Energy Climate Dilemma and US Policy
Military activities have been responsible for most greenhouse emissions over the past 150 years. In the United States, most greenhouse emissions result from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation purposes. The largest share of greenhouse emissions in the US is from the transportation sector at 29% (US EPA, 2015). The greenhouse gases result from burning fossil fuels for cars, trucks, planes, and trains. Most of the powers are petroleum-based, and specifically, they are diesel and gasoline. Another source of greenhouse gas emissions is electricity production, which contributes to 25% of greenhouse emissions (US EPA, 2015). Other sources include commercial and residential consumption, industry, forestry, land use, and agriculture. Significantly, addressing the military’s role in reversing the dependence on fossil fuels to use greener energy sources is essential. The military is one of the agencies that could aid the transition as they are some of the largest consumers of fossil fuels.
The Role of the US Defense Community in Leading an Energy Transition to Greener Energy Sources
The military can aid the transition from fossil fuel dependence by using on-site, distributed generation, such as gridlocks and solar panels. Gridlocks are especially suited for the military since they can operate independently from a central power grid and incorporate power storage features. Such energy is helpful for the military because it will save sliders’ lives that are often lost on resupply missions. The military’s zeal in using renewable energy sources will help the military overcome dependence on fossil fuels and the general public. According to a US Department of Defense report, the military generated 10,534 billion British thermal units from renewable energy sources between 2011 and 2015 (Gardner, 2017). Such production was enough to power about 286,000 US homes (Gardner, 2017). These figures show that the US military can act as the epitome of a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
Do you need an original copy of ” Energy Climate Dilemma and US Policy “ ? Get in touch with us.
Another area of focus for sustainable clean energy the US Department of Defense can focus on is deploying resilient energy storage systems. It is estimated that with a budget of $ 5 billion, the department can store clean energy to sustain the military and US households. Hence, ensuring a reliable energy system will save the US military and the public from shortages arising from fuel-related conflicts. For instance, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has cut about 3% of the US’s entire oil supply. With a well-funded and reliable energy storage system, the country will not worry about unexpected shortages.
There is also a need to undertake research and development to make electric vehicles. Developing electric vehicle variants that can be used in combat is not a cheap affair; hence, the military will have to collaborate with civilian companies such as Tesla. Currently, Tesla is on a mission to develop battery-powered trucks. Also, General Motors has managed to create electric trucks with a significant 1000 horsepower, exceeding the military need of 500 horsepower (Mabus, 2012). Such collaboration stands to benefit both the military and the vehicle manufacturing corporations.
On the one hand, the military will improve their combat technology, while the corporations will benefit from the profits from selling such vehicles. Alleviating reliance on fossil fuels for military vehicles is a long-term goal. It will, however, require the military to put confidence in investors. That can be achieved by first transforming government-owned non-combat cars into electric vehicles.
The military is also gradually shifting to biofuel usage to alleviate overreliance on petroleum products. In most cases, the military uses biofuels to supplement fossil fuels and other traditional energy sources. However, it could also be used for heating and creating electricity. Biofuel usage will solve the challenges encountered when making changes since there is no need to modify engines to accommodate them. Besides, biofuels can still run on petroleum-powered machines efficiently. Biofuel usage is not new, but it dropped during the 1980s when there was a sustained drop in oil prices, meaning it was no longer economically viable to use biofuels. However, the recent surge in oil prices calls for the military and the transport sector players to consider using them again. Currently, the US military uses biofuels to power navy ships, aircraft, and other military transportation modes.
Potential Downsides to Asking Americans and to Lessening Geopolitical Rivalry in Places Like The Arctic and The Middle East
However, abandoning coal and other dirty fossil fuels is not easy for most economies. Firstly, the energy source is one of the most potent incumbent energy sources (Sengupta, 2018). Alternative sources, such as solar energy, can only be powered when winds blow and the sun shines. Essentially, this means that most power grids must be retooled to accommodate alternative energy sources, a tall order for most nations.
