Balancing Environmental, Economic, and National Security

Viewpoint

Balancing Environmental, Economic, and National Security

05/13/11 12:26pm

Article By: Brian Siu

Over the last several years, oil prices, geopolitical events and environmental concerns have driven the Defense Department’s strong interest in domestic alternative fuels. And with good reason. Our petroleum addiction appears more burdensome every day, exposing the nation to price volatility and natural or manmade events that are simply beyond our control. And increasingly, military and security experts view global warming as a national security threat multiplier that can exacerbate resource competition, conflict, and humanitarian crises. But many alternative fuels also pose serious risks if they are carelessly deployed. For a long time, NRDC has warned against the risks of increasingly dirty fossil fuels or highly unsustainable biofuels. Yesterday, Representative Inslee struck a balance by introducing legislation to foster domestic alternative fuels while taking environmental risk into account. Thus, the Domestic Fuel for Enhancing National Security Act will help DOD procure alternatives to oil that are also environmentally and politically viable.

The Department of Defense is one of the nation’s largest fuel consumers. That role allows it to potentially leverage its sizable demand to support emerging fuel technologies. Yet current law limits DOD’s ability to utilize its full potential, as procurement contracts are confined to a 5 year time horizon. Biofuel developers could have greater confidence if procurement awards spanned a longer portion of the project lifetime. Thus, the D-FENS Act would extend the contracting period from 5 to 15 years for sustainable biofuels. By providing certainty and confidence, DOD can stimulate technological development in genuinely sustainable alternatives to oil.

That said, it’s no secret that biofuels bring serious environmental risks. While they can provide environmental and climate benefits, their net sustainability is determined by numerous factors throughout the chain of production. These include lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, soil impaction, fertilizer runoff, pesticide applications, site selection and so forth. Yet, these are not simply environmental risks. Severe unintended consequences in one or more of these categories could undermine a technology’s ability to contribute meaningful volumes of alternative fuel. The D-FENS Act anticipates these issues by qualifying “advanced biofuels” as defined under the Clean Air Act. That definition inherently includes a range of greenhouse gas and ecological protections that help prevent our forests and lands from becoming unchecked mining operations. By setting these initial parameters, the bill establishes a sustainable foundation on which to base an environmentally and politically durable alternative fuels industry.

The D-FENS Act is not the first long term procurement bill to come along, but it is the most viable. Other measures would attempt to commercialize highly destructive technologies such as liquid coal. Those measures are wholly inconsistent with the recognized need to develop less polluting and ecologically harmful fuels. To that extent, they promote investments that might have no viable future once the environmental liabilities have matured. By sharp contrast, the D-FENS Act will help DOD manage separate but linked challenges. Rather than favoring mountaintop removal and global warming, it will help diversify fuel supply with sustainable alternatives to oil. At the same time, it will help identify an environmentally realistic pathway amid public concern over unintended environmental consequences of careless biofuel development. And by encouraging genuinely low carbon fuel, it will help manage the recognized national security threats of global warming. This approach demonstrates how a core emphasis on performance can address multiple but linked priorities.

This post originally appeared on NRDC's staff blog Switchboard.