Aff Dod Procurement

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
DoD Procurement – Aff Index
DoD Procurement – Aff Index..............................................................................................................................................1
DoD Procurement – 1AC......................................................................................................................................................4
DoD Procurement – 1AC....................................................................................................................................................10
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................23
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................24
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................25
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................26
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................27
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................28
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................29
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................30
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................31
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................32
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................33
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................34
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................35
Airpower – 1AC..................................................................................................................................................................36
Topicality – Incentives........................................................................................................................................................37
Topicality – Sythfuels.........................................................................................................................................................38
Inherency – DoD Energy Consumption Increasing............................................................................................................39
Inherency – Attitudes..........................................................................................................................................................40
Inherency – Attitudes..........................................................................................................................................................41
They Say “Military Consumption Decreasing”..................................................................................................................42
Inherency – Energy Costs Increasing.................................................................................................................................43
Airpower – Aviation Fuel Key............................................................................................................................................44
Airpower - Readiness Decreasing.......................................................................................................................................45
Airpower – Korea Impacts..................................................................................................................................................46
They Say “North Korea isn’t a Threat”..............................................................................................................................49
They Say “North Korea isn’t a Threat”..............................................................................................................................50
Airpower – War On Terror Impacts....................................................................................................................................51
Airpower – War On Terror Impacts....................................................................................................................................52
Airpower – Airpower Key to Hegemony............................................................................................................................53
Airpower – Airpower Key to Hegemony............................................................................................................................54
Airpower – Biofuel Solvency.............................................................................................................................................55
Airpower – Synfuels Solvency...........................................................................................................................................56
Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 1
Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – Long Term Contract Solvency.........................................................................................................................59
Oil Dependence Now..........................................................................................................................................................60
Oil Dependence Bad – Hegemony......................................................................................................................................61
Oil Dependence Bad – Trade Deficit..................................................................................................................................62
Oil Dependence Bad – Price Shocks..................................................................................................................................63
Oil Dependence Bad – Terrorism.......................................................................................................................................64
They Say “No Oil Cutoffs”.................................................................................................................................................65
Oil Dependence - Solvency................................................................................................................................................66
Oil Dependence - Solvency................................................................................................................................................67
Brittle Power - Terrorism Impacts......................................................................................................................................68
Brittle Power – Accidents Impacts......................................................................................................................................72
Brittle Power – Economy Impacts......................................................................................................................................73
Brittle Power – Global Modeling Impacts..........................................................................................................................76
Brittle Power – Military Solvency......................................................................................................................................80
Brittle Power – Alternatives Solve......................................................................................................................................81
They Say “Countermeasures protect the Grid”...................................................................................................................82
Readiness – Resupply.........................................................................................................................................................83
Readiness – Resupply.........................................................................................................................................................84
Readiness – Iraq..................................................................................................................................................................85
Readiness – Iraq..................................................................................................................................................................86
Readiness – Military Budgets.............................................................................................................................................87
Readiness – Supply Disruptions.........................................................................................................................................90
Readiness – Supply Disruptions.........................................................................................................................................91
Readiness – Forward Deployment......................................................................................................................................92
Readiness – Forward Deployment......................................................................................................................................93
Readiness – Oil Weapon.....................................................................................................................................................94
Readiness – Public Support................................................................................................................................................95
Readiness - RMA................................................................................................................................................................96
Extend – Hegemony Good..................................................................................................................................................97
Extend – Hegemony Good..................................................................................................................................................99
Extend – Hegemony Good................................................................................................................................................100
Alternatives Solve – Resupply..........................................................................................................................................101
Alternatives Solve – Supply Disruptions..........................................................................................................................102
Alternatives Solve– Military Budgets ..............................................................................................................................103
Alternatives Solve– Military Budgets ..............................................................................................................................104
Alternatives Solve - RMA................................................................................................................................................105
Alternatives Solve - RMA................................................................................................................................................106
Alternatives Solve – Forward Deployment......................................................................................................................107
Solvency – Biofuels..........................................................................................................................................................110
Solvency – Biofuels..........................................................................................................................................................111
Solvency – Bases..............................................................................................................................................................112
Solvency – Bases..............................................................................................................................................................113
Solvency – Spillover.........................................................................................................................................................114
Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Hydrogen........................................................................................................................................................118
Solvency – Hydrogen........................................................................................................................................................119
Solvency – Photovoltaics.................................................................................................................................................120
Solvency – Nanotechnology.............................................................................................................................................121
Solvency – Fuel Cells.......................................................................................................................................................122
Solvency – Waste..............................................................................................................................................................123
Solvency – Promotion Campaign.....................................................................................................................................124
They Say “Green Procurement Now”...............................................................................................................................125
They Say “Alternatives are not Ready”............................................................................................................................128
They Say “Alternatives are not Ready”............................................................................................................................129
They Say “High Oil Prices increase Renewables Now”...................................................................................................130
They Say “Military has done as much Renewable as they can”.......................................................................................131
They Say “Renewables Compromise Military effectiveness”..........................................................................................132
They Say “Renewables Compromise Military effectiveness”..........................................................................................133
They Say “Can’t Eliminate DoD Oil Use”.......................................................................................................................134
They Say “Military will get Priority in a Crisis”..............................................................................................................135
They Say “Small Percentage”...........................................................................................................................................136
They Say “Small Percentage”...........................................................................................................................................137
They Say “Solvency Long Term”.....................................................................................................................................138
They Say “DoD can’t Change”.........................................................................................................................................139
They Say “Alternate Causalities”.....................................................................................................................................140
They Say “Alternate Causalities”.....................................................................................................................................141
They Say “Renewables Harm the Environment”.............................................................................................................142
They Say “No Spillover”..................................................................................................................................................143
They Say “Only Minor Investments”...............................................................................................................................144
Storage Counterplan Responses........................................................................................................................................145
Efficiency Counterplan Responses...................................................................................................................................146
Security Kritik Responses.................................................................................................................................................147
Alternative Energy PIC Responses...................................................................................................................................150
Flight Planning Counterplan Responses...........................................................................................................................151
Training Counterplan Responses......................................................................................................................................152
Trade Off Responses.........................................................................................................................................................153
Spending Responses.........................................................................................................................................................154
Business Confidence Responses.......................................................................................................................................155
Terrorism Counterplan Responses....................................................................................................................................156
JASON Study Flawed.......................................................................................................................................................157
Miscellaneous...................................................................................................................................................................158
Oil Price Spikes Responses...............................................................................................................................................159
Election Internals..............................................................................................................................................................160
Efficiency Counterplan Cards...........................................................................................................................................161
Efficiency Counterplan Cards...........................................................................................................................................162

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
DoD Procurement – 1AC
We offer the following plan:
The United States federal government should increase the procurement of renewable energies
for the military. The Department of Defense should commit to procure synthetic aviation fuels
and renewable sources of energy for military bases in the US.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Observation One – Inherency
Military energy consumption will increase with expanding the War on Terror
Eileen Westervelt, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 2005 [September Energy Trends and
Implications for U.S. Army Installations, http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wcco/news/
specialreports/projectenergy/06_0420_projectenergy_energytrendsreportfromarmycorps.pdf]
Energy Trends Figure 1 and Table 1 show current demand, supply, and proportionate distribution of energy for the
world, nation, and Army. Table 2 lists world reserves. The Army and the nation’s heavy use of oil and natural gas is
not “in synch” with the nation’s or the earth’s supplies. The relative fuel shares of energy use vs. energy reserves
underscores our need to supplement oil and natural gas as our staple fuels. The domestic supply and demand
imbalance would lessen if coal and/or nuclear energy were made more environmentally acceptable or if the
renewable share of our energy portfolio were to increase. Worldwide energy consumption is expected to increase
by 2.1 percent/yr and domestic energy consumption by 1.4 percent per year. This will exacerbate global
energy competition for existing supplies. Army energy consumption is dominated by facilities consumption.
Facilities consumption may decrease in both total quantity and in intensity basis—but not without an aggressive
energy program with careful planning, diligent monitoring, and prudent investment. The closure of European
installations and relocation of troops onto domestic installations will make this outcome especially
challenging. The energy consumption associated with Army mobility (tactical and nontactical vehicle
consumption) is expected to remain constant, but may potentially increase depending of future phases of the
Global War on Terror and on geopolitical tensions resulting from the world energy situation.
The Current DoD energy policy fails – it is uncoordinated and does not emphasize alternative
energies
Gregory Lengyel, 21st Century Defense Initiative of the Brookings Institution 2007 [Department of Defense Energy
Strategy Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks August http://www.brookings.edu/~/media /Files/rc/papers/ 2007/08
defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf
Despite these trends there is no existing formal Department of Defense Energy Strategy and no single individual
or organization responsible for energy issues within the Department. The DOD Annual Energy Management
Report for FY 2006 lists the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)
as the DOD Senior Energy Official responsible for meeting the goals of Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
and Executive Order (EO) 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management.22 However,
this position has been vacant for several years and does not satisfy the need for a comprehensive Senior Energy
Official for the Department. This is not to say the DOD is unconcerned with energy issues. The Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Services have recently conducted or sponsored numerous studies focusing on
energy, many of which have been invaluable information sources for this paper: MITRE Corporation JASON
Project, Reducing DOD Fossil Fuel Dependence (2006); Defense Science Board, More Capable Warfighting
Through Reduced Fuel Burden (2001), and soon to be released Energy Strategy (2006-2007); OSD Energy Security
Integrated Product Team (2006); Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Technology Options for Improved Air Vehicle
Fuel Efficiency (2006); Navy Research Advisory Council, Study on Future Fuels (2005); Army Corps of Engineers,
Energy Trends and Their Implications for US Army Installations (2005); and Defense Advanced Research Projects,
Petroleum-Free Military Workshop (2005), to name a few. Common recommendations include making fuel
efficiency a more significant factor in determining new mobility platforms (e.g. miles per gallon for ground
vehicles, nautical miles/pound (lb.) fuel/lb. payload for aircraft and ships) and creating incentives for energy
efficiency throughout the DOD. However, none of the studies offered anything other than liquid hydrocarbons as
the best fuel for DOD mobility platforms for at least the next 25 years. Impressive groups of energy experts have
produced many of these studies, but they are all either Service specific or temporary in nature, meaning the group of
experts dispersed after writing the study’s final report. The lack of a full-time energy advocate within the DOD
leaves a void in follow-up actions to study recommendations, or creation of directive guidance on energy issues
within the Department.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
The Military can lead the US into energy security – their example raises the public’s
awareness, and defense contracts give an incentive to industry to produce alternatives
Scott Buchanan, Department of Defense Office of Force Transformation 2006 [Energy and Force Transformation
Joint Force Quarterly http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i42/17-JFQ42%20Buchanan%20Pg%2051-
54.pdf
Enabling the rapid adaptation of new energy technologies to civilian use is required for the Nation’s long-term
physical and economic security. n Energy efficiency will not adversely affect military capability. Stimulate Private
Industry. Beyond making DOD more efficient and capable of executing future operations, adapting new energy
technologies for civilian use may have a larger strategic impact. The Defense Department can lead or stimulate the
culture change—required at all levels of the Nation—to recognize the hidden costs of fuel oil and move strategically
to less foreign energy dependence. Only then can the United States become better positioned economically and more
secure in a future environment with less volatile energy supplies. Partnering with industry will perhaps stimulate the
development of effective energy technologies, develop expertise, and accelerate the acceptance of new technologies
by the military and the public. Elements such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency could begin this
partnering effort by sponsoring a private-sector “prize program” to encourage new ideas and approaches and
demonstrate DOD interest. Partnering would mitigate some industry risk and could potentially: n accelerate
engineering breakthroughs to adapt current technologies to military vehicles and other civilian uses n lead to
developing and proving the advanced manufacturing processes required for new energy technologies n create
procurement strategies that support new industry and manufacturing plants until private demand can sustain them n
stimulate interest and investment in energy efficiency n make U.S. industries more competitive in the future oil-
dependent energy environment.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Advantage One: Air Power
The Air Force is heavily dependent on oil - aviation fuel costs account for a major part of the
DoD spending – price increases destabilize the force.
Kristine E. Blackwell, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, April 2007 [“Department of Defense And Energy Independence:
Optimism Meets Reality,” Alternative Fuels, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/ affellows/
Blackwell.pdf]
Aviation Fuel Use DOD’s pattern of fuel use is unique. Although it could be argued that DOD is a small portion of
the nation’s energy market overall (1.2%), most of that energy (74%) goes to powering its mobility vehicles—Air
Force aircraft, Navy ships, and Army ground vehicles. Aviation fuel alone accounts for approximately 52% of the
energy DOD buys each year.1 By comparison, aviation accounts for only 4% of energy use in the United States.2
Fuel costs, although less than 3% of the total DOD budget, have a significant impact on the department’s operating
costs.3 In Fiscal Year 2005, DOD spent just under $11 billion on energy, with about $6.3 billion of that on aviation
fuel.4 Consequently, fluctuations in the price of oil can have a significant impact. For every $10 increase in a barrel
of oil, DOD’s operating costs increase by approximately $1.3 billion.5 The Air Force, which purchases most of
DOD’s aviation fuel, bears the largest share of those costs. That same $10 increase in a barrel of oil increases the Air
Force’s already sizable annual fuel costs6 by $600 million.
Unstable supplies of oil will cripple militaries dependent on fossil fuels

Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., June 15,
2007 [“Pentagon vs. Peak Oil,” http://www.alternet.org/story/54195/?page=entire]
And this is likely to be the least of the Pentagon's worries. The Department of Defense is, after all, the world's
richest military organization, and so can be expected to tap into hidden accounts of one sort or another in order to
pay its oil bills and finance its many pet weapons projects. However, this assumes that sufficient petroleum will be
available on world markets to meet the Pentagon's ever-growing needs -- by no means a foregone conclusion. Like
every other large consumer, the DoD must now confront the looming -- but hard to assess -- reality of "Peak Oil";
the very real possibility that global oil production is at or near its maximum sustainable ("peak") output and will
soon commence an irreversible decline. That global oil output will eventually reach a peak and then decline is no
longer a matter of debate; all major energy organizations have now embraced this view. What remains open for
argument is precisely when this moment will arrive. Some in the global availability of energy, as we move from a
situation of relative abundance to one of experts place it comfortably in the future -- meaning two or three decades
down the pike -- while others put it in this very decade. If there is a consensus emerging, it is that peak-oil output
will occur somewhere around 2015. Whatever the timing of this momentous event, it is apparent that the world faces
a profound shift relative scarcity. It should be noted, moreover, that this shift will apply, above all, to the form of
energy most in demand by the Pentagon: the petroleum liquids used to power planes, ships, and armored vehicles.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
U.S. Airpower is key to prevent Korean war because it deters North Korea and reassures our
allies
Bechtol ’05 (Bruce is an assistant professor of national security studies at Air Command and staff college, “The
Future of U.S. airpower on the Korean Peninsula,” September 1st) http://www.airp ower.maxwell.a f.mil/air
chronicles/apj/apj05/fal05/bechtol.html#bechtol
US military support to the Republic of Korea (ROK) remains critical to peace and stability. The author details
constraints faced by the army of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in any attempt to invade the
ROK. Although much of the surface-based defense capability in the South is transitioning to the ROK army, a strong
US airpower presence demonstrates US commitment to Korean security, counterbalances the DPRK’s offensive
systems, and deters war.) Since the summer of 1950, US airpower has remained one of the dominant military forces
on the Korean Peninsula. Through the Korean War, the Cold War, the uncertain post–Cold War era that has existed
since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the transition of power in North Korea from Kim Il Sung to his son, Kim Jong
Il, the ability of US airpower to serve as a key pillar of deterrence to forces that threaten the stability and security of
the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the ROK-US alliance has remained unquestioned. In a transforming geopolitical
landscape and a rapidly evolving region, this is unlikely to change in the future.
A Korean Conflict Causes global thermonuclear exchange killing all life

Chol, Director Center for Korean American Peace 2002
10-24, http://nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html
Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a
tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan
U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York
Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: "North Korea runs a more advanced biological, chemical and
nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48
states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. If we tried,
the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with never gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to
one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people."
Continues…
The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should
opt for either of the scenarios, that would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue
with. The Americans would realize too late that the North Korean mean what they say. The North Koreans will use
all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of
mankind. A nuclear-armed North Korea would be most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the
eyes of the Americans. They would end up finding themselves reduced to a second-class nuclear power.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Air Dominance is key to US hegemony – deterrence, supply and suppression. It is overlooked
because it is assumed.
Michael Wynne Secretary of the Air Force, 2007 [State of the Force – 2007 http://www.af.mil/library
/speeches/speech.asp?id=351 Sept. 24
It is not the current war but deterring larger strategic challenges that really dominates our thinking. For 17 years we have dominated the skies
above our enemies and the air operation region. This achievement, however, does not make for good television. You can't see air
dominance. It doesn't make for good newsprint. A headline like, "The U.S. Air Force provided air dominance today
again for the 54th year in a row," just wouldn't be a seller. In fact, sometimes I think all of us around the world but
especially here in America have become so accustomed to the Air Force dominating the skies that they don't
understand why it matters. Like sea dominance, it often is on the assumptions page of the war plan, i.e., we
dominate the sea, we dominate the air, let's get on to what the fight's going to be all about. It is simply assumed. But
I say that assumption matters. It matters because the last time a serviceman was attacked from the air was in April of
1953. That was, yes, a long time ago. If you wonder why not being attacked from the air is important, you can ask
Saddam or you can ask the Taliban. They know what happens when you lose control of the air. Today the entire
joint force clamors for full-motion video like that from a Predator, but these slow-motion and vulnerable unmanned
air vehicles must be able to fly with impunity if they are to work as they are intended. We must have air dominance
to do that. As we are currently engaged in interservice discussion about the Air Force should have the executive
agencies about unmanned air vehicles, it's really all about standards of communication, and if you will, getting the
take. And we're actually fairly proud of what ended up to be the movement so far because it moved towards a more
standard collection and distribution of the information in the take and we feel like some standards will be achieved,
but frankly the whole debate shows the interservice faith that the Air Force will provide air dominance for another
50 years. You know, in the Israeli-Lebanon war, the Israeli Army did not realize that Hezbollah was going to fly UAVs over their positions. As
soon as they did realize, they began to hunt them. And as soon as they started to hunt them of course, since they had air dominance, Hezbollah
had to withdraw their unmanned air vehicles. Like air dominance, some of our other contributions seldom make headlines. However, if it was up
to us, right, we would take a page out of our Army colleagues' books and shoot them all down and let God sort them out if they did not squawk
friendly. I often wonder how many Americans know that supplying most of the striking power today in the war today is
airpower. I wonder how many people realize how many hundreds of coalition lives our forces save by flying in
supplies and keeping convoys off the road, and by the precision nature of our air strikes. But there is something we
are doing that is potentially even more important than delivering bombs, although we do love to blow stuff up. That
is, we're deterring the enemy from massing. If we were not deterring the enemy rather than fighting us in groups of 10 and 20 and
striking very fast and fading they would be coming at us in groups of 200 to 500 or 1,000. I guarantee you that if airpower were not there it would
be an entirely different war. In fact, no less a military authority than the Washington Post recognized that al Qaeda refuses to mass under
the American airpower. In short, we are setting the conditions for war, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this is all
of us, coalition Air Forces, that are setting these conditions, for if the coalition air forces were not present and
accounted for, it would be a very different fight.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Renewables enhance aviation flexibility, mobility and decreased waste
Gordon Kuntz, Colonel, Army National Guard of the United States, April 2007 [Army Environmental Policy
Institute, “Use of Renewable Energy In Contingency Operations,” p.15-17, www.aepi.army.mil]
Advantages of Renewable Energy Systems

Use of renewable energy systems during CONOPS has multiple and varied advantages for Commanders.
Advantages include36: reducing the logistic footprint by decreasing the fuel requirement by as much as 20-30%,
augmentation of power by up to 30%, a decrease in maintenance needs, and overall reduction in cost from fuel
savings both in decreased fuel use and cost of hauling fuel. Further benefits occur in reduction in the size and weight
of noisy, fuel consuming power units, reduction of weight requirements for military operations through use of lighter
equipment, and increased security through reduction of thermal image, improved stealth with reduced noise, and
greater control of intelligence through decreased waste. By decreasing waste there is a significant restriction on
potential enemy information gathering efforts through removal of a readily accessible source of material found in
landfills. Biomass generators and MISER waste to energy systems give a reduction of water requirements of up to
50-80% and significantly decrease or eliminate transportation needs for waste disposal. Commanders have enhanced
maneuverability, greater flexibility, and increased agility when using lighter renewable energy systems. Force
protection and physical security are greatly improved by limiting soldier exposure to attack through significantly
decreasing the number of convoys with less demand for fossil fuel. Augmenting energy needs with renewable
energy systems allows engineer resources to be freed up for use in areas of greater importance. Communication lines
are strengthened by reduction in the number and frequency of convoys hauling fuel, resulting in less vulnerability to
direct attack, reduction or elimination of civilian assets hauling waste, and decreased need for or demand upon Host
Nation resources in the form of water, fuel, energy, and sanitation support. Improved sanitation conditions results in
health promotion of the force by decreasing disease exposure from trash and filth, thereby lowering the potential for
disease and non-battle injury incidence.
Long term DoD contracts to purchase aviation synfuels would give investors confidence in the
industry and price stability to the DoD
Senators Jim Bunning and Barack Obama have introduced legislation to address the need to pull together the
investors and the billions of dollars need to build a synthetic fuel plant by expanding and enhancing the DOE loan
guarantee program included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; providing a new program of matching loans to
address funding shortages for front-end engineering and design (capped at $20 million and must be matched by non-
federal money); expanding investment tax credit and expensing provisions, and extending the fuel excise tax credit;
providing funding for the DOD to purchase, test, and integrate synfuels into the military; authorizing a study on
synfuel storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and perhaps most importantly to reduce financial risk associated
with starting a US synthetic fuel industry, extending existing DOD contracting authority for up to 25 years.41 Long-
term contracts move much of the financial risk from private investors to the American taxpayers. If there were a
long-term decline in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they
would otherwise pay for petroleum products. In past years, the DOD has not had the authority to enter into the 15-
or 25-year deals industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington DC,
Senator Bunning addressed the issue: “I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a premium for highquality,
clean, domestic fuel. Long-term contracts will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting.
These contracts will vary above and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year
contract. I believe this is healthy and normal for long-term contracts.” Secretary Wynne also addressed price
stability at the Energy Forum. “Last year, the AF spent about $6.6 billion on aviation fuel; 1.6 billion dollars more
than budgeted. In 2005, the fuel budget was $1.4 billion more than the previous year. We could have paid for a
supplier to build a dedicated coal, natural gas, or other derived fuel plant with this $3 billion in unbudgeted expense.
Maybe then we could have a predictable cost for fuel.”

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Advantage Two: Equipment Upgrades
Dependence undermines readiness because increasing oil prices and volatile energy markets
drain Military budgets and prevent revolutionizing technology
Thomas Crowley Logistics Management Institute 2007 [april transforming the way dod looks at energy an approach
to establishing an energy strategy http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_files/document_ 404_F T602T1
_Transformi ng%20the%20Way%20DoD%20Looks%20at%20Energy _Final%20 Report.pdf.]
Fiscal Disconnect The need to recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment and to develop high- technology
systems to implement future operational concepts is growing. At the same time, the procurement accounts for DoD
are constantly under pressure from the rising costs of nondiscretionary accounts in the DoD budget (fuel,
manpower) and requirements for non-defense spending (social security, health care). In this pressurized fiscal
environment, controlling operating costs is essential to enable the procurement of new capability needs. However,
fuel costs and consumption trends are increasing the total operating costs of the force, and projected trends will
create the need to make investments in additional logistics capability. Thus, investment for future combat capability
must increasingly compete with growing operating costs and logistic support requirements. In addition to the
financial planning challenge associated with energy market volatility, the inability to fully account for energy
considerations in operational and force development analysis impacts the investment decisions necessary to build
the future force. The real cost of fuel to DoD is more than just the DESC assess this difference, the Office of
Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) has been studying the delivered cost of fuel for the military. PA&E
estimated the “wholesale” cost to each service and then added the costs incurred for “retail” delivery as well as
other costs incurred by the services and agencies.
Dependence on oil cripples military readiness – it will divert funds from upgrading weapons
systems and new operational concepts
Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College June 15, 2007 [“Pentagon vs.
Peak Oil,” http://www.alternet.org/story/54195/?page=entire]
Nor is this destined to prove a temporary issue. As recently as two years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE)
was confidently predicting that the price of crude oil would hover in the $30 per barrel range for another quarter
century or so, leading to gasoline prices of about $2 per gallon. But then came Hurricane Katrina, the crisis in Iran,
the insurgency in southern Nigeria, and a host of other problems that tightened the oil market, prompting the DoE to
raise its long-range price projection into the $50 per barrel range. This is the amount that figures in many current
governmental budgetary forecasts -- including, presumably, those of the Department of Defense. But just how
realistic is this? The price of a barrel of crude oil today is hovering in the $66 range. Many energy analysts now say
that a price range of $70-$80 per barrel (or possibly even significantly more) is far more likely to be our fate for the
foreseeable future. A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel
fuel, home-heating oil, and petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms, businesses, and local
governments. Sooner or later, it will force people to make profound changes in their daily lives -- as benign as
purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as painful as cutting back on home heating or health care simply
to make an unavoidable drive to work. It will have an equally severe affect on the Pentagon budget. As the world's
number one consumer of petroleum products, the DoD will obviously be disproportionately affected by a doubling
in the price of crude oil. If it can't turn to Congress for redress, it will have to reduce its profligate consumption of
oil and/or cut back on other expenses, including weapons purchases. The rising price of oil is producing what
Pentagon contractor LMI calls a "fiscal disconnect" between the military's long-range objectives and the realities of
the energy marketplace. "The need to recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment [from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan] and to develop high-technology systems to implement future operational concepts is growing," it
explained in an April 2007 report. However, an inability "to control increased energy costs from fuel and supporting
infrastructure diverts resources that would otherwise be available to procure new capabilities."

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Revolutionary military technology will deter war
Benbow, Senior Lecturer at the Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth, 2004 (Tim, The Magic Bullet?
Understanding the 'Revolution in Military Affairs,' p. 150-151)
Perhaps firmer grounds on which to question the existence of a current RMA lie in extending the argument
presented above, that a transformation is underway in warfighting but only incremental changes in other sorts of
operations. It was argued that the latter type of conflict is more probable in the contemporary security environment.
It is possible to go rather further and suggest that the very extent of the transformation in warfighting capabilities,
which will vastly increase an already significant Western advantage, will itself make such conflicts less frequent as
future challengers are pushed ever more firmly towards asymmetric strategies. This prospect does not mean that
there is no value in pursuing the RMA: first, as was argued above, RMA capabilities will considerably improve, if
not 'revolutionise', capabilities for non-warfighting operations; second, greatly reducing the likelihood of major
conventional warfare would in itself be no mean achievement. The impact of the RMA would be significantly
blunted, however, if it had the effect of increasing the prevalence of asymmetric warfare, which is the subject of the
next chapter.
Funding alternative energies transforms the military and removes operational limits
54.pdf
However, is the confluence of new and evolving operational concepts, high fuel costs, and fiscal constraints
demanding a transformation in our view of energy? The available evidence suggests that it is. Historically, the
Department of Defense has invested in transformational technologies— such as nuclear power, missile defense
initiatives, and intercontinental ballistic missiles— with the potential to alter the strategic balance. DOD should do
the same now to balance its scarce energy resources. New technologies to improve fuel efficiency (weight, drag,
engine efficiency, system efficiency, and auxiliary power needs) and to develop alternative energy sources have the
potential to transform the force, remove operational limits that are built into our plans, and provide the capabilities
that forces need. The business case for investing in new technologies, however, is difficult to build because current
costing methods do not make the actual end-to-end costs of fueling the force visible to decisionmakers. In Winning
the Oil Endgame, Amory Lovins identifies some key technology investments in various stages of development that
could significantly improve military weapon system efficiency and operational performance. 13 Investing in these
technologies gains energy efficiency and explores alternative fuels and energy sources. About $250 million (0.4
percent) of the DOD fiscal year 2006 research and development (R&D) budget can be tracked to energy-related
projects to include: n Army: Propulsion and Energetics Program, University Research Initiative Fuel Cell R&D,
Advanced Propulsion Research, Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology (includes numerous projects on fuel
cells, lightweight materials, and reengineering of vehicles), and Services Combat Feeding Technology
Demonstration n Navy: Navy Energy Program, Mobility Fuels/Fuel Cells, Integrated Fuel Processor/Fuel Cell
System, Solid Oxide Fuel Cell, Commercial Off-the-Shelf Carbon Filter Qualification, and Energy and Environment
Technologies (fuel cell and methane hydrate technologies)

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Advantage Three: Forward Deployment
Reliance on fossil fuels tethers our forward deployed forces – it undermines mobility and
flexibility because it relies on the resupply chain
Operational Disconnect The security and military strategies for DoD require an energy-intense posture for
conducting both deterrence and combat operations. The strategies rely on persistent presence globally, mobility to
project power and sustain forces, and dominant maneuver to swiftly defeat adversaries. These current and future
operating concepts tether operational capability to high-technology solutions that require continued growth in
energy sources. Current consumption estimates, although based on incomplete data, validate these increasing fuel
requirements and the implications for future operations. Clearly, the skill of our logistics forces in providing fuel
has grown significantly since World War II. Still, we must be mindful of the operational implications of logistics
requirements. The stalling of General Patton’s Third Army following its campaign across France in August and
September 1944 is a telling example of the fuel “tether.” Despite the heroic efforts of logistics forces, the wear and
tear on supply trucks and the strategic priority for fuel and logistics support in other areas of operations limited
Patton to local operations for nearly 2 months. The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) estimates that 20,000
soldiers are employed to deliver fuel to operations (and spending $1 million per day to transport petroleum, which
does not include fuel costs for contractor-provided combat support). The delivery of fuel poses such an operational
and tactical risk that in July 2006, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, the highest-ranking Marine Corps officer in Iraq’s
Anbar Province, characterized the development of solar and wind power capabilities as a “joint urgent operational
need.” General Zilmer cited reductions in often dangerous fuel transportation activities as the main motivation for
this request: “By reducing the need for [petroleum-based fuels] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency
of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our Marines, soldiers, and sailors.” Operational
capability is always the most important aspect of force development. However, it may not be possible to execute
operational concepts and capabilities to achieve our security strategy if the energy implications are not considered.
Cur- rent planning presents a situation in which the aggregate operational capability of the force may be
unsustainable in the long term.
Forward deployment is critical to US hegemony and deterring Asian nuclear conflicts

Alagappa, 2003 – Director East-West Center Washington (Asian Security Order, Page 19-20)
Though its alliance network, forward deployment, and the extended deterrence provided by its nuclear capability,
the United States plays an important role in the management of the three serious security conflicts and in
stabilizing relations among major powers. Washington deters war on the Korean peninsula and across the Taiwan
Strait, and American leadership has been crucial in defusing tensions in these conflicts as well as the Indo-
Pakistani conflict over Kashmir. Because of the mistrust among Japan, China, Russia, and the two Koreas, it is
often argued that only the United States can play a stabilizing role in Northeast Asia-by binding Tokyo and
preventing the development of a militarily powerful Japan, and by checking the growing power and influence of
China that is feared by several Asian countries.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Alternative energy is critical for forward deployed forces – it reduces vulnerability of fuel
resupply
Boston Globe , 2006 [ October 2, Military wants a more fuel-efficient Humvee Pentagon makes an energy push;
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/02/military_wants_a_ more_fuel
_efficient_humvee/]
The pressure for renewable energy sources is driven from the front lines. On July 25 , Major General Richard Zilmer
of the Marine Corps, who is in charge of the force in Anbar, Iraq, wrote a priority request, saying that his supply
convoys on Iraq's roads were increasingly at risk. As much as 70 percent of the convoys are carrying fuel, according
to studies. Zilmer wanted alternative-energy sources brought to his base, such as solar and renewable battery
systems, as substitutes for fuel used to power generators. The Pentagon also is taking note of the cost of delivering
the fuel to far-flung areas of Iraq. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and currently
an energy adviser to the Defense Department, has estimated that getting gas to a tank in Iraq could cost as much as
$100 a gallon, considering the cost of supply lines, tanker vehicles, and protection of the tankers.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Advantage Four – Homeland Defense
Terrorist attacks on electrical infrastructure are likely – vulnerability and Iraq proves
Council on Foreign Relations, 2007 [“America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid”, April 24, 2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publiccation/ 13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html]
Current stresses on the U.S. energy grid presents cause for concern. With an aging infrastructure and growing energy
consumption, major outages may become an increasing phenomenon. The specter of terrorism also looms large:
Experts say jihadis in Iraq have proven adept at disrupting the electrical grid in that country and could easily apply
that same skill set in the United States. The U.S. electrical grid—the system that carries electricity from producers to
consumers—is in dire straits. Electricity generation and consumption have steadily risen, placing an increased
burden on a transmission system that was not designed to carry such a large load. According to the American
Society of Civil Engineers, paltry investment in the aging infrastructure caused transmission capacity to drop 19
percent annually for the decade between 1992 and 2002. Since then, utility companies have begun sinking more
money into transmission capacity, currently spending $3 billion to $4 billion a year. As a result of recent
deregulation, some utilities own transmission lines and others do not, but the law requires transmission capacity to
be shared, leaving companies unsure about major investment in transmission assets. Unfortunately, these new
investments will not alleviate the stress on the transmission grid: While transmission capacity is projected to
increase 7 percent in the next decade, demand will rise some 19 percent. As a result, consumers will incur higher
costs and blackouts could become more frequent Attacks on infrastructure are an almost daily fact of life in Iraq.
Experts caution the war in that country will produce a whole generation of terrorists who have honed their skills
sabotaging infrastructure. In his recent book, The Edge of Disaster, CFR security expert Stephen E. Flynn cautions,
“The terrorist skills acquired are being catalogued and shared in Internet chat rooms.”
Our domestic grids vulnerability is increasing - Attacks on US electricity infrastructure would

be a direct threat to the military
Congressional Quarterly 2007 [http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews110-000002608357.html October 18 Internet
Compromises Power Grid Security, Witnesses Say]
The electronic infrastructure that operates America’s power grids is more at risk of cyber-attack than ever because of
operating systems connected to the Internet, according to witnesses at a House subcommittee hearing Wednesday.
Jim Langevin, D-R.I., chairman of the House Homeland Security Cybersecurity Subcommittee, bashed a set of
regulatory standards recommended by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the “control
systems” that protect the power industry’s systems. Several witnesses joined him in this assessment, and
recommended that the Department of Homeland Security develop a better system for guiding private industry efforts
to secure control systems. Langevin said the problem of cyber-attacks on components of the electrical grid are a
looming threat. “I’ll be blunt — if this administration doesn’t recognize and prioritize these problems soon, the
future isn’t going to be pretty,” he said. Later he added “For a society whose very function depends on reliable
power, the disruption of electricity to chemical plants, banks, refineries, hospitals, water systems and military
installations presents a terrifying scenario.” Those testifying before the subcommittee came armed with anecdotes to
show how real the problem is. Greg Wilshusen, a Government Accountability Office investigator who studies
information security, said a job applicant who was rejected from an Australian sewage treatment plant used a radio
transmitter to remotely break into the facility’s controls. The disgruntled applicant caused 264,000 gallons of raw
sewage to spill into nearby rivers and parks.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
The terrorist threat to the electric grid is real and growing – if the military is reliant on the
grid when a terrorist attack occurs, it will cripple readiness.
Dave Menicucci 2007 Research engineer at Sandia National Labs [Distributed Energy – The Journal for Onsite
Power Solutions, Energy Storage – the Emerging Nucleus http://www.erosioncontrol.com/de_0701_energy.html
February ]
A growing concern is sabotage, where humans perpetrate a well-planned attack on one of the single points of failure.
One such attack may have been recently thwarted in December 2003, when six transmission line towers were found to be unbolted in the Nevada
desert. It is possible that saboteurs were planning to topple the towers, causing an energy supply disruption. Reliability—The overall reliability
of the electric grid system today is around 99.99%, which means that it is available 99.99% of the time. Robert Arno explains that, from the
perspective of an energy consumer, this means that the system is available for all except 53 minutes per year. This outage could occur as one 53-
minute outage or 53 one-minute outages. It could also mean one 159-minute outage over three years (Arno, R., et al. “What Five 9s Really Means
and Managing Expectations.” IEEE 2006 Industry Applications Society Conference, Tampa FL, October 8–12, 2006). Many people accept
whatever reliability the utility provides, but businesses and some civil protection organizations are beginning to
demand more control over their energy systems’ availability. This is especially true in critical manufacturing and
service sectors, such as computer chip factories and financial data centers. The US military is particularly concerned
about how the vulnerabilities in the energy infrastructure may affect mission readiness. In any case, nearly all of the outages
originate in the transmission and distribution system and are due to one of three causes: a) accident, b) act of nature, or c) sabotage. The existing
system reliability—essentially a one-size-fits-all offering—is not sufficient for all users.
A terrorist grid attack would collapse the US economy

CNN, 2007 (Jeanne Meserve, “Mouse click could plunge city into darkness, experts say,” 9-27-2007,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/power.at.risk/index.html#cnnSTCText)
Researchers who launched an experimental cyber attack caused a generator to self-destruct, alarming the
government and electrical industry about what might happen if such an attack were carried out on a larger scale,
CNN has learned. Sources familiar with the experiment said the same attack scenario could be used against huge
generators that produce the country's electric power. Some experts fear bigger, coordinated attacks could cause
widespread damage to electric infrastructure that could take months to fix. CNN has honored a request from the Department of
Homeland Security not to divulge certain details about the experiment, dubbed "Aurora," and conducted in March at the Department of Energy's
Idaho lab. In a previously classified video of the test CNN obtained, the generator shakes and smokes, and then stops. DHS acknowledged the
experiment involved controlled hacking into a replica of a power plant's control system. Sources familiar with the test said researchers changed
the operating cycle of the generator, sending it out of control. Watch the generator shake and start to smoke » The White House was briefed on the
experiment, and DHS officials said they have since been working with the electric industry to devise a way to thwart such an attack. "I can't say it
[the vulnerability] has been eliminated. But I can say a lot of risk has been taken off the table," said Robert Jamison, acting undersecretary of
DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate. Government sources said changes are being made to both computer software and physical
hardware to protect power generating equipment. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it is conducting inspections to ensure all nuclear
plants have made the fix. Industry experts also said the experiment shows large electric systems are vulnerable in ways not previously
demonstrated. "What people had assumed in the past is the worst thing you can do is shut things down. And that's not necessarily the case. A lot
of times the worst thing you can do, for example, is open a valve -- have bad things spew out of a valve," said Joe Weiss of Applied Control
Solutions. "The point is, it allows you to take control of these very large, very critical pieces of equipment and you can
have them do what you want them to do," he said. Adding to the vulnerability of control systems, many of them are manufactured and
used overseas. Persons at manufacturing plants overseas have access to control system schematics and even software program passwords,
industry experts say. Weiss and others hypothesize that multiple, simultaneous cyber-attacks on key electric facilities
could knock out power to a large geographic area for months, harming the nation's economy. See how America's power
grid works » "For about $5 million and between three to five years of preparation, an organization, whether it be transnational terrorist groups or
nation states, could mount a strategic attack against the United States," said O. Sami Saydjari of the nonprofit Professionals for Cyber Defense.
Economist Scott Borg, who produces security-related data for the federal government, projects that if a third of the
country lost power for three months, the economic price tag would be $700 billion. "It's equivalent to 40 to 50 large
hurricanes striking all at once," Borg said. "It's greater economic damage than any modern economy ever suffered.
... It's greater then the Great Depression. It's greater than the damage we did with strategic bombing on Germany in
World War II
Thank you to Jason Tiberius Peterson for this impact card

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Economic decline causes global nuclear war
Thomas Beardon, fmr Lt Col, 2000 [“The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” http://www.fre
erepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on
nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example,
suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there,
in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach
the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios
will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for
decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential
adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the
MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only
chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its
perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange
occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United
States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.
Military bases can use renewable sources to avoid the electricity grid and reduce brittle power
Geothermal heat pumps are similar to ordinary heat pumps, but use the ground instead of outside air to provide
heating, air conditioning and, in most cases, hot water. Because they use the earth's natural heat, they are among the
most efficient and comfortable heating and cooling technologies currently available. The Services have installed a
total of 10,356 geothermal heat pumps among 24 different installations since 1993.50 In 2005, Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay brought online the world’s largest wind farm/diesel hybrid power system. The plant is rated at 3.8
MW, is improving installation grid reliability, providing 25% of the base’s power requirements, and saving the Navy
$1.2 million annually.51 Since 1997, the Air Force has installed five wind generation facilities producing 8400 KW
of electricity. The Army has two small wind facilities, generating 335 KW, and the Navy has one wind facility at San
Clemente Island, CA, rated at 675 KW.52 The DOD has identified an additional 109 facilities with the potential to
produce an additional 70 MWa in wind energy.53 Renewable energy production at DOD facilities is growing and must continue to
grow in order to assure access to critical energy requirements. Renewable energy diversifies energy sources and provides cost effective,
environmentally responsible energy to DOD facilities. Nuclear Power Another more controversial energy source with great potential to provide
assured access to electricity for DOD installations is nuclear power. Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman announced the Global Nuclear Energy
Strategic Partnership (GNEP) in February 2006 as part of the President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative highlighted in the 2006 State of the
Union Address. The purpose of GNEP is “…to work with other nations to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor
technologies. This initiative will help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies and without
making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons. These new technologies will
make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy
demand.”54 In short, GNEP is about expanding nuclear power capabilities with advanced technologies to effectively
and safely recycle spent nuclear fuel without producing separated plutonium. Once the technology is demonstrated it
can be exported to other countries. If GNEP proceeds as planned, DOE will have to test and validate these new
nuclear technologies. Larger DOD installations, especially those with limited renewable energy capabilities, could
provide the DOE secure sites to validate the new technologies before sending it overseas. The DOD would gain
nuclear powered installations independent from the vulnerable, fragile commercial electric grid. Additionally, DOD
could provide surplus power to surrounding civilian communities.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
The military can lead society in an energy transformation – it is a powerful symbol to the rest
of society
Michael Homitschek, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, Fall 2006 [Air Force Journal of Logistics, “War Without Oil,
Catalyst for Transformation” Volume XXX, Number 3, Introduction, http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/lg j/Vol%2030%
20No%203%20www.pdf]
In the end, as the DoD and the nation grow comfortable with the new energy paradigm, and the threat of petroleum
energy insecurity fades, the transition of remaining activities to the new energy standard will be self-sustaining. A
new-found postpetroleum energy security and the experiences of a somewhat long and painful, but otherwise
successful energy transformation, will likely enable the DoD and the nation to eventually continue pursuit of even
more advanced energy concepts such as nuclear propulsion, nuclear fusion, space solar generation, moon energy
exploration, and matter-anti-matter propulsion, to name a few. As demonstrated, the journey to the DoD’s energy
future will be both monumental and complex, requiring enormous strategic leadership to accomplish the desired
results. By using a proven transformation methodology such as Dr Kotter’s eight-step process to develop a sense of
urgency and the vision of the energy future it wishes to create, the DoD can then begin to dissect the scope of the
problem and identify and execute the best strategy for creating the energy future it desires. To quote EIA’s director,
Dr Caruso, oil peaking is a problem that will occur “…within the present century.”145
This impact to all of this is Readiness - Military Readiness is key to hegemony

Donnelly, 2003---Resident Scholar at AEI (Thomas, Resident Scholar at AEI, 2/1. ttp://www.aei.org/publications
/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp)
The preservation of today's Pax Americana rests upon both actual military strength and the perception of
strength. The variety of victories scored by U.S. forces since the end of the cold war is testament to both the futility
of directly challenging the United States and the desire of its enemies to keep poking and prodding to find a
weakness in the American global order. Convincing would-be great powers, rogue states, and terrorists to accept the
liberal democratic order--and the challenge to autocratic forms of rule that come with it--requires not only an
overwhelming response when the peace is broken, but a willingness to step in when the danger is imminent. The
message of the Bush Doctrine--"Don't even think about it!"--rests in part on a logic of preemption that
underlies the logic of primacy.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Hegemony solves multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict between nationalist regional
hegemons – a multipolar or offshore balancing role is a fantasy.
Robert Kagan, 2007 senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [“End of Dreams, Return of
History”, 7/19, web)
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this
relatively benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant
power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not
immune to error, like all other nations, and because of its size and importance in the international system those
errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal
Kantian international order, in which all the world ’s powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves
wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust.
Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a
major war between great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more
conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value.
American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the way
of regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world
that looks like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to
shape it. The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington.
The return of great powers and great games
If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of
competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold
War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth
and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold
War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by
itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the
large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers
are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other.
National ambition drives China’s foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to
appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their
nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a
European, postmodern view that power is pass é; hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and
modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including military power, is a good thing to have and that it
is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans,
that status and honor, and not just wealth and security, are important for a nation.
The Chinese do not share the view that power is passé; hence their now twodecades- long military buildup.
Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power — with its pacifist
constitution and low defense spending — now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. Partly this is
in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea ’s nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by
Japan’s own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or “little brother” to
China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to
prevent the other ’s rise to predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic
and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a
pawn between the two powers, is once again worrying both about a “greater China” and about the return of Japanese
nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian future looks more like Europe ’s past than its present.
But it also looks like Asia’s past.
He continues

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical,
and typically Russian, blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration
into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of
the eu and nato, would not insist on predominant influence over its “near abroad,” and would not use its natural
resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia ’s international status in an attempt to
regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more
traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor
and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from nato and the United States, the
Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external
military threats. 16 Russia’s complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War
settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in
Russia ’s relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult.
One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India ’s regional
ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in competition with
China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene.
In the Middle East there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership
in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian
territory from attack by the United States.
Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the
world, and it has become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans
regard as a safe supranational direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The
honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and
economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and
admired by others for playing this role.
Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam,
including al Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide
swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect,
including self-respect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger
and often oppressive outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China
had its “century of humiliation.” Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of
which Israel has become the living symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor
fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the
dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in
their midst.
Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on. Israel has become its living symbol.
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous
administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving
regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now,
increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War,
beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not
retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.
Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in
these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in
Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern
power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as “No. 1” and are
equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are
remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image.
They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the
behavior of billions of people around the globe.
He continues
Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining
feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and
so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these
rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its
influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and
lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through
confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world
is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it
could simply make them more catastrophic.
It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in
the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere,
such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow
the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to
markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as
guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for
naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve
struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major
conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible.
Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power.
Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by
American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power,
for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany.
Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe ’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant
and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the
continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war.
People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often
succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American
power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that
they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and
institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution
of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of
power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would
produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that
would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and
Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and
Europe.
The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among
the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may
erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt
between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or
suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict
between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the
United States.
Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to
erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in
East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region.
That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the
He continues

