U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/netzero/

    Proof that some sectors aren't waiting around to "find out" if climate change is real.  The U.S. Pacific Commander already said that "climate change" is one of the biggest threats the military faces.  Some tactical army units already use solar panels in the field.  Navy warships are being converted to use biodiesel. And more is coming.

    Note the first objective here is economic: doing more with less.  But the end result is still the same: reduced carbon emissions.

     

    "The net zero vision is a holistic approach to addressing energy, water, and waste at Army installations. An approach that is a force multiplier enabling the Army to appropriately steward available resources, manage costs and provide our Soldiers, Families and Civilians with a sustainable future. In an era of persistent conflict, with a mission of stabilizing war-torn nations, a true stabilizing factor can be that of appropriate resource management. The Net Zero vision ensures that sustainable practices will be instilled and managed throughout the appropriate levels of the Army, while also maximizing operational capability, resource availability and well-being."

     

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    Your title is quite misleading. The program described has NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. They have no climate change objectives. It isn't about carbon emissions. You are making that up. 

    The military has been planning for events like Peak Oil for a long time. Can't run a mechanized army with windmills. They have to plan for constrained supplies and they have to plan for protecting access to those supplies.  The net zero program is about conserving resources and doing more with less money.

    I do not speak about you Matty, but the whole issue of climate change/global warming is filled with distortions and linguistic tricks. This is just another example.



    Yes, the military was fooled by the liberal idiocy known as "peak oil". That was BEFORE fracking. We also have a natural gas revolution. The US can be energy independent, if it doesnt buy into the progressive myths of green energy and global warming..

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    Same old wasteful scam, pretending the military is saving money. What a crock, it is massively expensive, and hurts our national security.

    Just like this 'money saving green energy project:

    "In a mind-boggling example of government waste, it will take the U.S. Navy an astounding 447 years to benefit from a costly green-energy project that’s supposed to save money by lowering utility bills.

    Like many other failed renewable energy experiments, the Navy project was funded with money from President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus, the fraud-infested disaster that was supposed to jump start the economy and put Americans back to work. Instead, big chunks of money have gone to wasteful projects, including green energy ventures like the northern California solar panel company (Solyndra) that folded after bilking taxpayers out of $535 million.

    Part of the administration’s aggressive green initiative is to transform the way the military gets its power in the name of reducing global warming. More than $335 million in stimulus money has been allocated for renewable power projects at military bases, according to Pentagon figures quoted in a Virginia newspaper this week. The story focuses on a massive new solar energy project at the Norfolk Navy Base.

    It cost American taxpayers $21 million, features more than 8,600 solar panels and spans 10 acres. Here comes the good part; the monstrous solar energy project, by far the largest in Virginia, can only generate about 2% of the electricity required to operate the Norfolk Navy base. Leave it to a government bureaucrat, the project manager for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, to point out the positive side: “You have to start somewhere,” the manager says in the article.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


     

    The US only has the potential to be energy independent.

    All the fracking projects in the states are useless unless there is a project to build vehicles to take advantage of the natural gas.

    Until that happens, the only thing those fracking fields are doing is causing a glut of natural gas while doing nothing about fuel usage.

    The US already is a net fossil fuel exporter, exporting half-a-million more barrels of petroleum a day than we import. That hasn't done anything for the price here in the states, in fact the cost for consumers continues to rise.

    Oil companies could care less where their profit comes from and they have no interest in US energy independence...unless there's a profit in it for them. They will sell to the highest bidder and so as long as economies like India and China continue to offer higher profits for US fossil fuels then that's where the oil goes.

    So unless you have a grand scheme to force companies to keep their products here in the states the US will ALWAYS be dependent on foreign oil.

    The only option for the US to be energy independent is to increase renewable energy. You can't outsource solar energy or wing turbines or biofuels. Well I guess you could for biofuel but the fact that we have the potential to produce infinite amounts here, it shouldn't affect us.

    Or You could design a socialist system to force domestic fossil fuel producers to sell only to US consumers... Good luck with that.

     



    "The US only has the potential to be energy independent.

    All the fracking projects in the states are useless unless there is a project to build vehicles to take advantage of the natural gas."

    DUH! Energy independence doesnt just mean automobiles...

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    Your title is quite misleading. The program described has NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. They have no climate change objectives. It isn't about carbon emissions. You are making that up. 

    The military has been planning for events like Peak Oil for a long time. Can't run a mechanized army with windmills. They have to plan for constrained supplies and they have to plan for protecting access to those supplies.  The net zero program is about conserving resources and doing more with less money.

