Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mission accomplished! Trump DOD eliminates top national security threat!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mission accomplished! Trump DOD eliminates top national security threat!

    Janurary 2015 to September 2016: Climate change becomes top national security threat...
    "No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," said Obama in his State of the Union speech Tuesday.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/cli...ama/index.html
    President Obama Takes A Historic Step To Address The National Security Implications Of Climate Change

    “Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water. The present day effects of climate change are being felt from the Arctic to the Midwest. Increased sea levels and storm surges threaten coastal regions, infrastructure, and property. In turn, the global economy suffers, compounding the growing costs of preparing and restoring infrastructure.” – U.S. National Security Strategy, February 15, 2015
    https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ional-security

    January 2018: Mission accomplished...
    An 11-page summary of the new National Defense Strategy makes no mention of “global warming” or “climate change”. The document makes no mention of “climate,” “warming,” “planet,” “sea levels” or even “temperature.” All 22 uses of the word “environment” refer to the strategic or security landscape.

    The document is here: https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Do...gy-Summary.pdf

    The National Defense Strategy, signed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, doesn’t have much to say about energy issues, except that the U.S. would “foster a stable and secure Middle East” and “contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/...e-threat-list/

    Scratch one bogus bogie!
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    From the title of the thread I thought Trump had shot himself.

    Greed is the greatest threat to America which some here support 101%
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
      From the title of the thread I thought Trump had shot himself.

      Greed is the greatest threat to America which some here support 101%
      Curing the delusional isn't a DOD mission...
      WALLACE: Your reaction to the summit and to the contention by some in the Obama administration that climate change is, if not the biggest, certainly the most immediate threat to our national security?

      FIORINA: Well, that's delusional. It is delusional for President Obama and Hillary Clinton and anyone else to say that climate change is our near-term most severe security threat. It is ISIS, period, followed closely by Iran and perhaps Russia.

      President Obama continues to think that somehow our behavior causes terrorism, so he says the climate change summit is a powerful rebuke. No, it's not. The terrorists don't care that we're gathering in Paris other than it provides a target, just as he said, well, Republicans are giving terrorists a recruiting tool when we don't think Syrian refugees should be allowed to enter this country if we cannot properly vet them.

      http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ina-reacts-to/
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        What?!! No more $50 a gallon biofuel for the military? The horror!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          What?!! No more $50 a gallon biofuel for the military? The horror!
          Sink the Great Green Fleet
          By Colonel Mark F. Cancian, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (Retired)

          In 2011, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced an initiative called the Great Green Fleet. Although wrapped in the mantle of warfighting, it was never really about the Navy. Instead, it was about pursuing a national energy agenda and using military money to create a biofuel industry. The Great Green Fleet became part of a broader set of initiatives designed to put the Navy on the front lines of the fight against climate change. Although superficially plausible at the time when fuel prices were high, the Green Fleet is inappropriate, even counterproductive, at a time of booming U.S. energy production and Navy budget shortfalls. It is time to take a critical look at these energy initiatives, terminate those that do not directly help the Navy, subject others to cost-benefit analysis, but also look broadly at places where additional energy investments might help the Navy.

          The Great Green Fleet was the most egregious element of the former secretary’s energy initiatives. Biofuels—making fuel from biological matter rather than pumping it from the ground—were thought to be more environmentally friendly and a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The administration committed to a half-billion-dollar initiative to jumpstart the industry, of which the Navy was responsible for $150 million. The Navy let contracts to various biofuel startups and development companies, bought developmental biofuel, and ran tests to ensure that these fuels were compatible with Navy systems. Critics said the Navy was paying $27 a gallon for biofuel when it could buy regular fuel on the open market for under $3 a gallon...

          [...]