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an
ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.
Conflicts are more likely to erupt if the United States withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.
In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful
nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful
approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance
of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the
need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are
possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some
call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and
its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.
It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption
of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in
access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that
American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor
would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability,
and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That
commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world,
practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground.
The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation.
In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least
two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening
dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an
immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region
is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A
diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could
expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect
the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any
American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East
further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will
not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely
to draw the United States back in again.
The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability.
In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and
nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should
imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will
provide an easier path.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
The United States federal government should commit to long term contracts to procure
synthetic aviation fuels for the Department of Defense.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
Observation One – the Plan enhances Airpower
The Air Force is heavily dependent on oil - aviation fuel costs account for an enormous part of
the DoD spending – price increases destabilize the force.
Optimism Meets Reality,” Alternative Fuels, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/ affellows/
Blackwell.pdf]
Aviation Fuel Use DOD’s pattern of fuel use is unique. Although it could be argued that DOD is a small portion of
the nation’s energy market overall (1.2%), most of that energy (74%) goes to powering its mobility vehicles—Air
Force aircraft, Navy ships, and Army ground vehicles. Aviation fuel alone accounts for approximately 52% of the
energy DOD buys each year.1 By comparison, aviation accounts for only 4% of energy use in the United States.2
Fuel costs, although less than 3% of the total DOD budget, have a significant impact on the department’s operating
costs.3 In Fiscal Year 2005, DOD spent just under $11 billion on energy, with about $6.3 billion of that on aviation
fuel.4 Consequently, fluctuations in the price of oil can have a significant impact. For every $10 increase in a barrel
of oil, DOD’s operating costs increase by approximately $1.3 billion.5 The Air Force, which purchases most of
DOD’s aviation fuel, bears the largest share of those costs. That same $10 increase in a barrel of oil increases the Air
Force’s already sizable annual fuel costs6 by $600 million.
Synthetic aviation fuels are an alternative, but the “government” currently will only extend
five year contracts which destroys a suppliers economic security and incentive to build plants
to produce synfuels
Optimism Meets Reality,” Synthetic Fuels, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf]
Compounding the difficulties posed by the high cost of constructing F-T plants are restrictions on DOD’s ability to
enter into long-term contracts for fuel. Currently the department may only enter into contracts for fuel up to five
years–not long enough to provide potential suppliers with the economic assurance necessary to justify construction
of a capital intensive plant. The five-year limitation is based on language in 10 U.S. Code 2306b, which outlines the
circumstances under which the department may sign a “multiyear contract.” The statute defines a multiyear contract
as “a contract for the purchase of property for more than one, but not more than five, program years.”21
Proposed legislation (S.154, S.155, and H.R. 370) is intended in part to alleviate the contracting restriction and thus
eliminate one of the major barriers to increased F-T synthetic fuel production. The bills–Coal-To-Liquid Fuel
Energy Act of 2007 (S. 154), Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act of 2007 (S.155), and Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of
2007 (H.R. 370)–propose permitting the Department of Defense to enter into contracts for synthetic fuel for up to 25
years. Critics of the legislation express concern that encouraging CTL production before large-scale carbon
sequestration is available will increase overall carbon emissions.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
As a result, existing fuel contracts are going unfulfilled and the industry is shutting down
Flight International—2007. ( “Fuel for Change.” 1/16/07. Lexis Nexis.)
.Alternative fuels come in two flavours: those derived from non-renewable fossil sources such as coal and natural
gas and generally described as synthetic fuel, or synfuel and those from renewable biological sources, such as crops,
and generically termed biofuel. The US military is pursuing synfuel, because of the country's ample coal reserves,
but the holy grail of aviation is a bio-jet fuel replacement for kerosene.In mid-December, the Boeing B-52 began
flying with a 50:50 blend of synthetic and standard JP-8 jet fuel in all eight engines, having flown first using the mix
in one pair of Pratt & Whitney TF33s. Cold-weather testing of the synfuel blend will be completed by March. The
USAF then plans to test the fuel in an afterburning fighter engine, says Paul Bollinger, special assistant for
installations, environment and logistics.Synfuel for the B-52 was produced from natural gas using the Fischer-
Tropsch (F-T) process, invented in Germany and used during the Second World War, and now attracting interest
because it can produce a cleaner jet fuel from coal, gas or biomass feedstock.
But the Syntroleum plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma that produced the fuel was mothballed in September after supplying
several thousand gallons to the USAF. "There wasn't any economic reason to keep it open," the company says. Last
May the US Department of Defense announced plans to buy up to 760 million litres (200 million USgal) of
synthetic F-T kersoene for use in a 50% blend with JP-8 and JP-5 (used by the US Navy), but no contracts have been
awarded. Bollinger expects the USAF to place its next order in March or April, but is not sure who will provide the
fuel. "Shell may be interested, and there are firms in the USA who are producing the fuel on a pilot basis. Some may
be up to a demonstration level by mid-year," he says.The only commercial-scale producer is South Africa's Sasol,
which produces 100,000 barrels a day of synthetic fuels from coal using a modernised F-T process. Sasol produces
the only approved synthetic jet fuel, a 50% blend with conventional Jet A kerosene that is commercially available at
Johannesburg's international airport.Synthetic keroseneSynthetic F-T kerosene is blended because, unlike
conventional jet fuel, it contains no aromatic hydrocarbons.
Reliance on unstable supplies of oil will cripple militaries dependent on fossil fuels
And this is likely to be the least of the Pentagon's worries. The Department of Defense is, after all, the world's
richest military organization, and so can be expected to tap into hidden accounts of one sort or another in order to
pay its oil bills and finance its many pet weapons projects. However, this assumes that sufficient petroleum will be
available on world markets to meet the Pentagon's ever-growing needs -- by no means a foregone conclusion. Like
every other large consumer, the DoD must now confront the looming -- but hard to assess -- reality of "Peak Oil";
the very real possibility that global oil production is at or near its maximum sustainable ("peak") output and will
soon commence an irreversible decline. That global oil output will eventually reach a peak and then decline is no
longer a matter of debate; all major energy organizations have now embraced this view. What remains open for
argument is precisely when this moment will arrive. Some in the global availability of energy, as we move from a
situation of relative abundance to one of experts place it comfortably in the future -- meaning two or three decades
down the pike -- while others put it in this very decade. If there is a consensus emerging, it is that peak-oil output
will occur somewhere around 2015. Whatever the timing of this momentous event, it is apparent that the world faces
a profound shift relative scarcity. It should be noted, moreover, that this shift will apply, above all, to the form of
energy most in demand by the Pentagon: the petroleum liquids used to power planes, ships, and armored vehicles.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
Oil dependence destroys readiness – it will divert funds from upgrading weapons and
replacing aging equipment
Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College June 15, 2007 [“Pentagon vs.
Peak Oil,” http://www.alternet.org/story/54195/?page=entire]
Nor is this destined to prove a temporary issue. As recently as two years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE)
was confidently predicting that the price of crude oil would hover in the $30 per barrel range for another quarter
century or so, leading to gasoline prices of about $2 per gallon. But then came Hurricane Katrina, the crisis in Iran,
the insurgency in southern Nigeria, and a host of other problems that tightened the oil market, prompting the DoE to
raise its long-range price projection into the $50 per barrel range. This is the amount that figures in many current
governmental budgetary forecasts -- including, presumably, those of the Department of Defense. But just how
realistic is this? The price of a barrel of crude oil today is hovering in the $66 range. Many energy analysts now say
that a price range of $70-$80 per barrel (or possibly even significantly more) is far more likely to be our fate for the
foreseeable future. A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel
fuel, home-heating oil, and petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms, businesses, and local
governments. Sooner or later, it will force people to make profound changes in their daily lives -- as benign as
purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as painful as cutting back on home heating or health care simply
to make an unavoidable drive to work. It will have an equally severe affect on the Pentagon budget. As the world's
number one consumer of petroleum products, the DoD will obviously be disproportionately affected by a doubling
in the price of crude oil. If it can't turn to Congress for redress, it will have to reduce its profligate consumption of
oil and/or cut back on other expenses, including weapons purchases. The rising price of oil is producing what
Pentagon contractor LMI calls a "fiscal disconnect" between the military's long-range objectives and the realities of
the energy marketplace. "The need to recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment [from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan] and to develop high-technology systems to implement future operational concepts is growing," it
explained in an April 2007 report. However, an inability "to control increased energy costs from fuel and supporting
infrastructure diverts resources that would otherwise be available to procure new capabilities."
Air Force modernization is critical to maintain airpower – this will require equipment
upgrades and replacements
Gen. William Hobbins, Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe, 2007 [U.S. Air Forces in Europe in the 21st Century
Air Force Defense Strategy Seminar http://www.af.mil/library/speeches/speech.asp?id=338 July 24,
It's imperative that we continue to transform our mobility capabilities and modernize our fleet. We must ensure the
continuation of our distinctive capabilities like air and space superiority, global attack, rapid global mobility,
precision engagement, information superiority, and agile combat support, and we're going to do that by
recapitalizing our aging air and space platforms and sensors. USAFE continues to right-size its force to enable these
and other Air Force transformation efforts. As part of the right-sizing effort, we've recently closed Tuzla Air Base in
Kosovo and Keflavik in Iceland. Now these closures highlight our commitment to transforming our force structure,
but we must also transform how we do business. I see more closures coming, more efficiency. Places like Izmir,
Turkey; Bitburg, Germany; and Sembach Air Base (Germany). The key to this is Air Force Smart Operations, the
21st century initiative that we call AFSO 21 in our Air Force. AFSO 21 allows us to right-size the work for the
future workforce, which will then be much lighter, leaner, and more expeditionary. It's really all about lean. I believe
we're leading the Air Force in Air Force Smart Ops 21 events. Now, just consider our information technology and
centralized help-desk switchboard initiatives: they've resulted in the elimination of 52 manpower positions and a
savings of over $20 million across the future years of our defense program. We're also working Air Force Smart Ops
21 transformation plans in other key process areas. We're protecting our hard-dollar savings, cost avoidance, and
we're doing manpower savings as a result of these efforts. Manpower reduction with a 440-billet savings so far in
Air Force Smart Ops 21 events have occurred just in the first two years, just by smart non-commissioned officers
looking at the way we store, maintain munitions, and do we really have to maintain that number? Can we reduce that
number? And so, consequently, they are finding ways to be more efficient.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
Military synthetic fuels programs have proven successful – they need to be expanded to
address oil dependence
In 2006 the Secretary of the Air Force directed a project to procure synthetic jet fuel for ground testing and, if
ground tests were successful, flight testing.37 In December 2006, a B-52 conducted a flight-test mission using a
50/50 blend of manufactured synthetic fuel and petroleum based JP-8, or synfuel-blend, on all eight engines, and
recently finished cold-weather testing at Minot AFB, ND, the last step in the testing and certification process. Test
data is being analyzed, and the final test report is scheduled to be released in June 2007. Thus far, results have been
positive. The Air Force is committed to completing testing and certification of synfuels for its aircraft by 2010, and
aims to acquire 50% of CONUS fuel from a synfuel-blend produced domestically by 2016. At current consumption
rates this equals approximately 325 million gallons of synfuel-blend.38 This will certainly not eliminate US
dependence on foreign oil, but is comparable to a double or triple in the George Shultz baseball analogy cited at the
beginning of this chapter. Subsequent actions, such as proving the economic viability of synfuels, or improving upon
FT process could “bring these runners home” and further expand domestically produced energy supplies. Could the
world’s single largest energy consumer be the catalyst to successfully launch a new synthetic fuel industry in the
United States? Advocates say with government help FT technology could supply 10% of US fuels within 20
years.39 A relatively small synthetic fuel plant, processing 17,000 tons per day of coal to produce 28,000 barrels per
day of fuel, 750 tons per day of ammonia, and 475MW of net electrical
Long term DoD contracts to purchase synfuels would give investors confidence in the industry
and price stability to the DoD
Senators Jim Bunning and Barack Obama have introduced legislation to address the need to pull together the
investors and the billions of dollars need to build a synthetic fuel plant by expanding and enhancing the DOE loan
guarantee program included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; providing a new program of matching loans to
address funding shortages for front-end engineering and design (capped at $20 million and must be matched by non-
federal money); expanding investment tax credit and expensing provisions, and extending the fuel excise tax credit;
providing funding for the DOD to purchase, test, and integrate synfuels into the military; authorizing a study on
synfuel storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and perhaps most importantly to reduce financial risk associated
with starting a US synthetic fuel industry, extending existing DOD contracting authority for up to 25 years.41 Long-
term contracts move much of the financial risk from private investors to the American taxpayers. If there were a
long-term decline in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they
would otherwise pay for petroleum products. In past years, the DOD has not had the authority to enter into the 15-
or 25-year deals industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington DC,
Senator Bunning addressed the issue: “I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a premium for highquality,
clean, domestic fuel. Long-term contracts will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting.
These contracts will vary above and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year
contract. I believe this is healthy and normal for long-term contracts.” Secretary Wynne also addressed price
stability at the Energy Forum. “Last year, the AF spent about $6.6 billion on aviation fuel; 1.6 billion dollars more
than budgeted. In 2005, the fuel budget was $1.4 billion more than the previous year. We could have paid for a
supplier to build a dedicated coal, natural gas, or other derived fuel plant with this $3 billion in unbudgeted expense.
Maybe then we could have a predictable cost for fuel.”

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
Observation Two – Airpower is Good
First Scenario – North Korea
With U.S. troops leaving the DMZ Airpower is key to prevent a war on the Korean peninsula
Transformation has come to the Korean Peninsula. The Global Posture Review has prompted a major reduction in
the number of ground forces in Korea, and plans call for a withdrawal of 12,500 American troops from Korea
(mostly ground forces) by the end of 2008. In addition, Headquarters Command for United States Forces
Korea/Combined Forces Command is scheduled to move most of its infrastructure and personnel south, to Camp
Humphries (near the city of Pyongtaek) during the same time period.25 The primary American ground forces in
Korea, the 2d Infantry Division, should transform into a next-generation combat unit during the summer of 2005,
becoming a “unit of employment X” two years ahead of schedule.26 Furthermore, numerous command and funding
issues in the ROK-US alliance will remain in flux during completion of the ongoing moves, but a discussion of
those matters lies beyond the scope of this article.
(One must then consider the question of how all of this affects the role of airpower on the Korean Peninsula. The
answer is obvious. The ROK-US alliance will now rely more than ever on the unique capabilities of US airpower to
deter the North Korean threat. In fact, with all of the effort under way to reorganize US Army forces on the
peninsula and move ground-combat units, headquarters facilities, and personnel south, the disposition of US Air
Force units has remained relatively unchanged. Gen Leon LaPorte, commander of US Forces Korea, recently stated
that the mission of our forces in Korea remains clear (despite taking on a regional role): to defend South Korea
against an attack from the North. He also discussed US plans to improve combat capabilities by spending $11 billion
over the next three years and to establish five or six Stryker brigades focused on the Pacific region that could deploy
to Korea quickly.27 But US forces—especially airpower—remain the best way of enhancing security on the Korean
Peninsula. Indeed, in 2003 former Georgetown University professor (and current senior member of the National
Security Council) Victor Cha observed that the most reasonable arrangement for the alliance would entail an
increased emphasis on US naval and airpower presence with a reduction in ground forces. We are now seeing this
happen).28
U.S. Airpower is key to prevent Korean war because it deters North Korea and reassures our
allies
US military support to the Republic of Korea (ROK) remains critical to peace and stability. The author details
constraints faced by the army of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in any attempt to invade the
ROK. Although much of the surface-based defense capability in the South is transitioning to the ROK army, a strong
US airpower presence demonstrates US commitment to Korean security, counterbalances the DPRK’s offensive
systems, and deters war.) Since the summer of 1950, US airpower has remained one of the dominant military forces
on the Korean Peninsula. Through the Korean War, the Cold War, the uncertain post–Cold War era that has existed
since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the transition of power in North Korea from Kim Il Sung to his son, Kim Jong
Il, the ability of US airpower to serve as a key pillar of deterrence to forces that threaten the stability and security of
the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the ROK-US alliance has remained unquestioned. In a transforming geopolitical
landscape and a rapidly evolving region, this is unlikely to change in the future.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
A Korean Conflict Causes global thermonuclear exchange killing all life
Chol, Director Center for Korean American Peace 2002
10-24, http://nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html
Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a
tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan
U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York
Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: "North Korea runs a more advanced biological, chemical and
nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48
states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. If we tried,
the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with never gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to
one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people."
Continues…
The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should
opt for either of the scenarios, that would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue
with. The Americans would realize too late that the North Korean mean what they say. The North Koreans will use
all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of
mankind. A nuclear-armed North Korea would be most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the
eyes of the Americans. They would end up finding themselves reduced to a second-class nuclear power.
Second Scenario – Iraq
Air power is key to the war in Iraq – it minimizes vulnerabilities, increases rapid response and
gathers intelligence
Dudney ’07 (Robert is editor in Chief of Airforce Magazine, “On fighting Irregular war,” October http://www.afa.
org/m agazine/oct2007/1007edit.asp
Without question, certain valuable capabilities are unique to airpower. The doctrine paper cites three advantages
that, while not always obvious, may prove vital to US success. (Minimal intrusiveness. Introduction of a large US
ground force is a highly visible act, often breeding political resentment, especially in Muslim lands. US troops
quickly become targets for attack by insurgent bullets, bombs, and broadcasts. This amounts to a grave weakness for
a force engaged in irregular warfare, in which support of “the people” is of paramount importance. Air Force units,
notes the doctrine paper, have a far smaller “footprint.” A joint commander can “mobilize, deploy, employ, and
redeploy” airpower without “highlighting” the role of the United States. In addition, these kinds of operations can be
sustained for a long period with scant risk of US casualties. Both factors weigh heavily in a long, irregular
campaign.) (Swift response. The speed and range of aircraft and cyber weapons dramatically compress the “kill
chain” and give the joint commander his best—in some cases only—way to attack fleeting, high-value targets. This
was made evident in the 2006 air strike on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. In another vein, rapid air transport of
small teams over great distances can produce a vital result—tactical surprise. Air- and space-borne sensors likewise
can be rapidly refocused on a specific target. The combination of range and responsiveness, unique to airpower,
shapes up as “an enormous force multiplier,” says the paper.) (Sharp awareness. When fighting cagey insurgents,
the gold standard is “actionable intelligence,” information precise enough to permit effective strikes and avoid
civilian casualties. Getting such information takes time, requiring patient and persistent overwatch. Among the
services, the Air Force is uniquely able to monitor, map, and survey vast areas quickly and for long periods.
Equipped with its “staring” Global Hawk and Predator UAVs, not to mention spacecraft and other systems, it can
spot “safe havens, assembly points, and potential avenues of attack,” said the document. It can detect trouble lurking
in the path of land forces. These three characteristics, properly exploited, offer the joint commander enormous
benefits available from no other source. Maj. Gen. Allen G. Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center at
Maxwell AFB, Ala., and overseer of the doctrine paper, summed up matters in these words: “Airpower, in all its
forms, brings a vast array of direct-effect weapons and joint-force enablers to the fray, a fact not always clearly
recognized.”)

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
Fuel resupply is vulnerable in Iraq
Patrick Lang 2006 former head of Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency. The vulnerable line
of supply to US troops in Iraq [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p09s01-coop.html July 26, CSM]
American forces in Iraq are in danger of having their line of supply cut by guerrillas. Napoleon once said that "an
army travels on its stomach." By that he meant that the problem of keeping an army supplied is the prerequisite for
the very existence of the force. A 21st-century military force "burns up" a tremendous volume of expendable
supplies and continuously needs repairs to equipment as well as medical treatment. Without a plentiful and
dependable source of fuel, food, and ammunition, a military force falters. First it stops moving, then it begins to starve, and
eventually it becomes unable to resist the enemy. In 1915, for example, this happened to British forces that had invaded Mesopotamia. A British-
Indian force traveled up the line of the Tigris River, advancing to Kut, southeast of Baghdad. They became besieged there after their line of
supply was cut along the river to the south. Some 11,000 troops ultimately surrendered, after the allies suffered another 23,000 casualties trying to
rescue them. American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply
base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads
that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq. Until now the Shiite Arabs of Iraq have been told by their
leaders to leave American forces alone. But an escalation of tensions between Iran and the US could change that
overnight. Moreover, the ever-increasing violence of the civil war in Iraq can change the alignment of forces there
unexpectedly. Southern Iraq is thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian special operations forces working with Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-
Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of
the Baghdad government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long.
Failure in Iraq creates full-scale civil war in the Middle East - spills-over to other nations
The Washington Times 2006 ["The Consequences of Failure in Iraq," December 17, Lexis
Unfortunately, while war critics have little difficulty totalling up the costs of remaining in Iraq, they talk as if there will be little or no adverse
impact from letting that country descend into an all-out civil war after yanking out U.S. combat forces. They are fooling themselves. One of the
few people in Washington who is seriously examining the consequences of abandoning Iraq is Kenneth Pollack, who served on the National
Security Council staff during the Clinton administration. Though Mr. Pollack, now at the Brookings Institution, was an early advocate of
deposing Saddam Hussein, he has been vociferously critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the war. But he laments that antiwar
Democrats seem to dismiss the fact that there will be serious, damaging consequences if the United States fails in stabilizing
Iraq. In addition to being a humanitarian tragedy, a fullscale civil war in Iraq would likely spread into neighboring
countries -- something that happened time and over the past century. Mr. Pollack points to the fact that Arab-Jewish fighting broke out in 1929
in British-occupied Palestine. Arab refusal to accept the 1947 U.N.-approved plan to divide Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states kept the
conflict going, and eventually it spilled over into other countries, helping ignite civil wars in Jordan (1970-1971) and Lebanon (1975-1990). A
fullscale civil war in Iraq would conservatively speaking create hundreds of thousands of additional refugees -- who
would become an additional pool of recruitment for jihadists. Indeed, Hezbollah and al Qaeda, arguably the two most dangerous
Islamofascist groups today, were born in large part as a result of civil wars. A worsening civil war in Iraq could pull in neighboring
Sunni Muslim countries as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait and Jordan, to say nothing of the Shi'ite-dominated rogue-
state coalition of Iran and Syria. In Lebanon, Palestinian intervention was followed by invasions from Syria and Israel; that conflict
continues in constantly mutating form to this day. Iraq could end up following the model of Yugoslavia during the 1990s, where Serbia went to
war against Slovenia; Bosnia-Herzegovina; and Croatia; soon the unrest spread to Muslim populations in neighboring Kosovo and Macedonia.
Rwanda, where tribal fighting began in 1994 and soon spread to neighboring Congo -- and where civil war continues raging to this day, with all
of Congo's neighbors supporting one or more factions -- could also prove to be a catastrophic model for what Iraq could look
like if the United States leaves prematurely. And then there are the economic costs of a death spiral in Iraq, which
could prove staggering, particularly if it triggers a wider Middle East war involving Iraq's oil-rich neighbors. It is
irresponsible to pretend that abandoning Iraq would have little or no adverse humanitarian consequences -- to say nothing of the geopolitical
catastrophe it would be for the United States. He is too polite to say this, but Mr. Pollack makes a powerful implicit case that the neo-
McGovernite Democrats now dominating public debate are being intellectually dishonest when they suggest that leaving Iraq will somehow leave
us in a stronger position to fight the jihadists.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
This war will go nuclear.
John Steinbach, Centre for Research on Globalisation, 2002 [John, , March 3, http://www.thirdworld
traveler.com/Israel/Israel's_Nuclear%20Weapons.html]
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious
implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour
Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against
Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong
probability." (41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and
the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the
major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel
was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting
strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed
at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the
unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the
threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familiar pattern
(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the
deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
Third Scenario is hegemony
Air Dominance is key to US hegemony – deterrence, supply and suppression. It is overlooked

because it is assumed.
Michael Wynne Secretary of the Air Force, 2007 [State of the Force – 2007 http://www.af.mil/library
/speeches/speech.asp?id=351 Sept. 24
It is not the current war but deterring larger strategic challenges that really dominates our thinking. For 17 years we have dominated the skies
above our enemies and the air operation region. This achievement, however, does not make for good television. You can't see air
dominance. It doesn't make for good newsprint. A headline like, "The U.S. Air Force provided air dominance today
again for the 54th year in a row," just wouldn't be a seller. In fact, sometimes I think all of us around the world but
especially here in America have become so accustomed to the Air Force dominating the skies that they don't
understand why it matters. Like sea dominance, it often is on the assumptions page of the war plan, i.e., we
dominate the sea, we dominate the air, let's get on to what the fight's going to be all about. It is simply assumed. But
I say that assumption matters. It matters because the last time a serviceman was attacked from the air was in April of
1953. That was, yes, a long time ago. If you wonder why not being attacked from the air is important, you can ask
Saddam or you can ask the Taliban. They know what happens when you lose control of the air. Today the entire
joint force clamors for full-motion video like that from a Predator, but these slow-motion and vulnerable unmanned
air vehicles must be able to fly with impunity if they are to work as they are intended. We must have air dominance
to do that. As we are currently engaged in interservice discussion about the Air Force should have the executive
agencies about unmanned air vehicles, it's really all about standards of communication, and if you will, getting the
take. And we're actually fairly proud of what ended up to be the movement so far because it moved towards a more
standard collection and distribution of the information in the take and we feel like some standards will be achieved,
but frankly the whole debate shows the interservice faith that the Air Force will provide air dominance for another
50 years. You know, in the Israeli-Lebanon war, the Israeli Army did not realize that Hezbollah was going to fly UAVs over their positions. As
soon as they did realize, they began to hunt them. And as soon as they started to hunt them of course, since they had air dominance, Hezbollah
had to withdraw their unmanned air vehicles. Like air dominance, some of our other contributions seldom make headlines. However, if it was up
to us, right, we would take a page out of our Army colleagues' books and shoot them all down and let God sort them out if they did not squawk
friendly. I often wonder how many Americans know that supplying most of the striking power today in the war today is
airpower. I wonder how many people realize how many hundreds of coalition lives our forces save by flying in
supplies and keeping convoys off the road, and by the precision nature of our air strikes. But there is something we
are doing that is potentially even more important than delivering bombs, although we do love to blow stuff up. That
is, we're deterring the enemy from massing. If we were not deterring the enemy rather than fighting us in groups of 10 and 20 and
striking very fast and fading they would be coming at us in groups of 200 to 500 or 1,000. I guarantee you that if airpower were not there it would
be an entirely different war. In fact, no less a military authority than the Washington Post recognized that al Qaeda refuses to mass under
the American airpower. In short, we are setting the conditions for war, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this is all
of us, coalition Air Forces, that are setting these conditions, for if the coalition air forces were not present and
accounted for, it would be a very different fight.
This impact to all of this is Readiness - Military Readiness is key to hegemony

Donnelly, 2003---Resident Scholar at AEI (Thomas, Resident Scholar at AEI, 2/1. ttp://www.aei.org/publications
/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp)
The preservation of today's Pax Americana rests upon both actual military strength and the perception of
strength. The variety of victories scored by U.S. forces since the end of the cold war is testament to both the futility
of directly challenging the United States and the desire of its enemies to keep poking and prodding to find a
weakness in the American global order. Convincing would-be great powers, rogue states, and terrorists to accept the
liberal democratic order--and the challenge to autocratic forms of rule that come with it--requires not only an
overwhelming response when the peace is broken, but a willingness to step in when the danger is imminent. The
message of the Bush Doctrine--"Don't even think about it!"--rests in part on a logic of preemption that
underlies the logic of primacy.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
Hegemony solves multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict between nationalist regional
hegemons – a multipolar or offshore balancing role is a fantasy.
Robert Kagan, 2007 senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [“End of Dreams, Return of
History”, 7/19, web)
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this
relatively benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant
power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not
immune to error, like all other nations, and because of its size and importance in the international system those
errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal
Kantian international order, in which all the world ’s powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves
wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust.
Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a
major war between great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more
conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value.
American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the way
of regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world
that looks like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to
shape it. The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington.
The return of great powers and great games
If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of
competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold
War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth
and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold
War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by
itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the
large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers
are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other.
National ambition drives China’s foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to
appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their
nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a
European, postmodern view that power is pass é; hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and
modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including military power, is a good thing to have and that it
is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans,
that status and honor, and not just wealth and security, are important for a nation.
The Chinese do not share the view that power is passé; hence their now twodecades- long military buildup.
Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power — with its pacifist
constitution and low defense spending — now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. Partly this is
in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea ’s nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by
Japan’s own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or “little brother” to
China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to
prevent the other ’s rise to predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic
and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a
pawn between the two powers, is once again worrying both about a “greater China” and about the return of Japanese
nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian future looks more like Europe ’s past than its present.
But it also looks like Asia’s past.
He continues

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical,
and typically Russian, blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration
into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of
the eu and nato, would not insist on predominant influence over its “near abroad,” and would not use its natural
resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia ’s international status in an attempt to
regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more
traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor
and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from nato and the United States, the
Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external
military threats. 16 Russia’s complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War
settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in
Russia ’s relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult.
One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India ’s regional
ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in competition with
China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene.
In the Middle East there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership
in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian
territory from attack by the United States.
Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the
world, and it has become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans
regard as a safe supranational direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The
honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and
economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and
admired by others for playing this role.
Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam,
including al Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide
swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect,
including self-respect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger
and often oppressive outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China
had its “century of humiliation.” Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of
which Israel has become the living symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor
fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the
dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in
their midst.
Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on. Israel has become its living symbol.
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous
administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving
regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now,
increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War,
beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not
retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.
Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in
these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in
Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern
power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as “No. 1” and are
equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are
remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image.
They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the
behavior of billions of people around the globe.
He continues
Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining
feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and
so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these
rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its
influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and
lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through
confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world
is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it
could simply make them more catastrophic.
It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in
the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere,
such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow
the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to
markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as
guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for
naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve
struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major
conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible.
Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power.
Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by
American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power,
for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany.
Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe ’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant
and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the
continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war.
People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often
succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American
power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that
they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and
institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution
of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of
power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would
produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that
would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and
Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and
Europe.
The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among
the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may
erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt
between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or
suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict
between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the
United States.
Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to
erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in
East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region.
That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the
He continues

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – 1AC
United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an
ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.
Conflicts are more likely to erupt if the United States withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.
In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful
nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful
approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance
of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the
need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are
possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some
call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and
its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.
It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption
of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in
access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that
American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor
would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability,
and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That
commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world,
practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground.
The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation.
In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least
two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening
dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an
immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region
is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A
diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could
expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect
the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any
American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East
further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will
not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely
to draw the United States back in again.
The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability.
In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and
nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should
imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will
provide an easier path.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Topicality – Incentives
[ ] DoD procurement policies are incentives – they encourage the military to buy green
products
Inside Defense 2006 [ September 15, http://www.military.com/features/ 0,15240,1135 99,00.html ,DoD Pushes
Biobased Fuels]
In his January State of the Union address, President Bush said the United States is “addicted to oil,” and called for
“more reliable alternative energy sources.” The event this week follows on the heels of an Aug. 17 memo from
Defense Department acquisition chief Kenneth Krieg that encourages DOD leaders to promote the purchase of
biobased products, as the Pentagon prepares to implement a federal law that is expected to change the way the
armed services buy items ranging from hand sanitizers to fuel additives. Biobased products utilize plant, animal
and marine or forestry materials, according to DOD's Green Procurement Program Strategy, a 2004 document that
describes Pentagon policy on acquiring environmentally friendly products.
[ ] Military procurement of renewable energy is an Incentive for private use of

alternatives
Felicia French, Army Environmental Policy Institute 2005 [ April 5, How the Army Can Be An Environmental
Paragon Through Energy, http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/how-army-can-be-energy-paragon.pdf]
This paper will examine the use and conservation of energy for both army mobility and facility operations. The
military has been on the forefront of many social, medical and technological changes; therefore we can use our
credibility and resources to be the vanguard of change to renewable energy into mainstream society. As a voracious
consumer of energy, it will be financially and politically feasible for the army to decrease dependence on fossil fuel.
To do so would facilitate use of alternative energy by the public and private sector. Additionally, it is more
conducive to a positive public image of being environmentally and fiscally responsible consequentially allowing
greater access to local training sites-further decreasing our requirement for mobility fuel. The presentation offers
recommendations for alternative and renewable energy to be used by the army and the numerous positive
consequences of this transformation to include: diminishing US dependence on Middle Eastern oil, decreased
dependence on one source of energy, halt the catastrophic effects of global warming, and ameliorate the deleterious
health effects of fossil fuel combustion.
[ ] Military procurement is incentives to defense contractors to develop renewables

Jim Saxton, Rep New Jersey, September 27, 2006 [Political Transcript Wire, Hold A Joint A Hearting On Dod
Alternative Energy Programs,” http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-18480380_ITM]
Our first panel of witnesses will provide building blocks for a greater understanding of, one, the steps taken by the
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive energy security strategy; two, how the Air Force, as the largest
consumer of fuel within the United States government, is actively conducting research, development, test and
evaluation of alternative fuels in order to reduce dependency on foreign oil and to maintain assured mobility; and,
finally, how the department procures and distributes fuel and the Department of Energy support centers' efforts to
assess the current conditions of synthetic fuel markets. The second panel of witnesses will share their non-
governmental perspectives on several items. First, the Department of Defense efforts to incorporate energy efficient
renewables and distributed energy programs; second, non-traditional options for increasing energy supply; and,
finally, third, options for incentivizing the federal contractors and incorporate energy efficiency into government
programs in order to reduce energy demand in the federal sector.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Topicality – Sythfuels
[ ] The Military defines Synthetic fuels and biofuels as alternative energies.
Optimism Meets Reality,” Alternative Fuels,
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf]
Alternative Fuels Alternative fuels are often divided into two categories: “synthetic” fuels derived from non-
renewable coal and natural gas; and “biofuels,” produced from renewable feedstocks such as corn, sugar cane, and
prairie grasses. Both offer advantages and disadvantages as substitutes for fossil fuel. An issue that may affect
DOD’s exploration of alternative fuels is the concept of a “Single Battlespace Fuel.” Ultimately, DOD would like
there to be just one in part to decrease risks associated with the elaborate and vulnerable fuel delivery system now in
place. However, that may be several years away. Although DOD has been exploring the use of synthetic fuel for
aircraft, there is no indication that DOD is actively pursuing alternative fuels for battlefield ground vehicles. There is
speculation that this is due to the difficulty of altering the current logistical system and also to the fact that research
and development in alternative ground fuel are still in the early stages.1
[ ] The DoD classifies coal gasification as an alternative energy

Paul Dimotakis, The MITRE Corporation, 2006 [December 09, 2006, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence,
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf]
D. Alternate fuels in place of crude oil-derived fuels Another tool to reducing the DoD dependence on fossil fuels is
to substitute some portion of crude-oil-derived fuels with fuels derived from other sources. In this context, an
alternative fuel is defined to be any fuel that is not directly derived from crude oil. Hence, liquid hydrocarbon fuels
derived from coal or natural gas would be classified as alternative fuels, even though they are in fact derived from
fossil sources.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Inherency – DoD Energy Consumption Increasing
[ ] DoD dependence on oil is increasing primarily due to aviation fuel
Mobility Energy Use Mobility energy is the fuel used to power DoD weapons platforms, tactical equipment, and all
other types of vehicles. In contrast with facility energy, mobility energy consists almost entirely of petroleum-
based products and accounts for 94 percent of DoD’s petroleum consumption. The categories of fuel used for mo-
bility are jet fuel, gasoline, distillates and diesel, ship’s bunkers, and residuals. As illustrated in Figure 2-2, about 75
percent of the mobility fuel used by DoD is jet fuel. Distillates and diesel follow with 17 percent. Many DoD
platforms are multifuel capable, so it is not appropriate to consider these percentages as directly attributable to air,
land, and sea platforms. JP-8, used primarily for air operations, makes up about 56 percent of the total petroleum
purchased by DoD. The continued use of JP-8 as the fuel of choice for operations is testament to the U.S. military
doctrine that relies heavily on air power as an integral part of the joint force across the whole spectrum of opera-
tions. The agility, mobility, and speed that this doctrine provides have been effective, but it comes at a high cost
and further reliance on liquid petroleum. A recent Los Angeles Times article noted that the U.S. military is
consuming about 2.4 million gallons of fuel every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. The data, provided by the U.S.
Central Command, show that DoD is using approximately 57,000 barrels a day, at a cost of about $3 million per day.
This equates to about 16 gallons per soldier per day. This is significantly more than the 2005 consumption rate of 9
gallons per soldier. These numbers make it clear that energy consumption for military operations has increased
dramatically in the last 15 years. In Desert Storm, consumption was 4 gallons per soldier per soldier, and in World
War II, consumption was only 1 gallon per day per soldier. Appendix A contains additional detail about DoD’s
mobility fuel use.
[ ] The Army is too dependent on fossil fuels because consumption is high

The Army does not have the luxury of ignoring its dependence on fossil fuel. Along with the rest of the Nation, it is
almost completely dependent on fossil fuel to accomplish its mission. The Department of Defense (DoD) bill for
mobility and installation energy was over $8.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 (27: NP). DoD is the largest single
consumer of the total U.S. energy consumed. The Army uses about 6 percent of DoD mobility fuels (gas, diesel and
jet fuel) to power tactical and utility vehicles, and weapons platforms to include M1 Abrams tanks and all
helicopters (9: 4). However, this does not account for the fuel used by Air Force planes and Navy ships in
transporting Army personnel and equipment in peacetime and especially in wartime. Fuel logistics for the Army
accounts for 70 percent of all tonnage hauled when the Army mobilizes. The transportation of that same fuel from
base to projection platform comprises 8 percent of the cost (21: 85). The Army also pays $3.2 billion annually to
20,000 active duty and 40,000 reserve component personnel to transport this fuel (21: 88). The Army could have
more “teeth” and less “tail” if we weren’t so dependent upon this fuel. This logistical behemoth impedes
deployment, maneuverability, and increases our personnel and equipment requirements and diverts troops from
combat arms. Additionally, in 2003 it costs $769 million in energy bills for the Army to maintain over 4,100
installations and sites (about two-thirds of all DoD installations) including Army National Guard, Army Reserve,
and overseas facilities. This totaled 896 million square feet in 158,690 buildings (10: 1).

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Inherency – Attitudes
[ ] The Military doesn’t focus on alternative energies because it doesn’t see the
connection between efficiency and performance
Kristine Blackwell Lt Colonel USAF 2007 [June 15 The Department of Defense: Reducing Its Reliance on Fossil-
Based Aviation Fuel – Issues for Congress http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34062.pdf.]
In 2000, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) directed the Defense Science
Board (DSB) to form a task force to examine how DOD could improve the fuel efficiency of their weapons systems.
The task force would also identify institutional barriers that impeded the department’s understanding of and ability
to capture the full advantages of more fuel efficient systems. The task force was not asked to look at possible
sources of alternative fuel and they did not address that topic in their report. They reported five significant findings.
Finding #1: Although significant warfighting, logistics and cost benefits occur when weapons systems are more fuel-
efficient, these benefits are not valued or emphasized in the DOD requirements and acquisition processes. When
buying new weapons, DOD placed performance as its highest priority and seemed to overlook how fuel efficiency
could result in improved performance. Furthermore, when developing new systems the department did not seem to
take into account how the fuel use of a particular system could have far-reaching effects on the total force (e.g., a
system’s logistical requirements may create a vulnerable delivery chain). Finding #2:The DOD currently prices fuel
based on the wholesale refinery price and does not include the cost of delivery to its customers. This prevents a
comprehensive view of fuel utilization in DOD’s decision-making, does not reflect the DOD’s true fuel costs, masks
energy efficiency benefits, and distorts platform design choices. The DSB pointed out that overlooking the true cost
of fuel also masks the real benefits of fuel efficiency. As a consequence, fuel efficiency is not regarded as a relevant
factor in the acquisition of weapon systems or in other logistics related decisions. For example, in 1997, using an
average fuel price of 97 cents, the Air Force estimated that re-engining the B-52H would generate a savings of just
under $400 million over 40 years. Based on that calculation, the service concluded that retrofitting was not cost-
effective. The DSB reworked the equation using an average fuel cost of $1.50 per gallon (the board estimated that
10% of the fuel would be delivered via aerial refueling at a cost of $17.50 per gallon) and calculated a savings of
$1.7 billion. Finding #3: DOD resource allocation and accounting processes (the Planning, Programming, and
Budgeting System(PPBS), DOD Comptroller) do not reward fuel efficiency or penalize inefficiency. The task force
found that DOD interest in fuel efficiency had been mainly limited to meeting goals established by legislation or
executive order. Since those goals mainly applied to installations, including their non-warfighting vehicles, there
was little incentive to improve the fuel efficiency of weapon systems. Additionally, the department had no way to
quantify–and therefore value–the benefits of conserving fuel.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Inherency – Attitudes
[ ] The DoD is not providing leadership for increasing alternative energies
Optimism Meets Reality,” “Trash to Gas,” https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf]
That there is “no silver bullet” for the department’s and the nation’s energy woes is frequently repeated—no single
technology currently offers the perfect blend of energy density, affordability, and environmental benefits.
Consequently, there are myriad interests and promising technologies that must be balanced with national security
needs, DOD’s budget, and the welfare of the environment. DOD must commit the leadership and resources to do
this. DOD’s reluctance to do so may reflect its self-image as an important but peripheral participant in the nation’s
quest for alternative energy. It may be that since DOD does not plan on assuming a national level leadership role in
energy, it feels no compulsion to establish an organizational construct that will allow it to develop its own robust
energy strategy. However, without one, DOD’s current “strategy” is likely to be short-lived. It may also be that
DOD’s lack of serious movement toward a comprehensive and well-led energy policy is not a conscious plan but
simply the reflection of a government that seems disinclined to move out smartly on a serious energy strategy. In a
February 2007 report, GAO found that “there is no federal strategy for reducing uncertainty about the peak’s1
timing or mitigating its consequences.”2 This latest wave of national urgency is still relatively young having been
set off by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 and one could argue that there has not yet been sufficient momentum to
form a coherent strategy. But one can sense in the copious writings, testimonies, and studies since then that the
disparate projects the urgency has spawned at every level of government are now crying out for organization,
prioritization, and direction. Evidence abounds to suggest the GAO is correct in their assessment. In its response to
the GAO report, the Department of Energy agreed that “GAO’s recommendation that the Federal Government
establish a coordinated strategy to deal with a potential peak in oil production is a reasonable one.” but did not offer
to lead the effort. FAA also appears unwilling to fill the leadership void as evidenced by Ms. Blakey’s statement at
the Air Force Energy Forum, “And I want Secretary Wynne and all of you to know that the commercial side will be
right there with you.”3—not leading the way, but right there next to DOD.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Military Consumption Decreasing”
[ ] Reductions in DoD energy use have been isolated and because of downsizing – actual
consumption is increasing
Energy Bulletin. 2007[May 21 US military energy consumption- facts and figures http://www.energy
bulletin.net/29925.html
The good news is that between 1985 and 2006, DoD's total site delivered energy consumption declined more than
60%. The bad is that the reduction came from the decline in energy consumption in buildings and facilities. Vehicle
energy consumption went up. The ugly news is that even though the DoD is proud of having reduced its energy
consumption, in fact the main factor behind that reduction was the closure of some military bases, privatization of
some of its buildings, and leaving some energy related activities to contractors. FACT 4: Nearly three quarters of
DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like). Only one quarter is consumed in
buildings and facilities.[5] And yet all DoD/Federal energy conservation and efficiency efforts, initiatives, directives
etc target almost completely buildings (called standard buildings in DoD jargon). Note also that standard buildings
account for almost 90% of total buildings and facilities energy consumption.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Inherency – Energy Costs Increasing
[ ] Increasing fuel costs will worsen for the military
The problem of high costs seems likely to only worsen. Proven reserves of oil are generally taken to be those
quantities that can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under current economic and geological
conditions. The historical trend for estimates of proven world oil reserves has generally trended upward, with new
discoveries outpacing consumption (see figure 4). According to Oil & Gas Journal, world proven oil reserves, as of
January 2006, were estimated at 1,293 billion barrels – 15 billion barrels higher than estimate for 2005.18 Figure 4
World Crude Oil Reserves, 1980-2006. Reprinted from DOE/EIA, International Energy Outlook 2006, 27. Figure 5
World Oil Reserves by Country as of January 1, 2006. Reprinted from DOE/EIA, International Energy Outlook
2006, 28. How long will 1,293 billion barrels of oil last? There are so many variables that any period is largely
speculative. No one knows the scale of potential new oil discoveries, changes in consumption, or breakthroughs in
technology that may occur. According to the Society of Petroleum Engineers, estimated proven reserves will supply
the world with oil for approximately 44 years at current consumption rates.19 However, the Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA), International Energy Outlook 2006, estimates world oil demand
will increase from 80 million barrels per day in 2003 to 98 million barrels per day in 2015 and 118 million barrels
per day in 2030. That’s a 47% increase from 2003 to 2030, mostly attributed to strong economic growth in China
and India.20 Global oil reserves are the source for the world oil market, but world oil production capacity is the
current limiting factor affecting supply in the global market. Excess production capacity represents the ability to
surge production to make up for increased demand or reduced production elsewhere in the market. Demand at or
near supply with limited excess capacity characterizes a “tight” market. In the world oil market of today, excess
capacity means political and economic clout. The Persian Gulf contains 715 billion barrels of proven oil reserves,
representing over half (57%) of the world's oil reserves. Also, at the end of 2003, Persian Gulf countries maintained
about 22.9 million barrels per day of oil production capacity, or 32% of the world total. Perhaps even more
significantly, the Persian Gulf countries normally maintain almost all of the world's excess oil production capacity.
As of early September 2004, excess world oil production capacity was only about 0.5-1.0 million barrels per day, all
located in Saudi Arabia.21

