What a great idea– let’s all transition to a low carbon economy. It is a noble goal, and what some expert believes is the only real solution to a more sustainable world.
I must say that I think the goal is enormous, and particularly difficult (if not unrealistic) to assume that the US Defense Department will be able to become ‘carbon free’ any time soon. The noble effort has been underway for many years, extending as far back as the G.H-W. Bush administration. The beauty of these long term and slow rolling efforts is that small changes made by DoD can result in large positive results. For example, typical DoD energy programs actively work to replace legacy systems with more energy efficient ones. Lighting projects (or light-replacement projects) are the low hanging fruit of our sustainability programs. Need a new vehicle? Consider an electric or LPG vehicle. The list goes on…
The real challenge for DoD’s efforts is nothing less than Presidential. That’s right. When, after last November’s election, the then Commander-in-Chief-elect called for a list of anyone who attended climate change conferences, a shudder ran down our collective backs. Similar to a Red Scare tactic, the intimidation factor was clear: we would be in his cross hairs over the coming four years.
In spite of two Executive Orders, a National Strategic Plan and many lesser directives, DJT wants to throw the clock back, recinding decades worth of instutionalized progress which not only contributes to reducing the government’s environmental impact, but also make good practical sense. Energy use reduction goals also reduce our reliance on foreign oil – that’s good national defense. Water use reduction is also in our national interest as it becomes a more precious commodity.
We have also begun to look at how we help others live more sustainably. Our huanitarian assistance programs are another key to reducing our footprint and those whom we assist, as we work towards using updated technology and systems to creating lasting outcomes. This tranistion will continue, as both civilians and military are inspired by the prospects of making humanitarian assistance even better. State of the art technology and thinking are tools for us to reach these goals.
So, when DoD aims for a low carbon economy, what it is doing is looking long term, and to effect as many people as possible, both within the ranks and outside the organization. Four years is nothing to be worried about.
More Sustainable World 
There are many ways in which a person can react to unfavourable decisions taken by powerful people, or unfortunate events, such as what is happening in the US currently. Like you, I prefer a common sense approach, considering the wider context.
I came across an article on edie.net relating to the report issued by the WWF, Ceres, Calvert and CDP: Power Forward 3.0 How the largest U.S. companies are capturing business value while addressing climate change.
A total of 48% of the Fortune 500 companies have climate or energy targets in place to reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency and increase renewables generation.
Some interesting facts highlighted in the article include that almost 80 000 emission-reducing projects resulted in $3.7 billion savings by 190 firms in 2016. The data captured by CDP indicate that companies decreased annual emissions by 155.7 million metric tonnes due to these actions and projects. More encouraging is that firms are reporting an 81% success rate for reaching or even exceeding targets and goals within the time periods identified.
This clearly shows that the US is not beholden to the ideas and actions of one individual.
LikeLike
@more sustainable world…I grinned at the facetiousness conveyed at the beginning of your blog. In reality transitioning to a low or no carbon economy is a huge task and somewhat unrealistic at first glance. I think a majority of countries are concerned with how much change would have to happen to make this possible. Making such a large commitment puts added pressure on governments to perform without really understanding the risks and requirements. I think quite often as a society we get bogged down in the details of things and focus all our efforts on policies and procedures and forget about reality.
In my opinion, the political landscape is dominated by governments willing to make only incremental changes – two steps forward, one step back, or in the case of the US, giant leaps back. In addition, I think there is a divide between what is necessary and what politicians are willing to do. That being said I believe there is room for cautious optimism. Through history we can see that our world has always been shaped by major moments of disruption..I’m not quite sure what it is that brings people together…perhaps its a sense of community. But I think optimism and progress is coming from the ground up. The climate crisis and lack of response has initiated a widespread resistance and opened the doors to a revolution in the development of technology.
Transitioning to a low carbon economy will never be easy and there will be a number of social and economical implications. However, instead of taking small steps that are insufficient to take us where we need to go perhaps we need to think clearly – a long term goal of becoming carbon free energy economy. In reference to the US, I think the mistake many presidents have made is to take the ‘all above approach’ resulting in unclear and directionless policies. Perhaps the US could think about setting a physical limit to CO2 emissions as a start.
I think we are in a midst of an energy revolution despite the lack of leadership conveyed by governments and it is inevitable that clean energy is the future. The question is how quickly can we get there and how much damage will be done before we get there.
LikeLike
Excellent post. As a citizen of the United States, I have been deeply troubled by the potential impacts on the trajectory of the our sustainability efforts generally, and our energy efforts specifically. But I have taken heart in relearning one of the basic lessons of understanding a government as vast as the federal government: when it turns, it turns on the radius of a battleship, not a bicycle. Even with the most aggressive anti-climate leadership in the executive branch, DoD policies (as well as other departments) require literally decades to change. And the business case for energy conservation and broader sustainability has been made and ingrained, so change will not be easy. It simply makes sense to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. It simply makes sense to be concerned about sea level rise (ask Norfolk Navy Base). It simply makes sense to avoid foreign fossil fuel dependency.
Perhaps more importantly, there is a growing sense in the ranks of senior generals and admirals that a more sustainable world will result in less conflict, less competition for resources, less need for military intervention. As the group of citizens who would bear the burden of a more volatile world, our military professionals understand better than anyone that improved sustainability is in our national interest – and their personal and professional interest. Changes in leadership will not likely change that dynamic over the short or medium term.
For once, I am heartened by the glacial change of governance in the United States.
LikeLiked by 1 person