    I do not speak about you Matty, but the whole issue of climate change/global warming is filled with distortions and linguistic tricks. This is just another example.



    But in the end, carbon emissions will be reduced.

    The two notions of saving money and using less fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive and are, in fact, interdependent.  It's a mistake to think that reduced carbon emissions are not an objective of solar or wind power - it's a primary benefit.

    As has been said, what's worth doing is often worth doing for money.  If we get cleaner air in the process, then what's wrong with that?

    Nobody is trying to trick you.  Climatology is a highly complex science with many different factors that can't easily be distilled for the average, non-scientific audience.

    The really strange part to me is the total noncommittal.  One does not need to 'believe' in climate change to recognize sound energy policies.  Nor does one have to be a hard-core enviro-nut to admit some energy policies might not work.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    "The U.S. Pacific Commander already said that "climate change" is one of the biggest threats the military faces"

    No wonder a madman like the ruler of North Korea thinks he can threaten the US..if the military is led by idiots making such absurd statements.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "The U.S. Pacific Commander already said that "climate change" is one of the biggest threats the military faces"

    No wonder a madman like the ruler of North Korea thinks he can threaten the US..if the military is led by idiots making such absurd statements.



    Non sequitur and strawman = double fallacy

     

    Kudos! Few here mangle basic logic quite as badly as you do...

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    Hahahaha

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    "The two notions of saving money and using less fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive and are, in fact, interdependent."

    Meaningless hyperbole.

    Green energy is far,  far,  far,  far,  far more expensive than fossil fuels  and doesnt save money, it wastes taxpayers money...

    Oh, except it will pay for itself in 447 years, though, no doubt.

    Talk about  mangling basic logic.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "The two notions of saving money and using less fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive and are, in fact, interdependent."

    Meaningless hyperbole.

    Green energy is far,  far,  far,  far,  far more expensive than fossil fuels  and doesnt save money, it wastes taxpayers money...


    The facts here don't support your claim.  The military is both saving money and reducing their carbon footprint.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    Your title is quite misleading. The program described has NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. They have no climate change objectives. It isn't about carbon emissions. You are making that up. 

    The military has been planning for events like Peak Oil for a long time. Can't run a mechanized army with windmills. They have to plan for constrained supplies and they have to plan for protecting access to those supplies.  The net zero program is about conserving resources and doing more with less money.

    I do not speak about you Matty, but the whole issue of climate change/global warming is filled with distortions and linguistic tricks. This is just another example.

     



    But in the end, carbon emissions will be reduced.

     

    The two notions of saving money and using less fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive and are, in fact, interdependent.  It's a mistake to think that reduced carbon emissions are not an objective of solar or wind power - it's a primary benefit.

    As has been said, what's worth doing is often worth doing for money.  If we get cleaner air in the process, then what's wrong with that?

    Nobody is trying to trick you.  Climatology is a highly complex science with many different factors that can't easily be distilled for the average, non-scientific audience.

    The really strange part to me is the total noncommittal.  One does not need to 'believe' in climate change to recognize sound energy policies.  Nor does one have to be a hard-core enviro-nut to admit some energy policies might not work.

     

     




     

     

    Combatting climate change has NOTHING to do with cleaner air. NOTHING. That is another myth (lie) that the global warming crowd loves to spread.

    The army is not combatting climate change. It is not part of their agenda for Net Zero.They are doing what any sensible business would do. Become more efficient, reduce waste, etc. They are using alternative sources of energy to improve their operational capabilitiies and resource utilization, not for climate change. 

    If they were really combatting climate change then they would be doing goofy things that waste time and money like carbon sequestration. They would be instituting some useless carbon trading mechanism. They might actually put in their report that climate change was important to them. But of course they didn't

    The problem with those that want to limit CO2 emissions is that they want to go way beyond what any organization should be doing to control costs, improve utilization of resources and limit real pollution. They want a job killing carbon tax and other dopey taxes. THey want to set up some useless carbon trading  scheme so they can skim profit while the rest of us pay for it .All we need to do about climate change is what the army is doing.  It is just a by-product of sound organizational management.

    You want to call it combatting climate change? That is basically a lie. 



    You're confused about what's being done here.

    The Army is both reducing carbon emissions (and dependence on fossil fuels) and saving money through the same effort.

    Every single energy efficiency application effectively combats climate change, albeit in different ways.