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – Aviation Fuel Key
[ ] Jet fuel is critical to DoD energy consumption
FACT 2: Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) sold $13 billion of energy to DoD services in FY2006. More than
half of it was to Air Force.
FACT 3: Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD's total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed
by electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3]
accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel.
[ ] Aviation fuel accounts for the majority of the military’s energy consumption
In simple terms, DOD energy use can be divided into two main categories: petroleum based fuel for mobility
platforms, and infrastructure energy based on electricity, natural gas. The vast majority of DOD energy
consumption, some 74% of total energy cost, supports mobility platforms – aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles.
Aviation fuel alone accounts for 58% of total DOD energy cost. Buildings/facilities account for 22% of DOD’s
energy cost.4 It makes perfect sense to start with mobility platforms and buildings/installations in developing a
strategy to save energy. This paper will primarily focus in those two energy categories. Although modern technology
has created a growing demand to power electrical devices carried by the individual war fighter, this paper will not
address those demands.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower - Readiness Decreasing
[ ] The military is downplaying airpower in the status quo – they are underfunding the
air force
Kreisher ’08 (Otto is a military affairs reporter for Air Force Magazine, “The Ground Force Taskings to go,”
March) http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2008/0308ilo.asp
( Among the report’s findings is the fact that Air Force spending on science and technology, which was the highest
among the three services in 1989, is today in third place, behind S&T spending by the Navy and the Army. And
reductions in S&T spending are not just an Air Force problem. "The Department of Defense as a whole has also
consciously reduced S&T funding in the mistaken belief that industry would fill in the gap," the report says. The Air
Force Association has consistently called for a robust research and development program that includes basic
research. AFA has also strongly maintained that the Department of Defense budget needs to be increased.)
According to AFA’s 2000 Statement of Policy, "After the Cold War, we entered a ‘strategic pause,’ when no real
challenge to US military superiority was foreseen and when operational pressures on the force were expected to
lessen. This was to be our chance, despite a smaller defense budget, to make orderly investments in R&D and force
modernization. As it turned out, the budgets did not cover current operations, and the investments in future
capability got short shrift."
[ ] The US will lose air power dominance due to aging fighters and a lack of
replacements
Dudney ’07 (Robert is editor in chief of Air Force Magazine, “The affordability hustle,” July) http://www.afa.
org/magazine/july2007/0707edit.asp
The Government Accountability Office, that ever-flowing font of military advice, is at it again. It has sent forth a
new report—“Tactical Aircraft: DOD Needs a Joint and Integrated Investment Strategy”—that takes a hard shot at
service fighter plans. The watchdog agency does not attack the requirement for USAF F-22s, Navy F/A-18E/Fs, and
joint-service F-35s. Rather, it directs fire at their supposed unaffordability. As GAO puts it, “These plans are likely
unexecutable, given competing demands.” It provides numerous charts and graphs making that point. What does
GAO recommend? Pre-emptive surrender. The military is urged to curtail “service-centric” programs, link arms
jointly to rub out “duplication” of capabilities, and accept “efficiencies”—which is GAO-speak for “reductions.” As
usual, that kind of talk drew a crowd. The Senate Armed Services Committee, for example, promptly authorized a
study of “alternatives” that, “while not necessarily satisfying all current requirements,” might “require less
funding.”) (Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of fighter planning will sense something wrong here. It has been
about three decades since the US bought a new generation of fighters. USAF’s F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s and the
Navy’s F-14s and F/A-18s began arriving in the 1970s, and the Marine Corps AV-8 shortly after. Is it plausible that
the world’s richest nation cannot bear up under a 30-year fighter replacement cycle? The question answers itself.
Actually, the bigger budgets expected in the near future will reflect a more or less routine upturn in the fighter
procurement cycle, which plunged in the 1990s when the services were force-marched into a long, post-Cold-War
“procurement holiday.”) Today’s fighter program is modest, comprising a total of 183 F-22s for the Air Force, 462
F/A-18E/Fs for the Navy, and 2,458 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Plans also call for
lengthening the service lives and upgrading the capabilities of a few hundred F-15s, A-10s, and other “legacy”
fighters. Those numbers are considered, at best, the minimum needed to equip USAF’s 10 air and space
expeditionary wings, the Navy’s 10 carrier wings, and the Marine Corps’ expeditionary units.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – Korea Impacts
[ ] US air power is key to deter a North Korean attack – it prevents them from massing
forces on Seoul
(The evidence shows a clear change of direction that began when North Korea’s armed forces began to decline
during the 1990s. Pyongyang has shifted from building and maintaining a conventional capability that would
ultimately overrun and conquer South Korea to establishing one that threatens all or most of Seoul—and eventually
disrupts or threatens the security of much of the remaining landmass in the south. This tack accomplishes many of
the same initial objectives. By severely degrading Seoul and destroying or damaging much of the landmass and/or
population of South Korea, North Korea could reduce a country boasting the world’s 10th largest gross domestic
product to third world status.14 Thus, Pyongyang can threaten South Korea’s very way of life and, ultimately, its
national security. Although the spectre of violent reunification has dimmed, the prospect of violent war and
destruction of life as most South Koreans now know it has not. Therefore, deterring North Korea is just as important
as ever. One must then determine how the United States and South Korea can best defend against the evolving North
Korean threat.) Although North Korea appears to be experiencing a decline in its ability to launch massive, mobile,
mechanized forces deep into South Korea, it is still able to directly threaten Seoul and severely damage other parts
of the country. As discussed earlier, Pyongyang cannot easily flow forces south through the two principal invasion
corridors because its air force cannot match the United States’ and South Korea’s more modern airpower. The South
Korean air force currently boasts 153 F-16s, 185 F-5s, and 135 older F-4s.15 In addition, South Korea is currently
purchasing 40 advanced F-15K American-made aircraft that it will fully integrate into its arsenal by 2008.16
Arguably, however, aircraft provided by the US Seventh Air Force represent the most important factor in the
suppression of North Korean airpower. Several squadrons of US F-16Cs and F-16Ds as well as A-10s (ideal for
taking out massive formations of armor and self-propelled artillery) can deter large-scale North Korean forces from
successfully executing an invasion—and quickly destroy most or all of North Korea’s air bases (fig. 3).) Clearly, US
and South Korean airpower serves as a strong deterrent against the traditional aggression that North Korea wanted to
initiate prior to the economic collapse that put its formidable armored and mechanized forces into a state of decline.
But airpower also would play a major role (perhaps an even more important one) in stopping aggression from North
Korea’s asymmetric capability that built up during the 1990s.
[ ] US airpower is key to deterring a North Korean first strike by countering their

forward deployed missiles
(Regarding the second element of the triad (missiles), US airpower is an absolutely vital deterrent, now and in the
future, against a first strike by the North Koreans, who have a large number of dispersed missile facilities (as well as
mobile launchers, which they have not only deployed but also proliferated to other nations, such as Syria).20 In case
of war, ROK-US forces would need to take out Scud missile sites and launchers as well as longer-range missiles
because North Korea might use the latter to launch a retaliatory strike at Japan (perhaps at US bases located at
Okinawa or elsewhere) (fig. 4). To do so, the US Air Force would use its assets on the Korean Peninsula (Seventh
Air Force), in Japan (Fifth Air Force), on Guam (bombers), and elsewhere in Pacific Air Forces, where US airpower
possesses unique and vital capabilities for the defense of the Korean Peninsula.21)

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Air power is key to making South Korean C4I advantages decisive
As discussed previously, North Korea has now moved a large number of long-range artillery systems close enough
to the DMZ to threaten virtually all of Seoul and many areas of Kyongi Province (the northernmost province in
South Korea; it contains the largest concentration of that country’s ground forces) with little warning time to US and
ROK forces. Currently, the ground-based mission of providing counterfire to this long-range artillery falls to the 2d
US Infantry Division, which operates 30 multiple-rocket-launcher systems and 30 M109A6 Paladin self-propelled
howitzers. During April 2005, as part of the ongoing shift of defense responsibilities on the Korean Peninsula
between South Korean and US forces, leadership announced that the South Korean army would assume
responsibility for this mission. Integration of South Korean units into the combined ROK-US command, control,
communication, computers, and intelligence (C4I) system on the peninsula will be key to the success of this new
mission.17 Regarding the current state of readiness of South Korean forces on the peninsula, however, the United
States has concerns about the unwillingness of Seoul to spend money to upgrade its own C4I infrastructure—or to
help with the costs of the current structure.18 Integrating these newly assigned units into a modern C4I system is
vital because of the importance of quick reaction time in pinpointing North Korean artillery units with radar and
destroying them before they fire or shortly thereafter.19
Even if all of these systems could operate at peak efficiency and immediately integrate effectively into current or
future C4I infrastructures, they would still need heavy augmentation by effective airpower in both their offensive
and defensive postures. North Korea simply has more long-range artillery systems deployed along the DMZ than
ground-based systems could destroy all at once—particularly in a first-strike scenario. Of course, this is exacerbated
by the concerns about C4I, which will probably remain an issue in ROK-US alliance talks for the foreseeable future.
Thus, in terms of the first element of North Korea’s asymmetric triad (long-range artillery), airpower will continue
to play an essential role in deterring and destroying that threat. Because of the unique and unmatched capability of
US fighter and attack aircraft to suppress this type of target, American airpower has become extremely important to
countering this growing threat—and will likely remain so for many years as Seoul continues to upgrade its C4I and
airborne-strike capabilities.)
[ ] US Airpower deters North Korean troop movements which counters their special
forces
(US airpower will continue to play a key role as well in countering special forces, the third element of North Korea’s
asymmetric triad. Clearly, US Air Force aircraft would figure prominently in the suppression and destruction of
North Korean airfields, from which platforms (most of them AN-2s) carrying SOF troops would deploy, and in
support of the South Korean air force’s aerial interception of enemy transport aircraft conducting paradrop missions
into the South. But this represents only part of the story. Because North Korea has far more SOF troops than aircraft
to carry them, many of these forces would attempt to infiltrate South Korea through weaker areas of the DMZ. Two
such locations include the inter-Korean transportation corridors, where roads and rail lines are being repaired for
future transportation routes and where barbed-wire barriers and mines have been cleared away (fig. 5). Airpower
would track and kill attempted infiltrations through these zones.)

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Airpower is key to countering North Koreas Air defense systems
Another extremely important factor in answering the asymmetric threat (particularly as it relates to airpower)
involves the suppression of North Korea’s old (dominated by SA-2s) Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) to
permit strikes on facilities deep in North Korea.22 Pyongyang has made efforts to adapt this system to modern allied
capabilities, sending observers to Serbia during Operation Allied Force and possibly integrating some relatively
inexpensive, new-generation, infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles into its air defense network.23 In fact, experts
have recently maintained that the presence of these missiles means that Pacific Air Forces will need the new F/A-22
to “knock down the door so the rest of the forces can flow in.”24 Modern US airpower, flying with our allies, will
carry out this IADS-suppression mission—an important part of the destruction of North Korea’s tripartite
asymmetric threat.
[ ] With U.S. troops leaving the DMZ Airpower is key to prevent a war
Transformation has come to the Korean Peninsula. The Global Posture Review has prompted a major reduction in
the number of ground forces in Korea, and plans call for a withdrawal of 12,500 American troops from Korea
(mostly ground forces) by the end of 2008. In addition, Headquarters Command for United States Forces
Korea/Combined Forces Command is scheduled to move most of its infrastructure and personnel south, to Camp
Humphries (near the city of Pyongtaek) during the same time period.25 The primary American ground forces in
Korea, the 2d Infantry Division, should transform into a next-generation combat unit during the summer of 2005,
becoming a “unit of employment X” two years ahead of schedule.26 Furthermore, numerous command and funding
issues in the ROK-US alliance will remain in flux during completion of the ongoing moves, but a discussion of
those matters lies beyond the scope of this article.
(One must then consider the question of how all of this affects the role of airpower on the Korean Peninsula. The
answer is obvious. The ROK-US alliance will now rely more than ever on the unique capabilities of US airpower to
deter the North Korean threat. In fact, with all of the effort under way to reorganize US Army forces on the
peninsula and move ground-combat units, headquarters facilities, and personnel south, the disposition of US Air
Force units has remained relatively unchanged. Gen Leon LaPorte, commander of US Forces Korea, recently stated
that the mission of our forces in Korea remains clear (despite taking on a regional role): to defend South Korea
against an attack from the North. He also discussed US plans to improve combat capabilities by spending $11 billion
over the next three years and to establish five or six Stryker brigades focused on the Pacific region that could deploy
to Korea quickly.27 But US forces—especially airpower—remain the best way of enhancing security on the Korean
Peninsula. Indeed, in 2003 former Georgetown University professor (and current senior member of the National
Security Council) Victor Cha observed that the most reasonable arrangement for the alliance would entail an
increased emphasis on US naval and airpower presence with a reduction in ground forces. We are now seeing this
happen).28

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “North Korea isn’t a Threat”
[ ] Air power is critical to preventing war in Korea – North Korea is an imminent threat,
and only our air superiority deters their attacks
Conclusions The threat from North Korea has evolved but remains no less ominous either to US interests or to those
of Washington’s important allies South Korea and Japan. Because the threat and geopolitical situation in Asia have
changed and, perhaps just as important, because the US military is now transforming, traditional paradigms
regarding how we face threats throughout the world no longer apply in many cases—such as Korea. Although a
large, forward-deployed ground presence on the Korean Peninsula may no -longer be necessary, providing military
support to the ROK-US alliance remains as important as ever. In fact, the deterrence provided by a strong airpower
presence continues to have an effect on our enemies, as evidenced by a manual published by the North Korean
People’s Army in 2004, which warns that the United States will target North Korea’s military leadership during a
time of war.29 The types of US forces that support freedom in South Korea have changed, but Washington’s
commitment to the security of that country has not. For the foreseeable future, airpower will continue to play a
major (and now a more prominent) role on the Korean Peninsula. We should anticipate a long struggle—with no
assurance of success. There are reasons for caution here. USAF officers, for example, are at pains to say there will
be no “counterinsurgency air force.” The doctrine paper states flatly: “Traditional warfare and [irregular warfare] are
not mutually exclusive.” The nation, in short, needs an Air Force able to do both, not one or the other. Yet to be seen
is whether the other military services will be able to dispense with long-standing views and accept airpower as a co-
equal in the field of irregular conflict. “We’ve proven airpower can effectively support other agencies combating
counterinsurgency but can also operate in a supported component role,” Peck noted at the start of the doctrine-
writing process. “It doesn’t always have to be about having lots of ‘boots on the ground.'"

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “North Korea isn’t a Threat”
[ ] North Korea still is a threat to the South despite economic collapse – they have shifted
to focus on asymmetric threats
(In light of the information discussed above, one wonders whether the threat from North Korea has diminished if
that country has undergone a severe degradation in its capability to mount a successful invasion of South Korea with
conventional military forces. The likely answer is no. Indeed, as Pyongyang’s capability to make war on the South
using conventional maneuver forces lessened, the regime began to concentrate on a new capability—threatening
South Korea (and ultimately the region) with asymmetric forces. Since the mid-1990s, when Pyongyang realized it
could no longer maintain previous levels of readiness and capabilities in its armored and mechanized forces, the
regime has apparently focused on weapons and capabilities that continue to threaten the security and stability of the
government in Seoul but do not severely drain its dwindling resources. This asymmetric triad of forces includes
long-range artillery, missiles, and special operations forces (SOF).
Since the mid-1990s, North Korea has moved more than 500 self-propelled, long-range artillery systems to areas
just north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ), at least 300 of them at sites that could literally target areas in and around
Seoul on a moment’s notice and potentially kill hundreds of thousands.9 Indeed, the South Korean Defense
Ministry’s latest version of its defense white paper noted that North Korea’s ability to maintain old equipment had
hit a wall, with the number of military tanks and armored vehicles declining (because a lack of fuel and electricity
hindered Pyongyang’s maintenance of its armament industry and production of spare parts). The report also noted,
however, that North Korea had increased the number of artillery pieces in its arsenal by 1,000 since the year 2000—
a significant improvement.10 Thus, as one capability to threaten South Korea declined during recent years, the
North Korean military replaced it with another one in many ways just as lethal.
Also disturbing is North Korea’s development of super-long-range missiles such as the Taepo Dong and the recently
disclosed Taepo Dong X, both of which will eventually (if not already) be able to hit parts of US territory.11 But
Scud missiles already deployed in North Korea constitute the main threat to the security and stability of the South.
Estimates suggest that Pyongyang already has at least 500 of them in its inventory and that some or all of them can
carry chemical warheads.12 The North could use these missiles concurrently with the long-range artillery already
deployed along the DMZ, with little or no warning, adding significantly to what would amount to an already
substantial casualty count on the first day of a war.
Finally, North Korea’s well-trained SOF cadre, estimated at up to 100,000, stands as the world’s largest. Unlike
many of the forces in North Korea’s resource-constrained military, these have not suffered from a lack of fuel or
food. They train year-round and have not experienced the decline in training evident in many of the conventional
forces in Pyongyang’s arsenal. In addition, North Korean SOF personnel can practice paradrop training from towers
as well as aircraft, the former obviously not constrained by limitations on fuel and/or flight time. In wartime, large
numbers of these forces could attack key command-and-control nodes, air bases, or any other high-value target in
South Korea. Perhaps equally disturbing, they could also conduct unconventional operations or even terrorist acts
that would severely disrupt morale and alter public opinion in both South Korea and the United States. Most likely,
the more than 300 AN-2 Colt (World War II vintage) aircraft in North Korea’s inventory would insert these forces
into South Korea. Reportedly, North Korea has made a concerted effort to keep its arsenal of easy-to-fly AN-2s well
maintained.13)

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – War On Terror Impacts
[ ] Air power is key to the war on terror – Iraq and Afghanistan prove that it is key to
intelligence
("Airpower is usually the last thing that most military professionals think of when the topic of counterinsurgency is
raised.” So states an important new Air Force doctrine paper, quoting the words of a recent RAND report. The
RAND study said planners have “undervalued” USAF’s potential contribution in low-grade irregular wars, of which
Iraq and Afghanistan are examples. The capability has been “downplayed, taken for granted, or simply ignored,”
said RAND.) This doesn’t necessarily mean planners see no use for airpower, just that different capabilities—
infantry and special operations forces, mostly—are accorded much higher priority. If the United States continues to
indulge this habit, we will steadily lose ground in the Global War on Terror. Victory over our deadly and determined
foes will require effective use of all our capabilities, but especially the air and space weapon. Airpower has proven
to be a—maybe even the—crucial US edge in the fight against insurgents and terrorists.) In Iraq and Afghanistan,
Air Force targeting data, intelligence, communications, and airlift greatly magnify the strength of ground troops.
More important, small groups of enemy fighters and even individuals are highly vulnerable to precision air attack.
The reality is clear enough: USAF is about more—much more—than “traditional” combat. At long last, USAF has
begun raising airpower’s “small war” profile. Air Force Doctrine Document 2-3, “Irregular Warfare,” is out, released
on Aug. 1. This 103-page paper offers a glimpse of what airmen are saying to each other and to the world on the
topic. It is a strong presentation, showing that USAF’s thinking has deepened and matured. It delivers a sharp punch
to the view that the US needs only ground forces —small, simple, and mostly suited to commando raids. Indeed,
airpower is portrayed as pivotal.)
[ ] Air power is key to the war on terror – it minimizes vulnerabilities, increases rapid
response and gather intelligence
Without question, certain valuable capabilities are unique to airpower. The doctrine paper cites three advantages
that, while not always obvious, may prove vital to US success. (Minimal intrusiveness. Introduction of a large US
ground force is a highly visible act, often breeding political resentment, especially in Muslim lands. US troops
quickly become targets for attack by insurgent bullets, bombs, and broadcasts. This amounts to a grave weakness for
a force engaged in irregular warfare, in which support of “the people” is of paramount importance. Air Force units,
notes the doctrine paper, have a far smaller “footprint.” A joint commander can “mobilize, deploy, employ, and
redeploy” airpower without “highlighting” the role of the United States. In addition, these kinds of operations can be
sustained for a long period with scant risk of US casualties. Both factors weigh heavily in a long, irregular
campaign.) (Swift response. The speed and range of aircraft and cyber weapons dramatically compress the “kill
chain” and give the joint commander his best—in some cases only—way to attack fleeting, high-value targets. This
was made evident in the 2006 air strike on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. In another vein, rapid air transport of
small teams over great distances can produce a vital result—tactical surprise. Air- and space-borne sensors likewise
can be rapidly refocused on a specific target. The combination of range and responsiveness, unique to airpower,
shapes up as “an enormous force multiplier,” says the paper.) (Sharp awareness. When fighting cagey insurgents,
the gold standard is “actionable intelligence,” information precise enough to permit effective strikes and avoid
civilian casualties. Getting such information takes time, requiring patient and persistent overwatch. Among the
services, the Air Force is uniquely able to monitor, map, and survey vast areas quickly and for long periods.
Equipped with its “staring” Global Hawk and Predator UAVs, not to mention spacecraft and other systems, it can
spot “safe havens, assembly points, and potential avenues of attack,” said the document. It can detect trouble lurking
in the path of land forces. These three characteristics, properly exploited, offer the joint commander enormous
benefits available from no other source. Maj. Gen. Allen G. Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center at
Maxwell AFB, Ala., and overseer of the doctrine paper, summed up matters in these words: “Airpower, in all its
forms, brings a vast array of direct-effect weapons and joint-force enablers to the fray, a fact not always clearly
recognized.”)
Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – War On Terror Impacts
[ ] Flexible air power is key to victory in Iraq and deterring Iran and North Korea
Dudney ’06 (Robert is editor in chief of Air Force magazine, “A force for the long run,” December http://www.afa
.org/magazine/dec2006/1206edit.asp
(One who thinks a great deal about that issue is Gen. Ronald E. Keys, head of USAF’s Air Combat Command at
Langley AFB, Va. As the ACC boss, he’s in charge of some 1,100 aircraft, 25 wings, 15 bases, and 105,000 troops
and civilians. He has no choice but to take the long view, and thus his words have special weight. “I think there is a
danger, and we worry about that,” Keys told the Defense Writers Group, a gathering of Pentagon reporters, on Nov.
9 in Washington, D.C. “Across the Air Force—particularly in Air Combat Command—I had better be able to fight
tonight, and I’ve got to be able to fight 30 years from now, too.” Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t the only wars to
consider. “You’ve got to be able to fight in North Korea,” he said. “ “You’ve got to be able to defend in the China-
Taiwan Strait. You’ve got to be able to go to Iran.” Such scenarios would entail high-intensity clashes with large
national forces. Those nations could be defeated only by a technologically advanced “conventional” military.) Keys
has said before that the Air Force is spending a lot of time “trying to find one white SUV racing down the road” in
Iraq. He went on to say, “When you get to Korea, your problem is not finding one white SUV; your problem’s going
to be 1,000 tubes of artillery shelling Seoul. It’s going to be four tank armies.” Keys said USAF needs versatile
platforms, equally good in a permissive environment or a “kick-down-the-door” scenario. The stealthy F-22 Raptor
fits the bill to a T, but Rumsfeld imposed a drastic cut—reducing the buy from the 381 that USAF considered the
minimum requirement to only 183 today.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – Airpower Key to Hegemony
[ ] Air power is key to readiness – it provides full spectrum dominance
Dudney ’06 (Robert is editor in chief of Air Force magazine, “A force for the long run,” December)
http://www.afa.org/magazine/dec2006/1206edit.asp
(The bedrock of current US military doctrine is “full spectrum dominance”—the ability to defeat the enemy at any
point on the ladder of escalation. It hinges on the ability to control the skies, swiftly defeat an invading enemy, and
rapidly take the fight to the adversary. It requires, in a word, airpower. That is worth remembering. Some new
emphasis on irregular threats was warranted, but overcorrection can be dangerous, and it is not easy to know when
that has happened.) “How will you know?” asked Keys. “You only know if you screw it up when a war happens.
That’s the hard part. There’s no metric out there that tells you you’ve got exactly the right force.”
[ ] Air Force modernization is critical to maintain military superiority – this will require
equipment upgrades
Gen. William Hobbins, Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe, 2007 [U.S. Air Forces in Europe in the 21st Century
Air Force Defense Strategy Seminar http://www.af.mil/library/speeches/speech.asp?id=338 July 24,
It's imperative that we continue to transform our mobility capabilities and modernize our fleet. We must ensure the
continuation of our distinctive capabilities like air and space superiority, global attack, rapid global mobility,
precision engagement, information superiority, and agile combat support, and we're going to do that by
recapitalizing our aging air and space platforms and sensors. USAFE continues to right-size its force to enable these
and other Air Force transformation efforts. As part of the right-sizing effort, we've recently closed Tuzla Air Base in
Kosovo and Keflavik in Iceland. Now these closures highlight our commitment to transforming our force structure,
but we must also transform how we do business. I see more closures coming, more efficiency. Places like Izmir,
Turkey; Bitburg, Germany; and Sembach Air Base (Germany). The key to this is Air Force Smart Operations, the
21st century initiative that we call AFSO 21 in our Air Force. AFSO 21 allows us to right-size the work for the
future workforce, which will then be much lighter, leaner, and more expeditionary. It's really all about lean. I believe
we're leading the Air Force in Air Force Smart Ops 21 events. Now, just consider our information technology and
centralized help-desk switchboard initiatives: they've resulted in the elimination of 52 manpower positions and a
savings of over $20 million across the future years of our defense program. We're also working Air Force Smart Ops
21 transformation plans in other key process areas. We're protecting our hard-dollar savings, cost avoidance, and
we're doing manpower savings as a result of these efforts. Manpower reduction with a 440-billet savings so far in
Air Force Smart Ops 21 events have occurred just in the first two years, just by smart non-commissioned officers
looking at the way we store, maintain munitions, and do we really have to maintain that number? Can we reduce that
number? And so, consequently, they are finding ways to be more efficient.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – Airpower Key to Hegemony
[ ] Air Force Modernization is critical to Joint deployability
Air Force Link. 2006, [Letter to Airmen recognizes Air Force transformation http://www.af.mil/news/
story.asp?id=123025662) Aug 24,
In his latest "Letter to Airmen," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley discusses measures that will shape and transform the Air Force.
General Moseley said Airmen today are engaged in a vast array of missions from operating satellites in deep space to applying air power to the
surface battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, and launching an Air Mobility Command aircraft every 90 seconds, every day. "We're working
hard to put the right people, plans and programs in place to transform and re-shape the Air Force while continuing to
lead the Department of Defense's transformation from an 'industrial' to an 'information' age force -- all while heavily
engaged in a global, long war on terrorism," General Moseley wrote. "Our initiatives focus directly on increasing
our ability to operate in joint and coalition environments, while looking to achieve even higher levels of access, agility and
lethality," he wrote. The general expects Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st century to allow the Air Force to work smarter, not harder, and
to cut contract and operating costs. These savings will free more resources for recapitalization and modernization. "We operate the oldest air
and space inventories in the history of the U. S. Air Force. It's therefore absolutely imperative we modernize and replace these
old aircraft and spacecraft to ensure our dominance across those warfighting domains," General Moseley wrote. He
expressed his gratitude that Airmen are the most "important piece of the equation," and said that many warfighting enhancements and initiatives
directly improve the ways the Air Force trains and prepares for combat. Airmen will fly, operate, maintain and support this
modernized, more lethal air and space equipment with a more flattened personnel structure and with fewer people.
"To stay within our allocated budgets and to increase our investment accounts, the reality is we have to draw the
force down," General Moseley wrote. "This current 12-percent drawdown is realistic and certainly doable. "Even with the 12-percent
reduction in manpower, we can get more of the total force in (air and space expeditionary force ) 'buckets.' We can get more combat-
focused and trained. We can get more deployable and more expeditionary in every thing that we do! We owe that
much to the country," he wrote.
[ ] Modernizing the Air Force is critical to maintaining readiness

John Tirpak, Air Force Association , 2003 [Air Force Magazine July Vol. 86, No. 7,Demand for airlift far exceeds
supply, and senior USAF officers say it is time to expand the fleet. https://www.airforcememorial.org/ magazine/
July2003/0703mobility.pdf The Squeeze on Air Mobility
A tanker air bridge stretching from Maine to Cyprus kept aircraft moving to the theater in a rolling buildup to and
through the start of combat. USAF tankers allowed carrier-based Navy jets in the Mediterranean to get to the fight.
The Vital Tankers The Air Force’s fleet of aerial refueling aircraft and tanker crews also played a vital role in Iraqi
Freedom and demonstrated a surprisingly high mission capable rate while doing it. Some 255 tankers were chopped to
CENTCOM for the duration of the conflict. The KC-135 tanker fleet is old, but that didn’t seem to affect operations too much. “The MC rate for
the -135 has been running in the mid-80s,” Reno reported. “They have been workhorses.” Not long ago, the KC-135 posed a serious problem,
with many spending up to 400 days in depot maintenance. In fact, the ramp at Tinker AFB, Okla., was so full of KC-135s awaiting overhaul at
USAF’s Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center that officials there had to turn away airplanes. The long stays were the result of ancient wiring,
corroded joints, and the accumulated stresses, cracks, and other maladies typical of aged aircraft. An AWACS breaks free after an in-flight
refueling from a KC-10 during a mission in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tankers were stationed throughout the region, some in bases
barely large enough to hold them. Tremendous progress has been made at Tinker since then, Reno said. “In the last two-and-a-half years, they
have cut in half the number of KC-135s that are in depot status,” he said. Two years ago, he said, 160 KC-135s—about a quarter of the fleet—
were in depot maintenance at any given time. Today, the number is in the 80s. The improvement is attributable to “improved processes” both by
the ALC and its contractors, which have sped up overhauls. Still, he said, the KC-135 must enter depot maintenance every five
years. Lately, aircraft are being virtually rebuilt, due to corrosion and simple age. The average age of the KC-135 is
40 years. Brady’s conclusion: “Recapitalization, replacement of the tanker fleet is critically important to us.”

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – Biofuel Solvency
[ ] Military renewable programs will spur companies to develop biofuels for aviation
Daniel Carson, News Herald Writer, June 21, 2008 [NewsHerald, “Alternative energy projects on the rise,”
http://www.newsherald.com/news/energy_4589___article.html/florida_renewable.html]
ARA began experimenting with crop-oil conversion in June 2007, Coppola said, as the company sought to break
into the military jet fuel niche market. Coppola called the U.S. military "fully engaged" in its search for renewable
and alternative energy sources. He said the U.S. Air Force has a goal to have 50 percent of its jet fuel come from
alternative or synthetic energy sources by 2016. For the conversion process, crop oils can be derived from soybean,
peanut and cotton seed found in Florida. A process called catalytic hydrothermolysis converts the oils into biofuels.
Based on data found in the Florida Agricultural Statistical Discovery, Li said there is potential to grow up to 70,000
soybean acres in the state. Li said ARA also is interested in applying the process to algae, which has been
researched as another possible feedstock for biofuels. "We're hoping that our technology can also be used for that,"
he said. Li's hydrothermal approach for cellulosic ethanol production involves using high temperature water in a
process called hydrothermal saccharification. That process converts cellulose to fermentable sugars for a more
efficient production of cellulosic ethanol, Coppola said. "Water is available. And we can get very good results,"
Coppola said. Florida obviously has a lot of wood biomass available for cellulosic ethanol, Li said, and the
University of Florida also has conducted extensive research into cellulosic ethanol production. Dozens of other U.S.
companies are trying to find the best way to covert cellulose to sugar, Li added. He is scheduled to deliver a
presentation at the conference, held July 30 to Aug. 1 in Orlando, on ARA's research into crop-oil conversion and
hydrothermal saccharification for cellulosic ethanol production. Li and Coppola said they wanted to support the
department's Farm to Fuel initiative by raising awareness on renewable and alternative energy research and
production. "Hopefully, we can make a contribution to either the regional or statewide biofuel market," Li said.
[ ] The Military is close to developing biofuels for jets

Alan Shaffer, director of plans and programs for the Office of Defense Research and Engineering, April 29, 2007
[San Francisco Chronicle, “Department of Defense goes green,” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a
/2007/04/29/EDGONP1I9S1.DTL]
A biofuel program, run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is working to develop
affordable bio-based surrogates for military jet fuels derived from oil-rich crops, such as rapeseed, or produced by
either agriculture or aquaculture, including, but not limited to plants, algae, fungi and bacteria. DARPA recently
selected three performers to demonstrate conversion of these renewable oils with a minimum process efficiency of
60 percent, and having an ultimate goal of 90 percent efficiency.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – Synfuels Solvency
[ ] Coal Synfuel is a mature, abundant alternative to petroleum
Increase Supply/Diversify Sources Alternative Fuels In coal-rich, oil-poor pre-WWII Germany, Franz Fisher and
Hans Tropsch developed a process to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from coal that supplied a substantial portion
of Germany’s fuel during the war. The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which
syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced from the partial combustion of coal which has been gasified and
combined with molecular oxygen) is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. Typical catalysts used are
based on iron and cobalt. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced from coal gasification and the FT process are
intrinsically clean, as sulfur and heavy metal contaminants are removed during the gasification process. The
principal purpose of the FT process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as synthetic lubrication oil
or as synthetic fuel. The FT process can be used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from virtually any carbon-
containing feed stock, including low-grade tars, biomass, or shale oil; only the preprocessing steps would differ from
the gasification process used with coal.33 Since the United States has the largest coal reserves in the world,
synthetic fuel, or synfuel, made from coal is particularly appealing. Synfuel represents a domestically controlled
resource with prices theoretically tied to the coal market instead of the world oil market. South Africa has been
producing synthetic fuel for decades and many consider it to be a mature technology ready for commercialization.
[ ] Current military synthetic fuels programs are successful – they need to be expanded
to address dependence
In 2006 the Secretary of the Air Force directed a project to procure synthetic jet fuel for ground testing and, if
ground tests were successful, flight testing.37 In December 2006, a B-52 conducted a flight-test mission using a
50/50 blend of manufactured synthetic fuel and petroleum based JP-8, or synfuel-blend, on all eight engines, and
recently finished cold-weather testing at Minot AFB, ND, the last step in the testing and certification process. Test
data is being analyzed, and the final test report is scheduled to be released in June 2007. Thus far, results have been
positive. The Air Force is committed to completing testing and certification of synfuels for its aircraft by 2010, and
aims to acquire 50% of CONUS fuel from a synfuel-blend produced domestically by 2016. At current consumption
rates this equals approximately 325 million gallons of synfuel-blend.38 This will certainly not eliminate US
dependence on foreign oil, but is comparable to a double or triple in the George Shultz baseball analogy cited at the
beginning of this chapter. Subsequent actions, such as proving the economic viability of synfuels, or improving upon
FT process could “bring these runners home” and further expand domestically produced energy supplies. Could the
world’s single largest energy consumer be the catalyst to successfully launch a new synthetic fuel industry in the
United States? Advocates say with government help FT technology could supply 10% of US fuels within 20
years.39 A relatively small synthetic fuel plant, processing 17,000 tons per day of coal to produce 28,000 barrels per
day of fuel, 750 tons per day of ammonia, and 475MW of net electrical

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] DoD use of Synfuels would establish the industry for the rest of the US and would
encourage CO2 reductions
Our team at Wright-Patterson also is working on a study with DOE to find the right mix of biomass and coal to
reduce CO2 emissions starting with the feedstock. We aim to be good stewards of the environment and yet push for
the production and purchase of domestically produced synfuel from plants that use coal, natural gas or other
derivation that incorporate greenhouse gas reduction processes to provide the right fuel in the right manner. The
DOD could not only be the catalyst for the synthetic fuel industry in the United States, but could also promote US
carbon capture and sequestration on an unprecedented scale. The DOD should not support any synfuel initiatives
that do not responsibly handle CO2 emissions. Ethanol is an important alternative to petroleum based gasoline in the
larger national strategy to reduce oil consumption, and the DOD should follow government guidelines in purchasing
new non-tactical vehicles capable of operating on ethanol or other alternatives to gasoline. However, gasoline
represents only 1.1% of DOD energy costs and aggressive pursuit of ethanol for the DOD will not make a
significant difference. DOD Facilities and Renewable/Nuclear Energy Sources As discussed in Chapter 2, DOD
facilities energy management could serve as a model for the rest of the federal government. DUSD (I&E) manages
an excellent facilities energy program. Efficient facilities can reduce energy demand while renewable energy
initiatives on or near DOD installations increase supply and diversify sources. The DOD is one of the major leaders
of the federal government in renewable energy, receiving about 9% of electricity from renewable sources in FY
2005 (national average is 6%) and has a goal of 25% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025.44 Why not a
more aggressive goal? DOD should set a goal of being a net-zero energy consumer at its facilities by 2030. The path
to net-zero energy consumption is through expanded production of renewable, and possibly nuclear, energy sources
at or near DOD installations. Several DOD installations are already exceeding the existing 25% renewable goal.
Dyess AFB, TX is operating 100% on renewable energy, with Minot AFB and Fairchild AFB not far behind with
95.7% and 99.6% respectively.
[ ] Synthetic jet fuels can dramatically reduce military dependence on oil and won’t
sacrifice performance
/2007/04/29/EDGONP1I9S1.DTL]
The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States. It spent $13.6 billion for energy in
2006, up from $10.9 billion in 2005. In terms of raw use, the department uses about 340 thousand barrels of oil per day, or almost
1.5 percent of the total energy consumption in the United States. That said, no other agency better appreciates the need to reduce
U.S. reliance on oil. Energy efficiency and energy conservation are a priority for the Department of Defense. That is why the
department is at the forefront of the federal government for using and testing renewable energy and reducing energy use. These
efforts simply make good business sense and demonstrate our commitment to be responsible stewards of the resources we are
entrusted by the American taxpayer. The men and women serving our nation need reliable sources of energy to complete their
tasks. We need fuels to fly our aircraft, to heat our buildings, to power our computer systems, to run our vehicles, to light our
work spaces. When we conserve energy, we lower our operating costs and we lessen our dependence on outside sources for this
important resource. However, while the Department of Defense seeks to reduce the demand for energy, we must do so in ways
that do not reduce the performance of our systems or reduce the protection of the young men and women serving our nation.
Reducing the need for energy is difficult, and there is no magic fix, for the Department of Defense or the nation. The department,
however, is addressing the challenge through a number of actions to reduce demand and increase supply; actions that are under
way6 in conjunction with other federal agencies and industry. Our efforts to reduce energy use include these programs: Ships
and vehicles accounted for 74 percent of the department's energy demand in 2005. To ensure our military has the fuel it needs, the
U.S. Air Force is testing the performance of an aircraft using a 50-50 blend of conventional and synthetic fuel. In summer 2006,
the Air Force began testing B-52 jet engines using this blended synthetic fuel, culminating in a test in December where a B-52
flew a mission using this synthetic fuel in all eight engines. These tests have been successful and further testing operating in
different environments continues

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Synthetic jet fuels are critical for the DoD because dependence on skyrocketing oil
diverts budgets
Richard Connelly, director, Defense Energy Support Center, Defense Logistics Agency September 27, 2006
[Political Transcript Wire, Hold A Joint A Hearting On Dod Alternative Energy Programs,” http://www. Access
mylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-18480380_ITM]
CONNELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Saxton, Chairman Hefley, Congressman Ortiz, and distinguished
members of the subcommittees, thanks for the opportunity today to describe to you the efforts of the Defense
Logistics Agency to support Air Force and Navy efforts to introduce synthetic fuel into the streams of jet marine fuel
that we buy on behalf of DOD. As the director of the Defense Energy Support Center, or DESC, as I will call it,
which is a field activity of the Defense Logistics Agency, it's my job to make sure that we have an uninterrupted
supply of clean fuel for the military forces whenever and wherever they want it. The surging cost of crude oil over
the past few years has made that job challenging. Even though we price ourselves on acquiring fuel at prices which
meet or beat the industry averages, it is somewhat painful to be captive to a crude oil commodity market that reacts
to world events in a manner that underlines the downside of our reliance on offshore crude resources. DESC has
been working for some time with the Air Force, Navy, Department of Energy, and industry experts, examining the
potential for alternative domestic energy source that might economically provide some relief from our dependence
on offshore crude. Among these alternatives is the conversion of the United States' abundant domestic coal reserves
to synthetic fuel using the Fischer- Tropsch coal-to-liquid manufacturing process. In April of this year, the Air Force
requested that DESC poll industry regarding its ability to provide DOD with 100 million gallons of synthetic jet
fuel, or JP-8, beginning in January of '09, along with capacity estimates for future years. The Navy subsequently
asked that we include 100 million gallons of synthetic Navy jet fuel, or JP-5, in that request.
[ ] Synthetic aviation fuel can be made using coal in the US.

