• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Great Green Fleet = Big Red Ink

    It seems that Washington has a mandate, subsidy, or loan program for every bad idea. Today’s example is military biofuels.

    Just this spring, the Defense Department issued another multimillion-dollar set of contracts for firms to develop refineries whose biofuels, in theory, would not be that much more expensive than conventional fuel. However, there are numerous problems with the Pentagon’s biofuels program.

    First, biofuels are not so good for the environment. After all the inputs and land-use changes are considered, biofuels often lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions and worse pollution.

    Second, they are expensive. Past biofuel contracts have cost the Pentagon from a low of $26 per gallon to over $400 per gallon.

    Third, biofuels won’t defund terrorists. It’s worth reviewing the U.S. military’s scale of operations in a global context. World production of petroleum is about 90 million barrels per day. Total Defense Department petroleum consumption is about 360,000 barrels per day, or just four-tenths of 1 percent of the world total. By converting half of U.S. defense consumption to biofuels (and assuming, not entirely legitimately, that biofuels production does not require any petroleum-based energy), we might change world petroleum prices by 1 percent in the long run—not a very big stick for threatening unfriendly oil-funded organizations.

    Fourth, biofuels won’t impact energy security. Our own oil production is a better, cheaper source for defense fuel security. In less than three years, the production-level increase in Texas alone is almost four times the total annual Defense Department consumption. The military will get the oil it needs even if we were entirely cut off from foreign sources.

    Finally, since biofuels frequently have a lower energy density than petroleum-derived fuels, biofuel convoys to the front line will have to be even longer or more frequent than those transporting conventional fuel, which could increase risk to personnel.

    Here’s the military biofuels checklist:

    • Protects the environment? No.
    • Is more affordable than conventional fuels? No.
    • Defunds rogue regimes and terrorist organizations? No.
    • Provides a more secure source of transportation fuel? No.
    • Reduces the need for fuel convoys through hostile areas? No.

    Yet in the upside-down-and-backwards world of Washington, D.C., failing on every criterion means you receive a subsidy.

    So what is the appropriate policy? Instead of having the Great Green Fleet push the budget ever further into the big pool of red ink, we should tell the Pentagon, “Not now, not for this.”

    Posted in Energy, Security [slideshow_deploy]

    Comments are closed.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×