    Part of what I do is track the energy savings from these applications up to the level of the utility that services the account.  While the individual numbers are small, the accumulated savings are calculated in both dollars and kW and add up very quickly.

    Energy saved = money saved.

     

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.

    The evidence comes from a remarkable find at the margins of the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru, the world’s largest tropical ice sheet. Rapid melting there in the modern era is uncovering plants that were locked in a deep freeze when the glacier advanced many thousands of years ago.

    Dating of those plants, using a radioactive form of carbon in the plant tissues that decays at a known rate, has given scientists an unusually precise method of determining the history of the ice sheet’s margins.

    Lonnie G. Thompson, the Ohio State University glaciologist whose team has worked intermittently on the Quelccaya ice cap for decades, reported the findings in a paper released online Thursday by the journal Science.

    The paper includes a long-awaited analysis of chemical tracers in ice cylinders the team recovered by drilling deep into Quelccaya, a record that will aid scientists worldwide in reconstructing past climatic variations.

    Such analyses will take time, but Dr. Thompson said preliminary evidence shows, for example, that the earth probably went through a period of anomalous weather at around the time of the French Revolution, which began in 1789. The weather presumably contributed to the food shortages that exacerbated that upheaval.

    “When there’s a disruption of food, this is bad news for any government,” Dr. Thompson said in an interview.

    Of greater immediate interest, Dr. Thompson and his team have expanded on previous research involving long-dead plants emerging from the melting ice at the edge of Quelccaya, a huge, flat ice cap sitting on a volcanic plain 18,000 feet above sea level.

    Several years ago, the team reported on plants that had been exposed near a meltwater lake. Chemical analysis showed them to be about 4,700 years old, proving that the ice cap had reached its smallest extent in nearly five millenniums.

    In the new research, a thousand feet of additional melting has exposed plants that laboratory analysis shows to be about 6,300 years old. The simplest interpretation, Dr. Thompson said, is that ice that accumulated over approximately 1,600 years melted back in no more than 25 years.

    “If any time in the last 6,000 years these plants had been exposed for any five-year period, they would have decayed,” Dr. Thompson said. “That tells us the ice cap had to be there 6,000 years ago.”

    Meredith A. Kelly, a glacial geomorphologist at Dartmouth College who trained under Dr. Thompson but was not involved in the new paper, said his interpretation of the plant remains was reasonable.

    Her own research on Quelccaya suggests that the margins of the glacier have melted quite rapidly at times in the past. But the melting now under way appears to be at least as fast, if not faster, than anything in the geological record since the end of the last ice age, she said.

    Global warming, which scientists say is being caused primarily by the human release of greenhouse gases, is having its largest effects at high latitudes and high altitudes. Sitting at high elevation in the tropics, the Quelccaya ice cap appears to be extremely sensitive to the temperature changes, several scientists said.

    “It may not go very quickly because there’s so much ice, but we might have already locked into a situation where we are committed to losing that ice,” said Mathias Vuille, a climate scientist at the State University at Albany in New York.

    Throughout the Andes, glaciers are now melting so rapidly that scientists have grown deeply concerned about water supplies for the people living there. Glacial meltwater is essential for helping Andean communities get through the dry season.

    In the short run, the melting is producing an increase of water supplies and feeding population growth in major cities of the Andes, the experts said. But as the glaciers continue shrinking, trouble almost certainly looms.

    Douglas R. Hardy, a University of Massachusetts researcher who works in the region, said, “How much time do we have before 50 percent of Lima’s or La Paz’s water resources are gone?”

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/americas/1600-years-of-ice-in-perus-andes-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html?hpw&_r=0

    The usual scare tactics.  Many other glaciers worldwide are growing.

    Climate change has always been with us, the climate is never static. 

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: U.S. Army Combats Climate Change with Net Zero Initiative

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    Yes, that's right but it is not for climate change as you suggested. Its for saving money etc.

    Why is it that you and your cohort cannot be straight about this? Why is it that you distort scientific facts? Why do you have to distort the language?

    It is because you really do not care about the environment. It is because you care about controlling behavior you do not like. 

     

    It doesn't matter that climate change is not explicitly mentioned.  The end result is still the same whether you want to admit it or not.

    The simple fact is that sustainable energy, renewable practices and curbing carbon emissions all contribute - in some way - toward adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change.

    Call me a liar if it makes you feel better, but I'm secure in the knowledge that the powers-that-be, the financiers, the underwriters, et al., have all spoken, and initiatives like these are the future.

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share