Optimism Meets Reality,” Synthetic Fuels, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf]
Synthetic Fuel
The technology used to produce synthetic liquid fuel from coal, natural gas, or other solid carbon-containing
feedstocks has existed since around 1923 when two German researchers, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, found a
way to turn carbon-based materials into useable petroleum products. Their discovery—the “Fischer-Tropsch”
process—forms the basis of the technology in use today.2 Synthetic fuel can also be extracted with chemical
processes from oil shale3 and tar sands (also referred to as oil sands), forms of organic-rich sedimentary rock
abundant in North America.4 Pros: There are many positive things associated with Coal-To-Liquid (CTL) fuel and
Gas-To-Liquid (GTL) fuel produced via the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process. The most frequently cited advantage is
that it burns cleaner producing fewer carbon emissions. F-T fuels produce approximately 2.4% less carbon dioxide,
50%-90% less particulate matter, and 100% less sulfur than traditional fossil fuels. Other positive attributes of F-T
fuels include excellent low temperature properties that improve high altitude operations and low temperature
starting; and “superior” thermal stability, which make possible the development of highly fuel efficient engines.5
Another oft cited advantage of F-T fuel for DOD is that it can be produced using resources available within the
United States. Coal and natural gas, two common feedstocks, are relatively abundant in the United States. The
Energy Information Administration estimated in a 1995 report that the United States has an approximately 250 year
supply of coal.6 It should be considered, however, that an increased demand for coal driven by a growing F-T
industry may affect that estimate.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Airpower – Long Term Contract Solvency
[ ] Long term contracts are critical to guarantee a market for synthetic aviation fuels
The request for information, known as an RFI, was released in May, with responses due by August 10. The RFI
asked respondents a number of questions, including what their proposed feedstock would be, where their plant
would be located, when their planned streams of synjet would become available, and what risk mitigation strategies
they might be seeking. Now, there was significant interest, with 28 firms responding, 22 of which intended to
manufacture synthetic fuel, 20 of the 22 proposed using the Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid technology, and 18 said
they would use domestic coal. If such endeavors could acquire appropriate financing, the aggregate stream of synjet
by 2016 would far exceed the amount necessary to supplant 50 percent of domestic DOD needs. The respondents
identified significant risk mitigation requirements before they could engage in the development of coal-to- liquid
capability. Most identified a need for long-term contracts, 15 to 25 years, with guaranteed minimum annual DOD
purchases and, in addition, most wanted a guaranteed minimum price for their product during the contract term.
[ ] Long term contracts for synthetic aviation fuels spur mass production and reduce
costs
Associated Press 2008 [May 21. US Military Launches Alternate-fuel Push.
http://www.military.com/news/article/us-military-launches-alternate-fuel-push.html?col=1186032320397.]
Synthetic-fuel prices also need to fall: Formerly stratospheric, they're still about 50 percent above the soaring prices
for petroleum. That should happen if companies can begin operating commercial-scale refineries, says David Berg, a
policy analyst who studied the nascent synthetic-fuel market for the Energy Department in December. He estimated
that commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refineries would be able to sell artificial fuel for approximately $55 a barrel,
less than half the current cost of conventional crude oil. But many in the field say they're unwilling to invest the
necessary billions until they can sign long-term contracts with the government. Right now, the Air Force legally can
sign deals only for five years. It has asked the White House's Office of Management and Budget to seek
congressional approval for the rule change, but the Bush administration has yet to act on the request, Mr. Anderson
says.
[ ] Long Term contracts for synthetic fuels is key to spurring innovation

Platts Oilgram News—2007. ( “Airforce aims to lead US transition away from oil.” 3/12/07. Lexus nexus)
Wynne called for a "genuine government partnership" to bring this about, which was music to the ears of several
hundred representatives from aerospace companies, automakers and energy producers, all interested in obtaining big
military contracts for their products. The Air Force's goals include cutting fossil energy use 2% per year; increasing
renewable use 10% by 2015; and getting 50% of the fuel it expects it will need in the US in 2016?about 325 million
barrels?from domestically produced alternatives.
To help get coal-to-liquids or other Fischer-Tropsch plants built in the US, the Air Force plans to continue testing
alternative and synthetic fuels so it can certify by 2010 that they can work well in military jets and vehicles. The
commercial airline industry expects to help establish its demand for the fuels by doing the same a year sooner.
The Air Force also wants to enter into long-term contracts, with terms of up to 25 years, to create a market for
synfuels. Air Force officials say they lack authority to enter the long-term deals, and are lobbying Congress to pass
legislation (S. 154) affirming the Pentagon's contracting authority. Top Defense Department officials as recently as
October said it was doubtful that DOD would sign long-term contracts because of uncertainty over prices and CTL
technology. But they did not rule out the possibility that the Pentagon might enter long-term contracts for Fischer-
Tropsch diesel or jet fuel if Congress passed new language on military contracts.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Oil Dependence Now
[ ] US Dependence on foreign oil is increasing – high prices haven’t curtailed demand
The United States of America has a National Security problem, in which the Department of Defense (DOD) has a
unique interest – energy security. Energy is the life-blood of the US economy and dependence on imported energy is
a looming national crisis. Cheap and abundant energy has been the historical norm for American consumers and war
fighters, and to most Americans energy is taken for granted. Electricity is as much a part of daily life as breathing air
and drinking water. Electricity powers our lights, alarm clocks, coffee pots, toasters, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning, MP3 players, computers, televisions, traffic lights, subway systems, air traffic control networks,
industry, and almost every other facet of daily life in the 21st century, and it’s been that way for almost 100 years.
The US National Academy of Engineering ranks “Electrification” as the #1 Engineering Achievement of the 20th
Century.1 Much of American society is centered on individual mobility, extensive road networks, and large parking
lots. The United States has more cars than registered drivers, and with a few notable exceptions, fuel has remained
affordable and plentiful. Fuel costs moved from the subconscious to the conscious after recent increases in the price
of oil caused gasoline prices to rise to $3 per gallon, but for the most part, increased fuel prices have done nothing to
reduce consumption. The United States imports 26% of its total energy supply and 56% of the oil it consumes.2

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Oil Dependence Bad – Hegemony
[ ] Oil Dependence kills US hegemony – it undermines coalitions, emboldens enemies,
deters free markets and increases military vulnerability to supply disruptions
The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting US foreign policy and US national security. Major
energy suppliers – from Russia to Iran to Venezuela – have been increasingly able and willing to use their energy
resources to pursue their strategic and political objectives. Major energy consumers – notably the United States, but
other countries as well – are finding that their growing dependence on imported energy increases their strategic
vulnerability and constrains security objectives.19 Foreign Policy issues are daily concerns for the White House and
the Department of State, but the DOD is typically the department called upon when Foreign Policy goes awry. In his
article, Energy Security: The New Threats in Latin America and Africa, David L. Goldwyn, a senior fellow at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues current US energy dependency challenges US power in five
ways. First, many nations dependent on consuming imported oil are reluctant to join coalitions led by the United
States to combat weapons proliferation, terrorism or aggression. Examples are the French, Russian and Chinese
resistance to sanctions on Iran; Chinese resistance to sanctions against Sudan; and US tolerance of Middle East
repression that would otherwise be sanctioned were it to occur in any other non-oil-producing part of the world.20
Secondly, high oil revenues in the hands of oil exporting nations allow governments to act with impunity against
their own people, their neighbors, and the United States. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Latin America’s
loudest anti-American cheerleader, has used oil revenue to build support for his economic vision by providing
subsidized oil to neighboring countries and gain leverage over them by purchasing bonds to finance their debt.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has renationalized the energy sector, restricted foreign access to Russia’s pipeline
system, and demanded open access to Europe. Iran has reduced its international debt and increased foreign reserves
to prepare of possible sanctions. “Even Saudi Arabia’s economic reform movement, born in the days of $10 oil in
1998, evaporated when oil reached $30 per barrel in 2000. Enrichment of America’s competitors or adversaries
harms US security interests in every part of the globe”.21 The third problem is that the global oil market is far from
being a free market system. Governments which do not allow free market access to develop, exploit and expand
supplies control most of the world’s major oil reserves. Most free market commodities allow the market supply to
expand to meet demand. As oil prices rise, many governments are less receptive to foreign investment, preventing
supply from responding to demand and driving prices even higher. 22 An increased price of imported goods
increases the US trade deficit and exports wealth to foreign lands. In 2005, imported oil accounted for one-third of
the country’s $800 billion trade deficit.23 A fourth problem created by the highly competitive world oil market is the
political gamesmanship that undermines the fluidity and fairness of the market for available supplies. “New
competitors like China and India are trying to negotiate long term contracts (at market prices) to ensure they have
supplies in the event of a crisis or supply disruption…From an economic point of view it may not matter if China
lends Angola $3 billion at low interest to gain part of an exploration project as long as the oil is produced. But China
gains an enormous geopolitical advantage by this act.”24 A fifth problem oil dependency creates for America and
directly impacts the DOD is vulnerability to price volatility that result from supply and demand shocks.25 From the
fall of 2005 until gasoline prices started to decline in fall 2006, the “price of gasoline” had replaced “the weather” as
every American’s favorite subject of conversation with a stranger. The price of standard crude oil on NYMEX was
under $25 per barrel in September 2003, but by August 11, 2005, increased to over $60 per barrel, and topped out at
a record price of $78.40 per barrel on July 13, 2006.26 Experts attributed the spike in prices to a variety of factors,
including war in Iraq, North Korea's missile launches, the crisis between Israel and Lebanon, Iranian nuclear
brinkmanship, and Hurricane Katrina. None of these factors, except for war in Iraq, could be controlled by the US
government. The global energy infrastructure built over the last century is quite fragile and was not designed with
any vision of terrorist attacks or computer hackers. The DOD must accept the fact that vulnerabilities exist and that
bad actors will eventually exploit these vulnerabilities if corrective measures are not taken.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Oil Dependence Bad – Trade Deficit
[ ] Increasing oil dependence causes the trade deficit to rise
7 The significance of oil imports in national and regional economies, such as the E.U., is a strong function of the
corresponding balance of payments. The E.U. as a whole, China, and Japan are net exporters (positive balance of
payments) and, as a consequence, the main long-term concerns focus on availability of crude-oil supplies and
transportation routes, and not on their economic consequences. This is not the case for the U.S., as discussed below.
Also noteworthy is that China’s balance of payments is actually negative with respect to the rest of the world, but
increasing at a rate of 0.5-1% per year, with recent increases closer to the lower bound. E.U. consumption is
increasing at half the rate of increase of the U.S. consumption, while China’s is increasing 6 times faster than the
U.S. consumption. The peak in U.S. oil production, generally denoted as “peak U.S. oil”, has often been interpreted
to indicate that the amount of oil that can be extracted from U.S. soil is in irreversible decline. However, the
particular peak is more directly related to the introduction at the time of inexpensive foreign oil (< FY05$ 4/bbl
production costs), mostly from Saudi Arabia, into the world market. Recent economic drivers favor reductions of
domestic production, with foreign sources of oil available at lower prices. Despite the ongoing depletion of the U.S.
resource, domestic production is primarily driven by economics and perhaps secondarily by geological constraints.8
Conversely, rising oil (and other) imports, unbalanced by commensurate increases in exports, translate into a
balance-of payments issue for the U.S.
[ ] The Trade deficit is caused by rising oil prices; reducing dependence on foreign oil
would save the U.S. billions
Oil imports account for a large fraction of the U.S. current account balance. The Economist (20 April 2006) notes
that, “Plenty of Americans blame unfair competition from Asia, and especially China, for their country's gigantic
current-account deficit. Yet the group of countries with the world's biggest current-account surpluses is no longer
emerging Asia, but exporters of oil. As the price of their chief resource has climbed—this week it hit a new nominal
record price of more than $70 a barrel—these economies have enjoyed a huge windfall. From an American point of
view, the rise in oil prices has explained half of the widening of the current-account deficit since 2003, a bigger
share than that accounted for by China. [italics ours] … America gains little, in terms of its current-account balance,
even from the imports that oil exporters do buy. It now accounts for only 8% of OPEC countries' total imports; the
European Union has 32%. So even if the exporters spent all their extra revenue, America's current-account deficit
would increase as oil prices rise. This partly explains why in recent years the EU's trade balance with the oil
exporters has barely changed even as America's deficit has grown sharply.”

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Oil Dependence Bad – Price Shocks
[ ] Dependence on oil makes the global economy vulnerable to oil shocks
The dependence on and competition for world energy supplies constrain the foreign policy and national security
objectives of oil importers. The United States has long taken an energy-based security interest in the Middle East
even though the United States receives only 17 percent of its oil from the region. Meanwhile, net exporters—such as
Russia, Iran, Sudan, the Central Asian republics, Vene- zuela, and even Saudi Arabia—are emboldened to leverage
energy sources to achieve political gains that are usually inimical to many of the oil-importing states. Examples
include Russia’s restricting natural gas to former republics (and Europe), Iran’s development of nuclear capability,
Sudan’s actions in Darfur, and Saudi Arabia’s weak support for human rights. Because small changes in supply or
demand can have large price impacts, the dependence on oil to fuel the global economy will continue to have
negative implications for our national and economic security. The Council on Foreign Relations Energy Security
Task Force estimates that a 1 percent change in supply (or demand) can have a 5 to 10 percent impact on price.
[ ] Energy prices are rising – cutoffs will lead to military confrontations

Richard Lugar 2006 United States Senator {http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html3month/2006/060829.SP-
Lugar.energy.html August 29, 2006 Speech at Purdue University}
Second, as large industrializing nations such as China and India seek new energy supplies, oil and natural gas will
become more expensive. In the long run we will face the prospect that the world's supply of oil may not be abundant
and accessible enough to support continued economic growth in both the industrialized West and in large rapidly
growing economies. As we approach the point where the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for
insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict.
Third, adversarial regimes from Venezuela, to Iran, to Russia are using energy supplies as leverage against their
neighbors. We are used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare between nations, but energy is becoming a
weapon of choice for those who possess it. Nations experiencing a cutoff of energy supplies, or even the threat of a
cutoff, may become desperate, increasing the chances of armed conflict, terrorism, and economic collapse.
[ ] Oil dependence decreases US security and harms world economy.

USA Today, August 23, 2005 [“U.S. farms could yield bumper crop of energy,” Tech,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/biotech/2005-08-23-alternative-fuels_x.htm]
Daunting challenges lie ahead for biorefineries. For years, plant-based fuels were dismissed as a fringe concept
advocated by environmentalists. That was before the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Now the environmentalists have a
powerful new ally: those who see oil dependence as a national security threat. "A single well-designed attack could
send oil to well over $100 a barrel and devastate the world's economy," former Secretary of State George Schultz
and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey wrote in a recent paper. "Oil dependence today
creates serious and pressing dangers for the U.S. and other oil-importing nations."

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Oil Dependence Bad – Terrorism
[ ] The US uses a huge amount of oil, and this funds corruption
The vulnerability of the United States rests on some basic factors. With less than 5 percent of the world's population,
our nation consumes 25 percent of its oil. World demand for oil and other forms of energy is rapidly increasing.
Within 25 years, the world will need 50 percent more energy than it does now. If oil prices average $60 a barrel
through 2006 — a figure that we are currently well above — we will spend about $320 billion on oil imports this
year. This is roughly the same amount that the United States has spent on the war and reconstruction effort in Iraq
during the first three years of conflict.
These conditions might be negotiable in the short and medium terms if oil resided with responsible, secure
producers who maximize production during periods of elevated demand. But just the opposite is true. According to
PFC Energy, about 79 percent of the world's oil supply is controlled by state-run oil companies. These governments
profoundly affect prices through politicized investment and production decisions. The vast majority of these oil
assets are afflicted by at least one of three problems: lack of investment, political manipulation, or the threat of
instability and terrorism.
As recently as four years ago, spare production capacity exceeded world oil consumption by about 10 percent. As
world demand for oil has rapidly increased in the last few years, spare capacity has declined to less than 2 percent.
Thus, even minor disruptions of oil can drive up prices. Earlier this month, a routine inspection found corrosion in a
section of BP's Prudhoe Bay oil pipeline that shut down 8 percent of U.S. oil output, causing a $2 spike in oil prices.
That the oil market is this vulnerable to something as mundane as corrosion in a pipeline is evidence of the
precarious conditions in which we live.
[ ] Reliance on oil funds terrorist groups

Fourth, the revenues flowing to authoritarian regimes often increase corruption in those countries and allow them to
insulate themselves from international pressure and the democratic aspirations of their own peoples. We are
transferring hundreds of billions of dollars each year to some of the least accountable regimes in the world. Some
are using this money to invest abroad in terrorism, instability, or demagogic appeals to populism.
[ ] The high price on energy increases poverty, which increases terrorism

Sixth, much of the developing world is being hit hard by rising energy costs, which often cancel the benefits of our
foreign assistance. Without a diversification of energy supplies that emphasizes environmentally friendly energy
sources that are abundant in most developing countries, the national incomes of energy poor nations will remain
depressed, with negative consequences for stability, development, disease eradication, and terrorism..

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “No Oil Cutoffs”
[ ] Even if there are not actual supply disruptions, dependence on oil kills readiness by
increasing trade deficits
At present, the working assumption of the energy industry, as documented in EIA assessments, is that the market
price of oil will return to a $40-45/bbl range in the next five years, as increased production facilities come on line,
accommodating increases in demand. Thus, increasing U.S. imports relative to domestic supply have no direct
national-defense implications, other than financial. They do, however, impose clear balance-of-payments and
national-economy consequences, and significant indirect national-security implications thereby. Strong defense is
and has historically always been predicated on a strong economy. The study notes that a reduction of 12% in U.S. oil
consumption, at present, would relax the world-wide tight supply-demand situation, at least for a while, and allow
the U.S. the option of foregoing all oil imports from the Middle East and avoidance of the dependencies and
vulnerabilities imposed by this sensitive import stream, should the need arise.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Oil Dependence - Solvency
[ ] The DoD must increase use of Renewables to avoid peak oil wars and imperialism to
secure oil
Sohbet Karbuz, Assoc of Mediterranean Energy Companies 2006 [July 13, Energy Bulletin, Pentagon and Peak Oil:
A Military Literature Review, http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=13199]
“The doubling of oil prices from 2003-2005 is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Oil production is
approaching its peak; low growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years.” The report depicts the
likely shape of future geopolitics: “In conclusion, we are clearly entering a very different period for global energy
markets and relations. We shall continue to face geopolitical risks and uncertainties and concerns around energy
security will continue to rise. Petroleum will remain the most strategic and political energy commodity with natural
gas running a close second. .…The roles of leading actors in the global energy system will also change as the center
of gravity for oil production shifts back towards the Middle East and Central Asia….Oil wars are certainly not out of
the question.” Then it looks at energy solutions by a rather impressive comparison of all major renewable and non-
renewable energy options. That analysis convince the authors that best options for meeting future energy
requirements are energy efficiency and renewable sources. But that does not prevent the authors to recommend
increasing domestic supplies. The report, however, in many ways restricts itself to Army. After that article we see
several articles by people from Air Force. An article by Lieutenant Colonel (USAF) John Amidon[8] in the winter
2005 issue of the Joint Forces Quarterly discusses in length the Peak Oil and Beyond from military point of view.
The author first admits that current energy strategy of the US assumes oil needs to be met “by managing the oil-
producing countries diplomatically and militarily.” He continues with “However, this thinking overestimates the
available oil supply, ignores growing instability in the oil-producing countries, and understates the military costs of
preserving access.” He is doubtful that “any military, even that of a global hegemony, could secure an oil lifeline
indefinitely. Failing to take urgent economic steps now will necessitate more painful economic steps later and likely
require protracted military action.”
[ ] DoD development of alternative energies is critical – funding must begin now to be

ready for peak oil
Following the invasion of Iraq, discussions of oil around national security in general and future of oil in particular
have started to appear in military studies. November 2003 issue of Defense Horizons[4] started with a soft warning:
“While there is no near-term fuel crisis facing DoD, this situation is likely to change over the coming decades as
fossil fuel reserves deplete and world demand for them grows. DoD will be confronted with some significant
challenges, ranging from protecting U.S. interests as supply and demand come into increasing conflict, to resolving
defense-unique fuel requirements as the Nation moves to alternate fuels.” They mention two reasons for such as
move: “the ultimate depletion of oil and natural-gas reserves, and environmental considerations such as the
production of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. While there is considerable disagreement over when fossil fuel
resources will be depleted, there is little disagreement that eventually they will run out.” The authors argue that non-
fossil-fuel based economy is decades away, but urge to seek an immediate solution. Because, “competition for
diminishing oil and natural gas reserves will increase in the coming years,” they state. If hydrogen is deemed to be
the proper course, then, considering the massive task of moving toward a hydrogen economy, the groundwork to
move in this direction needs to begin soon,” was their conclusion.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Oil Dependence - Solvency
[ ] The US must increase renewables to avoid collapse when oil peaks
After discussing the concept of Hubbert’s Peak, optimists and pessimists as well as oil reserves, production and peak
in important regions such as Caspian and countries such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria (from APSO
point of view) he states that “recognition that world oil supplies have reached Hubbert’s peak will have major
implications in the industrial world.” But he adds, “Although the pessimists offer a convincing argument presaging a
peak in global oil production, what if they are wrong? What if technology and discovery can delay it far into the 21st
century?” Suggestion? The US must embark “on a comprehensive plan to achieve energy independence—a type of
Manhattan Project for energy—to deploy as many conservation and replacement measures as possible.” To him such
an effort should consist of two phases: conservation, and energy power shift through reduced dependence on oil. His
suggestions are around (plug-in) Hybrid cars with increased CAFE standards, and biorefinery and (cellulosic)
ethanol. All these, of course, with a financial help by the government. The required long lead times for the
alternatives to be in place is a worry for the author: “In sum, trying to drill our way out of this crisis will not address
the real problem, which is soaring demand and the danger of military conflict over shrinking resources.”
[ ] The DoD must act now to be ready to transition before oil Peaks
20No%203%20www.pdf]
Mindful of the fact that DoE has predicted Hubbert’s Peak will occur around 2037, by 2035 both the DoD and the
private sector will likely be deeply involved in a large-scale conversion to the new energy. The real and
environmental costs of maintaining old systems will likely rise exponentially, building the case for rapid elimination.
Because of Stage I and II efforts, state-of-theart facilities, systems, and even soldiers should by this time operate on
a standard energy bus, relying heavily on computer optimization and networking for maximum communication and
situational awareness. As the vision for 2050 draws near, energy can be expected to be produced in a variety of
ways as part of a highly distributed network (not to be confused with a centralized distribution network) and almost
exclusively take one of two forms: electricity or hydrogen. It is not inconceivable that electricity will be produced by
state-of-the-art coal and natural gas facilities; ubiquitous solar, wind, geothermal, thermoelectric, and ocean tide and
thermal sources; various-sized nuclear plants, hydrogen fuel cells, and even on-vehicle generators. Hydrogen will be
derived from water electrolysis, large scale photolysis, reformation of remaining hydrocarbon fuels, and other
chemical processes. It will be either safely shipped from domestic sources, or more likely produced locally. Only in
the rarest of cases will it rely on foreign fuel stocks, and then only if the risk and benefit analysis demonstrates that
it is situationally more advantageous to do so. Unfortunately, aircraft systems will likely be the last to undergo the
new energy conversion, operationally restricted by power, weight, and volume constraints until technologies are
most mature (remember that the DoD actually produced a hydrogen-powered jet engine as early as 1957, indicating
that once hydrogen storage issues are resolved, the hydrogen aircraft may become a reality).144

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Brittle Power - Terrorism Impacts
[ ] Terrorists will exploit US military energy vulnerability
A recent Congressional Research Service report to Congress highlighted terrorists emphasis on exploiting oil
vulnerabilities: Al Qaeda leaders’ statements reveal sophisticated consideration of the economic and military
vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies, particularly with regard to the role of Middle Eastern oil as “the
basis of industry” in the global economy. Statements by Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri urging attacks on oil
infrastructure and military supply lines could indicate a shift in Al Qaeda’s strategic and tactical planning in favor of
a more protracted attritional conflict characterized by disruptive attacks on economic and critical energy production
infrastructure. For example, in an interview reportedly conducted on or around the fourth anniversary of the
September 11 terrorist attacks, Al Zawahiri urged “mujahidin to concentrate their campaigns on the Muslims’ stolen
oil” and to “not allow the thieves ruling [Muslim] countries to control this oil.” Bin Laden has called for Muslim
societies to become more self-sufficient economically and has urged Arab governments to preserve oil as “a great
and important economic power for the coming Islamic state.” Bin Laden also has described economic boycotts as
“extremely effective” weapons. Instability and hostility towards the United States characterizes most of the oil-
producing world, and terrorist organizations have called for attacks on oil infrastructure and military supply lines.2
An oil supply crisis can no longer be dismissed as a low-probability event. Hostile governments and terrorist
organizations could use oil supply as a strategic weapon to attack the United States. Oil supply disruptions to the
United States could be caused by several events: natural disaster, politically motivated embargoes, terrorist attacks
on production and transmission infrastructure, or closure of world oil transit chokepoints. Any long-term disruption
in oil supply to the United States is a National Security risk unacceptable to the US government. However, most of
these scenarios assume a major world-wide upheaval or political and other major changes in the primary oil
production regions of the world and go beyond the scope of this paper.
[ ] Fossil fuel dependence makes the military vulnerable to terrorist attacks on energy
infrastructure
Almost a half million miles of oil and gas transmission pipeline serve the United States. These pipelines are integral
to US energy supply and have vital links to other critical infrastructure, such as power plants, airports, and military
installations. The pipeline networks are widespread, running through remote and densely populated regions and are
vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attack. Roughly 160,000 miles of pipeline carry over 75% of the nation’s crude
oil and around 60% of its refined petroleum products. The US natural gas pipeline network consists of around
210,000 miles of pipeline for field gathering and transmission nation wide.3 Pipelines are vulnerable to vandalism
and terrorist attack with firearms, explosives, or other physical means. Some may also be vulnerable to “cyber-
attack” on computer control systems or be vulnerable to an attack on the electric grid supplying power to them. Oil
and gas pipelines have been targeted extensively by terrorists outside and within the United States. Rebels have
targeted one oil pipeline in Colombia over 600 times since 1995. In 1996, London police foiled a plot by the Irish
Republican Army to bomb gas pipelines and other utilities. Since 9/11, federal warnings about Al Qaeda have
specifically mentioned pipelines as possible targets. The 800 mile long Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), which
runs from Alaska’s North Slope oil fields to the marine terminal in Valdez, Alaska, delivers nearly 17% of US
domestic oil production. TAPS has already been targeted numerous times, and in January 2006, federal authorities
acknowledged a detailed posting on a website purportedly linked to Al Qaeda that encouraged attacks on US
pipelines, especially TAPS, using weapons or explosives.4

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Our energy infrastructure is the weakest, thus attacks are must likely to occur there
February ]
The major energy systems in the United States include the petroleum, natural gas, and electric power systems. Our
surety efforts are currently focused on the electric power system, because it is vulnerable to immediate outages and
other problems, such as market perturbations with fluctuating prices of fuel and odd behavior, such as a contango
condition (one in which distant delivery prices for futures exceed spot prices, often due to the costs of storing and
insuring the underlying commodity). If one examines the current energy generation-supply system with respect to
each of the five surety elements, some problem areas emerge. We call this examination process our Energy Surety
Methodology.
[ ] Reliance on a brittle energy grid makes the US especially vulnerable to a terrorist

attack and increases authoritarian impulses
Keith Parkins, Corporate Watch, 2003 [October 2003, “Brittle Power”, http://home.clara.net/heureka/gaia/brittle-
power.htm]
We should therefore be looking at localising the grid, making areas self-sufficient, so the grid is then only used to
correct minor imbalances, not as a major transmission conduit. The University of East Anglia (UEA), is to build
two wind turbines, which will generate more than enough power for the whole campus, with the surplus being sold
back to the National Grid. A turbine at Cassop Primary School in County Durham has been in operation since 1999
and provides twice the school’s electricity, with surplus going back to the Grid. Catchgate School in County
Durham powers itself completely with its own turbine. Large scale wind turbine farms are unsightly, noisy and dan-
gerous to birdlife. Why despoil our few remaining wild spaces? The large amounts of capital required makes us de-
pendent on big business. We should tap into natural energy flows, divert a small amount for our needs, and allow
the remainder to flow on past. The classic example would be the pre-industrial miller diverting part of a stream. He
has little impact on the eco-system. Our energy needs are low power and widely distributed. Natural energy flows
are low power and widely distributed. If we need space heating then design our buildings to tap light from the sun,
not build a dangerous nuclear reactor and connect it to our house by a fragile grid. Our dependence on a fragile grid
is not only the electricity grid. It is the fragile supply lines stretching halfway around the world, vulnerable to natur-
al disasters and terrorist attack. Do we really need the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline stretching from the Caspian through
Turkish occupied Kurdistan or the OCP (Oleoducto de Crudos Pesados) pipeline running through Amazonian
Ecuador? A criticism of local generation is that it is not 100% reliable, demand is not matched to supply. True, but
we then use the grid to make up the difference. A hard, brittle energy system is dependent on, nourished by and
embedded in, a hard political system – corrupt, unrepresentative elites, there to do the bidding of big business. A
localised, community-based, self -sufficient soft energy system depends on the active support of, and active parti-
cipation of, the local community. The blackouts in North America and London and the southeast show how vulner-
able we are to equipment failure, system overload or terrorist attack. Indeed, in both New York and London the re-
action on the street was that it was a terrorist attack. The irony is that we spend billions of dollars on attacking Iraq,
impose Draconian security and civil rights clampdowns in the name of homeland security, and yet do nothing about
our decrepit power supply systems either in terms of system upgrades, redundancy, regulation or diversity of sup-
ply.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Electricity grids based on centralized fossil fuel generators increase the system’s
vulnerability to terrorist attack
The network of networks comprising the US electric grid is enormous, and often referred to as “the world’s biggest
machine.” More than 5,300 traditional electric utilities and non-utility power producers, operating more than 16,800
generators net produced 4,054,688,000 KWH of electricity for roughly 138,000,000 million customers in the United
States in 2005.8 In the Unites States, there are over 10,000 transmission substations and over 2,000 distribution
substations. Substations are a critical component of the electric grid. A loss of only 4% of transmission substations
would result in a 60% loss of connectivity.9 Sabotage, Physical, and Cyber Attack The vulnerability of oil and gas
terminals, processing plants, and pipelines is mirrored in central electric systems – only worse. The General
Accounting Office recently audited the electrical security of a typical part of the United States; the audit found that
sabotage of eight substations could black out the region, and that sabotage of only four could leave a city with no
power for days and with rotating blackouts for a year. The roots of this vulnerability are not hard to find. To start
with, electricity, though not itself flammable or explosive, cannot be readily stored. The electric grid provides no
“pipeline inventory” of storage between generators and end users (unless they have provided local storage or back-
up at their own expense). Thus, in the event of supply or delivery failures, electric power must be rapidly rerouted to
prevent widespread and instantaneous failure. This rerouting requires that generating and transmission capacity,
switchgear, and control and communications capability be immediately available. 10 Each of the major components
of the power grid discussed in the previous section; power generation facilities; transmission substations;
transmission lines; and distribution substations represent a physical vulnerability. Of particular concern are the long
lead times for replacing many critical components required to make the system work. For example, high voltage
transformers are generally reliable, expensive, and often built overseas for specific installations; therefore few spares
are kept on hand. They can take from weeks to a year to replace.11 This vulnerability has the attention of Congress.
As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress tasked DOE to conduct a study and provide a report to the
President and Congress on the benefits of using mobile transformers and mobile substations to restore power in the
event a blackout caused by natural disaster, equipment failure, acts of terrorism or war. The passage below is from
that study and highlights the short coming in high voltage transformers: Intentional disruptions such as sabotage
could severely harm our Nation’s electrical grid, and most substations are very vulnerable to attack. Substations are
usually unmanned, remote, exposed, and have few physical barriers. Utilities rely more on redundancy of the grid
for mitigation rather than on hardening of individual sites. The larger sites frequently have personnel and improved
protections, but the consequences of loss of these large sites are comparatively greater as well. There are few options
available for the replacement of a destroyed high-power transformer. While Mobile Transformer and Substation
(MTS) Systems as large as 100 MVA exist, MTS systems are typically below 50 MVA in size, with high-side
voltages not exceeding 230 kV. High-power transformers, as described above, are greater than 100 MVA and can
have high-side voltages of 345 kV or higher and at present can not be backed up by MTS.12 Computer and remote
control of power generation and transmission adds both efficiency and vulnerability. “Hundreds of times a day,
hackers try to slip past cyber-security into the network of Constellation Energy Group Inc., a Baltimore power
company with customers around the country.”13

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Terrorist attacks could cripple the US Electrical system
Thus far, the hackers have caused no serious damage to the power grid, but their efforts have heightened concerns
that the system is vulnerable and that companies have failed to adequately fortify against cyber attack. “The fear: In
a worst-case scenario, terrorists or others could engineer an attack that sets off a widespread blackout and damages
power plants, prolonging an outage.”14 Simulations at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
show how a skilled hacker could cause serious problems by infiltrating a utility company’s Internet-based business
management system to control utility operations. Once inside the company’s network, the INL workers simulated
cutting off the oil supply to a turbine, which would have destroyed the equipment and shut down the plant.15 In
describing his reaction to the demonstration, Patrick H. Wood III, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, said: “I wished I’d had a diaper on.”16 Infrastructure Failure “The US power transmission system is in
urgent need of modernization. Growth in electricity demand and investment in new power plants has not been
matched by investment in transmission facilities. Maintenance expenditures have decreased 1% per year since 1992.
Existing transmission facilities were not designed for the current level of demand, resulting in an increased number
of ‘bottlenecks’, which increase costs to consumers and elevate the risk of blackouts.”17 The American Society of
Civil Engineers gave “Energy” or the “US Electric Power Grid” a “D” grade in its Infrastructure Report Card for
2005. The primary reason for alarm is inadequate investment in the transmission grid for an increasing national
demand for electricity. In August 2003, an electrical blackout hit the Midwest, Northeast and portions of Canada. A
series of power plants and transmission lines went offline due to instability in the transmission system in three states.
This led to greater instability in the regional power transmission system, and, within 4-hours, a rapid cascade of
additional power plant and transmission line outages caused a large scale blackout. The blackout affected as many as
50 million customers in the United States and Canada, as well as a wide range of vital services and commerce,
including air and ground transportation systems, shutdown of drinking water and sewage processing systems, and
failure of some emergency communication systems.18

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Brittle Power – Accidents Impacts
[ ] Massive energy grids make power failures inevitable – accidents and terrorists
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2003 [The Globe and Mail, August 21, “Towering Design Flaws”,
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/EnergySecurity/E03-06_TowerDsnFlaws.pdf]
The usual suspects — politicians, regulators, deregulators, utilities, and environmentalists — were promptly rounded
up when the Aug. 14 blackout lost 61 billion watts of capacity in nine seconds. Yet the real culprit was none of the
above — just as in 1965, 1977, and other regional blackouts that I described in a 1981 report for the Pentagon,
Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security (see: www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid533.php). The real cause is the
overcentralized power grid. Its giant machines spin in exact synchrony across half a continent, co-ordinated by frail
aerial arteries and continuous, precise technical controls. Usually, it works well. But every few years by mishap, or
anytime by malice, it can fail catastrophically. A fixed-wing aircraft can glide to a safe landing without engines, but
without instantaneous active control and a tail rotor, a helicopter drops like a stone. The grid is more like a
helicopter. Seeing this demonstrated may inspire terrorists to make it happen more often. After previous major
blackouts, more giant power plants were linked by more, longer, and heftier transmission lines. Some of these
changes relieved local power shortages, but most were unhelpful. Ontario's latest power woes were prolonged
because nuclear plants dislike sudden shutdowns and don't restart gracefully: They're the opposite of a plant
providing power at peak times — guaranteed unavailable when most needed. New power lines, plus wholesale
competition, have also spawned huge new long-distance power sales. That much power traveling that far can slosh
around uncontrollably if a local mishap roils the flow and circuit breakers don't instantly open. But the unimaginably
complex grid's "fault tree" of potential failure modes is growing new branches faster than we lop off old ones. The
well-meaning operators are always surprised — but if they keep building the same architecture, it will keep failing
for the same basic reason. Modernizing with fast, solid-state switches and advanced controls may help block
blackouts, and often boosts existing lines' capacity. Market structures whose rules require and reward high reliability
are thus essential (and missing in much of the U.S.). But as one utility executive notes, the emerging policy
consensus — that we need to build more and bigger power lines because usage has outpaced capacity — is as wrong
as prescribing bloodletting for a patient with a high fever. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what is
amiss. In fact, more wires may make cascading failures more likely and widespread.
[ ] The Power Grid makes our system vulnerable to a collapse worse than a terrorist
attack
power.htm]
“As America plunged into the dark ages, and millions of Americans went without electricity, the message was clear:
the terrorists had struck. Except these terrorists weren’t your easy-to-target Allah-lovers, they were the barons of
fossil and nuclear power and their government cronies. Their weapon is an ancient electric grid that’s, in their own
words, fit for ‘a third world country’. It’s an insanely fragile device that inefficiently sends electricity from
polluting, centralised generating plants to buildings that waste massive amounts of energy and generate none. And it
will crash, crash and crash until it’s replaced.” -- SchNEWS The recent cascading power failures along the entire
east coast of North America were a graphic illustration of the vulnerability and brittleness of hard energy supply
paths. They were not due to a dilapidated grid, though that would not have helped. Nor was the problem new - it had
happened before. When part of the system goes down, it puts extra load on other parts of the system. These become
overloaded, putting further overload on the remainder of the system, and thus the problem cascades until it takes out
the entire network. Once the system is down, it is not an easy matter to bring it back up. Loads and power generators
have to be matched, hence the plea to everyone to switch off. There also has to be a matching of frequency and
phase over the entire network: every generator in sync with every other generator. Not easy to achieve. Power
stations, when down, rely on the grid to spin up their rotors. Many power cables are fluid cooled, and rely on pumps
to maintain the pressure. If there's no grid, the whole system fails

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Brittle Power – Economy Impacts
[ ] An attack on the electrical grid would result in massive, long-term, energy shortages
which Devastate our economy
Peter Huber of The Manhattan Institute, 2004 [ Autumn, “Can Terrorists Turn Out Gotham’s Lights?”, City Journal,
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_gothams_lights.html]
More and more of the city's power arrives not through an electric cable but via a gas pipeline, since regulators have
been increasingly reluctant to approve anything but gas-fired plants within city limits. And just two groups of
pipelines feed all of Gotham's gas-fired power plants—three pipelines that bring in gas from the Gulf Coast region,
and the Iroquois Gas Transmission system that receives western Canadian gas from the Trans-Canada pipeline in
Ontario. So sever or disable just a handful of transmission and gas lines, and New York goes dark. One need not
dwell on the specifics of what has to be cut or where to cut it. According to a 2002 National Academy of Sciences
report (not specifically addressing New York), "a coordinated attack on a selected set of key points in the [electrical]
system could result in a long-term, multi-state blackout. While power might be restored in parts of the region within
a matter of days or weeks, acute shortages could mandate rolling blackouts for as long as several years." Why so
long? In a nutshell, because the key pieces of the giant, complex, ultra-high-power equipment that controls the flow
of electricity have to be custom-built, at huge expense, for each particular location; spares can't feasibly be kept on
the shelf. For New York, any such sustained outage would, obviously, be devastating. Electricity occupies a uniquely
important role in the infrastructure of all of modern society, but nowhere more so than in the heart of the metropolis.
A complete loss of power shuts down telephone switches, wireless cell towers, bank computers, 911 operator
centers, police communications networks, hospital emergency rooms, air traffic control, street lights, elevators, and
the electrically actuated valves and pumps that move water, oil, and gas, along with the dedicated, highly specialized
communications networks that control those physical networks. The loss of power also takes out virtually all of the
new security systems and technologies, both private and public—not just communications and computing but
everything from iris scanning to baggage x-raying, from security cameras to perimeter intrusion systems, from air-
quality monitors to air scrubbers. More broadly, the loss of power shuts down any factory, office, or building that
depends on computers, communications systems, pumps, motors, cooling systems, or any other electrically operated
hardware. With so much of what we do dependent on embedded microprocessors, almost every corner of our lives
and every sector of the economy—especially the financial-services sector—depends on a steady flow of power to
keep the chips lit. Much of the city's wealth exists and grows within a steady flow of the half-gigawatt (or so) of
power required to keep silicon hot, screens lit, phones humming, discs spinning, lasers shining, and air conditioners
running to dump the waste heat that all this digital hardware produces. The well-tempered electron is the new
medium of exchange. Without power, the wealth of the modern city evaporates. The 8/14 blackout cost the city an
estimated $1 billion.
[ ] The Size of the grid causes compound failures

But even if the incentives were set exactly right, there's no escaping the vulnerability of the grid. The wonder of the
modern power plant is that it can be built so large, run so efficiently, and serve so many, so cheaply; the inescapable
corollary is that when it fails, the impact reverberates widely. The wonder of the grid is that it conveys so much
power through such thin wires so efficiently over such great distances; those same features make it vulnerable to
nature—and to terrorists.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] The electrical grid causes power failures to cascade into massive shortages
By every measure but one, these trends have been good. Electricity has grown extraordinarily cheap because the
sprawling grid is so very efficient. Its environmental costs—whatever they may be—are largely invisible. But with
these advantages has come an extraordinary peril. A structure that sprawling, that exposed, is open to all sorts of
assaults. And blackouts can be as extensive as the network that connects grids from Texas to Manitoba. Even in the
best of times, keeping order across thousands of miles of high-voltage wires requires very sophisticated control.
Weather has caused four massive outages in recent memory: hurricanes in 1992 and 1996, and ice storms in 1998
and 2002. Spasms of human stupidity have worked their mischief, too. In 1991, construction workers installing
drawbridge support pillars in the Chicago River put one in the wrong place; seven months later, a car-size crack
opened up in the roof of a freight tunnel directly beneath it, and the ensuing flood shut down utility power for weeks
in the heart of Chicago. When a serious disturbance hits the grid, problems can cascade and amplify like trucks and
cars piling up on a highway. Because they are so long and carry so much current, the wires store huge amounts of
power in the electric and magnetic fields that surround them. They have enormous electrical inertia, and when things
change abruptly at one end, the wires themselves act like massive malignant generators that knock voltage and
current out of phase and send huge amounts of "reactive power" sloshing up and down the system, like waves in a
bathtub—except that they propagate at close to the speed of light.
[ ] Cyber attacks on the Power grid would devastate the economy

CNN 2007 [http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/26/power.at.risk/index.html Sources: Staged cyber attack reveals
vulnerability in power grid September 26, 2007]
Economist Scott Borg, who produces security-related data for the federal government, projects that if a third of the
country lost power for three months, the economic price tag would be $700 billion. "It's equivalent to 40 to 50 large
hurricanes striking all at once," Borg said. "It's greater economic damage than any modern economy ever suffered.
... It's greater then the Great Depression. It's greater than the damage we did with strategic bombing on Germany in
World War II."
[ ] Cyber attacks on the power grid would be devastating

Mohd Noor Amin 2008 Chairman of the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Terrorism , [The
Washington Times, http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/20/combating-cyber-terrorism/ Combating Cyber-
terrorism May 20, ]
Cyber-terrorism is starkly different from common Internet crimes like identity theft and money fraud in that it can
involve use of technology to divert or destroy systems and infrastructure, cause injury or death and undermine
economies and institutions. To accomplish their goals, cyber-terrorists target the computer systems that control air
traffic, electric power grids, telecommunications networks, military command systems and financial transactions.
The world was shocked by the despicable attacks and loss of innocent life on Sept. 11, 2001, carried out by 19
airplane hijackers on a suicide mission. But that tragedy, horrific as it was, could be dwarfed by just one or two
skilled Internet users who don't even set foot in their target country. It is frightening to imagine the human and
economic toll if the computer systems that control air traffic, nuclear power plants or major dams were brought
down or thrown into confusion by cyber-terrorists.
Ironically, the more wired a country is, the more vulnerable it is to massive harm. Last year in small but highly
wired Estonia, a three-week wave of signals from outside the country shut down the country's water treatment
plants, disrupted its banking system, attacked government agencies and threatened lasting harm with neither warning
nor explanation..

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] An attack on the US power grid would cause billions in damages
Allison Barrie 2008 analyst for Simulstrat Security [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364104,00.html June 6,
Project Hydra: Keeping Power Out of the Hands of Terrorists]
Stories of Chinese hackers causing blackouts in Florida and the Northeast have had the blogosphere on fire for days.
False alarm: The real threat comes from physical terrorist attacks on the world’s largest machine — the U.S. power
grid. The Northeast blackout of 2003 began in Eastlake, Ohio, but didn’t just take out power to that one small town.
Due to the structure of our power grid, a problem in that one local station cascaded down, cutting power to 20
million people. The blackout, which covered almost 10,000 square miles, resulted in economic losses estimated at
over $6 billion. Eastlake was chalked up to human error, but a deliberate terrorist attack on the electric grid could be
devastating to American security and the economy — making the grid a very attractive target to terrorists. Sound
far-fetched? If we lost power on Wall Street, it would disrupt more than $100 billion a day in Federal Funds trading
and billions more in private transactions. The only thing that prevented that catastrophe five years ago were
emergency generators that kept Wall Street running in the days following the blackout — and they almost ran out of
time. Even without a terrorist attack on the grid, $100 billion is lost annually in the United States from power
outages. That means that nearly 50 cents for every dollar we spend on electricity goes toward dealing with outages.
[ ] Centrally-based power distribution makes US cities vulnerable
It takes almost 11 gigawatts of electricity to keep New York City lit in the late afternoon on a hot summer day—a
huge amount of power. All the air conditioners, lights, elevators, and quietly humming computers inside use a whole
lot more energy than the cars and trucks out on the streets. But because the fuels and infrastructure that deliver the
electric power are so distant and well hidden, it's hard to focus public attention on how vital they are to the city's
survival. And how vulnerable. Few of us have even the vaguest idea just how much a gigawatt of power might be.
So let's talk Pontiacs instead: 110,000 of them, parked door to door in Central Park. At exactly the same moment,
110,000 drivers start the 110,000 engines, shift into neutral, push pedal to metal, and send 110,000 engines
screaming up to the tachometer's red line. Collectively, these engines are now generating a total of about 11
gigawatts of shaft power. Where do these 11 gigawatts come from? The Independent System Operator (ISO), a
government-chartered clearinghouse responsible for the reliability of New York City's power supply, requires that 80
percent of the city's power be generated within the city, and accordingly, the city's current in-city capacity is about
8.8 gigawatts. About 3.7 gigawatts are imported via overhead transmission lines that run down from the north to
Westchester, where they transmit to underground cables. These lines bring in nuclear and hydroelectric power from
upstate New York, Connecticut, and Quebec. About 1 gigawatt comes over three lines from the west, through New
Jersey, bearing mainly coal-fired power from the Midwest. Until they get quite close to the city, all the main lines
run above ground, across hundreds of miles of open country.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Brittle Power – Global Modeling Impacts
[ ] Decentralized micropower can solve poverty, human health, terrorism and war
Not only would the U. S. benefit greatly from the efficiency and independence of micropower and distributed
energy, but also the nearly 1.6 to 2 billion people (about one third of the world’s population) worldwide who are
without electric power because they are not near a power grid (28: 9). What underdeveloped countries do use in the
way of energy to heat or cook is charcoal or cow dung, which is harmful to health and the environment. It is
estimated by the World Energy Assessment that annually 2.5 million deaths occur globally as a result of noxious
fumes from charcoal and cow dung while cooking in inadequately ventilated facilities. Most of these deaths occur in
women and children, as they are primarily the ones to perform the cooking chores in these regions (35: 295). The
charcoal is often made from firewood cut down from already sparsely forested regions. This deforestation or
desertification causes land erosion, flooding and contributes to climate change. An extreme example of this
deforestation is taking place in sub-Saharan Africa where 90 percent of household energy is derived from burning
wood or other biomass (15: 36). Although most of these countries do not have fossil fuel reserves, they have vast
supplies of renewable energy in the way of solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. Using these renewable energy
sources will not only supply the much needed electricity to provide such fundamental luxuries as light for children
to read by at night, but also refrigeration to prevent food, medication and vaccination spoilage. It can create millions
of jobs and reduce the dependence and dept from importing petroleum fuel these poorer nations have been incurring.
Facilitating job production, the economy, and overall quality of life in these regions reduces the likelihood of civil
unrest and therefore the potential for that unrest to spread and the need for global military or economic involvement.
“People in countries with severe population, environment, and health problems get desperate. If they have no hope,
they turn to drastic things like civil war and terrorism and make trouble not only for themselves but also for other
countries” (11: 10) (Dr. Jared Diamond, January 30, 2004).