Another reason militaries and civilians find it hard to abandon fossil fuels is that there are no efficient substitutes. Unlike fossil fuels, alternative energy sources tend to be less dense, meaning they are unlikely to perform at the level of fossil fuel engines. For instance, the American and British forces initially used coal. However, they later replaced coal-fired engines with fossil fuels, which enabled their machinery to move far without refuelling and attain high speeds. On the other hand, German ships were primarily powered by coal engines, making it hard to keep up with US and British military equipment. The same dilemma faces today’s armed forces. Using clean alternatives is acceptable, but the problem is whether such options can have the same efficiency as fossil fuels.
On the upside, a shift to the usage of renewable energy sources is likely to curb conflicts associated with energy control. The change will ensure that energy is not only a domain of a few nations (Timmons, Harris & Roach, 2014). Some of the current leading energy suppliers include Russia, Iran, and Syria. Most of these countries are experiencing active conflict, and some have used their energy to wage geopolitical blackmail. Henceforth, most nations will acquire energy independence, thus shifting the incumbents’ political power.
Also, a shift to cleaner energy sources is likely to help solve active geopolitical conflicts happening in the Arctic region. The competition is primarily between Russia and her Arctic neighbours. The resulting tensions in the area are anchored on the battle for energy sources and minerals (Zellen, 2009). The melting of the sea has opened up opportunities to extract valuable resources such as oil. As a result, this has caused conflicts as countries fight for territory since there are no clearly defined territories.
A good example is Russia’s annexation of the Crimea Peninsula, an oil-rich sea bed (Zellen, 2009). There is a need to build non-fossil, fuel-reliant energy sources to absolve these conflicts. Moving away from fossil fuels and adopting renewable sources will de-escalate the match as the appetite for fossil fuels reduces.
Conclusion
In summary, the United States military is the single largest consumer of petroleum products and is central to a transition from fossil fuel dependence to renewable energy. The army needs explicitly alternative energy sources to reduce the risks to soldiers’ lives whenever refuelling missions and cyber attacks occur. Other energy sources, such as biofuels, are not only clean but cheaper. Accordingly, engaging the military in building renewable energy infrastructure will also power most US homes. However, shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy will cause disruptions, which is also an expensive affair since it will require the retooling of power grids.
References
Timmons, D., Harris, J. M., & Roach, B. (2014). The economics of renewable energy. Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, 52, 1-52.
US EPA, O. (2015, December 29). Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=The%20largest%20source%20of%20greenhouse
Gardner, T. (2017, March). US military marches forward on green energy, despite Trump. US; Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-green-energy-insight-idUSKBN1683BL
Sengupta, S. (2018, November 24). The World Needs to Quit Coal. Why Is It So Hard? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/climate/coal-global-warming.html
Zellen, B. S. (2009). Arctic doom, Arctic boom: the geopolitics of climate change in the Arctic. ABC-CLIO.
Mabus, R. (2012, November 9). Under President Biden, the US Military Must Lead the Way on Climate Change. Time. https://time.com/5911084/military-lead-climate-change-transition/
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Energy Climate Dilemma and US Policy
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
There is an energy–climate policy dilemma, a specific social policy problem—one needs energy to power an economy and propel one’s military forces. However, fossil fuels, which are still over 80 per cent of the global energy mix, release heat-trapping and climate-altering greenhouse gases. Drawing on your reading across the first three modules of the course, you are to write an essay addressing aspects of this complex dilemma. In analyzing this dilemma, you are to write an essay that addresses the specific questions below and seriously considers the tradeoffs that attach to the question of balance among energy use, transition to non-fossil forms of “greener” energy, economic development, and military utility. For example, the energy industry argues that to transition away from coal and oil anytime soon is “misguided and anti-poor,” in the words of one coal executive, because, arguably, it leaves the world’s poor no recourse but to have less energy to grow their economies and improve their quality of life.
• In your review of course materials, which energy types (e.g., coal, oil, etc.) and specific actors are most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and their cumulative concentrations in the upper atmosphere and oceans?
• The US defence community has long played a role as an agent of social and economic change, building some whole industries from scratch and racially integrating American society after World War II. Is the US military leading an energy transition to greener energy sources, helping to push this across American culture and perhaps the rest of the world, too?
• In your considered assessment, if the US military and the broader set of institutions of the US government (e.g., US Department of Energy, National Security Agency, etc.) were able to help affect an energy transition away from fossil fuels, should they do so? Be sure to consider potential downsides to asking Americans and much of the rest of the world to do with less coal-fired electricity and oil-fired transportation, as well as