          So, what to do?
          • Terminate the biofuel initiative. Let the energy market decide whether biofuels are a viable source of future energy.
          • Review all Navy energy production projects, both past and proposed, to determine whether the investment justifies the savings. The cost of photovoltaic cells has been dropping and wind energy has been gaining in the energy market even without subsidies.
          • Continue efforts in operational energy. This is about getting energy to the right place on the battlefield with minimum warfighting risk, not about peacetime cost-effectiveness. An August*Proceedings*article attempts to defend the Great Green Fleet but mostly focuses on sensible energy efficiencies. (see Commander Daniel Orchard-Hayes’ and Lieutenant Colonel Laura King’s “Realize the Great Green Fleet,” August 2017,*Proceedings.)
          • Examine the areas where energy efficiency might have real economic benefits. The Navy has research-and-development projects in this area, such as jet engine efficiency. The classic investment, however, is heating and air conditioning systems. Upgrading these systems is not as exciting as building solar farms, but it often has big payoffs because the systems are used heavily but are often old and inefficient.
          • Drop the “Green Fleet” terminology. There’s too much baggage with this term.
          https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceed...at-green-fleet
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            Sink the Great Green Fleet
            By Colonel Mark F. Cancian, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (Retired)

            In 2011, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced an initiative called the Great Green Fleet. Although wrapped in the mantle of warfighting, it was never really about the Navy. Instead, it was about pursuing a national energy agenda and using military money to create a biofuel industry. The Great Green Fleet became part of a broader set of initiatives designed to put the Navy on the front lines of the fight against climate change. Although superficially plausible at the time when fuel prices were high, the Green Fleet is inappropriate, even counterproductive, at a time of booming U.S. energy production and Navy budget shortfalls. It is time to take a critical look at these energy initiatives, terminate those that do not directly help the Navy, subject others to cost-benefit analysis, but also look broadly at places where additional energy investments might help the Navy.

            The Great Green Fleet was the most egregious element of the former secretary’s energy initiatives. Biofuels—making fuel from biological matter rather than pumping it from the ground—were thought to be more environmentally friendly and a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The administration committed to a half-billion-dollar initiative to jumpstart the industry, of which the Navy was responsible for $150 million. The Navy let contracts to various biofuel startups and development companies, bought developmental biofuel, and ran tests to ensure that these fuels were compatible with Navy systems. Critics said the Navy was paying $27 a gallon for biofuel when it could buy regular fuel on the open market for under $3 a gallon...

            [...]

            So, what to do?
            • Terminate the biofuel initiative. Let the energy market decide whether biofuels are a viable source of future energy.
            • Review all Navy energy production projects, both past and proposed, to determine whether the investment justifies the savings. The cost of photovoltaic cells has been dropping and wind energy has been gaining in the energy market even without subsidies.
            • Continue efforts in operational energy. This is about getting energy to the right place on the battlefield with minimum warfighting risk, not about peacetime cost-effectiveness. An August*Proceedings*article attempts to defend the Great Green Fleet but mostly focuses on sensible energy efficiencies. (see Commander Daniel Orchard-Hayes’ and Lieutenant Colonel Laura King’s “Realize the Great Green Fleet,” August 2017,*Proceedings.)
            • Examine the areas where energy efficiency might have real economic benefits. The Navy has research-and-development projects in this area, such as jet engine efficiency. The classic investment, however, is heating and air conditioning systems. Upgrading these systems is not as exciting as building solar farms, but it often has big payoffs because the systems are used heavily but are often old and inefficient.
            • Drop the “Green Fleet” terminology. There’s too much baggage with this term.
            https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceed...at-green-fleet
            thanks for the article

            Comment


            • #7
              Have a ship or two, test emerging tech, by all means. Always be aware of and prepared for possibilities that could occur in the future, or improvements that new tech could make in the practical sense. That's why there are concept cars. For testing.

              But don't build a fleet around BS and politics....
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                But don't build a fleet around BS and politics....
                Unless you want to make sure that the fleet loses in a war of National survival.
                "Why is the Rum gone?"

                -Captain Jack

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                  But don't build a fleet around BS and politics....
                  You do if you are on the Left...

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X