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Distributed energy solves conflict – it increases hope for peace, solves resource
conflicts and makes energy systems less vulnerable to attack
Amory Lovins, the Rocky Mountain Institute, 2002 [July 19, 2002, “Military Transformation and the Roots of
National Security”, https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S02-08_MilTransNtlSec.pdf]
Another critical tool for preventing conflict is advanced resource productivity—getting lots more work out of each
unit of energy materials, water, topsoil, and so on. As Paul Hawken, Hunter Lovins, and I describe in our book
Natural Capitalism (see Access, page XX), advanced resource productivity can actually prevent conflict in four
ways. First, it can make aspirations to a decent life realistic and attainable, for all, for ever. It takes a while, but it’s
definitely going in the right direction. It removes apparent conflicts between economic advancement and
environmental sustainability. You can implement it by any mixture of market and administrative practices you want.
It scales fractally from the household to the world. It’s adaptable to very diverse conditions and cultures.
Second, resource productivity avoids resource conflicts over things like oil and water. As a result, military
professionals can have negamissions. Military intervention in the Gulf becomes Mission Unnecessary because the
oil will become irrelevant. Just moving to Hypercars® will ultimately save as much oil in the world as OPEC now
sells.2Third, resource productivity can make infrastructure invulnerable by design. That’s the argument set out in our
Pentagon study from twenty years ago, Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security (now reposted at
www.rmi.org). And finally, an argument that’s a little more complex: resource productivity can unmask and penalize
proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. With the late Lenny Ross, we made that argument in detail with
respect to nuclear proliferation in Foreign Affairs in Summer 1980, in an article entitled “Nuclear Power and
Nuclear Bombs.” It’s enlarged in a book, now out of print, called Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link. The basic
argument is that if we use energy in a way that saves money, that is enormously cheaper than building or even just
running nuclear plants, so any country that takes economics seriously won’t want or have nuclear plants. They’re
simply a way to waste money (see Access, page XX). In such a world, the ingredients—the technologies, materials,
skills, and equipment—needed to make bombs by any of the twenty or so known methods would no longer be an
item of commerce. They wouldn’t be impossible to get, but they’d be a lot harder to get, more conspicuous to try to
get, and more politically costly for both the recipient and the supplier to be caught trying to get, because for the first
time, the reason for wanting them would be unambiguously military. You could no longer claim a peaceful
electricity-making venture. It would be clear that you were really out to make bombs. The burden would be on you
to show that that’s not what you had in mind—to do something so economically irrational.Getting back to the roots
of conflict in resource rivalries: the broader case I’m making is that resource conflicts are unnecessary and
uneconomic—a problem we don’t need to have, and it’s cheaper not to. For example, 13 percent of US oil now
comes from the Persian Gulf, which is clearly risky. Proposed domestic Its US potential is to save 8 million barrels a
day. It’s as if we’d gone drilling in the Detroit Formation and found a Saudi Arabia down there. In addition, such
vehicles can be designed to plug in as portable power plants when parked (which cars are about 96 percent of the
time). So a full fleet of all shapes and sizes of such Hypercar vehicles in the United States would ultimately have
about four to eight terawatts of generating capacity, which is six to twelve times as much as all the power companies
now own. The resulting global potential is to save as much oil as OPEC now sells, while profitably avoiding up to
two-thirds of global climate-change risk. substitutes, such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, are at
least as risky, and probably more so, because the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is about the fattest energy-related terrorist
target there is. And therefore, in promoting expanded drilling in Alaska, the Department of Energy has been
undercutting the Department of Defense’s mission. Both these kinds of vulnerability, both oil imports and
vulnerable domestic infrastructure, are unnecessary and a waste of money. To displace Persian Gulf imports would
take (at historic refinery yields of gasoline) only a 2.7 miles-pergallon increase in the light vehicle fleet. We used to
do that every three years when we were paying attention. Most if not all United States oil use could be profitably
displaced within a few decades with current technology. This can happen surprisingly quickly. For example, from
1979 to 1985, GDP increased 16 percent, oil use fell 15 percent, and Gulf imports fell 87 percent. We could do that
again in spades. DOD itself owns many billions of dollars a year of oil-saving potential, as laid out through a
Defense Science Board panel on which I served (More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden; see
Access, page XX). Everything you could do to achieve that also improves war-fighting capability. I would call your
attention particularly to the second of the October, 2001 Shell planning scenarios, Exploring the Future: Energy
Needs, Possibilities and Scenarios (see Access). It lays out a technological discontinuity that leapfrogs to a hydrogen

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
economy led by China. This causes global oil use to be stagnant until 2020 and then go down. I think that’s perfectly
plausible, and in fact, my colleagues and I are helping it happen.
Moving from brittle power toward distributed renewable energy is a critical step in
reconceptualizing energy security. US leadership, military action and the political sphere are
necessary to move the world toward ending poverty and terror
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute., 2005 [Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profits, Jobs, and
Security. E. Kyle Datta. http://www.oilendgame.com/]
The journey beyond oil is but a part of a larger evolution in building security in its fullest sense: freedom from fear
of privation or attack. Moreover, the means we propose for doing this from the bottom up are the province of every
citizen, not the monopoly of national governments; do not rely on the threat or use of violence; make other nations
more secure, not less; and save enough money to pay for other key national needs. By making oil not worth fighting
over, this transition is part of the evolution of strategic doctrine toward a “new strategic triad”: conflict prevention
and avoidance (“presponse”), conflict resolution, and non- provocative defense.957 Agratifying number of military leaders
have been reflecting on their recent experience of what works—one might call it “preemption of failed states” or “preventative humanitarian
relief.”958 Now they’re seeking creative ways to counter disenfranchisement, ignorance, poverty, and injustice, all of which rank among
terrorists’ best recruiting tools. These are not the only root causes of terrorism, of course, and many terrorists are neither ignorant nor poor, but
these root causes certainly nurture terrorism. Like many uncomfortable truths, this is a very old idea. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “violence is
the voice of the unheard” and “peace is not the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.” General George Marshall stated in 1947,
“There can be no political stability and no assured peace without economic security,” so U.S. policy must “be
directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” That was right then
and it’s right now. As the then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, remarked after 9/11, “It doesn’t matter if we kill
the mosquitoes if we haven’t drained the swamp.”959 Prime Minister Tony Blair, on 2 October 2001, eloquently called for “above all justice and
prosperity for the poor and dispossessed, so that people everywhere can see the chance of a better future through the hard work and creative
power of the free citizen, not the violence and savagery of the fanatic.” In a world that manufactures some 15 billion transistors every second,960
huge gaps in the relative quality of life are instantly broadcast around the globe, increasing resentment, empowering
demogogues, and fostering “Jihad vs. McWorld” polarization. Yet abundance by design, turning scarcity into
plenitude through advanced energy and resource productivity, may be the most important single element in
restoring hope that one’s children will have a better life. That hope is not just for citizens of the earth’s richest nation; it should be
available to all. Winning the respect and affection of others requires the extension to all of an equal moral enti- tlement to the fundamental values
of American civics: the shared and lived belief that security rests on economic justice, political freedom, cul- tural pluralism, respect for law, and
a common defense. Defeating the enemies of these values will require comprehensive engagement not only in the
military and diplomatic, the economic and humanitarian, the informational and political spheres, but also at the level of
ideology. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Kern (USAF Ret.), a teacher of military history, put it thus: “This war [on terrorism] will be won or lost by the
American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers”—that is, it will be won by patience, will, and moral choice. To prevail, the stars we steer
by must include such pursuits as democratization, transparency, anticorruption, ecologically informed development, resource efficiency, fair
trade, demand-side drug policies, diversity, tolerance, and humility. As world history shifts into fast-forward, one security concept is dying,
another struggling to be born. During the Cold War, security was considered a predominantly military matter. Appended and subordinated to
military security were economic security and energy-and-resources security (such as Naval forces in and around the Gulf). Environmental
security wasn’t even on the agenda; in fact, it was officially viewed as inimical to security and prosperity. But in the post-Cold-War view, we
need to add back the missing links between all four kinds of security, and to turn the wasted resources into prosperity and harmony. Imagine these
four elements of security as vertices of a tetrahedron—an immensely strong structure, especially if it is filled up with justice, whose presence,
as Dr. King said, means peace. These overarching goals and doctrinal elements can, indeed must, start with practical
particulars. Earlier in this report (pp. 85–93, 204–206, 221), we emphasized how the Pentagon can achieve multiple
huge wins in national security from single expenditures. The same technology development and insertion needed
for mission effectiveness, doctrinal execution, and strategic cost reduction (pp. 85–93) also supports the civilian
spinoffs that the civilian economy needs (pp. 204–206). Military trainees who later re-enter the civilian workforce,
military leaders who later retire to run civilian enterprises, and the power of the military example to inform and
inspire civilian energy advances are also not to be underestimated. In every way, helping to move the country and
the world away from future wars over oil could be the American military’s greatest contribution yet to lasting
security. Military innovation in decentralized facility power is already starting to provide such leadership in resilient
electricity systems for civil preparedness (p. 222); the scope for similar leadership in moving beyond oil is enormously greater. Collaboration will also help bridge the growing and
worrisome gulf between the civilian and military cultures within our society. We don’t pretend this will be easy. Military hierarchies can resist change as adeptly as civilian bureaucracies.
Congressional micromanagement for parochial ends (shades of Thucydides’ lament on p. 170) is appallingly pervasive. The extraordinarily slow and cumbersome procurement process that makes
it impossible to do anything for years ahead, if then (a process one official recently called “the tunnel at the end of the light”) is like swimming in molasses. But from bottom to top, the military
meritocracy is also full of talented, dedicated, courageous people who can move out smartly to implement changes, even radical changes, if they make sense and save money. If not only the
civilian leadership (p. 221) and the Con- gress, but also the uniformed leadership, emphasizing the Joint Chiefs and mid-level officers, put radical oil efficiency and displacement at the core

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
He continues

of the military mission, doctrine, and culture, they will unleash from within an ultimately unstoppable force. The key is to change perceptions not just in the Pentagon, but in combat units,
because changes in operations and procurement requestsmust precede effective changes in force structures and tactics. Practice may often precede theory, too: the operators and logistical
supporters of superefficient platforms will be aston- ished by how much more they can do with how much less fuel, and will start applying that lesson throughout their areas of responsibility and
communities of interest. Since technical changes in platforms may be easier (and seem less threatening) than operational changes in cultures, fixing the strikingly inefficient hardware is
probably the best and most concrete place to start—right now. Not doing so is costing lives, wasting tens of millions of dollars each day, degrading combat capability, and squander- ing time.
From a budgetary perspective, the most striking feature of the policies that we propose are that they are remarkably revenue-neutral, particularly when compared to the seemingly endless litany
of tax credits usually proffered to reduce U.S. oil dependence. While we do not claim to have performed a rigorous analysis of future federal budget implications, we can offer several insights
into how these policies are likely to affect the Treasury. The most striking conclusion is that our policies will make money for the government, with no new taxes, thereby reducing the deficit.
Many of our policies are revenue-neutral by design. For example, feebates (pp. 186–190) are explicitly revenue-neutral, since the fees paid by buyers of less efficient light vehicles are used to
fund rebates to buyers of more efficient models, keeping them in balance year by year. Further, if the federal government replaced its own half-million-vehicle fleet over the course of a decade
using our proposed government procurement policies (pp. 197–203), by 2025 it would save nearly $2 billion (present valued) from the $350 million in annual fuel savings. How? The answer is
simple. The net present value of the fuel savings over the vehicles’ 14-year life- times, at the government’s energy-savings discount rate of 3%/y, is ~$8,200. This far exceeds the incremental
retail price of State of the Art vehicles ($2,544 from p. 70, note 345, excluding any government bulk-purchasing discount), so the government saves nearly $5,700 in present value for every
vehicle it buys. Our preferred form of financial support for automakers’ and suppliers’ conversion (p. 203–204) is qualified loan guarantees, not tax credits, because that’s revenue-neutral to the
government, and borrowers are given the correct incentive to invest wisely. Defaults on loans wouldn’t be an expense to the Treasury because of offset equity warrants. Thanks to feebates, the
loan beneficiaries would be producing the most profitable cars in the industry. Feebates therefore present good asset risk mitigation, both from a project finance perspective and from the lender’s
perspective. Similarly, financial support for low-income leasing (pp. 191–197) would be made within the constraints of financing criteria acceptable to the industry in light of collateral value and
default rates. Based on experience in micro-credit programs in other countries and in revolving low-income energy-efficiency loans in the U.S., it is plausible that default rates could be
dramatically lower due to peer pressure exerted by the community and the incentive to build a personal credit rating. Since the ultimate interest rate will be defined by the empirical default rate,
we believe the government itself will be no worse off by extending its credit as we have proposed. In fact, it may be much better off if welfare rolls are reduced as a result of the program: if
scrap-and-replace reduces welfare rolls by just 1%, as is plausible once low-income wage-earners gain the affordable personal mobility they need to reach more job opportunities, the federal
government will save $166 million each year—dwarfing any projected losses from default. One concern about improved vehicle efficiency is the corresponding reduction in fuel-tax receipts at
both federal and state level. It’s economically efficient to increase user fees to offset that lost tax revenue (pp. 212–213); however, policymakers who don’t like this option should recall that the
increase in income tax revenues from the income freed up and the economic stim- ulus created by not purchasing unnecessary oil almost entirely offsets the decline in gasoline tax receipts. How
is this possible? Fuel expenditures act like a regressive tax on society, insidious and pervasive. It follows that a reduction in fuel expenditures acts like a tax cut, and a progressive one at that.
Therefore, we relied on the most recent evaluation of large-scale tax cuts from the Congressional Budget Office, which states that every dollar of tax cut increases GDPby $1.50.961 To determine
the future federal income- tax revenues from a reduction in oil expenditures, we used this relation- ship, and deducting consumer savings and lost oil company profits from GDP, then applied
standard estimates for personal and business taxes.962 We found that by 2025, in our Mobilizationscenario, annual GDPwould increase by $77 billion, income-tax receipts would increase by $8.4
billion, while gasoline taxes would decrease by $9 billion, yielding an annual shortfall of only $0.6 billion, half of which would be made up from fuel savings in the civilian fleet alone. The
revenue-neutralitiy of our proposed policies will be mirrored at the state level, especially if states and municipalities, which collectively own more than 3.3 million vehicles today, invest in
efficient vehicles. The only remaining unfunded costs in our policies are the $1-billion “Plati- num Carrot” prize and additional civilian R&D funding for efficiency and renewables vital to oil
displacement. Most of that R&D increase would be reprogrammed from unpromising current budget priorities, but if we gen- erously assume additional R&D spending totaling $10 billion spread
over 5–10 years, that brings the total net federal civilian investment to just $11 billion. What are the direct benefits from this investment? Just the asphalt savings (pp. 93–94) for all roads are
worth $7.7 billion per year,963 which would pay for the government investment and the remaining annual gasoline tax shortfall (if any) within 2–3 years—not bad. Note that we haven’t
counted military R&D expenditures (pp. 204–206), because these must pass existing tests of cost-effectiveness based on DoD’s internal budgetary savings, which will probably reach several
billion dollars a year in direct fuel costs plus some unknown but probably large multiple of that in avoided logistics costs (pp. 84–93). On p. 93, we estimated that the ultimate DoD savings could
well be ten or tens of billion dollars per yearonce forces are realigned to move saved logistics resources from tail to tooth and large support pyramids related to logistics are wrung out. The
Defense Science Board panel was able to estimate such systemic savings only for one platform—an efficient tank—and only in theater, but that saving was still over $3 billion a year (p. 91).
Department-wide, the details are very complex, but the fundamentals are simple: the Pentagon spends roughly a third of its total budget on logistics (p. 87), or ~$140 billion in FY05; ~60–70%
of the tons moved are fuel (p. 85); and full deployment of State of the Art platforms would directly save ~64% of the fuel, not counting the multipliers for avoided transportation of platforms
and fuel (other than midair refueling). Multiplying these terms easily yields tens of billions of dollars a year, reinforcing the caution in the caption of Fig. 27 (p. 88) that the DSB panel’s logistics
estimates of delivered fuel cost “omit many large infrastructure and staff costs.” The bottom line is that just on the civilian side, our suite of policy recommendations will make the government
money—plausibly billions of dollars in present value. The gross annual military savings could be an order of magnitude larger. Both civilian and military investments should pay back within a
few years or less. It’s not for us to determine what to do with the savings. But national security ultimately depends on a world where aspirations to a decent life are realistic and attainable, for
all, for ever. There’s plenty of room to argue about the cost of meeting basic human needs worldwide and to suggest innovation in how services are delivered honestly and effectively. But for
what it’s worth, the UN Development Programme says every deprived person now alive could have clean water, sanitation, basic health, nutri- tion, education, and reproductive health care for
Where is the determination to build a muscular coalition to
~$40 billion a year, or ~4% of global military spending (of which the U.S. spends nearly half).
create a safer world in these fundamental ways? There’s been commendable recent progress, but it’s nowhere near
the level of vision that General Marshall brought to this challenge half a century ago. This may be a fit area for
American leadership, informed by the skilled humanitarian-relief experts in the Services. These fundamental
elements of conflict prevention and avoidance may be higher priorities than expanding the costly means to defeat
conflicts that could have been stopped before they got started.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Brittle Power – Military Solvency
[ ] High Profile DoD action can reverse military energy insecurity
President Bush has addressed dependence on foreign oil as a National Security issue in his 2006 and 2007 State of the
Union addresses. Unfortunately, every President since Richard Nixon has had some initiative to improve energy security
without much success. Any perceived threat was either not threatening enough or not enduring enough to induce an
American culture change with regard to energy. Perhaps the current threat to energy security is different. The United
States is more dependent than ever on foreign oil. US relations with the Middle East are strained, and China and India
are booming economically with a corresponding need for energy. An excellent way to demonstrate a DOD need for
change is for the Secretary of Defense to deliver a high-profile speech on Energy security at a public venue, such as a
Service academy graduation, supporting the President’s energy initiatives, highlighting the importance of DOD energy
security, and announcing the goals of a new comprehensive DOD Energy Strategy and the establishment of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy Security. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the leadership at
the highest levels is behind the transformation towards energy security. The Secretary should challenge leaders at all
levels in the department to create incentives, remove disincentives, and seek out bold and innovative ways to reduce
energy consumption, improve processes and efficiencies, and diversify energy sources as a matter of National Security.
The Secretary should also make it absolutely clear that showy, knee jerk solutions such as lowering the thermostats in
the winter and forcing people to wear jackets in their offices, will not be tolerated as acceptable methods of reducing
energy use.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Brittle Power – Alternatives Solve
[ ] Alternative sources are key to reduce the vulnerabilities of the power grid
power.htm]
The US government used to take responsibility for ensuring that each area had enough spare capacity to act as a
safeguard in times of difficulty. But, since the deregulation of the industry in the 1980s, the rules have been much
less strict. Demand for electricity in the US has been growing steadily, alongside increased use of air conditioning
and computers. But electricity firms have not been investing in building new high voltage distribution lines. US
power demand has grown by 30% in the last decade, while transmission capacity has grown by just 15%. The Cali-
fornia-based Electric Power Research Institute has calculated that if the US government does want to upgrade the
grid, it will cost between $50bn and $100bn. If it is upgraded it will the public who will pay, not the electricity
companies. It can't happen here, was the smug reaction in the UK when the east coast of North America was
blacked out. Before the month was out, London and a huge swathe of Kent and Sussex were blacked out and
400,000 customers lost power for on average half an hour. In London it was chaos as lifts and trains ground to a
halt and traffic lights defaulted to red. The blackout caused rush-hour misery for 250,000 people when it stopped
around 1,800 trains and closed 60% of the Tube network. The cause was two near-simultaneous failures on the grid.
They did not cause the cascading blackouts we saw in North America, but they should not have happened at all. For
a system to be reliable it has to have built in redundancy. In an electric power supply system this means alternative
switching and routing and spare generating capacity. In the broader sense, alternative sources of supply, and less re-
liance on electricity.
[ ] Making shorter lines is key to make the system less vulnerable

Midwest Research Institute 2004 [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/ps-vou090204.php September 2,
Vulnerability of US power grid identified]
The authors point out that this vulnerability is an inherent part of the existing system. If the power grid were highly
redundant, however, the loss of a small number of nodes should not cause power loss because the system reroutes
through alternative paths. Possible remediation schemes include increased redundancy focused on key substations
and transmission lines, or more distributed generation, which would decrease the load on these key points. "Future
additions to the system should consider the effect of the new nodes on relieving strain on key nodes," Albert says.
"From this model, we know how defects can propagate through the system, we have identified parts of the system
that need to be improved because they are not redundant, and we can show which substations need to be protected
from failure in order to avoid widespread system failure. These are considerations that could help guide energy
policy decisions."
[ ] Decentralized power increases the security of the grid

At the same time, distributed, small-scale, and often private efforts to secure power supplies at individual nodes
directly strengthen the reliability of the public grid. Large-area power outages like the one on 8/14 often result from
cascading failures. Aggressive load shedding is the only way to cut off chain reactions of this kind. A broadly
distributed base of secure capacity on private premises adds resilience to the public grid, simply by making a
significant part of its normal load less dependent on it. Islands of especially robust and reliable power serve as
centers for relieving stresses on the network and for restoring power more broadly. Thus, in the aggregate, private
initiatives to secure private power can increase the stability and reliability of the public grid as well.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Countermeasures protect the Grid”
[ ] There are currently little defensive countermeasures against cyber attacks on the grid
CNN 2007 [http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/26/power.at.risk/index.html Sources: Staged cyber attack reveals
vulnerability in power grid September 26, 2007]
Computer experts have long warned of the vulnerability of cyber attacks, and many say the government is not
devoting enough money or attention to the matter. "We need to get on it, and get on it quickly," said former CIA
Director James Woolsey on Tuesday. Woolsey, along with other prominent computer and security experts, signed a
2002 letter to President Bush urging a massive cyber-defense program. "Fast and resolute mitigating action is
needed to avoid a national disaster," the letter said. But five years later, there is no such program. Federal spending
on electronic security is projected to increase slightly in the coming fiscal year, but spending in the Department of
Homeland Security is projected to decrease to less than $100 million, with only $12 million spent to secure power
control systems.
[ ] The DHS has not addressed the cyber security of the power grid
Congressional Quarterly 2007 {http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews110-000002608357.html October 18 Internet
Compromises Power Grid Security, Witnesses Say
He, Langevin and Weiss came down hard on the reliability standards developed by the North American Electric
Reliability Corp., which FERC recommended adopting for the bulk power system. According to research by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the FERC-recommended standards are “inadequate for protecting
critical national infrastructure,” Langevin said. Langevin said he, McCaul and House Homeland Security members
including Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., have submitted comments to FERC saying that the standards fail to
ensure power production and delivery in the event of a cyber-incident. By focusing on the electrical system as a
whole, the standards fail to look at how a regional power loss can affect homeland security. Other problems with the
standards include their lack of a requirement for power facility owners to secure generators, distribution and
telecommunication equipment from cyber-attack and other problems, according to Langevin. Thompson sat in on
the hearing, saying the cybersecurity worries over the electrical grid are another consequence of what he called a
vacancy problem at DHS. “In that vein, I’m concerned about the department’s efforts in cybersecurity, particularly
given the extraordinary amount of vacancies that have opened up in the national cybersecurity division,” Thompson
said.
[ ] Cyber vulnerabilities have not been addressed when identified

Congressional Quarterly 2007 {http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews110-000002608357.html October 18 Internet
Compromises Power Grid Security, Witnesses Say
Another point of discussion at the hearing was “Aurora,” a recently disclosed cybervulnerability discovered by
investigators at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory. During a research exercise, DOE staff was
able to hack into a model of a power plant control system, destroying a generator. Ranking subcommittee
Republican Michael McCaul of Texas called Aurora a “good news story,” saying he was glad the vulnerability was
discovered before any malicious forces could find it. Others took a less optimistic view. Langevin said the flaw
found in Aurora could be used to attack real power systems. DHS and the Department of Energy are developing
solutions for it, he said. But, while he said he expects the departments will share the fixes with the energy industry
“I have reason to believe that the mitigations developed by DHS and [the Department of Energy] have not been fully
implemented across the electric sector.” Gregory Garcia, assistant secretary of cybersecurity and telecommunication
at DHS, said one of the complications with the government developing standards for cybersecurity control systems
is that most of the nation’s power generation facilities are out of its hands.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Resupply
[ ] Oil dependence cripples military readiness due to resupply
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2001 [http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S01-
12_BattlingFuelWaste.pdf Battling Fuel Waste in the Military
The Army’s formidable half-mile-a-gallon M1A2 tanks are powered by inefficient 1960s-design gas turbines that
yield 1500 horsepower to make 68 tons dash around a battlefield at 30 mph (42 on the road). They do that pretty
well. But 60- to 80-odd percent of the time, that huge turbine is idling at one percent efficiency to run a 5-kilowatt
“hotel load,” mostly air conditioning and electronics. Most civilian vehicles would use a small auxiliary power unit
to serve such tiny, steady loads efficiently. Tanks don’t, because their fuel was assumed to cost about a buck a
gallon. But to keep up with a rapidly advancing armored unit on the battlefield, cargo helicopters may have to
leapfrog big bladders of fuel hundreds of kilometers into theater, using much of the fuel to do so. The delivery cost
can then rise to $400–600 a gallon—yet it was assumed to be zero. If the designers had known the real delivery cost,
they’d have designed the tanks very differently. Fuel-wasting design doesn’t just cost money; it inhibits warfighting.
Each tank is trailed by lumbering fuel tankers. An armored division may use as much as 20, perhaps even 40, times
as many daily tons of fuel as it does of munitions—around 600,000 gallons a day. Of the unit’s top ten battlefield
fuel guzzlers, only Abrams tanks (#5) and Apache helicopters (#10) are combat vehicles. Several of the rest carry
fuel. This takes a lot of equipment and people. The Army directly uses about $0.2 billion dollars’ worth of fuel a
year, but pays about 16 times as much, $3.2 billion a year, just to maintain 20,000 active and 40,000 reserve
personnel to move that fuel. And unarmored fuel carriers are vulnerable. Attacks on rear logistics assets can make a
fuelhungry combat system grind to a halt. Yet the warfighting benefits of fuel economy— in deployability, agility,
range, speed, reliability, and maneuverability—are as invisible as the fuel delivery cost
[ ] Resupply is key to airlift and power projection

Robert Dudney, Editor in Chief Air Force Magazine 2003 [http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2003/0803edit.html
The Journal of the Air Force Association, August Vol. 86, No. 8 The Mobility Edge A military that runs on airlift
can’t afford to run short.
In Gulf War II, USAF’s air mobility forces put on a superb performance. Airlifters carried out a swift buildup of US
power in the theater—108,000 tons of cargo and thousands of troops in mere months. Day and night, they supplied
hard-charging US units and also repositioned special forces on a moment’s notice. When Turkey barred US ground
operations from its soil, airlifters dropped paratroopers, vehicles, and supplies into Iraq, creating a front where none
existed. C-17s even hauled fuel to isolated ground units. A tanker “bridge” stretched 9,000 miles from the US
through Europe and Southwest Asia to the Indian Ocean. It, as well as theater-based tankers, made possible the
strike missions flown by aircraft of all services. Tankers allowed bombers to fly nonstop from US bases to Iraqi
targets.
[ ] Limited fuel resources reduce readiness of the military

54.pdf
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) can learn from the Royal Navy’s pre–World War I energy transformation.
Like the Royal Navy a century ago, DOD is faced with the problem of limited resources due in large part to our
energy infrastructure. Fuel represents more than half of the DOD logistics tonnage and over 70 percent of the
tonnage required to put the U.S. Army into position for battle.3 The Navy uses millions of gallons of fuel every day
to operate newest platforms demand. Because of our tremendous logistics capability, the Armed Forces can be
successfully deployed and employed anywhere in the world for both deterrence and combat operations. However,
that capability comes at a high price: a tremendous energy demand. The energy consumption rates of our forces in
Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, is four times what it was in World War II and twice that of Operations Desert
Shield and Desert Storm.8 The logistics tail now consists largely of the fuel required to execute and sustain
operations.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Resupply
[ ] Dependence and resupply undermine military readiness
FACT 14: Delivering fuel to consumers is not limited to logistics pains. Over 70 percent of the tonnage required to
position today's U.S. Army into battle is fuel. The Air Force spends approximately 85 percent of its fuel budget to
deliver, by airborne tankers, just 6 percent of its annual jet fuel usage." [18] Of the top 10 battlefield guzzlers in the
U.S. Army, only 2 are combat vehicles (the Abrams tank and the Apache helicopter). The other eight carry fuel and
supplies. Over half of the fuel transported to the battlefield is consumed by support vehicles, not vehicles engaged in
frontline combat. The logistics costs to deliver fuel include people, training, platforms (for example, oilers, trucks,
and tanker aircraft), and other hardware and infrastructure. Those costs can be tens and sometimes hundreds of times
the cost of the fuel itself, depending on how it is delivered.[19] The Army has 40,000 troops involved in either the
distribution or movement of energy.[20]
[ ] Delivery of fuel increases costs and limits readiness of armed forces

54.pdf
Delivering fuel where and when it is needed is a significant and increasing burden on the Services. The logistics
costs to deliver fuel include people, training, platforms (for example, oilers, trucks, and tanker aircraft), and other
hardware and infrastructure. Those costs can be tens and sometimes hundreds of times the cost of the fuel itself,
depending on how it is delivered. However, the exact costs are unknown because acquisition and operational
decision processes neither fully quantify those costs nor consider alternatives to the “logistics systems” that platform
acquisition and perhaps operational decisions will dictate.12 It is likely that actual costs of delivering fuel for
operations are dramatically higher than decisionmakers realize. Until now, the methods for acquiring military
platforms, both combat and support, and accounting for the costs of fuel to operate and sustain them have been
sufficient.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Iraq
[ ] Resupply is vulnerable in Iraq
Patrick Lang 2006 former head of Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency. The vulnerable line
of supply to US troops in Iraq [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p09s01-coop.html July 26, CSM]
American forces in Iraq are in danger of having their line of supply cut by guerrillas. Napoleon once said that "an army travels on
its stomach." By that he meant that the problem of keeping an army supplied is the prerequisite for the very existence of the
force. A 21st-century military force "burns up" a tremendous volume of expendable supplies and continuously needs repairs to
equipment as well as medical treatment. Without a plentiful and dependable source of fuel, food, and ammunition, a military
force falters. First it stops moving, then it begins to starve, and eventually it becomes unable to resist the enemy. In 1915, for
example, this happened to British forces that had invaded Mesopotamia. A British-Indian force traveled up the line of the Tigris
River, advancing to Kut, southeast of Baghdad. They became besieged there after their line of supply was cut along the river to
the south. Some 11,000 troops ultimately surrendered, after the allies suffered another 23,000 casualties trying to rescue them.
American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply
base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that
pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq. Until now the Shiite Arabs of Iraq have been told by their leaders to leave
American forces alone. But an escalation of tensions between Iran and the US could change that overnight. Moreover, the ever-
increasing violence of the civil war in Iraq can change the alignment of forces there unexpectedly. Southern Iraq is thoroughly
infiltrated by Iranian special operations forces working with Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr
Brigades. Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of the Baghdad
government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long.
[ ] Supply lines in Iraq are more vulnerable after the British withdrawal
New York Times 2007
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/world/middleeast/16military.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&
emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin September 16 British Move Raises Fears on Iraq Supply Lines
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — As British troops pull out of their last base in Basra, some military commanders and
civilian government officials in the area are concerned that the transition could leave them and a major supply route
to Baghdad at greater risk of attack. The route, a lifeline that carries fuel, food, ammunition and equipment for the
war, crosses desert territory that is home to rival militias and criminal gangs. In interviews, Americans stationed in
the southern provinces and Pentagon planners say they are closely watching the situation there as the British pass
security responsibility to local Iraqi units. There is little talk of increasing the American troop presence along the
major supply route, which links Baghdad and Kuwait and is called M.S.R. Tampa, although officials in Baghdad and
Washington say other options include increased patrols by armed surveillance aircraft, attack helicopters and combat
jets. The significant attention being paid to security in southern Iraq came as the senior allied commander, Gen.
David H. Petraeus, announced plans in Washington this week to reduce American troop presence by five combat
brigades across the country by next summer. General Petraeus, in an interview this week, said he was confident that
continued allied and Iraqi patrols along the supply routes, and a growing Iraqi security presence in the south, would
guarantee protection of the desert roadways.
[ ] The supply lines in Iraq are becoming more vulnerable and dangerous
Patrick Lang 2006 former head of human intelligence collection and Middle East intelligence at the Defense
Intelligence Agency. {http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p09s01-coop.html July 26, 2006 from the Christian
Science Monitor}
There is speculation that Prime Minister Gordon Brown will capitalize on domestic antiwar sentiment to pull British
troops out of an unpopular war, although the British government has given no timetable for withdrawal. Concerns
about M.S.R. Tampa are based on experience. When Sadr militia fighters rose up in the spring of 2004, a number of
bridges were attacked, threatening the supply lines. With that in mind, before Iraqi national elections in January
2005, commanders ordered the stockpiling of ammunition, food and fuel, partly motivated by the desire to halt
military convoys before the vote, depriving insurgents of a target.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Iraq
[ ] US forces in Iraq are vulnerable because the Electrical grid in Iraq is extremely
vulnerable to attack by insurgents
New York Times 2007 [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/world/middleeast/23electricity.html Militias Seizing
Control of Iraqi Electricity Grid August 27]
BAGHDAD, Aug. 22 — Armed groups increasingly control the antiquated switching stations that channel
electricity around Iraq, the electricity minister said Wednesday. That is dividing the national grid into fiefs that, he
said, often refuse to share electricity generated locally with Baghdad and other power-starved areas in the center of
Iraq. The development adds to existing electricity problems in Baghdad, which has been struggling to provide power
for more than a few hours a day because insurgents regularly blow up the towers that carry power lines into the city.
The government lost the ability to control the grid centrally after the American-led invasion in 2003, when looters
destroyed electrical dispatch centers, the minister, Karim Wahid, said in a news briefing attended also by United
States military officials.
[ ] The attacks on supply in Iraq are damaging to US plants and cost billions
New York Times 2007 [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/world/middleeast/23electricity.html Militias Seizing
Control of Iraqi Electricity Grid August 27]
But it took an unexpected turn when Mr. Wahid, a highly respected technocrat and longtime ministry official, began
taking questions from Arab and Western journalists. Because of the lack of functioning dispatch centers, Mr. Wahid
said, ministry officials have been trying to control the flow of electricity from huge power plants in the south, north
and west by calling local officials there and ordering them to physically flip switches. But the officials refuse to
follow those orders when the armed groups threaten their lives, he said, and the often isolated stations are abandoned
at night and easily manipulated by whatever group controls the area. This kind of manipulation can cause the entire
system to collapse and bring nationwide blackouts, sometimes seriously damaging the generating plants that the
United States has paid millions of dollars to repair. Such a collapse took place just last week, the State Department
reported in a recent assessment, which said the provinces’ failure to share electricity resulted in a “massive loss of
power” on Aug. 14 at 5 p.m. It added that “all Baghdad generation and 60 percent of national generation was
temporarily lost.” By midnight, half the lost power had been restored, the report said.
.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Military Budgets
[ ] Increasing DoD dependence on oil undermines hegemony by forcing the US to expend
military resources on protecting oil supplies
Strategic Disconnect The goal of our security strategies is to shape the future security environment favorably to
support our national interests, principles, freedoms, and way of life. However, our nation’s and DoD’s current and
future growing dependence on foreign energy sources and the need to ensure their continued availability limit our
ability to shape the future security environment. Protecting foreign energy sources will have an increasing impact on
DoD’s roles and missions, at the expense of other security needs, potentially dictating the time and place of future
conflict if action is not taken to change the trend and mitigate the effects of future reductions in the supply of oil.
[ ] Fossil fuel dependence constrains our military – it makes transportation and

electricity grids vulnerable and diverts money from readiness into rising fuel costs
The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States3. The United States has
built the mightiest military in world history, but has done so with little regard to the huge burden that comes with an
insatiable appetite for energy. DOD energy issues cannot be viewed in isolation. They are a subset of the larger
national problem. Reducing dependence on imported energy is a critical national issue that must be addressed
without delay. First, the DOD needs to recognize the problem from a military perspective: energy is the key enabler
of US military combat power. With that comes huge consumption of mostly imported petroleum based fuels, a
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) structure
dependent on the civilian electrical grid, and rising costs to support the military’s energy needs. Despite those key
elements, DOD has no comprehensive strategy for energy or organizational structure to implement an energy
strategy. Second, the DOD must recognize that energy security makes the military vulnerable in several ways. DOD
operations require assured access to large amounts of fuel for combat platforms and electricity for DOD installations
from a vulnerable electrical grid. Recent cost increases and higher projected costs for energy take defense dollars
away from other key budget areas. Energy requirements are directly related to combat effectiveness, and the
infrastructure required to transport and distribute energy to the battlefield is extremely expensive and diverts
resources away from combat. Combat forces are limited by a “tether of fuel” that needs to be lengthened. Third,
energy must be managed like other combat enablers, such as intelligence, acquisition, and logistics. Present DOD
fuel costs represent only a 2.5 – 3% fraction of the national defense budget. That may seem small, but in a fiscally
constrained wartime environment where DOD and Service budgets have been cut again and again – every dollar is
already committed. The forecast is for more of the same. An already huge national debt, federal budget deficits, a
looming fiscal storm of rising national health care costs and a potential Social Security crisis make fiscally
constrained times appear permanent for the US Government. Fourth, the DOD must have a long-term Energy
Strategy and “energy chain of command”, based on a comprehensive National Energy Strategy and a long-term
vision of energy security 50 years from now and beyond. Ideally, America will reach a clean, carbon-neutral,
domestically controlled, abundant, and affordable energy solution. No one really knows which technology or energy
source will provide the fork in the road away from a largely petroleum dependent economy and military. The DOD’s
Energy Strategy must also look at what can be done today and for the next 20- years to use energy more efficiently
and more environmentally friendly. The strategy must diversify energy sources, increase physical security, and
ensure access. This near-term strategy will buy time for research and technology to help America reach a long-term
vision. This paper will focus on the more near-term, or the next 20-years.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] DoD dependence on Fossil Fuels is increasing and that kills hegemony – it depends
on unstable areas, makes long term planning difficult and holds our military hostage to
fluctuating oil prices
Over the past several decades, the United States has become increasingly reliant on imported energy, primarily from
petroleum. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) forecasts that U.S. dependence on petroleum imports will
increase to 68 percent by 2025. DoD, the largest U.S. consumer of energy, also relies on foreign supplies of crude oil
and the finished transportation fuels (such as military jet fuel) that are derived from it. Fuel represents more than
half of the DoD logistics tonnage and more than 70 percent of the tonnage required to put the U.S. Army into
position for battle. The Navy uses millions of gallons of fuel every day to operate around the globe, and the Air
Force—the largest DoD consumer of fuel— uses even more. DoD’s heavy operational dependence on traditional
fuel sources creates a number of decidedly negative effects: DoD shares the nation’s reliance on foreign energy
sources, which effectively forces the country to rely on potential adversaries to maintain its economy and national
security. DoD’s energy dependence exposes the department to price volatility, forcing it to consume unplanned
resources that could be used to recapitalize an aging force structure and infrastructure. The availability of traditional
energy supplies beyond 25 years is difficult to project. Because of the 8- to 20-year time frame of future operational
concepts and a similarly long, or longer, capital asset replacement cycle for DoD platforms, DoD must begin now to
address its uncertain energy future. The United States bears many costs associated with the stability of the global oil
market and infrastructure. The cost of securing Persian Gulf sources alone comes to $44.4 billion annually. DoD
receives little support from other consuming nations to perform this mission although they share in the benefits due
to the global nature of the oil market. Through 2004, members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries alone have earned $4 trillion in oil revenue. Some portion of that oil revenue has likely gone toward
efforts inimical to U.S. national security interests.
[ ] Price fluctuations and supply disruptions in oil cripple the military

American Forces Press Service, 2006 [October 4, 2006; DoD Promotes Energy Initiatives to Stretch Dollars,
Improve Efficiency, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=1452]
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4, 2006 – The Defense Department is exploring ways to make its weapon systems and
facilities more fuel-efficient and less vulnerable to market fluctuations and controls, senior defense officials told
Pentagon reporters today. John J. Young Jr., director of defense research and engineering, said DoD is putting more
emphasis on improving the efficiency of its operations — for national security as well as financial reasons. DoD is
the United States’ biggest energy consumer, using more than 300 million barrels of oil every day. At those levels, a
$10-a-barrel price hike puts a $1.3 billion dent in the defense budget and the funds appropriated to support the
fighting force. “When oil goes up $10 a barrel, there’s a billion dollars in things we don’t get to do… (for) the
warfighter,” Young said. But heavy dependence on oil has other repercussions for the military, too, he said. The
United States imports 58 percent of its oil, so there’s no solid guarantee that it will always have access to the energy
it needs. A major goal in DoD’s energy program “is making sure we … have multiple options in a changing
marketplace for assured access to the energy that is required for the military to provide the nation’s security,” he
said. And for deployed troops, oil dependence boils down to an even more basic vulnerability, Young explained.
The more fuel they need, the more convoys they need to put on the road to deliver it, and the more frequently they
expose themselves to improvised explosive devices and other threats. He cited “a desire to have renewable-type
(energy) sources in Iraq and deployed locations so we … potentially have to take less fuel to the deployed forces and
therefore put fewer convoys at risk.”

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Dependence on oil kills military readiness because rising prices consume large parts
of the military budget
Solomon Ortiz, Rep. Texas, September 27, 2006 [Political Transcript Wire, Hold A Joint A Hearting On Dod
ORTIZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to extend our welcome to our distinguished witnesses. The
energy needs of this country are one of the most important challenges facing our nation today. Energy needs
influence our international policies and are key to our national defense strategy. For this reason, I am pleased that
we're hearing testimony about what the Department of Defense is doing to reduce its needs for external sources of
energy. The rising cost of gasoline has affected all Americans and our military is not immune. Rising energy costs
are consuming a larger portion of the O&M budget. So every dollar spent on fuel means fewer dollars for operation,
training, and maintenance. In a time of increasing needs and decreasing budgets, the DOD must find every way
possible to stretch its energy dollars. And fuel is not only expensive, it is also very heavy. Moving fuels takes an
enormous logistical effort and consumes strategic lift that could be better used moving soldiers, equipment and
ammunition. The most effective way to improve the deployability of our Iran forces is to reduce their fuel
requirements. So finding energy efficiencies isn't just about money. It's also vital to increasing the strategic
capabilities of our forces. I have been following the work of the services in developing new technologies. Of
particular interest is the historic B-52 alternative fuels test flight conducted by the Air Force on December 19. DOD
testing and implementation of technologies such as this will ultimately influence the private sector and benefit the
economy at large. For that reason, it is vital that Congress continue to fund new initiatives and for DOD to
aggressive pursue them. Energy security is vital to our national defense. So we must find ways to reduce our energy
needs and find new technologies to meet our energy requirements.
[ ] Rising fuel costs crush military readiness – fuel consumption drives costs
Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily
basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air
strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region
(including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of
oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone. Multiply that daily tab by 365
and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia.
That's greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million -- and yet it's a gross
underestimate of the Pentagon's wartime consumption. Such numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary
gas-guzzling expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for every soldier stationed "in theater," there are
two more in transit, in training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the war zone -- soldiers who also
consume enormous amounts of oil, even if less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to sustain an
"expeditionary" army located halfway around the world, the Department of Defense must move millions of tons of
arms, ammunition, food, fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional tanker-loads of
petroleum. Add this to the tally and the Pentagon's war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how
much we have no real way of knowing.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Supply Disruptions
[ ] Dependence on fossil fuels undermines security because the US is vulnerable to
foreign disruptions
As the U.S. government’s energy security strategy evolves, the U.S. military, which is highly dependent on oil to
fuel the engines of its overwhelming operational superiority, must develop a long-term strategy to deal with the
changing energy environment. The United States consumes about 25 percent of the world’s oil. Half of this can be
attributed to the country’s continued demand for transportation fuels for auto- mobiles and trucks to support our
economy and standard of living. About 58 percent of the oil consumed by the United States is imported. Consistent
with the worldwide trends in energy demands, it is projected that by 2025, the U.S. will have to import some 68
percent of its oil. This level of economic dependence on politically unstable energy sources such as Venezuela,
Nigeria, and the Middle East creates concerns over our future security posture and vulnerability. Figure 2-1
compares the projected increase in the demand for barrels of oil in the United States with that in other countries. As
can be seen, the growth in the United States (using the EIA reference case) is not mirrored in Western European
countries or in Japan, all of which are similar to the United States in terms of levels of industrialization. Although
the pronounced growth in U.S. demand means retaining the position of the world’s largest oil consumer, the 42
percent growth in U.S. demand does not approach the 130 percent increase in China or the 80 percent increase in
India.
[ ] Energy Dependence crushes the military because it makes them vulnerable to supply
disruptions – the Military must lead on diversifying energy sources
The United States has a National Security problem, energy security, in which the Department of Defense has a
unique interest. The United States imports 26% of its total energy supply and 56% of the oil it consumes. The DOD
is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States and energy is the key enabler of US military combat
power. Huge energy consumption, increased competition for limited energy supplies, ever increasing energy costs,
and no comprehensive Energy Strategy or oversight of energy issues in the DOD have created vulnerabilities. These
include potential fuel and electricity supply disruptions as well as foreign policy and economic vulnerability. The
DOD needs a comprehensive Energy Strategy and organizational structure to implement a strategy to improve
National Security by decreasing US dependence on foreign oil, ensure access to critical energy requirements,
maintain or improve combat capability, promote research for future energy se3curity, be fiscally responsible to the
American tax payer, and protect the environment. This strategy can be implemented through leadership and culture
change, innovation and process efficiencies, reduced demand, and increased/diversified energy sources.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Supply Disruptions
[ ] Vulnerability to supply disruptions undermines US military readiness
Implications of the Problem- Vulnerability Vulnerability: The susceptibility of a nation or military force to any
action by any means through which its war potential or combat effectiveness may be reduced or its will to fight
diminished. Strategic vulnerability: The susceptibility of vital instruments of national power to being seriously
decreased or adversely changed by the application of actions within the capability of another nation [or non-state
actor] to impose. Strategic vulnerability may pertain to political, geographic, economic, informational, scientific,
sociological, or military factors. Joint Publication 1-02 DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms US
dependence on huge amounts of oil and electricity to power our economy and our military creates much
vulnerability. It would not be wise to publish a detailed list of vulnerabilities of US and global energy critical
infrastructure and key resources; however, it is no big secret that vulnerabilities exist. Terrorists or common vandals
in either the United States or around the globe have already attempted all of the open source referenced scenarios
described in this chapter. Potential Oil Supply Disruptions “Our nation’s dependence on imported oil leaves it
dangerously vulnerable to attack. A single well-designed attack on the petroleum infrastructure in the Middle East
could send oil to well over $100 per barrel and devastate the world’s economy.”1

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Forward Deployment
[ ] Forward deployed forces are dependent on oil because of resupply
4. Drivers to minimize DoD fuel use Barring unforeseen upheavals and if price is important but not a decision driver, why should the DoD reduce
fuel use? As discussed below, there are compelling reasons for the DoD to reduce fuel consumption, for which the drivers are: potential future
uncertainties over the next 25 years and beyond, logistics, supply costs, and other related considerations. In
particular, delivery of fuel is costly not only in terms of fuelacquisition dollars, but also in infrastructure and lives.
Fuel delivery costs are accompanied by large multipliers. As can be appreciated via variants of the rocket or Breguet
equations, it can require a lot of fuel to deliver fuel. Fuel delivered is the payload of the fuel-delivery vehicle.
Unfortunately, little quantitative information is available on the multipliers that pervade the logistics chain for representative scenarios of
missions. To wit, how much fuel must be delivered at the rear to supply a gallon of fuel to the front? As part of this study, JASON attempted to
analyze what it costs to deliver fuel air-to-air. Details of the analysis are provided in Appendix II. The estimated FY05 cost is $20-
25/gal. This includes the cost of the fuel, which represents the smallest fraction, the cost of operations and
maintenance (O&M), and the acquisition cost of the KC-135 tanker aircraft (FY98-$40M, each, acquisition cost,
amortized over a 40 year lifetime of the aircraft, adjusted for inflation to FY05 dollars) and in terms of gallons
delivered in air-to-air refueling.
[ ] The military is dependent on oil – this makes forward deployment vulnerable to

disruptions – research on alternatives is necessary to reduce dependence
defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf]
This paper has attempted to objectively address the US National Security problem of deteriorating energy security
from a Department of Defense perspective. Energy is the life blood of the US economy and the key enabler of US
military combat power. The United States’ unique ability to project military power anywhere on the globe requires
incredible quantities of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Today, the primary source of fuel is imported oil from an economically and
politically unstable world oil market. The true cost of fuel is much more than it appears on the purchasing receipt. The DOD’s never ending need
for fuel comes with a high price tag which includes not only the bulk purchase price of the fuel itself, but also the cost of a fuel logistics system
that includes tens of thousands of personnel, storage facilities, tanker trucks, and major weapons systems such as the KC-135 whose primary
mission is to deliver fuel. Additionally, fuel has a significant cost in combat capability that is almost impossible to quantify.
There are numerous outstanding energy programs within the Department of Defense. Rising energy costs have given
new emphasis to saving fuel in each of the Services, and the DOD facilities energy management program is a model
for the federal government. Recent energy studies by military and energy experts provide volumes of
recommendations to improve efficiency and save energy. However, there is no existing comprehensive DOD Energy
Strategy, and no single energy senior official or energy advocate in the Department. The military’s dependence on
vast amounts of fuel and electricity creates vulnerabilities. Disruption in the flow of fuel and electricity due to
natural disaster, sabotage or physical attack on the petroleum or electricity infrastructure cannot be dismissed as an
unlikely event. Also, the fact that so much of US and other countries energy needs rely on imported oil creates
foreign policy and economic vulnerability. To improve energy security the DOD needs a comprehensive Energy
Strategy that:
• Improves National Security by decreasing US dependence on foreign oil
• Ensures access to critical energy requirements
• Maintains or improves combat capability
• Promotes Research for future energy security
• Is fiscally responsible to the American tax payer
• Protects the environment
Also required is an organizational structure to implement that strategy through the establishment of an ASD for Energy Security with policy and
resource authority to serve as the Senior Official for energy issues in the Department. The ASD for Energy Security must implement the
Department’s Energy Strategy through:
• Leadership and culture change to make energy a consideration in all military actions and operations
• Innovation and process efficiencies as well as efficiency improvements in platforms and facilities to reduce energy demand
• Increased energy supply via alternative fuels and renewable energy programs

