have a point. The US does not have a very mature rare earth mining industry. A lot of these minerals are imported from, you know, mostly China, but also other nations like Australia and Canada, Kazakhstan. So it's a legitimate point. And the Biden administration gets that. They are trying to kick start some semblance of a domestic rare earth mining sector because they know that the US is so reliant on a foreign supply chain, not

just for the military. So they've given grants to private companies. They have made investments to try to create an end to end domestic supply chain that would include not just the mining but also the processing of you know, lithium, cobalt, nickel, whatever, and and they're also funding research to get some of these rarits from other sources, like maybe we can extract it from coal mining waste, and all of this has

been going on actually for several administrations. But the problem is that it is hard to create an entire industry from scratch, especially if it has to compete with a very mature industry overseas that is supplying these minerals for very cheap. There there is a global market for these rare where you can buy it for not that much, and so how do you compete with that? And also, I mean, this is like stupidly obvious, but it's called rare earth for a reason. You know, these aren't abundant

materials that are easy to mind. Um, finally, let's get into the three point one billion dollars. That's how much the Biden administration asked Congress to give it for you know, climate adaptation and climate investments in the coming fiscal year that starts October one. Is it going to get that much? Is it going to get less or is Congress going to give it more than an ask for here? What do you think? Well, you know, whenever we're talking about appropriations,

it's just very hard to say. But I think there is a good chance. It's kind of strange to say that because we know that Congress always pushes back on the president's budget, but it is the military, and we we also know that the military is often an exception when it comes to funding. I think that in general, it's fair to say that Congressional appropriators like to give

the Pentagon money. And I think again, one of the keys for the Pentagon here will be to make the case that this money is going to be used to improve its ability to fight and win wars. And I think that that kind of messaging could persuade some of Biden's opponents that the three point one billion dollars is necessary, and to this point it seems to me as though they've been doing a pretty good job of that. All right, Well,

that was Stephen Lee talking about the greening of the military. Uh, Stephen, thank you so much for joining us. This is great. Thanks David, and that's it for today's episode of Parts per Billion. If you want more environmental news, check us out on Twitter. We use the handle at environment I'm at David B. Schultz. That's B as in fireworks blowing up in my neighborhood and keeping me awake at night. Today's episode of Parts for Billion was produced by myself,

David Shultz. Parts Are Billion was created by Jessica In Rachel Dagle and is edited by Zach Sherwood and Chuck mccutgeon. Our executive producer is Josh Block. Thanks everyone for listening. Taxes and accounting are complicated, but finding a good tax podcast shouldn't be. Listen to Talking Tax, the podcast that breaks down all of these issues on a weekly basis.

Every Thursday, Talking Tax will explain the latest issues for you, from corporate filings, to diversity within the profession, and even the latest on the version in cannabis industry. Download and subscribed to Bloomberg Taxes, Talking Tax wherever you get your podcasts,