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Forward Deployment
[ ] Dependence kills readiness - Supply disruptions will cripple forward deployed forces.
Deployed operational forces are particularly vulnerable to supply disruptions. Fuel is delivered by convoy to Iraq
from Jordan, Kuwait, and Turkey. In FY 2006, over 156 million gallons of fuel were delivered to US/coalition forces
in western Iraq. In the north, over 103 million gallons of fuel were delivered through Turkey.5 In July 2006, USMC
Major General Richard Zilmer, commander of the multi-national force in western Iraq, submitted a priority request
for a self-sustainable energy solution to reduce the number of fuel logistics convoys in Iraq that are increasingly
vulnerable to attack.6

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Oil Weapon
[ ] DoD dependence on fossil fuels allows oil to be used as a weapon against us
Military.com 2006 [DoD Pushes Biobased Fuels September 15,
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,113599,00.html
Sens. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), along with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Agriculture
Secretary Mike Johanns, also spoke at the Pentagon event, dubbed “Biobased: Enhancing DOD's Mission,
Protecting the Environment.” Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed England's
national security concerns. “Our future security will not only depend upon the Pentagon's ability to maintain a
strong and effective military, but also upon the ability of our nation to blunt the oil weapon by developing new
biobased feed stocks to convert into fuels . . . chemicals, composites and other essential products,” Lugar said.
Indiana is a leading producer of soybeans, which is used to make various biobased products. For his part, Harkin
urged DOD, the largest purchaser in the federal government, to “buy biobased” to help support the American
economy. The event and the Krieg memo were intended to help educate officials on the availability of biobased
materials and help prepare DOD for the implementation of a 2002 law that would give procurement preference to
such products over fossil-fuel based options, a defense source told Inside the Pentagon Sept. 13.
[ ] DoD dependence on fossil fuels allows oil to be used as a weapon against us

Biobased Fuels]
Sens. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), along with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Agriculture
Secretary Mike Johanns, also spoke at the Pentagon event, dubbed “Biobased: Enhancing DOD's Mission,
Protecting the Environment.” Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed England's
national security concerns. “Our future security will not only depend upon the Pentagon's ability to maintain a
strong and effective military, but also upon the ability of our nation to blunt the oil weapon by developing new
biobased feed stocks to convert into fuels . . . chemicals, composites and other essential products,” Lugar said.
Indiana is a leading producer of soybeans, which is used to make various biobased products. For his part, Harkin
urged DOD, the largest purchaser in the federal government, to “buy biobased” to help support the American
economy. The event and the Krieg memo were intended to help educate officials on the availability of biobased
materials and help prepare DOD for the implementation of a 2002 law that would give procurement preference to
such products over fossil-fuel based options, a defense source told Inside the Pentagon Sept. 13.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness – Public Support
[ ] Fossil fuel dependence undermines political and public support for military
operations
Environmental Disconnect As we reviewed DoD’s energy strategies and policy, it became increasingly apparent
that the environmental impacts of energy policy needed to be considered. There is increasing national and
international consensus on the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on global climate change, as well as the idea that
solutions to energy challenges cannot be considered independently of the environmental impacts the solutions
create. Although environmental considerations are not the focus of our effort, we believe that a DoD energy strategy
based on solutions that have the potential for significant adverse environmental impact may pose challenges in
gaining public acceptance, delaying or diverting the department’s energy transformation. Fully burdened costs
include standard fuel price, direct ground fuel infrastructure, indirect base infrastructure, environmental costs,
delivery asset operations and support, delivery asset de- preciation, and other specific costs. Disagreement exists on
the application of delivery asset depre- ciation due to the number of delivery assets not being directly scalable to fuel
consumption.
[ ] Renewables increase military readiness by increasing public support for operations

Gordon D. Kuntz, Colonel, Army National Guard of the United States, April 2007 [Army Environmental Policy
Institute, “Use of Renewable Energy In Contingency Operations,” p.15-17, www.aepi.army.mil]
Most renewable energy systems are procured as COTS systems and are selected following commercial system
development that demonstrates their dependability, durability and reliability. Renewable energy systems
significantly decrease the chance for petroleum product spills and associated public relation issues, decrease carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions preventing pollution, and are environmentally sound and friendly, thus adhering to the
Army Posture Statement and the Army Strategy for the Environment.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Readiness - RMA
Joint Force Quarterly, July 1, 2006 [“Energy and force transformation,”
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-16262636_ITM]
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) can learn from the Royal Navy's pre-World War I energy transformation.
Like the Royal Navy a century ago, DOD is faced with the problem of limited resources due in large part to our
energy infrastructure. Fuel represents more than half of the DOD logistics tonnage and over 70 percent of the
tonnage required to put the U.S. Army into position for battle. (3) The Navy uses millions of gallons of fuel every
day to operate around the globe, and the Air Force, the largest daily DOD consumer of fuel, uses even more. (4)
The DOD energy burden is so significant that it may prevent the execution of new and still evolving operational
concepts, which require the rapid and constant transport of resources without regard for the energy costs. (5) These
energy burdens will increase as new operational concepts demand a lighter, more agile and dispersed force, with the
attendant increase in logistical sustainment. As increasing portions of the budget are set aside for fuel purchases to
account for the volatility in fuel prices, increased capability will need to be built into new platforms to mitigate
likely impacts on force shape and composition. It is crucial, therefore, that DOD develops an energy strategy that
reduces the energy burdens of our operational concepts.
[ ] DOD energy reliance prevents effective new operational concepts

54.pdf 3rd Quarter
The DOD energy burden is so significant that it may prevent the execution of new and still evolving operational
concepts, which require the rapid and constant transport of resources without regard for the energy costs.5 These
energy burdens will increase as new operational concepts demand a lighter, more agile and dispersed force, with the
attendant increase in logistical sustainment. As increasing portions of the budget are set aside for fuel purchases to
account for the volatility in fuel prices, increased capability will need to be built into new platforms to mitigate
likely impacts on force shape and composition. It is crucial, therefore, that DOD develops an energy strategy that
reduces the energy burdens of our operational concepts. Decoupling traditional energy sources from systems and
platforms may radically alter both operational requirements and capabilities, as well as alter strategic realities. The
use of technologies that no longer rely on the current energy infrastructure is the wave of the future. For instance,
one estimate suggests that a third of DOD resources are focused on one small area of the world—the Middle East.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Extend – Hegemony Good
[ ] Decline in U.S. primacy creates a global power vacuum—this collapses every
institution of global stability and causes spreading nuclear wars
Ferguson, 2004 – Professor of History at New York University's Stern School of Business and Senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution (Niall, “A world without power,” Foreign Policy 143, p. 32-39, July-August)
Critics of US. global dominance should pause and consider the alternative. If the
United States retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it? Not Europe, not
China, not the Muslim world- and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the
alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia but the anarchic nightmare of a new
Dark Age. We tend to assume that power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. In the history of world politics, it
seems, someone is always the hegemon or bidding to become it. Today, it is the United States; a century ago, it was the United Kingdom. Before
that, it was France, Spain, and so on. The famed nineteenth-century Gennan historian Leopold
von Ranke, doyen of the study of
statecraft, portrayed modem European history as an incessant struggle for mastery,
in which a balance of power was possible only through recurrent conflict. The influence of economics on the study of diplomacy only seems to
confirm the notion that history is a competition between rival powers. In his best-selling 1987 work, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:
Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Yale University historian Paul Kennedy concluded that, like all past empires, the
U.S. and Russian superpowers would inevitably succumb to overstretch. But their place would soon be usurped, Kennedy argued, by the rising
powers of China and Japan, both still unencumbered by the deadweight of imperial military commitments. In his 2001 book, The Tragedy of
Great Power Politics, University of Chicago political scientist John J. Mearsheimer updates Kennedy's account. Having failed to succumb to
overstretch, and having survived the German and Japanese challenges, he argues, the United States must now brace itself for the ascent of new
rivals. "A rising China is the most dangerous potential threat to the United States in the early twenry-first century," contends Mearsheirner. "The
United States has a profound interest in seeing Chinese economic growth slow considerably in the years ahead." China is not the only threat
Mearsheimer foresees. The European Union (E.u.) too has the potential to become "a formidable rival." Power, in other words,
is not a natural monopoly: the struggle for mastery is both perennial and
universal. The "unipolarity" identified by some commentators following the Soviet collapse cannot last much longer, for the simple
reason that history hates a hyperpower. Sooner or later, challengers will emerge, and back we must go to a multipolar, multipower world. But
what if these esteemed theorists are all wrong? What if the world is actually heading
for a period when there is no hegemon? What if, instead of a balance of power, there is an absence of power?
Such a situation is not unknown in history. Although the chroniclers of the past have long been preoccupied with
the achievements of great powers- whether civilizations, empires, or nation-states- they have not wholly overlooked eras when power receded.
Unfortunately, the world's experience with power vacuums (eras of "apolarity," if you
will) is hardly encouraging. Anyone who dislikes U.S. hegemony should bear in mind
that. Rather than a multipolar world of competing great powers, a world with no
hegemon at all may be the real alternative to US. primacy. Apolarity could turn
out to mean an anarchic new Dark Age- an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic
plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a
few fortified enclaves.
Continues…
The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports
of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and
pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise
liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear
wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending
catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical
Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue
their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these
continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the
prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If
the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial
frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony,
or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far more
dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Asian, European and Middle Eastern stability all depend on US leadership
Schmitt, 2006– Resident scholar and director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies at the American
Enterprise Institute (Gary, “Is there any alternative to U.S. primacy?” The Weekly Standard, Books & Arts, Vol. 11
No. 22, February, Lexis)
In the case of Europe, after examining both the sources of tension and cooperation in current transatlantic relations,
Lieber argues that Europe has no choice but to depend on American leadership and power. Europe's lack of
unanimity over foreign policies, and its own lack of hard power, leave it with little choice but to rely on the United
States when it comes to maintaining the world's security blanket. As for the Middle East, after making the case for
going to war with Saddam's Iraq--a case that ultimately hinges on the risks of not acting--Lieber notes that it still
remains the case that "only the U.S." can deter regional thugs, contain weapons proliferation to any degree, keep the
Arab-Israeli peace process afloat, and keep the oil supplies flowing to us and our allies. And in Asia, it is the United
States that "plays a unique stabilizing role . . . that no other country or organization can play." Absent America's
presence, the region's key actors would face a dramatically different set of security concerns, in which more overt,
"great power" competition would likely become the norm.
[ ] Even if hegemony might be tangentially harmful to some, a world of U.S. hegemony

still has significantly less violence than one without
Kagan, 98 – Alexander Hamilton Fellow at American University (Robert, “The benevolent empire,” Foreign Policy,
Iss. 111, pg. 24-35, Summer, Proquest)
And neither of them, one suspects, is very seriously intended. For the truth about America's dominant role in the
world is known to most clear-eyed international observers. And the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised
by the United States is good for a vast portion of the world's population. It is certainly a better international
arrangement than all realistic alternatives. To undermine it would cost many others around the world far more than
it would cost Americans-and far sooner. As Samuel Huntington wrote five years ago, before he joined the plethora
of scholars disturbed by the "arrogance" of American hegemony: "A world without U.S. primacy will be a world
with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth than a world where the United States
continues to have more influence than any other country shaping global affairs."

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] U.S. leadership deters conflict and solves all their impacts—collapse results in
cascading great power wars
Thayer 2006 [Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest,
November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis]
countries want to align themselves with the
A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that
United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater
influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio
of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had
U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing
so many allies.
one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of

the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms,
like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the
UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its
You
charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation.
can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like
India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions
Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains

of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even
from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting
communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable
future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates.
The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change
of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States
Everything we think of when we consider the current

today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.
international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing
democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind
it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The
Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the
liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose
it)."
Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington
U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical
and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War,
antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--
between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests
a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power
are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but
wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology
of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align
with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the
likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more
open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States.
Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good
enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted.
Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but
nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban
forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin
America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the
With
Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy.
its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce,
respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order
is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created
this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because
the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess.
Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of
post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and
globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it
the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare
provides. Fourth and finally,
of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--
and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the
planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous
earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S.
military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and
prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical
American generosity has done more to help the

reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces.
United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the
United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous
earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as
possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first
time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money
was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly
positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other
state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time
and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains
up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities.
humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.

Alternatives Solve – Resupply
[ ] Renewables allow the military to provide its own resupply – fuel supply lines
undermine readiness and flexible deployment
Newswise, June 20, 2001 [“Future Army Could Run On Alternative Fuels, Photosynthesis,”
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/24748/]
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- Getting fuel to soldiers in the field has been a problem since machines replaced horses.
But according to a new report, by 2025 soldiers could make fuel and electricity where they are, instead of relying on
long supply chains to transport energy to them. "Opportunities in Biotechnology for Future Army Applications," a
report released today (Wednesday, 6/20) by the National Research Council's Board on Army Science and
Technology, says future U.S. Army operations in the field could rely on alternative fuels and biological methods to
produce electricity through photosynthesis. The report was prepared by a 16-member committee of university and
industry scientists. Purdue University's Michael Ladisch, distinguished professor of agricultural and biological
engineering and distinguished professor of biomedical engineering, chaired the NRC committee. One of the most
well-known examples of a military energy crisis occurred near the end of World War II. As U.S. Gen. George Patton
raced through France, he quickly outran his supply lines and the ability to refuel his trucks and tanks. On Aug. 28,
1944, Patton declared, "At the present time our chief difficulty is not the Germans, but gasoline. If they would give
me enough gas, I could go all the way to Berlin!" Three days later, despite the efforts of the famed Red Ball
Express, a convoy of trucks hurrying fuel to Patton's army, he and his men were stranded dry. The chance to sweep
through France into Germany soon passed. Robert Love, study director for the National Research Council, says
such situations could be avoided in the future by employing alternative fuels made from natural and renewable
resources. "The real issues for the Army are the ability to simplify logistics requirements, to remain flexible with
battlefield fuels, and to capitalize on alternative fuels, such as methane, instead of restricting ourselves to fossil
fuels," he says. "With fossil fuels, logistics can become difficult because you have to have this long supply chain."
Although using non-petroleum sources of energy would have obvious environmental and social benefits, Love says
this didn't factor into the committee's considerations. "Obviously there are always spin-offs of military innovation,
but the committee was concerned with what would improve the operations of the Army." Using plants to
produce electricity is an area of research known as biological photovoltaics. The NRC report suggests that coupling
the light-harvesting capabilities of plants with protein-based devices could lead to solar energy systems capable of
converting solar energy at 40 percent to 50 percent efficiency. The report's authors also envision protein-based
photovoltaic coatings on the Kelvar military helmets that could produce enough energy for the soldier's electronics.
Other equipment and vehicles could also be covered with these protein-based solar converters. A side benefit of
such technology, the report notes, is that the protein coatings would make whatever they coat more difficult to detect
by electronic means since they would mimic the natural environment.
.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Alternatives Solve – Supply Disruptions
[ ] Studies prove that increasing alternative energy use can reduce DoD vulnerability to
fossil fuel disruptions
The Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation and Resources contracted LMI to develop an approach for the
creation of a new DOD energy strategy. LMI identified three areas where DOD’s current practices were not aligned
with its stated energy goals, recommended three main actions that DOD needed to take in order to address the
misalignments, and provided other energy related options that could enable DOD to improve their corporate energy
related processes. The three areas of strategic, operational, and fiscal considerations LMI identified where DOD’s
practices and stated energy goals produced some friction and limitations were as follow.
1. Strategic: DOD’s dependence on foreign supplies of fuel limits its flexibility in dealing with certain producer
nations;
2. Operational: DOD seeks greater mobility, persistence, and agility for its forces but the energy requirements of its
forces limits the department’s ability to attain those things; and
3. Fiscal: DOD seeks to reduce the operating costs of its forces and of future procurements but increased energy
consumption and increased prices are causing energy associated operating costs to grow. The three actions LMI
recommended DOD take to address the areas noted above were as follow.
1. Incorporate energy considerations (energy use and energy logistics support requirements ) in the department’s key
corporate decision making: strategic planning, analytic agenda, joint concept and joint capability development,
acquisition, and planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE);
2. Establish a corporate governance structure with policyand resource oversight to focus the department’s energy
efforts; and
[ ] DoD procurement of renewables is essential for future readiness because it decreases

dependence
In an environment of uncertainty about the price and availability of traditional energy sources, DoD is facing
increasing energy demand and support requirements that it must meet if it is to achieve its broader strategic goals—
notably, establishment of a more mobile and agile force. However, recent technological advances in energy
efficiency and alternative energy technologies offer a unique opportunity for DoD to make progress toward
reconciling its strategic goals with its energy requirements through reduced consumption of fuel—especially foreign
fuel. To capitalize on this opportunity, DoD needs to implement an energy strategy that encompasses the
development of innovative new concepts and capabilities to reduce energy dependence while maintaining or
increasing overall warfighting effectiveness. Recognizing that DoD must change how it views, values, and uses
energy—a transformation that will challenge some of the department’s most deeply held assumptions, interests, and
processes—the Office of Force Transfor- mation and Resources, within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy, asked LMI to develop an approach to establishing a DoD energy strategy. LMI identified three areas of
disconnect between DoD’s current energy consumption practices and the capability requirements of its strategic
goals: Strategic. DoD seeks to shape the future security environment in favor of the United States. But, our
dependence on foreign supplies of fuel limits our flexibility in dealing with producer nations who oppose or hinder
our goals for greater prosperity and liberty. Operational. DoD’s operational concepts seek greater mobility, persis-
tence, and agility for our forces. But, the energy logistics requirements of these forces limit our ability to realize
these concepts. Fiscal. DoD seeks to reduce operating costs of the current force to procure new capabilities for the
future. But, with increased energy consumption and increased price pressure due to growing global demand for
energy, energy-associated operating costs are growing.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Alternatives Solve– Military Budgets
[ ] Savings from reduced fossil fuel consumption will be spent on improving readiness
U.S. Government Agency News, 2001 [May 3, Defense Unveils Plan to Reduce Electricity Demand in California,
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blagencyrelease03.htm]
This initiative augments ongoing energy conservation efforts within the Department that have resulted in a 23
percent decrease in energy consumed per square foot in DoD buildings nationwide since 1985. "The Services have
been resolute in reducing their energy consumption over the years. These savings have been spent on readiness and
quality of life, and improving the environment," said Rumsfeld. "This success story, however, makes the new power
reduction initiative all the more difficult, since the less difficult solutions have been implemented already. The
Services will need to be innovative, aggressive and tenacious to meet our goals for California." To achieve these
goals, the Department will redirect $32 million in fiscal 2001 to implement the Services' demand reduction and
power generation plans, and for investments such as lighting upgrades, updated controls, improvements to heating,
ventilation and air conditioning systems, and installation of demand meters, to meet later goals. An additional $19
million will be added to the fiscal 2002 budget to achieve fully the initiative's long-term goals. "The Services have
pulled out all stops in developing innovative strategies to meet these goals," said Ray DuBois, deputy under
secretary of Defense for installations and environment. "Some measures include hiring specialists to develop
regional peak load reduction strategies, such as integrated schedules for high power-consuming equipment, and
installing thermal energy storage units to shift the cooling load to off-peak times." Non-fossil fuel generation plays
an important role in the Services' plans including wind power, fuel cells and photovoltaic arrays. "One of the more
innovative concepts involves buying power from the owner of an existing wind generation plant located adjacent to
a military base who has been unable to sell power to the commercial grid economically because of high transmission
and distribution charges," said DuBois. While implementing this initiative will cost DoD additional money up front,
these investments in energy efficiency and demand reduction are sound business decisions. The more than $50
million DoD investment will leverage almost $290 million in private sector investment for infrastructure
improvements and generation capability, and will ultimately yield annual energy cost savings in excess of $25
million. Future savings will pay back initial investments, be used for additional energy savings measures and
housing and quality of life upgrades.
[ ] Reducing fossil fuel use is key to the DoD because high costs distort budgets and
undermine resupply
JASON finds compelling reasons for the DoD to minimize fuel use, both overall and in individual vehicles and
carriers. Fuel, even if it is currently a relatively small portion of the overall budget is accompanied by large
multipliers – it takes fuel to deliver fuel – and is accompanied by high costs in both infrastructure (O&M) and, in the
battlefield, in lives. Price uncertainties compound budget planning, and fuel costs may rise to represent a more-
significant factor for the DoD in the future, even though current projections may indicate otherwise. More
importantly, the impacts of delivering fuel are evident in dictating tactics, operations costs, maintenance costs, and
military capabilities.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Alternatives Solve– Military Budgets
[ ] Increasing alternative sources of energy frees up DoD funding to improve military
readiness
American Forces Press Service, 2006 [October 4, 2006; DoD Promotes Energy Initiatives to Stretch Dollars,
Improve Efficiency, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=1452]
About three-quarters of DoD’s oil consumption goes toward keeping the military on the move: its aircraft
conducting sorties, its ships patrolling the seas and its wheeled and tracked vehicles patrolling the streets of Iraq and
Afghanistan. The military is working to make these systems less oil-dependent without sacrificing capability,
Young explained. It’s looking into composite materials that make vehicles lighter and more efficient, and fuel-
efficient engines and alternative fuel sources to decrease its dependence on fossil fuel. The Air Force, DoD’s
biggest energy user, is considering setting a goal to reduce its fuel consumption in a way that doesn’t shortchange
training or operations, he said. The Marine Corps recently issued a solicitation for a new heavy truck that includes “a
very specific and precise goal that decreased fuel consumption something like 15 to 20 percent” over its current
Logistics Vehicle System. “And so in each program space, we are going to set … fairly aggressive goals for
achieving additional efficiencies” that apply technological advances, he said. “And we have already been doing
that.” Many of those same strategies already are proving successful as DoD reduces the fuel needed to keep its
570,000 buildings and facilities around the world humming, Philip Grone, deputy undersecretary of defense for
installations and environment, told reporters. These facilities consume about 22 percent of DoD’s energy
requirements, but more than 8 percent of the electricity they use comes from renewable energy sources, he said.
DoD hopes to raise that level to 25 percent by 2025, setting the standard for the rest of the federal government as
well as industry, Grone told reporters. Throughout the military, Grone said, he sees a continued trend toward
tapping diversified energy sources -- particularly more renewable sources -- that offer more efficiency and reliability
to the fighting force. “That is where I see us headed in the course of the next 10 to 25 years,” he said. “Conceptually,
that is where we want to be.” Whether from an operational or support viewpoint, all energy conservation ultimately
supports the fighting force because it frees up defense dollars for critical training and equipment, Grone said. As
these initiatives increasingly take shape, “resources will be freed up to go for higher priority efforts in supporting the
mission … (and) the pointy end of the spear,” he said.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Alternatives Solve - RMA
[ ] Reducing Military dependency on oil opens up budget resources for technological
transformation
54.pdf
The annual investment in securing this region currently exceeds $150 billion per year.6 Reducing our dependency
on oil should make these resources available for investment in future force and infrastructure needs. Depending
upon which view one chooses to accept, the global oil supply will either last no more than a few decades or will
perhaps last a century. On one side of the debate, experts argue that because of the limited supply of oil, it will
increase in expense as it depletes in availability or production (referred to as Hubbert’s peak). Market analysts, on
the other hand, argue that the market will force a correction of the oil demand, thereby stemming the flow of oil and
prolonging the inevitable. Both arguments underscore that oil is an increasingly scarce commodity.
[ ] DoD procurement of renewable energy enhances military readiness – it reduces the

need for resupply, improves military health, reduces costs and drives innovation. Current
Military renewable use is not enough – the military should be the model
Using some, all, or a combination of the renewable energies discussed in this chapter will further facilitate the
Army’s meeting the six goals of The Army Strategy for the Environment. Expressly: Foster a Sustainability Ethic by
embracing the fact that current energy resources are exhaustible and substituting them for renewable resources;
Strengthen Army Operations by reducing unhealthy heat, noise, and waste emissions and decreasing our logistical
tail; Meet Test, Training, and Mission Requirements by sustaining the land, water, and air at our training sites;
Minimize Impacts and Total Ownership Costs through the use of on site domestic renewable energy; Enhance Well-
being by sustaining our natural resources and protecting human health through the use of clean and less raw material
intensive renewable energy; Drive Innovation by accelerating the transfer of fossil fuel to renewable energy
technology to meet present and future requirements. Conclusions This paper demonstrates the need for an Army
Energy Strategy that supports the new Army Strategy for the Environment six goals. This analysis indicates that
currently the Army has an energy program that is insular, fragmented and needs an integrated approach. This is not
to say that the Army is not already making an effort toward conserving energy and using renewable energy in a
number of sites and areas. However, because of the Army’s limited resources, it needs to make a concerted effort to
focus and prioritize against the Army’s Strategy for the Environment until it is expanded into our everyday life and
on every Army installation and operation. Just as it is not advisable to put all of ones money into one stock or only
into a savings account, it is not advisable to depend on only one source of energy or conservation of energy alone.
Whether one wants to argue the validity or dubiousness of fossil fuel combustion’s contribution to global warming
or climate change, there are a variety of other compelling reasons to reduce and eliminate our need for fossil fuel.
The cost benefits of energy conservation and use of renewable energy are vast and have profound and numerous
positive repercussions to our quality of life. Our national security, health, economy, and environment are all affected
by our use of energy making it imperative that we take every possible action to ameliorate our energy policies and
usage. As the Army is a defender of freedom, it in turn also defends our quality of life. This is why the Army should
be at the vanguard of an energy transition to renewable energy and restorative conservation.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Alternatives Solve - RMA
[ ] Switching to renewable will facilitate the revolution in military affairs because it gives
the military flexible choices
20No%203%20www.pdf]
The Vision – DoD Petroleum Independence by 2050 In 2050 the Department of Defense is a highly effective,
networked, interdependent, and dominant military force, protecting all required American and allied interests,
powered almost exclusively by an electrical and hydrogen energy standard that is reliably, efficiently, securely, and
environmentally produced in a distributed manner without the need for foreign sources of energy. The above vision
statement represents the potential for a tremendous paradigm shift in the way modern forces wage war. Food, fuel,
and ammunition logistics constraints have vexed commanders as long as war has existed. Envision the logistically
unconstrained maneuver capabilities of a force that is purposely designed to be 50 percent more efficient than
today’s force and requires no physical ammunition resupply and only a fraction of the liquid fuels consumed by
today’s forces. A directedenergy- based, highly automated force, capable of generating a majority of its own power
in a distributed fashion from local and environmental sources, could theoretically provide that future. The potential
efficiency, environmental ubiquity, universality and convertibility from one form to another of this configuration,
make strong arguments that the force of 2050 can be powered almost exclusively by electricity and hydrogen.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Alternatives Solve – Forward Deployment
[ ] Renewable energies are key to forward bases – they decrease the reliance on
vulnerable resupply lines
John Young, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Secretary September 27, 2006 [Political
Transcript Wire, Hold A Joint A Hearting On Dod Alternative Energy Programs,” http://www.accessmylibrary.c
om/coms2/summary_0286-18480380_ITM]
The Defense Department also has unique energy requirements which often align with the energy needs of the nation.
For example, in early August, Major General Richard Zilmer, al- Anbar province commander, submitted an urgent
request for renewable energy systems for remote forward deployed forces due to the vulnerability of supply lines to
insurgent attack or ambush by roadside bombs. The Defense Department has worked steadily towards many of these
goals and needs over the past several years. On the facilities side, by 2005, the department had reduced facilities
energy use by over 28 percent from the 1985 baseline and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has reset the baseline and
increased the reduction target. Indeed, in 2005, military service installations received four of the five presidential
awards for leadership in federal energy management. My colleague, Phil Grone, will be able to talk in much greater
detail about these efforts. DOD continues to develop renewable energy technology and facilities on bases using
geothermal sources, wind, solar, and ocean temperature differential. DOD has a range of research and development
programs underway to improve energy efficiency. Examples include the use of lighter weight materials and
platforms, fuel efficient engine designs, drag reducing coatings, and testing alternative fuels. The service-funded
energy and power technology initiative has focused on lightening the logistics burden of our ground forces by
developing efficient power generation, energy storage, and power control and distribution technologies. Secretary
Rumsfeld directed, in the strategic planning guidance this year, that a task force review the department's efforts on
power and energy alternatives and efficiency. The task force reviewed DOD plans to invest $1.8 billion on energy
related efforts between fiscal years 2007 to 2011. The military services, combatant commands, and defense agencies
embraced this task force and the result was tremendous collaboration
[ ] Increasing alternative energy is necessary for future military readiness – it is critical

to mobility, deterrence and persistence of forward deployed forces
Recent experience indicates that the nature of the threat facing the United States is changing. Today, we cannot be
sure in advance of the location of future conflicts, given the threat of dispersed, small-scale attacks inherent in
warfare with rogue nations and insurgent forces. In addition, the U.S. military must be prepared to defend against
single strikes capable of mass casualties. This complex security environment—an environment in which a wide
range of conventional and unconventional attacks can come from unpredictable regions of the world and the risk of
a single attack is high—requires the United States not only to maintain a force that is forward and engaged on a
daily steady-state basis, but also to ensure that it is ready for quick, surge deployments worldwide to counter, and
deter, a broad spectrum of potential threats. Theme 1. Our forces must expand geographically and be more mobile
and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in
the world. Theme 2. We must transition from a reactive to a proactive force posture to deter enemy forces from
organizing for and conducting potentially catastrophic attacks. Theme 3. We must be persistent in our presence,
surveillance, assistance, and attack to defeat determined insurgents and halt the organization of new enemy forces.
To carry out these activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy intense, locate in more regions of
the world, employ new technologies, and man- age a more complex logistics system. Considering the trend in
operational fuel consumption and future capability needs, this “new” force employment construct will likely demand
more energy/fuel in the deployed setting. Simply put, more miles will be traveled, both by combat units and the
supply units that sustain them, which will result in increased energy consumption. Therefore, DoD must apply new
energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military
operations.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] DoD alternative energies are necessary to sustain forward deployment
Eileen Westervelt, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 2005 [September Energy Trends and
Implications for U.S. Army Installations, http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wcco/news/
specialreports/projectenergy/06_0420_projectenergy_energytrendsreportfromarmycorps.pdf]
The energy situation is highly uncertain–for the Army, the Nation, and the world. Now is the time to consider both
short and long-term issues to develop enduring energy policies and solutions for our military installations to discern
an effective and viable path for the Army’s energy future. To sustain its mission and ensure the capability to project
and support the forces, the Army must insulate itself from the economic and logistical energy-related problems
coming in the near- to mid-future. This requires a transition to modern, secure, and efficient energy systems and to
building safe, environmentally friendly technologies. This is both a supplyside and demand-side challenge requiring
integrated solutions and thoughtful planning and execution. Primary issues affecting energy options are: availability,
affordability, sustainability, and security. Any review of these issues must take a global perspective since resources
are unevenly distributed around the world. Further, the impacts of energy consumption have global reach from both
an environmental and political perspective.
[ ] Military procurement of alternatives increases military readiness by increasing

basing options – our Army would become a better neighbor
Another way the Army can reduce waste and encourage recycling is through the practices and procedures used
in the procurement of goods. We can stipulate from those we purchase from that they must provide us with
“extended product responsibility” or cradle-to-cradle service (1: 14). This is a way of holding manufactures
responsible for the production process, quality and recycling of their products. By doing so, the Army can reduce
our own and encourage the reduction of waste such as electronic appliances (i.e. computers, monitors, washers,
dryers, and refrigerators) as well as carpets, flooring and roofs. These products end up in garbage dumps
leaching toxic chemicals into the ground. Purchase and installation of all energy efficient rated appliances would
save energy and reduce green house gas emissions. Home appliances account for 30 percent of electrical
consumption and 12 percent of green house gas emissions in the U.S. (40: NP). By reducing our footprint on the
community environment, we make ourselves more attractive and desirable to have as tenants and neighbors
than a land developer with possibly little or no regard and consideration for the environment. The Army will
be viewed as providing environmental stewardship as well providing jobs for the local economy. Conserving and
reducing our requirements for energy by applying the principles mentioned in this chapter will facilitate the Army’s
meeting all the goals of The Army Strategy for the Environment. Construction of Green buildings and using reusable
products is completely in line with fostering a sustainable ethic. Sharing facilities with other AC and RC units
strengthens Army operations and minimizes impacts and total ownership costs. Green installation design enhances
the well being of Army families and our communities. Procurement and use of micropower and distributed
energy will facilitate meeting our testing, training, and mission requirements and will help drive innovation in the
private and public sector. Using reusable products will foster a sustainability ethic, and minimize impacts and total
ownership costs.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
] Military procurement of renewable energy increases access to bases because it
decreases our environmental footprint
health effects of fossil fuel combustion. The Army can use our credibility and resources to lead the change to
renewable energy in American society. The Army has been at the forefront of many social (racial integration, equal
pay and promotion), medical (prosthetics, medical evacuation, and anti-shock trousers) and technological changes
(the internet and robotics). The Army has an opportunity to change its current energy strategy to a strategy that
applies alternate sources of energy because its voracious consumption of fossil fuels significantly contributes to a
long logistics tail. This leadership could also influence the use of alternative renewable public and private energy.
This paper will discuss the financial feasibility, public perceptions and environmental considerations.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Biofuels
[ ] Biofuels are a viable option to reduce the DOD’s dependence on fossil fuels
For comparison, the production of liquid fuels from non-fossil energy sources will now be discussed. Biomass is the
most oftcited route for such purposes because, in principle, biomassderived fuels could be widely available.
Additionally, biofuels could be, at least to some extent, sustainable and renewable. Of concern, therefore, is not only
the relative cost of the biofuel with respect to the cost of crude-oil-based fuels, or FT-derived fuels, but the
suitability of bio-derived fuels for the DoD mission and whether the production of such fuels stems from a
renewable process, e.g., the fraction of sunlight energy stored in the final fuel product, as well as the result of a full
account of all other energy and other inputs required to produce the biofuel.
[ ] DoD use of biofuels would increase military security by decreasing dependency

Biobased Fuels]
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is calling for increased use of biobased products by the Defense
Department to help wean the U.S. military off its dependence on fossil fuels that come from unstable areas of the
globe. “Many of these [biobased materials] are substitutes for products based on nonrenewable natural resources
like oil and natural gas, so when we have substitutes, it supports the president's initiatives and . . . national interests
to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy [and make] our nation more secure,” he said Sept. 12 at the
Pentagon, during an event to bring manufacturers of biobased products and defense officials together. “Biobased
products are . . . an essential part of our strategic approach to national security,” he added.
[ ] Biofuels are cleaner because they are carbon neutral

Biodiesel is a synthetic fuel made from vegetable oils or animal fats. B20, the commonly used mix of 20% biodiesel
and 80% petroleum-based diesel fuel–works in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. DOD began using
biodiesel in 2000 and is now the nation's top purchaser of B20, buying over 15 million gallons annually. All military
departments use B20 in a variety of non-tactical vehicles. Biofuel. Biofuels are a number of synthetic fuel products
that use biological matter as a feedstock: ethanol, produced mainly from corn; cellulosic biofuel, ethanol made from
cellulosic plants such as fast-growing trees, prairie grass, and agricultural waste; and biodiesel. Pros. Many cite as
one of the advantages of biofuel that the feedstocks are renewable. Also, unlike synthetic fuel from coal and natural
gas, biofuel can theoretically be “carbon neutral.” That is the carbon dioxide emitted during the burning of biofuel is
offset by the carbon dioxide consumed during the feedstocks’ growth. However, current production methods involve
the use of some carbon emitting sources, which detracts from the claim of carbon neutrality.
[ ] DoD use of biofuels would increase military security

Military.com 2006 [DoD Pushes Biobased Fuels September 15,
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,113599,00.html
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is calling for increased use of biobased products by the Defense
Department to help wean the U.S. military off its dependence on fossil fuels that come from unstable areas of the
globe. “Many of these [biobased materials] are substitutes for products based on nonrenewable natural resources
like oil and natural gas, so when we have substitutes, it supports the president's initiatives and . . . national interests
to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy [and make] our nation more secure,” he said Sept. 12 at the
Pentagon, during an event to bring manufacturers of biobased products and defense officials together. “Biobased
products are . . . an essential part of our strategic approach to national security,” he added.
Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Biofuels
[ ] Biofuels and waste materials can provide alternative fuels for deployed armed forces
Newswise, June 20, 2001 [“Future Army Could Run On Alternative Fuels, Photosynthesis,”
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/24748/]
Scientists are already working on making fuel from waste plant materials such as cellulose and hemicellulose.
Grasses, surplus grains, spoiled food, food wrappers, paper or even cotton cloth could be converted into fuel using
this method. "In theory, these materials could be produced in the field (if the theater of operation were in a
temperate zone) and used as fuels," the report states. "The Army needs to be investigating surrogate fuels, such as
ethanol and biodiesel, and make sure their engines can run on a variety of fuels," Ladisch says. "Actually, I think
this can be done with a minimal amount of modification. They're in pretty good shape in this area." Another energy
need for modern soldiers in the field is electricity, and batteries are bulky and very heavy. Biological systems may
provide a solution, the NRC committee suggests. "Right now the Army is dependent on batteries, and they can't take
seriously other energy sources such as solar power," Love says. "One of the things the report investigated was
photovoltaic energy, and how bioelectronics might make it possible to increase the efficiency of converting sunlight
to usable energy. If you put this together with fuel-cell storage techniques, this would have a large impact on how
the military operates, especially for small unit operations." The NRC recommends that the Army investigate how
plants convert photons to energy because plants are so good at grabbing energy from the natural environment.
Millions of years of natural selection has optimized plants to the particular wavelengths of sunlight, and because of
this, plants convert 98 percent of the sunlight they receive into energy.
[ ] DoD Procurement of Biofuels will decrease dependence on imported oil and spur
investment in biofuel infrastructure.
Biofuels convert biomass to liquid fuel for transportation needs and contain oxygen resulting in cleaner combustion
and less toxic emissions than fossil fuels. Although biofuels release the global warming gas carbon dioxide when
combusted; carbon dioxide is also absorbed from plants grown for biofuels. This in essence recycles the carbon
dioxide and ultimately is a neutral carbon net exchange (33: NP). Unlike fossil fuel oil spills or leaks, a biofuel spill
would not be deleterious to the environment and would more easily biodegrade into the soil or water. Biomass
derived ethanol and biodiesel can be mixed with or directly replaced for gasoline and diesel, respectively. At
present, these are the only two alternative liquid fuels available that can be substituted for the two thirds of all
petroleum used in the U.S. for transportation and of which 50 percent is imported. (33: NP). Increasing our
production and use of biofuels will drastically decrease our dependence on imported oil. Thus biomass and biofuel
have significant economic, health, environmental, and security benefits. Ethanol is an alcohol produced from the
fermentation of carbohydrates and predominantly used for a fuel additive (up to 85 percent mixture) to decrease
smog emissions such as carbon monoxide (26: NP). The overall research on whether or not it requires more BTUs to
produce ethanol than what BTUs are actually yielded from ethanol is inconclusive. Biodiesel combines alcohol, and
either clean or recycled vegetable oil, animal fats, or cooking grease. It can also be added to current fuels (about 20
percent) to decrease smog emissions or alone in diesel engines (26: NP) In relatively minimal time, the Army can
start supplementing our fuel requirements with biofuel in most of if not all of its vehicles. Since a number of our
vehicles currently run on diesel fuel, we can convert them over to biodiesel. It would even be possible to sell or turn
in our mess hall cooking grease to recycle into biodiesel fuel for our own use. Through the Army’s increased
purchase of biofuels, we could begin to influence the increase in production and with it the infrastructure to produce
greater supplies of biofuel. This will leave our country less vulnerable to near term and future oil interruptions. With
the Nation’s aging petroleum oil refineries at or near maximum capacity, building biofuel refineries to replace them
would be the most prudent and economically feasible course of action. However, using biofuel is primarily an
interim action as it has the potential to remove food from the Third World.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Bases
[ ] DoD bases can substantially cut down on fossil fuel energy consumption with
alternatives
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report 2006 [Oct 5,Pentagon Striving To Find Fuel Alternatives, Conserve Energy
ebsco
The Pentagon intends to deploy a portable energy system for troops in January that will include solar and wind-
powered units, Young said. U.S. military installations are trying to save power usage by 20-25 percent. Naval Base
Coronado, Calif.'s energy conservation efforts reached a major milestone Sept. 29 when the "solar photovoltaic
carport" registered more than 5 million kilowatt-hours produced. The PV carport is a covered parking lot for 446
cars. Solar panels cover the roof, collecting energy for use on the base. When the PV carport powered up in October
2002, it was projected to produce about 1,244,000 KWh annually. According to Naval Base Coronado Public
Affairs, the system has performed better than projected, with annual savings exceeding $228,000, and more than
$912,000 since its inception. The system is part of a Navy-wide effort to increase production and use of renewable
energy. Solar energy systems help the Navy to meet federal facility renewable-energy requirements of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. Air Force Undersecretary Ron Sega said Sept. 15 during a World Energy Engineers Congress
luncheon that four Air Force installations currently are meeting 100 percent of their electrical energy needs from
renewable energy sources.
[ ] Military bases can use wind power which reduces costs.

P. Pitchford, National Renewable Energy Lab, August 2, 2000 [Wind Powering The Government, “Why Choose
Wind Power?” p.2, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27531.pdf]
WIND POWERING THE GOVERNMENT WHY CHOOSE WIND POWER? Wind power is the fastest-growing
energy technology in the world today. By choosing wind power, Federal agencies can reduce their electricity bills
and their use of fossil fuels to help protect the environment and increase our nation's energy security. Modern wind
energy systems can provide clean, reliable electricity almost anywhere the wind blows. Examples of Federal
facilities currently using wind energy systems include military bases; sites with remote communications equipment
and navigation aids; and ranger stations, visitor centers, and other park facilities. Federal agencies can also purchase
power produced by the wind, or "green power," from electricity providers in states with both regulated and
restructured electricity markets. Green power products may not be available in some states. But Federal agencies
might want to include a provision for green power in their request for proposals, to help stimulate the green power
market. Another option is to purchase "green tags" or "green certificates." By purchasing green tags, the customer
pays for the delivery of renewable energy into the grid. The environmental benefits created by the renewable energy
facility are attributed to that customer, directly offsetting the environmental impact of the customer's conventional
energy use.
[ ] The military can utilize geothermal energy on its domestic bases

Geothermal Heat Pumps Geothermal heat pump systems are made of a ground heat exchanger, heat pump, and
ductwork to deliver the air. The heat exchanger consists of pipes (a loop) buried under the ground close to a
building. Water or water plus antifreeze flows through the heat exchanger pipes absorbing heat (in the winter) and
giving up heat (in the summer) through the ground. This heated air (relative to the outside ambient air) from the heat
exchanger is pumped into the indoor ductwork to heat buildings in the winter. In the summer the heat pump extracts
the heated indoor air into the heat exchanger in the ground. This heated air can also serve to heat water at no extra
cost. This process saves energy, money and does not create any air pollutants (26: NP). Geothermal heat pumps have
great potential application for the Army. They can be used in regions where solar systems are not advantageous as in
the Northwestern and Northeastern United States and they can also be used to supplement and backup solar or other
energy systems. They can also be used under street and sidewalk surfaces to melt snow.
Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Bases
[ ] Using renewables for military bases would decrease energy costs and replace fossil
fuels
The DoD Instruction for Installation Energy Management Number 4170.11 dated October 13, 2004 directs the:
Development of programs that shall result in facilities that are designed, operated, and maintained to achieve
optimum performance and maximize energy efficiency in accordance with sustainable design principles. Since about
33 percent of energy used today is used to maintain the climate and lighting in buildings, constructing energy
efficient (green or sustainable) buildings, would impact energy and cost (4: 27). Green or sustainable buildings use
material, energy, water and land more efficiently and on average use 30 percent less energy than conventionally
constructed buildings (18: 19). Many Army facilities, specifically housing areas and barracks, are aging and either in
the process of being (or slated to be) renovated. This is an opportune time for the Army to simultaneously improve
the quality of life for soldiers and their families and also incorporate its sustainability strategy by making these new
facilities energy efficient and self-sustaining. Considering that operating cost over the lifetime of most buildings is
significantly greater than the initial construction cost, the Army can save money over the long term by putting up
front money into constructing the most energy self sustaining buildings in the first place. Another way to conserve
energy is by reducing the size of buildings as the more spacious a building the more energy is required to light, heat,
and cool it. Over the decades, the average American home has increased in size to double the average homes in
Japan or Europe and over 25 times the size of the average African home (40: NP). Preexisting buildings can be
retrofitted with energy efficient applications. Such as installing thermal paned windows with coatings to keep heat
from escaping but allow light to enter and thereby drastically reduce the energy demand to heat and cool a building.
Other efforts would be to replace incandescent lighting with more energy efficient compact fluorescent lighting, add
reflective backings in the light housing to increase illumines of the bulbs, and add solar tubes or sky lights to lighten
rooms naturally during daylight hours. Natural lighting and cleaner air contributes to a healthier working, living and
learning environment (18: 19). Construct buildings for maximum use of passive and active solar energy by properly
orienting them to the sun and insulating with recycled energy efficient material. Installing solar heating and solar
energy devices on all new buildings will allow water to be heated directly by the sun and electricity provided
through photovoltaic panels. Constructing energy self-sustaining facilities with a clean renewable energy
micropower plant would eliminate the need for the installation to be connected to the local power grid. This will also
decrease the energy bill and the threat of a blackout-whether the cause is due to nature or man. While we are in
transition to distributed energy, we can send any excess energy to installation buildings that are not yet modified
with micropower or send the excess energy to the community electric grid and receive credit on the electric bill.
[ ] Pilot programs prove that renewable energy can provide alternatives for domestic
military bases
/2007/04/29/EDGONP1I9S1.DTL]
Renewable energy accounts for roughly 10 percent of the energy consumed by the Department of Defense, and we
continue to do more. In late 2006, the Air Force initiated a project at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada called Solar
Star. This project involves installing around 70,000 solar panels to produce 25 million kilowatt-hours of electricity
per year -- enough to power about 11,000 homes. In addition, the Navy Air Weapons Station, China Lake, which is
in the Mojave Desert, is engaged in a public-private geothermal energy venture. This facility produces enough
electricity from geothermal sources to power the entire base. The Department of Defense is also deeply involved in
using wind power and other renewables to power their installations. Through myriad projects, the Department of
Defense is at the forefront of efforts to address energy availability, an issue

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Spillover
[ ] The DoD can lead the transition to alternative energies – the DoD is an important
driver, and DoD oil infrastructure will impede any other change
Sohbet Karbuz , Doctor at Association of Mediterranean Energy Companies, 2006 [June 26, Energy Bulletin,
Energy and military force transformation, http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=17607]
“The U.S. Department of Defense can learn from the Royal Navy’s pre–World War I energy transformation. Like
the Royal Navy a century ago, DOD is faced with the problem of limited resources due in large part to our energy
infrastructure. Fuel represents more than half of the DOD logistics tonnage and over 70 percent of the tonnage
required to put the U.S. Army into position for battle. The Navy uses millions of gallons of fuel every day to operate
around the globe, and the Air Force, the largest daily DOD consumer of fuel, uses even more.” “Depending upon
which view one chooses to accept, the global oil supply will either last no more than a few decades or will perhaps
last a century. On one side of the debate, experts argue that because of the limited supply of oil, it will increase in
expense as it depletes in availability or production (referred to as Hubbert’s peak). Market analysts, on the other
hand, argue that the market will force a correction of the oil demand, thereby stemming the flow of oil and
prolonging the inevitable. Both arguments underscore that oil is an increasingly scarce commodity. Clayton
Christensen has argued that “markets that don’t exist can’t be analyzed.” Until a market correction takes hold, or
there is a global shift toward alternative sources of fuel, oil demand will continue and, perhaps increasingly, will
influence the global security environment. DOD has the opportunity to take action to shape this future to our
advantage.” “Historically, the Department of Defense has invested in transformational technologies— such as
nuclear power, missile defense initiatives, and intercontinental ballistic missiles— with the potential to alter the
strategic balance. DOD should do the same now to balance its scarce energy resources. New technologies to
improve fuel efficiency (weight, drag, engine efficiency, system efficiency, and auxiliary power needs) and to
develop alternative energy sources have the potential to transform the force, remove operational limits that are built
into our plans, and provide the capabilities that forces need. The business case for investing in new technologies,
however, is difficult to build because current costing methods do not make the actual end-to-end costs of fueling the
force visible to decision makers.” “This much is clear: so long as DOD systems and associated logistics are wed
to an oil infrastructure, meaningful advances in adaptability and agility and overall force transformation will likely
be superficial at best.”
[ ] Military procurement of alternative energy will set an example for the rest of society
– it has the credibility and resources and uses a Lot of energy
health effects of fossil fuel combustion.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] The DoD must lead on renewables because it is the largest energy consumer and
because of the long lead in times for defense procurement
20No%203%20www.pdf]
Although the DoD uses only approximately 1.8 percent of the 20 million barrels of oil consumed each day in the
US, it is the largest single institutional energy customer in the United States and likely the world.5 Subscribing to a
National Defense Strategy that values effectiveness over efficiency, the DoD relies upon petroleum to deliver the
energy-intense global power projection, agile logistics, and operational maneuver capabilities essential to waging a
dominant and uniquely high-technology American way of war. As the nation’s primary security provider, the DoD
has a vested interest in ensuring that it possesses the uninterrupted energy resources needed to deter all would-be
aggressors and decisively engage in the full spectrum of conflict, particularly as it engages in a decades-long global
war on terrorism. The question then becomes, how can the DoD contribute toward the President’s goal of creating a
society which is not addicted to oil while simultaneously ensuring it has the energy and capabilities to complete its
mission? Mankind’s long-term supply of petroleum fuel is threatened by a phenomenon known as Hubbert’s Peak—
that point in time when the production of oil reaches a maximum, and then declines steadily thereafter. The debate
about when the world will reach its Hubbert’s Peak has raged for decades, with many credible sources predicting
dates which have already passed, others predicting dates within the next decade, and others proclaiming there will
never be a peak. This discussion recently intensified when ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, achieved
record profits of $36B in 20056 on all-time-high oil prices, but also quietly predicted in that same year that world oil
production in non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would peak within 5 years.7 If this
prediction is, in fact, true, the potential global geopolitical and economic consequences could be profound. Consider
the effects Hurricane Katrina and Iranian nuclear brinksmanship have demonstrated on an 84 million barrel-per-day
world oil market,8 in which two-thirds of all reserves reside in the Middle East.9 In addition, the growth of
emerging economies will push global demand to within 98 percent of available production capacity.10 If the US
were ever forced to rely upon domestic petroleum supplies exclusively, it only possesses enough indigenous reserves
to meet 2005-level demand for 4 to 5 years (equal to 2 percent of global reserves which includes Alaska National
Wildlife Refuge supplies).11 The President is correct in proclaiming that technology will be necessary to break
America’s addiction to oil. Another strong proponent of technology is the DoD, which has embraced its benefits as a
key enabler for strategic, operational, and tactical success—a concept validated by the swift combat victories in
Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia over the last 15 years. However, the demand for increasingly more complex
high-technology systems has placed the DoD at the end of increasingly long acquisition cycles, of which the 20-plus
year development of the F-22A Raptor is a perfect example. It is precisely the long acquisition lead times of these
petroleum-fueled weapon systems, in conjunction with their decades-long life cycles (for example, the 45-year-old
B- 52 fleet), that will uniquely force the DoD to be the first government agency to address an approaching global oil
peak.
[ ] Army procurement will raise standards, reduce costs, and facilitate driving
innovation.
The Army’s large procurement requirements can facilitate driving innovation, raising standards and reducing cost.
Those we contract with will need to comply with our energy standards and consequently drive costs down through
economies of production so that the public and private sectors can afford renewable energy. Another invaluable
upshot of the Army becoming an Environmental Paragon will be a favorable public perception and acceptance of the
Army as an integral member of the community leading to greater access to training sites. A win-win situation!
“History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered,
the only path to peace and security is the path to action.” (President George W. Bush, September 17, 2002).

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Military funding of alternative energy can set a model for all of society – the internet
and aviation empirically prove
The Washington Post, 2002 [May 2, 2002 Thursday, Biotech Companies See a Big New Customer at the Pentagon]
The U.S. military became a high-tech fighting force over the years by integrating advances in science and math to
track enemies, communicate in remote areas and build more powerful weapons. Now, it wants to tap biotechnology
to make stronger materials, enhance soldiers' performance and develop alternative energy sources. More than 350
biotech entrepreneurs, government contractors and military officials met at a conference this week sponsored by the
Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization and the Defense Department. Thirty-six biotech companies
pitched potential products with such varied applications as wound healing, memory enhancement and environmental
decontamination. The Defense Department has a record of developing leading-edge technologies that eventually
reach consumers. Much of modern aviation and telecommunications systems can be traced to technology developed
for military purposes. Perhaps the most successful example of this transfer is the Internet, which was developed as
an internal communications network by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the 1960s. "By solving
unique military problems, it advanced the state of the science to new thresholds and spun off all sorts of commercial
products and services that ultimately benefited the average American citizen and our economy," said Col. Jerry
Warner, who heads the Defense Department's Office of Net Assessment.
[ ] Military procurement of alternatives spills over to society because bases are located
throughout the country and are key consumers
On larger Army installations were shuttle transportation service is provided; only fossil free buses or vans should be
used. Many soldiers only have one or no car as in the case of some of our younger soldiers. This would decrease
their family’s requirement to own more than one car or allow them to do without a car during the workweek. Once
we build the infrastructure on military installations to support a fossil free fuel for our military vehicles, it will be
available for sale to the soldiers and their families. This convenience could further encourage the purchase of
alternative fueled vehicles and their increased production. Many water conservation measures also conserve energy.
As previously noted, it requires energy to treat and purify sewage; therefore, drainage from rain and snow melt
runoff from the streets can be diverted and stored in reservoirs instead of into the sewage system or out to sea.
Xeriscape is a form of landscape that uses only plants that are indigenous to the region and minimizes water usage
and lawn care. An inordinate amount of time, water, energy, labor and money are required to maintain lawns on
Army installations. By minimizing grass lawns on our installations we also reduce the amount of fertilizers,
herbicides, and their chemical runoff. Furthermore, the cacophonous noise and fumes from lawn mowers, blowers
and hedgers will also be reduced (16: 219).
[ ] Federal procurement sets a key example because the government is the largest
purchaser
The Defense Logistics Agency 2007 [ July, http://www.p2sustainabilitylibrary .mil/issues/ emerge
jul2007/index.html, Green Purchasing]
Green Purchasing within the Federal Government is important because the Federal government is one of the largest
purchasers in the world and "Green Purchasing decisions can significantly influence the environmental performance
and footprint of Federal facilities. As the emphasis on Green Operations and environmental stewardship practices
within the Federal Government become more important, the importance of Green Procurement will grow as well.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] The DoD sets a key example for other Government agencies
Defense AT&L Magazine 2004 [ Nov-Dec, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QMG /is_6_33/ ai_n8693768
Department of Defense news release : DoD issues green procurement policy]
The new policy also has been well received outside of DoD. Edwin Pinero, the administration's acting federal
environmental executive, said, "We have been recommending that agencies take a holistic approach that addresses
all components of federal green purchasing. DoD is the first to fully embrace this approach. As the new model for
the federal government, it holds great potential for sustainable environmental stewardship in DoD and other federal
agencies." The department and the Environmental Protection Agency view the policy as an example of the
increasing alignment of the national security and environmental stewardship missions. "We laud DoD's
environmental stewardship, initiative and leadership in issuing a comprehensive green procurement policy," said
Steve Johnson, EPA deputy administrator. "We look forward to continuing to work closely with DoD on our mutual
efforts to improve our nation's environmental quality."
[ ] The military is key to the transition to renewables because of long lead times for
developing new technologies
His search for post petroleum military options for high technology American way of war starts with a discussion of
Peak Oil. The profound global geopolitical economic consequences of Peak leads him to investigate what could be
done: “Proposals range from promoting conservation efforts, expanding the use of renewable energy for base
support, intensifying turbine engine efficiency research, and even establishing an independent DoD oil shale-to-
synthetic fuel industry.” And that brings him to confess that “It is precisely the long acquisition lead times of these
petroleum-fueled weapon systems [e.g., F-22A Raptor], in conjunction with their decades-long life cycles [e.g, the
45-year-old B-52 fleet], that will uniquely force the DoD to be the first government agency to address an
approaching global oil peak.” More importantly, he stresses that the Peak is “perhaps the most fundamental strategic
problem the DoD, the U.S., and the world will all inevitably have to face in the next 100 years.”
[ ] Military alternative energies will set the example for civilian use
Boston Globe , 2006 [ October 2, Military wants a more fuel-efficient Humvee Pentagon makes an energy push;
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/02/military_wants_a_ more_fuel
_efficient_humvee/]
Now, the Army is looking for new designs of light, medium, and heavy tactical vehicles that would put an emphasis
on fuel economy without sacrificing protection. For the Humvee, the upgrades could include more energy-efficient
power trains, including a hybrid-electric engine, and limiting the armor to the passenger compartment, according to
Defense Department officials. Bartlett said that if the military finds greater fuel efficiency, ``it can be introduced
into the private sector, and that would be helpful to cargo shippers or anyone that moves around heavy things."
[ ] DoD is the leading consumer of petroleum in the world.

And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon's total petroleum consumption.
Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support
systems -- virtually all powered by oil -- the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer
of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD's daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a
defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000
barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Hydrogen
[ ] Hydrogen fuel cell Infrastructure is key to DoD energy success.
20No%203%20www.pdf]
The first major infrastructure activity the DoD will have to address is incentivizing commercial development for
manufactured liquid hydrocarbon fuels—this is akin to the DoD buying an energy life insurance policy and should
already be executed in Stage I of the DoD’s energy transformation. Without this bridge energy ensured upfront, time
may run out to satisfactorily complete development of any new energy infrastructure. Because manufactured fuels
can be distributed through slightly modified existing liquid fuel networks, the only area needing new investment is
site extraction and refinement. The NRAC estimates that the 10 plants needed to meet the DoD’s daily needs could
be operational by 2020.142 Within its current civil engineering construct, the DoD may also need to deploy a
collection of smaller infrastructures that contribute to the total energy supply for both permanent and expeditionary
installations. For example, as biofuel processing technology rapidly advances, it may become practical in the 2006-
2020 timeframe to actually build on-site biofuel and bioelectric generation plants that utilize a base’s own waste
stream and surrounding biomass as raw energy sources. In addition to helping solve environmental concerns, these
bioenergy plants could be produced in standardized, modular sizes from semi-truck portable to the mega-plant,
expandable to appropriately meet each base’s needs. Every DoD roof and sun-facing flat surface should be covered
with mass-produced, thin-film solar panels. All fluorescent and street lighting, efficient by today’s standards, could
be replaced by 50-plus percent more efficient LED lighting. Wind power farms subsidized by long-term DoD
purchase contracts could become the norm versus the exception as they are today. Coastal bases should be able to
purchase Green Energy from subsurface tidal and ocean thermal production systems facilitated by Congress and
DoE with the DoD as a guaranteed buyer. If successful, this collaborative model can be repeated endlessly with any
number of new concepts.
[ ] Hydrogen fuel cells more efficient than current engines and provide mobile electricity
and water.
Optimism Meets Reality,” Biofuels, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf]
Hydrogen powered fuel cells are a potential alternative power source for DOD and have received considerable
attention and study over the past few years.25 Fuel cells—thin, flat, and stackable–generate electricity through an
electrochemical process that combines hydrogen and oxygen and produces water and heat as waste products. One
fuel cell generates a modest amount of energy but several can be stacked together for increased power production.
Pros: Hydrogen fuel cells have many positive attributes. They are more efficient than combustion engines and do not
produce carbon emissions.26 They do not run down or need to be recharged but can continue operating with the
addition of more fuel. For the military, hydrogen fuel cells provide the added benefits of near silent operation and
reduced infrared exposure. Furthermore, for portable applications, hydrogen fuel cells weigh less than batteries and
retain power longer. Finally, since hydrogen can be obtained from many sources including water, fuel for the cells
could, theoretically, be manufactured on the battlefield.27

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Hydrogen
[ ] Pentagon investment in Hydrogen research is critical to spark innovation and
produce alternative fuels for the military
Michael J. Homitschek, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, Fall 2006 [Air Force Journal of Logistics, “War Without Oil,
Catalyst for Transformation” Volume XXX, Number 3, Introduction,
http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/lgj/Vol%2030%20No%203%20www.pdf]
Up to this point, the subject of hydrogen infrastructure development has not been mentioned. As evidenced in the
2005 Energy Policy Act, DoE, Congress, and the President place great faith in the potential of hydrogen as the only
viable large-scale, long-term replacement to hydrocarbon liquid fuels. This optimism is no doubt inspired by such
recent exciting nanotech discoveries as the ability to create hydrogen from direct sunlight, enhanced electrolysis, or
biological mimicry, as well as new discoveries for safer and more efficient hydrogen storage. Sufficiently researched
during Stage I and later developed in Stage II, these capabilities could theoretically be used to locally produce and
directly power hydrogen-fueled maneuver and mobility forces. Early and active research involvement would enable
the DoD to make the earliest possible commitment toward a hydrogen-based military as a permanent replacement to
temporary manufactured bridging fuels (interestingly, the technology already exists to extract hydrogen from
hydrocarbons, meaning that local hydrogen production is already possible today from traditional feedstocks). To
facilitate the entire three-phase strategy for energy transformation, the DoD will likely have to commit to building
the necessary field infrastructure to support a hydrogen conversion by the end of Stage I, while simultaneously
supporting the legacy liquid fuel system for unconverted systems This has the potential to be the most difficult phase
of an energy transition. Fortunately, if the 2005 EPA’s hydrogen technology goals are met, the commercial and
private sectors will be involved in a similar pursuit, lending their accomplishments and interests to the DoD success.
The last Stage II activity would be converting selected legacy systems and early acquired modular systems to the
new energy standard. This can be as simple as replacing individual components, such as lighter and more reliable
linear electric actuators versus hydraulic components, or incorporating major replacements of power-generation and
energy storage systems during depot overhauls. Each system would need to be assessed on a case-by-case cost-
activity analysis to determine if and when such a conversion is possible—for example, conversion of hybrid
HUMVEEs from a standard JP-8 fueled engine-generator configuration to hydrogen fuel cells. Unless this activity is
initiated by 2020, it is unlikely that sufficient time will exist to create a fully converted and viable force for Stage III.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Photovoltaics
[ ] Military procurement of photovoltaics will spur innovation in the industry
Photovoltaic Photovoltaic (PV) cells are more commonly known as solar cells, are used in many products today
from calculators, outdoor lights and water pumps to satellites and the Sojourner vehicle on Mars. One PV cell
supplies about 1 to 2 watts of power (33: NP). Connecting PV cells like Legos to make modules and connecting
modules to make arrays, this in turn can be connected to create a PV system, further increases that wattage to meet
almost any electrical PV application. PV systems can power direct current (dc) or alternating current (ac) electrical
needs with minimal energy lost in the dc to ac conversion through an inverter. The PV batteries that are the size of a
regular ICE car battery, can store electricity when it is not used and draw energy from it when the sun is obscured.
Because weather (to include snow or hail) has rather negligible impact on PV cell’s performance, they are ideal for
use by the Army (33: NP). The Army can use PV systems not only to provide quiet and pollutant free energy on our
facilities and remote operation sites, but also in many of our vehicles. These fossil-fuel less, fumeless, and quiet
vehicles can be plugged into PV buildings, PV generators or PV systems to be recharged. These PV power plants
have a secondary use as cover for motor pools, parking areas, playgrounds and recreation areas. Furthermore, the PV
systems on our facilities can be connected to the local utility power grid to allow any of our excess electrical
production to be either sold or given back to the grid providing energy for lower income families. Just as with the
fuel-cell, the Army’s extensive use of PV will make possible the reduction in cost of PV production and further
development.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Nanotechnology
[ ] Nanotechnology can be used as a renewable energy source by the military
Nanotechnology Nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate matter at the molecular level of one billionth of a meter
or one nanometer. Nanotechnology is relatively nascent and therefore its applications are under development at this
time. However, Konarka Technologies has received a contract from DARPA for research and development for new
materials for photovoltaic cells. Konarka developed a new solar cell that is lighter weight, suppler, and more
versatile than previous generation solar cells. Their hybrid photovoltaic cells intersect dye-sensitized cells with
polymer cells that have an efficiency of greater than 20 percent conversion of light to electricity. Current thin film
solar cells efficiency ratings are 15 percent. Konarka’s photovoltaic nanotechnology has vast applications for the
Army through providing power to the individual soldier, unmanned vehicles, and sensor networks (19: NP). At the
University of Toronto, researches have made particles that are only a few nanometers in size from semiconductor
crystals that can be suspended in solvents similar to particles in paint. These small nanocrystals can catch infrared
light and be painted onto surfaces to absorb solar energy and convert it to electricity at five times the efficiency of
current materials (3: NP). One possible application for this technology is incorporating the material into a soldier’s
uniform allowing them to recharge wireless devises (cell phone, PDA, and GPS)

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Fuel Cells
[ ] Fuel cells help military mobility because they provide power as well as electricity –
procurement will further drive innovation
Fuel cell application can have a great value to our soldiers as fuel cells have the potential to be used in cell phones,
notebook computers, and climate-controlled bodysuits (35: 14). In addition to fuel cells replacing the ICE vehicles,
they can act as an auxiliary power unit or backup generator off the vehicle’s engine that will be a valuable asset in
remote areas. This would decrease or eliminate the need for units to haul the heavy, cacophonous, maintenance and
petroleum intensive generators to the training or combat zone. As of this writing, Daimler, Toyota, Honda, and GM
either have or are in the process of producing fuel-cell cars for commercial use with the intent of mass production
within ten years (35: 15). Hydrogen fuel cells are projected to be 2.2 times more efficient than current conventional
ICE which will bring the cost of hydrogen to as low as $1.81 per kilogram (about one gallon of gasoline) before tax,
refiner and distributor markup (23: 66). If the Army puts in a requisition to replace many if not all its garrison
vehicles with fuel-cell vehicles, a contract this large would be the catalyst to speed up the production for commercial
and private use. Procuring and using hydrogen fuel cells is in line with the goals of the Army Strategy for the
Environment, but perhaps of greatest significance are with the goal to Drive Innovation.
[ ] Alternative and hybrid fuel ground vehicles can decrease vulnerability to oil
shortages
Efficiency in Platforms – Ground Tactical Vehicles The nearly 70-ton M1A2 Abrams main battle tank – the
outstanding fighting machine of US armored forces – is propelled at up to 42 mph on– or 30 mph offroad by a
1,500-hp gas turbine, and averages around 0.3-0.6 mpg. Its ~20-40 tonmpg is surprisingly close to the ~42 ton-mpg
of today’s average new light vehicle; the tank simply weighs ~34 times as much, half for armor. But there’s more to
be done than improving its ~1968 gas turbine: for ~73% of its operating hours, Abrams idles that ~1,100-kW gas
turbine at less than 1% efficiency to run a ~5kW “hotel load” – ventilation, lights, cooling, and electronics. This,
coupled with its inherent engine inefficiency, cuts Abrams’ average fuel efficiency about in half, requiring extra fuel
whose stockpiling for the Gulf War delayed the ground forces’ readiness to fight by more than a month.31 The most
important factor in reducing the demand for fuel in vehicles is the weight of the vehicle. Heavier vehicles simply
require more energy to move. The DOD recognizes the potential energy efficiency savings associated with
lightweight materials and structures and is investing in materials research to provide high performance ground
vehicles to meet warfighting needs and save energy. The Naval Research Advisory Committee’s April 2006 report,
Future Fuels, recommended hybrid electric drive vehicles as the most effective and efficient way to lengthen the
“tether of fuel.” The study found that fuel economy could improve by as much as 20% or more, and enable highly
maneuverable and agile vehicle traction control both on and off-road, in covert or overt operations, and can provide
mobile electric power. The DOD should strive to accelerate ongoing efforts, including use of carbon-fiber reinforced
composites, expanded use of titanium, which is 40% lighter than steel, rethinking the use of armor to protect the
occupants of the vehicle rather than armoring the entire vehicle, and development of a hybrid electric architecture
for tactical wheeled vehicles. The incredibly high utilization rate of tactical wheeled vehicles in OIF and OEF is
wearing out equipment that will soon need to be replaced. It would be preferable to develop and acquire a fuel
efficient replacement to the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV or Humvee) now, instead of
refurbishing or buying new Humvees which get only 4 miles per gallon in city driving conditions and 8 miles per
gallon in highway driving conditions and will continue to be inefficient for their potential service life of 20-30
years.32

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Waste
[ ] The Military can convert waste into energy, solving dependence, resupply and waste
issues all at once
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is researching the ability to turn discarded Meals Ready
to Eat (MRE) packaging and other waste into energy through the Mobile Integrated Sustainable Energy Recovery
(MISER). The average person living in the Third World generates less than 1 pound of trash per day. The U.S.
soldier generates about 7 pounds of trash per day. For 150,000 soldiers in Iraq this amounts to approximately 525
tons of trash per day. This volume of trash can be overwhelming to many of the regions we have been and will be
operating in. The prospective energy in 14 pounds of mixed waste or 7 pounds of plastic (petroleum polymer) in
MREs and water bottles equal about 7 pounds of JP-8 fuel. MISER could have the capability of reducing 80 percent
of field waste (plastic, paper, food, and fiberboard) to energy and recycling the remainder (glass and metal) (7: NP).
This has profound applications for the combat theater as well as Army bases by simultaneously addressing energy
production and waste reduction-with its additional requirements of personnel and fuel for hauling and disposal (burn
or bury).

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Solvency – Promotion Campaign
[ ] A DoD promotion campaign would increase the use of alternative fuels
Biobased Fuels]
DOD officials have submitted comments on implementation to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, which is
crafting a rule on the matter, the source said. Once the implementation guidelines are announced, DOD and other
agencies will have to establish biobased procurement preference programs, craft an agency-wide “promotion”
campaign and submit an annual review to Congress on the effort's progress, according to the law. Creating effective
methods of monitoring purchases of biobased products for reporting purposes is an issue the Agriculture Department
is tackling, Marvin Duncan, a senior agriculture economist with the department, told ITP last week. The Pentagon
is interested in moving forward with increasing procurement of biobased products by educating officials on options
in the market before the law is implemented, the defense source said. “Pending the finalization of [Agriculture
Department] implementing guidance, DOD activities are encouraged to purchase and use biobased alternative
products and to initiate projects [that] further demonstrate the value and utility of these materials in DOD
applications,” Krieg wrote in the Aug. 17 memo.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Green Procurement Now”
[ ] Current DoD green procurement is not enough – more information and training are
necessary
USA American Forces Press Service, 2004 [Oct. 22, 2004, DoD Issues 'Green' Procurement Policy to Benefit
Environment, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25009]
WASHINGTON,– The Defense Department issued a new procurement policy this week urging employees and
military to "buy green." The new "green procurement" policy requires the department's civilian and military
personnel to purchase products and services that benefit the environment, said Alex Beehler, DoD's chief of
environmental safety and occupational health, in an Oct. 21 interview with the Pentagon Channel and American
Forces Press Service. He noted that products such as recycled office supplies and lubricants and biomass-produced
goods such as energy are among the types of purchases the policy requires. Biomass uses agricultural and organic
wastes to create renewable energy such as electricity and industrial process heat and steam, Beehler explained.
According to Energy Department statistics, biomass was the leading source of renewable energy in the United States
last year. Beehler said the green procurement policy is the latest endeavor by DoD to forge its reputation as being a
good environmental steward. That reputation, he added, stretches back some 30 years and includes myriad DoD
recycling programs. In fact, the first recycling policy developed by DoD was under Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld's first term in 1976. Like that policy then, Beehler said, this new policy is "intrinsically the right thing to
do." "It's the right thing to do toward our environment, toward the mission, toward making the lives of our civilian
and military employees and families much better by having a safer, better Earth." Beehler said there is no
requirement under the policy to purchase green products that "cost more, are scarce, or have other limitations."
However, he added that consideration should be given to those items that over the long term would produce more
cost savings or improved efficiency. He said training will be provided to help those directly involved in the
purchasing process to identify green procurement items. The training also will help raise the awareness of procurers
to buy green, he added, "so that it becomes incorporated into their daily operations to look at pursuing green
procurement opportunities wherever they realistically exist." The department plans to develop a catalog that will
show DoD procurement officers and employees where they can find and purchase green products, he said. Beehler
said for now, DoD is focusing on implementing of the new policy, not enforcing it. Plans call for an environmental
management system that will monitor compliance through "environmental audits and environmental contracting to
make sure that the policy is successfully implemented," he added.
[ ] The DoD has a green procurement policy – it needs education and monitoring to
implement it
Inside The Pentagon, 2006 [September 14, 2006, Pentagon Pushing 'Buy Biobased' Message To
Reduce Dependency On Oil ebsco]
DOD officials have submitted comments on implementation to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, which is
crafting a rule on the matter, the source said. Once the implementation guidelines are announced, DOD and other
agencies will have to establish biobased procurement preference programs, craft an agency-wide “promotion”
campaign and submit an annual review to Congress on the effort’s progress, according to the law. Creating effective
methods of monitoring purchases of biobased products for reporting purposes is an issue the Agriculture Department
is tackling, Marvin Duncan, a senior agriculture economist with the department, told ITP last week. The Pentagon is
interested in moving forward with increasing procurement of biobased products by educating officials on options in
the market before the law is implemented, the defense source said. “Pending the finalization of [Agriculture
Department] implementing guidance, DOD activities are encouraged to purchase and use biobased alternative
products and to initiate projects [that] further demonstrate the value and utility of these materials in DOD
applications,” Krieg wrote in the Aug. 17 memo.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Current law gives no incentive for DOD conservation
There is little current incentive for DOD personnel to reduce energy consumption. In fact, there are disincentives in
place. Most military leaders quickly learn that a ‘can do without’ attitude is a sure way to lose money or personnel.
The Air Force Flying Hour Program serves as an example. A flying squadron commander who allocated 8,000 flying
hours to conduct his mission and keep his aircrews properly trained and manages to complete his task in 7,600 hours
can expect a cut in his allocation the next year. Instead of being rewarded for saving taxpayers dollars, units
perceive the cuts as a punishment. The commonly accepted solution is to find a way to fly the hours at the end of the
fiscal year rather than falling short of the allocation. This is a “use it or lose it” culture. It is difficult to save energy
if you don’t know how much you are using. Most military bases today do not measure energy consumption at each
building. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 103, directs federal agencies to meter electricity use in all (to the
maximum extent practical) federal buildings by 1 October 2012, using advanced meters or metering devices that
provide data at least daily. The DOD has a plan to meet this requirement, but under the “maximum extent practical”
caveat many older buildings will never be metered.7 Commanders should monitor energy consumed at their
facilities and set goals for reduction. Energy savings should be rewarded, and excessive consumption should be
investigated and corrected. The first step towards culture change occurs by educating personnel and providing
incentives and rewards to commanders who find ways to conduct their mission, properly train their personnel, and
still save flight hours (read energy). The DOD will have affected a culture change when commanders instinctively
know they are accountable for energy consumption, they know efficiency is its own “effect” in increasing combat
capability, and they continually strive to improve efficiency because energy is a consideration in all military
activities and operations. Only then will energy efficiency be a defining characteristic of DOD operations and
facilities.
[ ] Much more can be done to decrease DoD fossil fuel consumption

B. Considerations for the DoD This study finds that the greatest leverage on DoD fossil-fuel use is exerted by
patterns of DoD fossil-fuel use. Recent and present doctrine, tactics, and practices evolved during a time when fuel
costs represented an insignificant fraction of the U.S. national-defense budget, with fuel costs entirely dominated by
the associated O&M logistical supply chain costs and not by those of the fuel itself. While O&M costs continue to
dominate, actual fuel costs have recently risen rapidly, attaining a significant recent visibility. At present, fuel
budgets are in competition with other DoD non-fixed costs, such as research, development, and engineering
(RD&E), and other discretionary funding, of which they are a much larger part.28 27 Indonesia, an important oil
producer with significant (proven) reserves, recently became a net oil importer. [Economist, 12Aug06] 28 Al Shaffer
[ODDRE] 24Jul06 private communication. Within the DoD, the largest fuel consumer is the Air Force (cf. pages 14
and 21). Continuous efforts and monitoring by the Air Force and other services have resulted in decreases in fuel use
over the last few years,29 despite the prosecution of the war in Iraq. This can only be applauded. As the data and
analysis above indicate, however, considerably greater benefits can be expected from a more-aggressive stance as
regards fuel use across all DoD services.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Current energy policies won’t provide the security needed for changing military
needs
The demands placed on the armed forces have changed significantly since their current capabilities were designed
and fielded and the plans and concepts for their employment were developed. The security challenges of the 21st
century require a force structure that is more expeditionary, agile, and responsive. Such a force structure will
consume increasing amounts of energy if current trends continue. Building this future force structure requires the
application of resources, yet budgets will be increasingly constrained by operational energy demands. We call the
misalignments between energy policies and strategic objectives “disconnects,” and they exist along three lines:
strategic, operational, and fiscal. In recognition of the political factors associated with increasing energy
consumption and some alternative energy solutions, we also identified a fourth disconnect—environmental. Table
2-1 defines the disconnects, and the following subsections discuss them in more detail. Strategic Ability to shape
the future security environment favorably to support our national interests, principles, freedoms, and way of life.
Requires reduced reliance on foreign energy resources. Operational Ability to counter projected threats, which
entails increased operational mobility, persistence, and agility. Requires developing efficient technologies that can
support the asymmetric combat capability needed for future operations without increased fuel consumption or
logistics and support limitations. Fiscal Ability to procure new capabilities, which requires efficient energy
consumption. Inability to control increased energy costs from fuel and supporting infrastructure diverts resources
that would otherwise be available to procure new capabilities. Environmental Ability to conduct DoD operations and
activities in a manner that protects the environment while supporting national security objectives and maintaining
operational readiness.
[ ] New Programs reinforce existing Green Purchasing requirements

The Defense Logistics Agency 2007 [ July, http://www.p2sustainabilitylibrary .mil/issues/ emerge
jul2007/index.html, Green Purchasing]
EO 13423 recognizes that there are already a number of Federal Green Purchasing Programs currently in existence.
The Instructions for Implementing Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management, issued by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in March
2007, specifically requires the Federal Agencies responsible for these Green Purchasing Programs to coordinate their
efforts and provide guidance to all Federal agencies in order to minimize conflicting green product designations or
identifications, to help in program implementation, and to assist Agencies in meeting the requirements of multiple
programs. The Federal Green Purchasing Programs and the Agencies responsible for them include:

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Alternatives are not Ready”
[ ] The DoD has many options for alternative energy
The U.S. government and commercial industry are developing an astonishing number of energy-saving and -making
technologies that have the potential to address DoD’s energy challenges. The list is daunting, considering that most
technologies have multiple applications. For example, new solar technologies have been proposed for everything
from solar panels on tents to replace generators for air conditioning, to solar panels on soldiers to replace battery
weight. The list becomes longer still when we, quite correctly, include energy-saving organizational and process
changes, which include everything from better targeting systems (better aim = fewer bombs to hit a target = less
energy used) to more efficient scheduling systems. To help DoD select viable energy options, LMI developed a
framework to distin- guish between short-term organizational options and longer term engineering or inventing
options. The Organize/Engineer/Invent framework helps to illustrate the time and relative level of effort associated
with the different options, as well as the ability to implement changes at appropriate levels within the department.
This approach enables selection of multiple, time-phased options that offer a combination of benefits that best
support the needs of DoD and address a wider stakeholder audience. The components of this framework are outlined
below. Organize. This component consists of organizational, operational, or process changes that reduce energy
consumption without changing the underlying energy-consuming technologies. Examples of options include
alignment of organizational processes to promote energy efficiency or, at a more specific level, more efficient
scheduling of operations, use of trainers or virtual communications, and manpower adjustments. Organizational
options do not affect the underlying energy-consuming technologies of applications, but they may require other
technologies—such as scheduling or optimizing software, communications links, sensors, data collection devices,
and other forms of information technology—to make processes more efficient.
[ ] Coal Synfuel is a mature, abundant alternative to petroleum

Increase Supply/Diversify Sources Alternative Fuels In coal-rich, oil-poor pre-WWII Germany, Franz Fisher and
Hans Tropsch developed a process to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from coal that supplied a substantial portion
of Germany’s fuel during the war. The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which
syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced from the partial combustion of coal which has been gasified and
combined with molecular oxygen) is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. Typical catalysts used are
based on iron and cobalt. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced from coal gasification and the FT process are
intrinsically clean, as sulfur and heavy metal contaminants are removed during the gasification process. The
principal purpose of the FT process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as synthetic lubrication oil
or as synthetic fuel. The FT process can be used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from virtually any carbon-
containing feed stock, including low-grade tars, biomass, or shale oil; only the preprocessing steps would differ from
the gasification process used with coal.33 Since the United States has the largest coal reserves in the world,
synthetic fuel, or synfuel, made from coal is particularly appealing. Synfuel represents a domestically controlled
resource with prices theoretically tied to the coal market instead of the world oil market. South Africa has been
producing synthetic fuel for decades and many consider it to be a mature technology ready for commercialization.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Alternatives are not Ready”
[ ] Alternative military fuels are not fantasy – revolutionary changes always look utopian
but are normal in hindsight
20No%203%20www.pdf]
While the envisioned force of 2050 may sound as if it is a Star Wars fantasy to some, imagine how the following
vision statement may have sounded to the War Department in 1906: In 1950 the US military is a highly effective,
mobile, and mutually supporting force, protecting all required American interests through dominant air, land, and
sea operations powered by a petroleum energy standard that is reliably and economically produced from domestic
sources. Most of the horse-riding officers at the time would likely not have even imagined the aircraft carrier-, jet
fighter-, and tankbased force America went to war with against North Korea 45 years later. The vision of a
petroleum-independent military in 2050 is certainly imaginable, and virtually each of the systems concepts
discussed has already been proven physically feasible, or at least theoretically so. Proposing a hydrogen-electric
standard focuses all subsequent development activity into the framework of a purpose-designed force, while
sufficient flexibility remains in the vision so as to not force specific solutions. Finally, the vision communicates a
desirable future in which military effectiveness is preserved, but where security, efficiency, environmental
consciousness, and energy independence are also achieved. It is clear that by eliminating the constraints of
conventional paradigms in any problemsolving exercise, a potentially better, revolutionary future can be envisioned.
Converting what exists today into the future of tomorrow is the realm of strategy. The following section examines
how to develop the best strategy to create the vision of a petroleum-free Department of Defense.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “High Oil Prices increase Renewables Now”
[ ] US Dependence on foreign oil is increasing – high prices haven’t curtailed demand
The United States of America has a National Security problem, in which the Department of Defense (DOD) has a
unique interest – energy security. Energy is the life-blood of the US economy and dependence on imported energy is
a looming national crisis. Cheap and abundant energy has been the historical norm for American consumers and war
fighters, and to most Americans energy is taken for granted. Electricity is as much a part of daily life as breathing air
and drinking water. Electricity powers our lights, alarm clocks, coffee pots, toasters, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning, MP3 players, computers, televisions, traffic lights, subway systems, air traffic control networks,
industry, and almost every other facet of daily life in the 21st century, and it’s been that way for almost 100 years.
The US National Academy of Engineering ranks “Electrification” as the #1 Engineering Achievement of the 20th
Century.1 Much of American society is centered on individual mobility, extensive road networks, and large parking
lots. The United States has more cars than registered drivers, and with a few notable exceptions, fuel has remained
affordable and plentiful. Fuel costs moved from the subconscious to the conscious after recent increases in the price
of oil caused gasoline prices to rise to $3 per gallon, but for the most part, increased fuel prices have done nothing to
reduce consumption. The United States imports 26% of its total energy supply and 56% of the oil it consumes.2

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Military has done as much Renewable as they can”
[ ] Much more can be done to decrease DoD fossil fuel consumption
B. Considerations for the DoD This study finds that the greatest leverage on DoD fossil-fuel use is exerted by
patterns of DoD fossil-fuel use. Recent and present doctrine, tactics, and practices evolved during a time when fuel
costs represented an insignificant fraction of the U.S. national-defense budget, with fuel costs entirely dominated by
the associated O&M logistical supply chain costs and not by those of the fuel itself. While O&M costs continue to
dominate, actual fuel costs have recently risen rapidly, attaining a significant recent visibility. At present, fuel
budgets are in competition with other DoD non-fixed costs, such as research, development, and engineering
(RD&E), and other discretionary funding, of which they are a much larger part.28 27 Indonesia, an important oil
producer with significant (proven) reserves, recently became a net oil importer. [Economist, 12Aug06] 28 Al Shaffer
[ODDRE] 24Jul06 private communication. Within the DoD, the largest fuel consumer is the Air Force (cf. pages 14
and 21). Continuous efforts and monitoring by the Air Force and other services have resulted in decreases in fuel use
over the last few years,29 despite the prosecution of the war in Iraq. This can only be applauded. As the data and
analysis above indicate, however, considerably greater benefits can be expected from a more-aggressive stance as
regards fuel use across all DoD services.
[ ] The DoD has many options for alternative energy

The U.S. government and commercial industry are developing an astonishing number of energy-saving and -making
technologies that have the potential to address DoD’s energy challenges. The list is daunting, considering that most
technologies have multiple applications. For example, new solar technologies have been proposed for everything
from solar panels on tents to replace generators for air conditioning, to solar panels on soldiers to replace battery
weight. The list becomes longer still when we, quite correctly, include energy-saving organizational and process
changes, which include everything from better targeting systems (better aim = fewer bombs to hit a target = less
energy used) to more efficient scheduling systems. To help DoD select viable energy options, LMI developed a
framework to distin- guish between short-term organizational options and longer term engineering or inventing
options. The Organize/Engineer/Invent framework helps to illustrate the time and relative level of effort associated
with the different options, as well as the ability to implement changes at appropriate levels within the department.
This approach enables selection of multiple, time-phased options that offer a combination of benefits that best
support the needs of DoD and address a wider stakeholder audience. The components of this framework are outlined
below. Organize. This component consists of organizational, operational, or process changes that reduce energy
consumption without changing the underlying energy-consuming technologies. Examples of options include
alignment of organizational processes to promote energy efficiency or, at a more specific level, more efficient
scheduling of operations, use of trainers or virtual communications, and manpower adjustments. Organizational
options do not affect the underlying energy-consuming technologies of applications, but they may require other
technologies—such as scheduling or optimizing software, communications links, sensors, data collection devices,
and other forms of information technology—to make processes more efficient.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Renewables Compromise Military effectiveness”
[ ] Even if the plan doesn’t solve 100%, it can improve our warfighting capability
For another reason, DOD must put a comprehensive plan and organization in place to carry out a corporate strategy
of its own. Whatever form of leadership DOD ends up with on the national stage, its unique combat requirements
allow the department to demonstrate to the nation that advanced energy technologies are worth pursuing regardless
of the price of oil. Versatile renewable fuels that shorten supply chains and reduce casualties, hydrogen fuel cells
that provide stealth and longer duration, composite materials that provide more strength with less weight, and
aviation fuel that burns cleaner—their value does not depend on the price of oil. Achieving 100% fuel independence
may not be a realistic goal for DOD for the foreseeable future. But a dedicated DOD leader, focused on a roadmap
for the department that is part of a comprehensive plan for the United States, can achieve reasonable goals that are
good for DOD, good for the warfighter, and good for the nation.
[ ] Our hard power advantage relies on military energy security – it is more important
than the hardware itself
Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed England’s national security concerns. “Our
future security will not only depend upon the Pentagon’s ability to maintain a strong and effective military, but also
upon the ability of our nation to blunt the oil weapon by developing new biobased feed stocks to convert into fuels .
. . chemicals, composites and other essential products,” Lugar said. Indiana is a leading producer of soybeans, which
is used to make various biobased products. For his part, Harkin urged DOD, the largest purchaser in the federal
government, to “buy biobased” to help support the American economy. The event and the Krieg memo were
intended to help educate officials on the availability of biobased materials and help prepare DOD for the
implementation of a 2002 law that would give procurement preference to such products over fossil-fuel based
options, a defense source told Inside the Pentagon Sept. 13.
[ ] Renewable technology won’t compromise warfighting ability

Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2001 [http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S01-
12_BattlingFuelWaste.pdf Battling Fuel Waste in the Military]
Through a hundred-odd briefings in a year and a half, the Task Force found more than a hundred effective fuel-
saving technologies. None would impair and most would improve what the Defense Department is there for—
warfighting capability. Much, perhaps most, of DOD’s fuel could be cost-effectively saved. That technology
assessment was the easy part. The harder question was why a capable meritocracy with more wants than funds
hadn’t achieved all the savings already. The institutional reasons that trapped good people inside a dysfunctional
system were complex, but they were rooted in false price signals due to a lack of activity-based costing. When
weapons platforms are designed and bought, their fuel is assumed to cost what the DOD-wide supplier, the Defense
Energy Supply Center, charges as its average wholesale price, fluctuating around a dollar per gallon (currently
$1.34). However, the cost of delivering that fuel to the platform is assumed to be zero. Logistics—moving stuff
around—takes roughly a third of DOD’s budget and half its personnel. But when designing and buying platforms,
logistics is considered free to the platform that consumes the fuel. This practice understates delivered fuel cost by a
factor that I estimate to average at least three for DOD as a whole, and tens or hundreds in some particular cases.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Renewables Compromise Military effectiveness”
[ ] Fuel efficiency is feasible for the military without harming operational readiness
Such radical State of the Art savings may surprise those unaware that DoD’s official Army After Nextgoals for 2020
include 75% battlefield fuel savings, with feasibility shown by 2012, and that by 2000 the Army already considered
this “achievable for combat systems.”442 For example, today’s armored forces were designed to face Russian T-72s
across the North German Plain, but nowadays their missions demand mobility. Only one ~70-ton tank fits into the
heaviest normal U.S. lift aircraft,443 so deployment is painfully slow, and when the tank arrives in the Balkans, it
breaks bridges and gets stuck in the mud.444Army Research, leapfrogging beyond 20- to 40-ton concepts, has
proposed a novel 7–10-ton tank445 that uses ~86% less fuel (~4+ mpg), yet is said to be as lethal as current models
and (thanks to active protection systems) no more vulnerable.446 The Army reckons that such redesign could free
up about 20,000 personnel—a whole division plus their equipment and their own logistical pyramid—that are
needed to deliver fuel to and in theater. This would save $3-plus billion a year for theater forces, plus more costs
upstream.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Can’t Eliminate DoD Oil Use”
[ ] Even if the plan doesn’t solve 100%, it can improve our warfighting capability
For another reason, DOD must put a comprehensive plan and organization in place to carry out a corporate strategy
of its own. Whatever form of leadership DOD ends up with on the national stage, its unique combat requirements
allow the department to demonstrate to the nation that advanced energy technologies are worth pursuing regardless
of the price of oil. Versatile renewable fuels that shorten supply chains and reduce casualties, hydrogen fuel cells
that provide stealth and longer duration, composite materials that provide more strength with less weight, and
aviation fuel that burns cleaner—their value does not depend on the price of oil. Achieving 100% fuel independence
may not be a realistic goal for DOD for the foreseeable future. But a dedicated DOD leader, focused on a roadmap
for the department that is part of a comprehensive plan for the United States, can achieve reasonable goals that are
good for DOD, good for the warfighter, and good for the nation.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Military will get Priority in a Crisis”
[ ] Even If the military won’t have their oil cut off, renewables are an important solution
to fluctuating oil prices
In light of an increasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, as well as rising fuel costs for the U.S. and the DoD, and
implications with regard to national security and national defense, JASON was charged in 2006 by the DDR&E to
assessing pathways to reduce DoD’s dependence on fossil fuels. The key conclusions of the study are that, barring
unforeseen circumstances, availability concerns are not a decision driver in the reduction of DoD fossil-fuel use at
present. However, the need to improve logistics requirements and military capabilities, and, secondarily, the need to
reduce fuel costs, as well as providing a prudent hedge against a foggy future, especially in the Middle East and
South America, argue for a reduction in fuel use, in general.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Small Percentage”
[ ] Even if the DoD uses a small percentage of oil, reducing its use is still important to
reduce military fuel costs and energy vulnerabilities
6. Even though fuel is only a relatively small fraction of the total DoD budget, there are several compelling reasons
to minimize DoD fuel use:
a. Fuel costs represent a large fraction of the 40-50 year life-cycle costs of mobility aircraft and non-nuclear ships.
Note that this is consistent with the life-cycle costs of commercial airliners.
b. Fuel use is characterized by large multipliers and co-factors: at the simplest level, it takes fuel to deliver fuel.
c. Fuel use imposes large logistical burdens, operational constraints and liabilities, and vulnerabilities: otherwise
capable offensive forces can be countered by attacking more-vulnerable logistical-supply chains. Part of this is
because of changes in military doctrine. In the past, we used to talk of the “front line”, because we used to talk of the
line that was sweeping ahead, leaving relatively safe terrain behind. This is no longer true. The rear is now
vulnerable, especially the fuel supply line.
d. There are anticipated, and some already imposed, environmental regulations and constraints. Not least, because of
the long life of many DoD systems,
e. uncertainties about an unpredictable future make it advisable to decrease DoD fuel use to minimize exposure and
vulnerability to potential unforeseen disruptions in world and domestic supply.
mize exposure and vulnerability to potential unforeseen disruptions in world and domestic supply.
[ ] The DoD can drive the market through leadership even if it doesn’t consume a large
enough percentage of fossil fuels
Jim Saxton, Rep New Jersey, September 27, 2006 [Political Transcript Wire, Hold A Joint A Hearting On Dod
As the single largest consumer of petroleum fuels in the United States, the military has an opportunity to serve as an
early adopter of alternative fuel sources and to offer a certain level of market assurance to alternative fuel suppliers.
Nonetheless, DOD's fuel usage represents less than two percent of the total fuel usage of the United States.
Therefore, we must set realistic expectations. The Department of Defense alone cannot shoulder the responsibility of
formulating and implementing a national strategy, nor can it drive the market. However, it is appropriate for the
department to exercise a leadership role in this area and, likewise, for this committee to exercise appropriate
oversight of those efforts.
[ ] Oil price instability hurts the DoD despite small percentages of consumption
Instability in the price of oil provides an important budgetary impact of fossil-fuel use on DoD. While present fuel
costs represent a small part of the overall DoD budget, at current consumption rates, for every $10/bbl rise in price,
DoD requires an additional $1.5B in its annual budget. There are, in general, two ways to deal with this issue. One is
to reduce DoD demand, which is discussed below. The second is to attempt to beat the commercial market price at
any one time incurring some market risk by entering into long-term contracts, or hedging against future prices of
crude oil on the world market.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Small Percentage”
[ ] The DoD’s 1% of US consumption is an Enormous amount of energy relative to other
Countries
FACT 1: The DoD's total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to
only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next
sentence. Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military. The
DoD per capita[2] energy consumption (524 trillion Btu) is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in
China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. Total final energy consumption (called site delivered energy by DoD)
of the DoD was 844 trillion Btu in FY2006.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Solvency Long Term”
[ ] The DoD should begin now, even if solvency is long term – it must act to set an
example and to move toward a new energy Vision for the military
DoD energy transformation must begin in the near term, addressing current practices and legacy forces, while
investing for long-term changes that may radically alter future consumption patterns. We recommend a time-phased
approach to reduce our reliance on fossil and carbon-based fuels. This approach includes the following:
Organizational and process changes that can be implemented immediately Engineered solutions, to improve the
efficiency of current forces and those nearing acquisition Invention of new capabilities, employed in new
operational concepts, for those forces yet to be developed. Applying this approach to the three focus areas will give
DoD an opportunity to develop portfolios of solutions that can reduce energy use and dependence. The coordinating
body can evaluate these portfolios to against the energy disconnects to identify optimal solutions across the services,
broader department objectives, and U.S. government strategic objectives and energy efforts. The coordinating body
can then focus technology development as required to achieve the desired solutions. For the energy transformation
to be successful, DoD’s senior leaders must articu- late a clear vision for the change and must ensure—through their
sustained commitment and active participation—that it becomes engrained in the organization’s ethos. We propose
the following vision: DoD will be the nation’s leader in the effective use of energy, significantly reducing DoD’s
dependence on traditional fuels and enhancing operational primacy through reduced logistics support requirements.
Establishing a goal for mobility energy efficiency will provide near-term objectives in support of the vision,
enhance operational effectiveness by reducing logistics support requirements, and free resources for
recapitalization of the force. Our estimates show that implementing a 3 percent reduction per year until 2015 could
result in savings of $43 billion by 2030 based on Energy Information Agency reference case price projections,
without including any multiplier effects. In view of the long period required to develop and populate the force with
new concepts and capabilities, DoD should begin now to shape the force for an uncertain energy future.
[ ] Incremental solutions to DoD energy security are Necessary for hegemony

The Department of Defense can lead the way in transforming the way in which the United States consumes and
produces energy. In the 1985 movie, Back to the Future, scientist Dr. Emmett Brown returns from the year 2015
with a 1980’s vintage vehicle modified with a “Mr. Fusion” device creating huge amounts of energy from organic
material found in common household garbage. The year 2015 is only 8 years away and there is no evidence Mr.
Fusion, or any other major scientific breakthrough making oil obsolete, is going to happen inside the next 30 years.
Mr. Fusion represents the unlikely event of a game winning home run with bases loaded and a full count. In reality
there are few home runs to reduce the United States’ addiction to foreign oil. Improving energy security must be
done using a steady, incremental approach not tied to individual personalities, specific military leaders or partisan
political administrations. Securing the energy future of the Department of Defense is a prerequisite to ensuring the
United States remains the world’s preeminent global power.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “DoD can’t Change”
[ ] The DoD can change its culture – it already recognizes the need for change –
alternatives can lead that change
In this environment of uncertainty about the availability of traditional fuel sources at a reasonable cost, DoD is
facing increasing energy demand and support requirements that it must meet if it is to achieve its broader strategic
goals— notably, establishment of a more mobile and agile force. However, recent technological advances in energy
efficiency and alternative energy technologies offer a unique opportunity for DoD to make progress toward
reconciling its strategic goals with its energy requirements through reduced consumption of fuel— especially
foreign fuel. To capitalize on this opportunity, DoD needs to implement an energy strategy that encompasses the
development of innovative new concepts and capabilities to reduce energy dependence while maintaining or in-
creasing overall warfighting effectiveness. Recognizing that DoD must change how it views, values, and uses
energy—a transformation that will challenge some of the department’s most deeply held assumptions, interests,
and processes—the Office of Force Transformation and Re- sources, within the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (USD) for Policy, asked LMI to develop an approach to establishing a DoD energy strategy. Spe- cifically,
it asked LMI to develop a process for identifying, evaluating, and implementing new energy-saving and
-replacement technologies and techniques and to identify possible energy governance structures that would enable
DoD to gain a system view of energy consumption, support requirements, efficiency, and costs.
[ ] Leadership is necessary to change the energy culture of the DoD

Leadership and Culture Change “Leadership is about vision, inspiration, values, and culture. Management is about
systems, processes, resources, and policies. Organizational structure can, by itself, preclude success, it cannot, by
itself, ensure success.”2 True culture change of any large organization must start at the top. Edgar H. Schein is Sloan
Fellows Professor of Management Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the Sloan School of Management at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In his book, Organizational Culture and Leadership, he tackles the complex
question of how an existing culture can be changed – one of the toughest challenges of leadership. According to
Schein, as an organization matures, it develops a positive ideology and a set of myths about how it operates. The
organization continues to operate by the shared tacit assumptions that have worked in practice, “and it is not unlikely
that the espoused theories, the announced values of the organization come to be, to varying degrees, out of line with
the actual assumptions that govern daily practice.”3 In the case of DOD energy use, this assumption would be the
assumption that energy is cheap, plentiful, and for someone else to worry about. Where these differences exist,
scandal and myth explosion become relevant as mechanisms of culture change. Left to themselves, change will not
occur “until the consequences of the actual operating assumptions create a public and visible scandal that cannot be
hidden, avoided, or denied.”4 Recent examples include changes in NASA’s safety culture following the Challenger
and Columbia disasters or the Army’s recent health care shakeup following the exposure of substandard
administrative handling of wounded soldiers and conditions at certain Walter Reed Army Medical Center facilities.
The DOD cannot afford to wait for an energy related scandal before initiating change. Schein proposes that leaders
can systematically set out to change how a large, mature organization operates recognizing such change may involve
varying degrees of culture change. In short, it involves unlearning old behaviors and relearning new behaviors, and
cannot be done unless some sense of threat, crisis, or dissatisfaction is present to create the motivation to start the
process of unlearning and relearning.5 “The change goal must be defined concretely in terms of the specific problem
you are trying to fix, not as a ‘culture change’…Culture change is always transformative change that requires a
period of unlearning that is psychologically painful.”6

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Alternate Causalities”
[ ] DoD incentives for Alternative energies are necessary to solve our military’s
vulnerability to energy shocks – alternate causalities are not a reason to reject the plan
because incremental solutions are critical
In the Foreword of Amory Lovins’ book, Winning the Oil Endgame, former Secretary of State George P. Shultz uses
a baseball analogy to describe how the US needs to rely on a steady, incremental approach to move forward on
reducing the United States’ addiction to foreign oil and securing the energy future. The solution for the Department
of Defense is no different. Energy Strategy Although there are many intelligent energy experts residing within the
Department of Defense and many outstanding efforts underway contributing to improve energy security, the DOD
does not currently have a permanent organizational focal point or advocate for energy issues or a written long-term
Energy Strategy. The DOD needs both - an organizational structure to serve as the focal point for energy issues and
an Energy Strategy that:
• Improves National Security by decreasing US dependence on foreign oil
• Ensures access to critical energy requirements
• Maintains or improves combat capability
• Promotes Research for future energy security
• Is fiscally responsible to the American tax payer
• Protects the environment
Decreasing US dependence on foreign oil in a meaningful way can only be done by looking at the wide array of
ways the DOD can consume less petroleum based fuel through efficiencies, smarter processes, and diversification of
fuel sources to include alternatives other than petroleum. Domestically controlled production of alternative fuels will
also help assure access to critical energy requirements. Additionally, the DOD must ensure resiliency of installation
electricity supply through increased on-site renewable energy production, reduced dependence on the commercial
electric grid, and the capability to operate at 100% capacity in the event of a commercial grid blackout. Efficiency
effects will improve combat capability and lengthen the “tether of fuel.” Reduced energy costs for logistics
requirements will allow assets and funds to be available for combat needs. Lastly, reduced consumption and
increased alternative and renewable energy production will help preserve the environment through reduced carbon
emissions and more efficient use of natural resources.
[ ] Incremental solutions to DoD energy security are Necessary for hegemony

The Department of Defense can lead the way in transforming the way in which the United States consumes and
produces energy. In the 1985 movie, Back to the Future, scientist Dr. Emmett Brown returns from the year 2015
with a 1980’s vintage vehicle modified with a “Mr. Fusion” device creating huge amounts of energy from organic
material found in common household garbage. The year 2015 is only 8 years away and there is no evidence Mr.
Fusion, or any other major scientific breakthrough making oil obsolete, is going to happen inside the next 30 years.
Mr. Fusion represents the unlikely event of a game winning home run with bases loaded and a full count. In reality
there are few home runs to reduce the United States’ addiction to foreign oil. Improving energy security must be
done using a steady, incremental approach not tied to individual personalities, specific military leaders or partisan
political administrations. Securing the energy future of the Department of Defense is a prerequisite to ensuring the
United States remains the world’s preeminent global power.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Alternate Causalities”
[ ] Our hard power advantage relies on military energy security – it is more important
than the hardware itself
Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed England’s national security concerns. “Our
future security will not only depend upon the Pentagon’s ability to maintain a strong and effective military, but also
upon the ability of our nation to blunt the oil weapon by developing new biobased feed stocks to convert into fuels .
. . chemicals, composites and other essential products,” Lugar said. Indiana is a leading producer of soybeans, which
is used to make various biobased products. For his part, Harkin urged DOD, the largest purchaser in the federal
government, to “buy biobased” to help support the American economy. The event and the Krieg memo were
intended to help educate officials on the availability of biobased materials and help prepare DOD for the
implementation of a 2002 law that would give procurement preference to such products over fossil-fuel based
options, a defense source told Inside the Pentagon Sept. 13.
[ ] Energy security is key to hegemony – dependence on external sources of energy is The

Biggest Weakness in our military readiness
Gregory Lengyel, Colonel, USAF, 2007 [August 2007, Department of Defense Energy Strategy,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf]
Preface As an Air Force helicopter pilot I have been an energy consumer for most of my career, and I am personally
responsible for burning an estimated 1.1 million gallons of jet fuel during my 3,800 flight hours in the UH-1N and
MH-53J/M aircraft. I have often been forced to conserve fuel as a necessity for accomplishing specific missions but
never because energy was an expensive or a finite resource. In 2006, in response to recent changes in the
international security environment, the Brookings Institution launched its 21st Century Defense Initiative (21 CDI)
within the Foreign Policy Studies program at Brookings headed by Director Peter W. Singer and Director of
Research Michael O’Hanlon, with visiting military fellows serving as core members. The Initiative seeks to address
some of the most critical issues facing leaders shaping defense and security policy in the coming century, including;
The Future of War; The Future of US Defense Needs and Priorities; and The Future of the US Defense System. In
recent years I’ve become increasingly interested in the growing problem of United States dependence on imported
oil. When selecting a research topic for this military fellowship I could think of no more critical issue facing future
military leaders than energy security. I would like to thank my advisors from the Brookings Institution and Air
University, Peter W. Singer, and Larry G. Carter, for their guidance and assistance. I’d also like to acknowledge and
thank Brookings Research Assistant, Ralph Wipfli, for faithfully forwarding to me anything energy related crossing
his path.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Renewables Harm the Environment”
[ ] Turn - Renewable energy reduces military environmental clean up costs and can be
used for clean up itself
Restoration and cleanup In 2005, the Army estimates spending $400.9 million dollars on environmental clean up to
restore some of the contaminated sites caused by previous years of military operations and activities (8: 43). Our
transition to renewable energy will reduce if not eliminate much of this requirement and expense in the future.
Renewable energy can also be used to clean up some of these preexisting environmentally contaminated areas. At
the Los Alimitos Training Center in California, the California Army National Guard is planning on using
phytoremediation to clean up JP-4 fuel. This fuel leakage from an old JP-4 tank farm has seeped into the local
community ground water and the clean up will prevent further seepage. Phytoremediation is a natural cleanup
process using vegetation such as poplar trees, to absorb the diluted chemicals from the ground after the initial
extraction of the groundwater has been treated at the site. The Arizona Army National Guard is using biomass e.g.
composted straw, vegetables, wood chips and manure to clean up 6,100 tons of TNT. This clean and expedient
process reduced the TNT concentrations of more than 5,000 parts per million to 10 parts per million in only 11 days
(25: 37). In Maryland, the regional EPA office is looking at using wind turbines to circulate ground water to clean
water contaminants from an Army ammunition plant (29: NP).

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “No Spillover”
[ ] Even if DoD procurement only increases government use of alternatives, it will still
have an enormous impact
Virinder Singh, Renewable Energy Policy Project, 1998 [ Government Procurement To Expand PV Markets,
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/pdf/pv4.pdf]
• If government decided to make a commitment to supply a small percentage of its energy needs using renewable
energy, there would be a dramatic impact on the environment. By relying on renewables to supply one-half of 1% of its
power needs by 2000, the federal government alone would avert 51,000 metric tons of carbon emissions, in addition to
averted emissions of Clean Air Act criteria air pollutants and mercury. A 15% commitment by 2020 would avert 1.3
million metric tons of carbon.4
• The government represents a diverse range of energy needs, including office buildings, laboratories, military housing,
public housing, remote ranger stations, highway call boxes, would produce 12,965 kilowatt hours of electricity annually.
PV estimate also assumes that 1996 energy consumption stays constant in 1997.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
They Say “Only Minor Investments”
[ ] Prioritizing alternative energy in the DoD is essential to military readiness – minor

investments in development projects can have enormous operational impacts
Scott Buchanan, Department of Defense Office of Force Transformation 2006 [Energy and Force Transformation Joint Force
Quarterly http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i42/17-JFQ42%20Buchanan%20Pg%2051-54.pdf
The actual level of DOD investment may be higher because research within other program elements may
include platformspecific energy concerns. Nevertheless, even if the level is doubled or tripled, it would be a small
investment compared to the investment in other strategic initiatives such as missile defense. More important, an
investment in energy-efficiency R&D and, ultimately, oil independence may have a far greater impact on the
strategic balance. An inherent tension exists within the tiered-system approach that DOD takes to science and
technology (S&T). On one hand, wide-ranging S&T investment provides a mechanism for discovering new
knowledge and developing things that would not otherwise exist. On the other hand, most successfully fielded
military S&T is directed toward operational and programmatic needs. While at least seven different fuel cell efforts
are under way, the low level of investment in energy efficiency R&D may indicate that energy efficiency is not
being pursued with urgency or an overarching strategic view toward transforming the way we plan, operate, and
fight. The following areas may provide a basis for such an overarching DOD energy strategy. Invest Strategically in
Energy Technology. By significantly increasing its R&D investments, DOD can improve the efficiency and
capability of the current force. These investments will require the establishment of a strategic
transformational mandate for significant near-term energy-efficiency improvements (such as retrofit of
existing platforms that will be part of the force for several years), reduced logistics force requirements, and long-
term military and national energy independence from foreign energy sources (including new efficient platforms
powered by alternate energy sources). The technologies considered should be far-reaching, with the specific view of
their potential both to provide the lethal force required in the execution of military operations and to provide that
force more effectively and efficiently. In other words, although recent operations have demonstrated the usefulness
of heavy forces, a smaller, more responsive, and more affordable force might better meet capability demands than a
larger, slower force that is more expensive to operate.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Storage Counterplan Responses
[ ] Electrical Storage alone is not an alternative to changing the grid infrastructure
February ]
Because of its complexity and cost, the situation with electricity storage is different. Electric energy can be stored in
electrochemical devices (e.g., batteries), electrostatic devices (e.g., capacitors), and mechanically in flywheels.
Capacitors are used extensively in the electrical industry, but most of their applications are for short-term storage
and very rapid discharge, as well as to improve power quality. And while super-capacitor storage is thought to have
a future for storing large amounts of electrical energy for grid and microgrid applications, few exist today. Batteries
are the mainstay for energy storage in today’s electrical systems, and we expect that to continue in the near future.
Through a process of electrochemical reactions involving certain chemicals and metals, batteries can produce a
steady stream of electrical energy. The most common batteries, such as the ones in cars, produce large amounts of
electrical energy for a short period of time in order to start engines. However, batteries in stationary applications,
such as those in a microgrid, must supply lower levels of electrical energy for a longer period of time. These are less
common, but are most often found in uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems. Usually coupled to a diesel
generator, the UPS is activated during a power outage and uses the battery to supply power for critical building loads
during the time that the generator is firing up and coming online. Many of these types of applications would be
incorporated into a surety microgrid. Battery storage is an excellent companion for intermittent generators (solar or
wind) that might be found on a surety microgrid. Energy stored at times of high production can be used when the
renewable resource is not available. Storage can also supplement temporary decreases in output caused by variations
in the wind or passing clouds, giving the renewable generators a more predictable output.
[ ] Storage technology is not developed yet

February ]
First, methods for optimizing the storage components (fuel, thermal, and electric) and tying them to the surety
metrics have not been developed. Questions remain about how much of the various kinds of storage should be
included in a surety microgrid to meet certain surety requirements. The problem is compounded by difficulties in
quantifying some of the surety elements. Sandia National Laboratories is teaming with the Army’s Construction
Engineering Research Lab, New Mexico State University, and the University of New Mexico to address this
challenge. Second, the best methods for controlling the storage devices on the surety microgrid are not known with
certainty. A CEC-sponsored consortium including the University of Wisconsin, Sandia National Laboratories, and
American Electric Power have created basic microgrid control systems to maintain reliable operation in a reasonably
controlled environment.
[ ] Electrical Storage has been proved not fiscally viable

February ]
Fourth, while fuel and thermal storage is relatively inexpensive, electrical storage costs remain relatively high.
Research and development in both the private and the government sectors is striving to improve the performance of
storage and microgrid products and bring down the capital and operating costs to allow more market penetration to
occur. Finally, with the exception of tanks that store fuel and lower-temperature thermal liquids, as well as ordinary
batteries used mostly for motive power, advanced energy storage systems lack the extensive field experience needed
to secure the confidence of surety microgrid designers.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Efficiency Counterplan Responses
[ ] Conservation can no longer solve – all of the easy efficiency measures have already
been done
DoD facilities have made extensive efforts to conserve energy. To date, this has been “the low hanging fruit” for
controlling energy costs. As an example, over the last 10 years (FY95–FY05), energy usage at Air Force facilities
has declined 15.4 percent. The unit energy cost has increased 42 percent, while the Air Force’s total utility bill has
risen only 10.7 percent. This shows that offsets made through conservation have helped keep facility energy costs
down despite steep increases in the price per energy unit, but additional initiatives will be required to address the
overall fiscal burden of energy costs. Many DoD installations have shifted to a local power grid network to meet
electricity needs. Although this reduces DoD’s energy infrastructure costs, it does not isolate DoD from energy
market volatility, which is reflected in electricity prices. This shift has also introduced a degree of operational
vulnerability due to reliance on external supplies.
[ ] Energy efficiency sets the stage for renewables

Virinder Singh, Renewable Energy Policy Project, 1998 [ Government Procurement To Expand PV Markets,
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/pdf/pv4.pdf]
K. Build on Energy Efficiency Government efforts to include low-energy design principles in construction and
renovation support renewables by lowering the load requirements for government facilities. Lower load levels have
been shown to reduce the incremental costs of PV systems. Buildings that integrate energy efficiency into their
initial design are less costly to retrofit in the future and provide more immediate savings in the form of lower
operating costs and reductions in harmful emissions. In addition to “setting the stage” for renewables, energy
efficiency can directly finance renewable energy purchases through cost savings. The federal government has
already realized significant energy and cost savings from increased efficiency. Between fiscal years 1985 and 1994,
energy consumption (Btu) in federal buildings declined by 11.2%.31 Improvements in efficiency resulted in the
savings of millions of dollars; dollars that can be used to pay the higher “up-front” price of renewable energy
sources. These savings serve as the basis for the Super ESPCs discussed earlier.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Security Kritik Responses
[ ] Changing the fuel matters – it changes the way the military is Used, as well as how
efficient it is. The reduced need for a global oil garrison state will allow us to apply force more
responsibly
Recent battlefield experience suggests that the Joint Chiefs’ transformational doctrine emphasizing light, mobile,
agile, flexible, easily sustained forces is vital to modern warfighting. It’s very far from most of the forces now
fielded; heavy-metal tradition dies hard; porkbarrel politics impedes fundamental reform. But warfighters
increasingly see rising risk and cost in vulnerable and slow logistics,453 compounded by cumbersome procure-
ment that cedes America’s technology edge to adversaries who exploit Moore’s Law by buying modern gear at
Radio Shack. Innovations to turn these weaknesses into strengths could save prodigious amounts of oil, pollution,
and money. We estimate that comprehensive military fuel efficiency could probably save upwards of ten billion
deficit-financed dollars a year—plausibly several times that (p. 267) if we fully count the scope for redeploying
personnel, avoiding vast pyramids of fuel-support personnel and equipment, and achieving the full force
multipliers inherent in wringing unneeded oil out of the whole DoD asset base. Whether such innovations also
make the world more secure depends on how well citizens exercise their responsibility to apply military power
wisely and create a world where its use becomes less necessary. If we get that right, we can all be safe and feel
safe in ways that work better and cost less than present arrangements, and fewer of the men and women in the
Armed Forces need be put in harm’s way. Military leadership in saving oil is a key, for it will help the civilian
sector—by example, training, and technology spinoffs—to make oil less needed worldwide, hence less worth
fighting over. We’ll return on p. 261 to that vital geopolitical opportunity, which could prove to be DoD’s greatest
contribution to its national-security mission. If our sons and daughters twice went to the Gulf in ~0.5-mile-per-
gallon tanks and 17-feet-per-gallon-equivalent aircraft carriers becausewe didn’t put them in 29-mile-per-gallon
light vehicles, that’s a military anda civilian problem—one that both communities must work together to solve.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Moving away from oil is a critical step in reconceptualizing security – it divorces
humane security from statism and threat construction and focuses on positive peace -
practical military action and political engagement is necessary to spark this shift
The journey beyond oil is but a part of a larger evolution in building security in its fullest sense: freedom from fear
of privation or attack. Moreover, the means we propose for doing this from the bottom up are the province of every
citizen, not the monopoly of national governments; do not rely on the threat or use of violence; make other nations
more secure, not less; and save enough money to pay for other key national needs. By making oil not worth fighting
over, this transition is part of the evolution of strategic doctrine toward a “new strategic triad”: conflict prevention
and avoidance (“presponse”), conflict resolution, and non- provocative defense.957 Agratifying number of military leaders
have been reflecting on their recent experience of what works—one might call it “preemption of failed states” or “preventative humanitarian
relief.”958 Now they’re seeking creative ways to counter disenfranchisement, ignorance, poverty, and injustice, all of which rank among
terrorists’ best recruiting tools. These are not the only root causes of terrorism, of course, and many terrorists are neither ignorant nor poor, but
these root causes certainly nurture terrorism. Like many uncomfortable truths, this is a very old idea. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “violence is
the voice of the unheard” and “peace is not the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.” General George Marshall stated in 1947, “There can
be no political stability and no assured peace without economic security,” so U.S. policy must “be directed not against any country
or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” That was right then and it’s right now. As the then Deputy Chief
of Naval Operations, Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, remarked after 9/11, “It doesn’t matter if we kill the mosquitoes if we haven’t drained the
swamp.”959 Prime Minister Tony Blair, on 2 October 2001, eloquently called for “above all justice and prosperity for the poor and
dispossessed, so that people everywhere can see the chance of a better future through the hard work and creative power of the free citizen, not the
violence and savagery of the fanatic.” In a world that manufactures some 15 billion transistors every second,960 huge gaps in the relative
quality of life are instantly broadcast around the globe, increasing resentment, empowering demogogues, and
fostering “Jihad vs. McWorld” polarization. Yet abundance by design, turning scarcity into plenitude through
advanced energy and resource productivity, may be the most important single element in restoring hope that one’s
children will have a better life. That hope is not just for citizens of the earth’s richest nation; it should be available to
all. Winning the respect and affection of others requires the extension to all of an equal moral enti- tlement to the
fundamental values of American civics: the shared and lived belief that security rests on economic justice, political
freedom, cul- tural pluralism, respect for law, and a common defense. Defeating the enemies of these values will
require comprehensive engagement not only in the military and diplomatic, the economic and humanitarian, the
informational and political spheres, but also at the level of ideology. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Kern (USAF Ret.), a teacher of military
history, put it thus: “This war [on terrorism] will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers”—that is, it will be
won by patience, will, and moral choice. To prevail, the stars we steer by must include such pursuits as democratization, transparency,
anticorruption, ecologically informed development, resource efficiency, fair trade, demand-side drug policies, diversity, tolerance, and humility.
As world history shifts into fast-forward, one security concept is dying, another struggling to be born. During the Cold War, security was
considered a predominantly military matter. Appended and subordinated to military security were economic security and energy-and-resources
security (such as Naval forces in and around the Gulf). Environmental security wasn’t even on the agenda; in fact, it was officially viewed as
inimical to security and prosperity. But in the post-Cold-War view, we need to add back the missing links between all four kinds of security, and
to turn the wasted resources into prosperity and harmony. Imagine these four elements of security as vertices of a tetrahedron—an immensely
strong structure, especially if it is filled up with justice, whose presence, as Dr. King said, means peace. These overarching goals and
doctrinal elements can, indeed must, start with practical particulars. Earlier in this report (pp. 85–93, 204–206, 221),
we emphasized how the Pentagon can achieve multiple huge wins in national security from single expenditures. The
same technology development and insertion needed for mission effectiveness, doctrinal execution, and strategic
cost reduction (pp. 85–93) also supports the civilian spinoffs that the civilian economy needs (pp. 204–206).
Military trainees who later re-enter the civilian workforce, military leaders who later retire to run civilian
enterprises, and the power of the military example to inform and inspire civilian energy advances are also not to be
underestimated. In every way, helping to move the country and the world away from future wars over oil could be
the American military’s greatest contribution yet to lasting security. Military innovation in decentralized facility
power is already starting to provide such leadership in resilient electricity systems for civil preparedness (p. 222);
the scope for similar leadership in moving beyond oil is enormously greater. Collaboration will also help bridge the
growing and worrisome gulf between the civilian and military cultures within our society.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
[ ] Focusing on Brittle Power questions Realism because it deemphasizes the state as the
locus of power
On September 11, 2001, the Revolution in Military Affairs shifted into fast forward. The asymmetric warfare we had
worried about for decades became a reality. A poorly financed and technologically impoverished antagonist proved
it could mount devastating attacks on the United States. Asymmetric warfare’s first major US episode gave over a
million-fold economic leverage to the attackers, doing trillions of dollars of direct and indirect damage with about a
half-million-dollar budget. What’s most surprising (but understandable, given the historically sheltered nature of our
society from such events) is how psychologically effective it was, even though the survival rates were quite high—
around 90 percent in the World Trade Center, which is quite astonishing, and roughly 99.5 percent in the Pentagon
attack.1 It’s also now very clear that you can’t effectively guard an open society, especially one that has inflicted
itself with alarming vulnerabilities built up over decades. Vulnerabilities include energy, water, wastewater,
telecoms, financial transfers, and transportation. If you destroy some critical bits of infrastructure, you can make a
large city uninhabitable pretty quickly. This threat becomes more worrisome as weapons of mass destruction gain
more customers. Telecoms and financial transfer by electronics are particularly vulnerable. The Los Angeles Times,
Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal recently reported a greatly increased incidence in recent months of
probing cyberattacks from the Middle East on electric grids and other critical infrastructure by computer crackers.
As you look over the list of other issues that erode security—the effect of climate change and conflict on increasing
flows of refugees; the risks of famine and war; water problems; disease outbreaks (as simulated by the Army War
College); the spread of exotic species and invasive pathogens and genetically modified organisms—it’s not a pretty
picture for a peaceful world. Traditional thinking about all these issues has been influenced by the supposition that
governments are the axis of power and the locus of action, so we need to focus on governmental and international
institutions and instruments. That’s the wrong mindset, dangerously incomplete and obsolete, in a world that is now
clearly tripolar, with power and action centered not just in governments, but also in the private sector and an
Internet-empowered civil society. There are complex interactions among these three actors.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Alternative Energy PIC Responses
[ ] The DoD must have as wide an array of possible alternatives as they can – this is
necessary to balance short term and long term solutions
Selecting among the numerous technological, organizational, and process options for addressing DoD’s energy
challenges is a daunting task. Some options are readily available and easy to implement, but they may produce only
limited savings in fuel usage and cost, particularly when viewed over the entire DoD system. Other options,
including some still in the development stages or with longer implementation cycles, may offer greater promise for
long-term savings. Because of this, it is unlikely that a single-point solution will deliver all of the desired energy
reduction benefits. Satisfying the need both for immediate savings and for longer term sustainable reductions in
energy consumption requires a portfolio of solutions.
[ ] No Single alternative fuel can supply the entire DoD

Alternative fuels are often divided into two categories: “synthetic” fuels derived from non-renewable sources such
as coal and natural gas; and “biofuels,” produced from renewable feedstocks such as corn, sugar cane, and prairie
grasses. Both offer advantages and disadvantages as substitutes for petroleum-based fuel. An issue that may affect
DOD’s search for alternative fuels is the department’s desire for a “Single Battlespace Fuel.” Currently there are
seven to nine different types of fuel used in theater. Ultimately, DOD would like there to be just one in part to
decrease risks associated with the elaborate and vulnerable fuel delivery system now in place. However, that maybe
several years away. Although DOD has been exploring the use of synthetic fuel for aircraft, there is no indication
that DOD is actively pursuing alternative fuels for battlefield ground vehicles. There is speculation that this is due to
the difficulty of altering the current logistical system and also to the fact that research and development in
alternative ground fuel are still in the early stages.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Flight Planning Counterplan Responses
[ ] Increasing direct flights won’t solve efficiency – they overburden planning and avoid
other efficiencies
More Direct Flights. Using the most direct routes between points means flying shorter distances and burning less
fuel. However, conditions such as military overflightrestrictions imposed bysomeforeign governments mayprevent
DOD from using the most direct route between destinations. The Air Force is reviewing flight paths and re-
evaluating where it may be able to use more direct routes. The service has claimed that by doing so it saved $46
million in Fiscal Year 2006. Pros. Saving fuel by eliminating unnecessary miles seems to one of the more simple
efficiencymeasures: it requires no modification to the aircraft and can be put in place wherever applicable,
regardless of the weapon system involved. It therefore makes sense to employ this method of cost-saving wherever
possible. Cons. Routing aircraft on more direct flights may seem uncomplicated in theory but in practice other
factors may make shortening routes less than optimally efficient. Circuitous routes may use more fuel than direct
ones but circuitous flights may take advantage of other efficiencies. For example, a particular route structure, though
perhaps circuitous, may exist to transport people and materiel between military locations and thus negate the need
for multiple direct routes between points. Furthermore, direct routes may not always be possible due to weather and
changes in diplomatic relations between the United States and other governments.
[ ] Relocating aircraft won’t solve – forward basing requires expensive airfields

Relocate Aircraft. Aircraft stationed close to the front lines require less fuel to reach the battlefield than those
stationed at a distance. With fuel savings as a consideration, the Air Force repositioned B-1 Bombers supporting
military operations in Iraq from a base in Diego Garcia to Al Udeid Air Basein Saudi Arabia. Assuming an
approximate flying distance saved as 2400 nautical miles, an approximate cruising rate of 450 nautical miles per
hour, and a fuel usage rate of 3,874 gallons per flying hour, the move saves over 40,000 gallons of fuel per sortie.
Pros. Moving aircraft closer to the front lines is another way to decrease fuel use with out the expense of modifying
aircraft and may be applied to a number of weapon systems. Fewer miles flown may also eliminate the need for
refueling thus saving the cost of fuel and flying hours involved in the tanker refueling mission. Cons. In some cases,
relocating aircraft maybe costly. It may require changes to basing infrastructure and movement of personnel and
accompanying support structure. Additionally, the cost to lease space may increase. Other, less tangible factors may
also come into play such as the diplomatic and strategic value of maintaining a military installation in a particular
country or region despite its distance from the front line.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Training Counterplan Responses
[ ] Fuel awareness training can only promote minimal gains in conservation
Other. Other strategies may further reduce fuel use. One, borrowed from the commercial aviation industry, is to
remove extraneous weight such as unnecessary or redundant gear and provisions. Another strategy is to instill
awareness in the operational community of the necessity of using fuel smartly. In fall 2006, Air Force leadership
communicated to its flying units the importance of adopting a fuel-saving culture and the service's goal of reducing
aviation fuel consumption by10% over the next five years. Pros. Removing excess items from aircraft and
promoting fuel-saving within the department are cost-effective measures that are relatively easy to implement. Cons.
Redundancy in potentially dangerous situations is not by itself negative. Commercial airlines have taken efforts to
minimize the weight of their aircraft in order to conserve fuel and increase profits. The military is not concerned
with profits but with ensuring the safety of its crew members. Maintaining a healthy supply of safety and other
equipment onboard aircraft may reduce risk and increase the survivability of the crew. And although instilling fuel-
saving awareness in DOD personnel is a worthy endeavor, the extent to which individual operators will make a
difference in DOD fuel consumption remains to be seen and will be difficult to measure.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Trade Off Responses
[ ] Normal means can be that Congress increases funding for DoD energy programs
If DOD chooses not to allocate funding to energy-related research, Congress may elect to legislate certain funding
strategies. For example, legislation proposed in January2007(S.154, S.155, and H.R.370. See Appendix A for
relevant legislative language.) would provide $10,000,000 to the Air Force Research Laboratory to continue the
testing, qualification, and procurement of synthetic jet aviation fuel from coal.
[ ] Oil dependence has already caused budget trade-offs within the DoD budget
20No%203%20www.pdf]
The Department has already felt the impacts of a tight oil supply over the past 2 years. Increased global demand and
Hurricane Katrina-induced shortages doubled the price of a barrel of oil from $36 in 2003 to $73 by 2005, forcing
the DoD to redirect nearly $3B of its fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget to cover the cost of fuel to the detriment of other
programs.12 This budgetary pain has caused every Service to form senior-level focus groups aimed at exploring and
implementing various approaches to reduce the Department’s fuel burden. Proposals range from promoting
conservation efforts, expanding the use of renewable energy for base support, intensifying turbine engine efficiency
research, and even establishing an independent DoD oil shale-to-synthetic fuel industry. While actionable, these
various strategies appear to be occurring relatively independently within the DoD, absent an official grand vision or
long-term, overarching strategy to move the DoD beyond petroleum as the President has asked America to do. This
condition also appears representative of the competition among future energy strategies vying for dominance in
American society at large.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Spending Responses
[ ] DoD procurement would boost the economy by stimulating green industries
For his part, Harkin urged DOD, the largest purchaser in the federal government, to “buy biobased” to help support
the American economy. The event and the Krieg memo were intended to help educate officials on the availability of
biobased materials and help prepare DOD for the implementation of a 2002 law that would give procurement
preference to such products over fossil-fuel based options, a defense source told Inside the Pentagon Sept. 13. The
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act directs all federal agencies to establish procurement preference programs
for Agriculture Department-designated biobased products. The law exempts motor vehicle fuels and electricity from
biobased procurement. After an item is certified by Agriculture, federal agencies must purchase the biobased version
if item costs exceed $10,000, and it is reasonably available and priced as well as meets required performance
standards. Presently, only six item categories have been designated by Agriculture’s Federal Biobased Products
Preferred Procurement Program, which was established under the 2002 law. The items include mobile equipment
hydraulic fluids; urethane roof coatings; water tank coatings; diesel fuel additives; penetrating lubricants and
bedding; and linens and towels, according to the program’s Web site.
[ ] Green products save money in the long term

Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, 04 [ February, http://p2library.nfesc.navy.mil/P2_Opp ortunity_
Handbook/16_1.html, GREEN PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW]
Disadvantages: Some green products may have higher upfront procurement costs Additional effort may be required
to locate green alternatives to traditional products Staff training in green procurement will be needed
Economic Analysis: Products that are reusable, more durable, or repairable may have a higher initial purchase price,
yet the cost of these products over their useful life may be significantly less than disposable or single-use
alternatives. The purchase and use of less toxic products may reduce costs by minimizing potential health impacts
and lost worker productivity.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Business Confidence Responses
[ ] Military procurement boosts renewable companies, making them profitable
Financial Times December 18, 2007 [US Navy funding bolsters Ocean Power Lexis]
Further funding from the US Navy helped Ocean Power Technologies lift first-half revenues from Dollars 861,000
to Dollars 2.2m (Pounds 1.1m). The Aim-listed renewable energy company, which took a secondary listing on
Nasdaq in May, reported operating losses up from Dollars 5.3m to Dollars 7.1m for the six months to October 31.
The increase in the pre-tax loss to Dollars 4.3m (Dollars 4m) was held back by a jump in interest received from
Dollars 723,000 to Dollars 2.8m following the raising of Dollars 90m at Dollars 20 a share on Nasdaq. The
company has a long-standing deal with the US Navy for installing its buoys - which are designed to harness wave
motion in order to generate electricity - off the naval base in Hawaii. In October it was awarded another Dollars
1.9m of naval funding. In addition, it received Dollars 500,000 from PNCG Power, the Oregon utility, for the
installation of a 150kW buoy, which will be used to demonstrate the potential of the Pacific as an energy resource.
The secondary fundraising was carried out partly to fund development of the more powerful buoys. During the half
development spending rose Dollars 1m to Dollars 3.8m. Losses per share fell from 77 to 42 cents, reflecting the
increased share capital.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Terrorism Counterplan Responses
[ ] Asymmetrical attacks are impossible to prevent – we can only harden the system
against them
The point is that anonymous, asymmetric attacks can be quite devastating, but are undeterrable in principle, because
you don’t know who is responsible for them. That can be especially true with suicidal adversaries. We have already
learned that interdiction by prior intelligence can’t be relied upon. So the only lastingly effective defense is
prevention—not so much at the level of intelligence foresight, which doesn’t work reliably, but at the level of root
causes, of eliminating the social conditions that feed and motivate the pathology of hatred. This requires a
comprehensive (though not indiscriminate) engagement in a geopolitical and ideological sense that goes far beyond
traditional military means and digs down to the foundations of what our society aims to become. Security has two
main elements. The dictionary defines “security” as “freedom from fear of privation or attack.” Freedom from fear
of privation and freedom from fear of attack are not independent, but are both vital to being and feeling safe.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
JASON Study Flawed
[ ] The JASON study is flawed – it assumes a stable energy price, which is almost
certainly untrue
The JASON report assumes a properly functioning oil market and no disruptions in supply from the Middle East.
Despite this apparent near-term availability of oil supply, or perhaps associatedwith the caveats related to stable and
functioning markets, competition for world energy supplies appears to be increasing. All over the world, importers
are increasingly finding themselves in direct competition over sources and strategic shipping routes. Japan and
China are continually trading diplomatic blows and threats over off-shore petroleum reserves south of Japan. In
2003, China’s Presi- dent Hu Jintao also expressed concern over the “Malacca Dilemma,” the reputed U.S. ability to
control the Straits of Malacca, through which much of China’s energy flows. As a result, China has taken a “string
of pearls” approach to develop bases and military relationships that will improve the security of its oil supplies and
transit lanes.
[ ] The JASON study is flawed – it does not take into account the possibility of supply
disruptions or increases in military commitments
We note that these inferences assume relatively stable DoD mission requirements, e.g., missions no more demanding
of fossil fuels than the current Iraqi conflict. JASON has not analyzed the consequences on fossil-fuel availability of
a future, WWII-scale DoD mission. Presumably, such a conflict would require and induce considerable national
sacrifice, including civilian restrictions on access to petroleum products, and is not considered as part of this study
and report. Further, the analyses above also assume no major world-wide upheavals that could disrupt either supplies
from, say, the Middle East or Venezuela, or main crude-oil or refined oil-product transportation corridors.10 Other
than to note that such scenaria cannot be excluded at this time and to note the significant consequences on the DoD
and the nation they would imply, they were not considered as part of the present JASON study.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Miscellaneous
[ ] High demand is key to high oil prices
As already noted, present oil prices are significantly higher than the cost of production, primarily because demand is
ahead of supply. This is exacerbated by instability in the parts of the world contributing to oil production. The
market price of oil, defined by the futures market, builds into it a premium hedging against unanticipated reduction
in production from such political instabilities and other factors. With oil demand close to supply, small reductions in
supply, whether by accident, weather, embargo, or war, dramatically affect oil markets. The spread between the price
of crude and refined products in absolute terms is also rising for three reasons. Refining capacity is presently closer
to demand. While U.S. refinery capacity and efficiency have increased in the last quarter century, no new U.S.
refineries have been built in the last 30 years. Second, the increasing mix in high-sulfur Saudi oil increases refining
costs if sulfur content is to be controlled. Finally, part of the spread is scaled by the price of oil itself. At present, the
U.S. uses 7.5 Bbbl/year of crude oil. Gross imports cover 63% of U.S. consumption. This is comparable (±10%) to
the fraction of imported oil for Europe and China.
[ ] Nuclear energy is not renewable because plutonium is exhaustible

Although nuclear power is carbon free and doesn’t pose the same deleterious effects that oil and coal do, the
plutonium and uranium is exhaustible and, therefore, not renewable. Furthermore, nuclear energy is not without
inherent risks. Nuclear power accounts for about 17 percent of the world’s electric energy today (28: 15). Safety and
construction has improved since the infamous 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant accidents,
yet these enhancements do not negate the risks. The entire process of creating nuclear power; uranium mining,
nuclear plant operations and nuclear waste disposal, all create risks to the health of humans and the environment.
Albeit a minute potential risk, the consequences of a nuclear plant related accident would likely be far more
catastrophic than the terrorist attacks on Sep 11, 2001. There is also the potential for weapons proliferation with
plutonium, as well as the prospective of “dirty” bombs built from the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.
Radioactive nuclear waste from spent fuel takes several hundred years to decay to safe levels and the spent fuel itself
takes tens of thousands of years before it is safe in the biosphere. Currently, the spent fuel is stored in temporary
facilities. To date, there are no permanent repositories for the accumulating nuclear waste in the world (35: 286).
This poses a significant menace to our national security in that it must be guarded and protected from would be
terrorists trying to build a dirty bomb or worse make a nuclear explosive from weapons grade plutonium. This is not
just a concern within U.S. borders; we need to be concerned about nuclear waste disposal of other countries with
nuclear power plants as they may be even more vulnerable than ours.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Oil Price Spikes Responses
[ ] The Market can no longer respond to oil price spikes – the responses in the 80’s are
all used up
The graph on page 10 also indicates the dramatic reduction in domestic consumption in the early 1980s, in response
to strong pricing signals (cf. figure on p. 61). The decline was in part because of conservation and in part because of
the transition from oil-fired to coal-fired electric power plants.9 The data from the 1980s also demonstrate the ability
to reduce oil consumption in response to sufficiently severe price signals on oil, even though a similar switch from
consumption of oil in the power sector is no-longer available. Noteworthy is that the response to the economic
impetus of the price hikes required about 5 years. Also noteworthy is that, at present, even in the face of high retail
gasoline prices, U.S. oil consumption is at a record high. This indicates either that the capacity to reduce
consumption was exhausted largely by de-emphasis of crude in the electric-power-production sector in the 1980’s,
that current prices are insufficiently high to spur significant conservation efforts, or that the time required to respond
to the price change at this time is longer than has already transpired. However, production of high fuel-consumption
vehicles (e.g., SUVs) is in decline, at present.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Election Internals
[ ] Energy Policy is key to elections
As a political issue, energy has been elevated to a status that is roughly equivalent to health care or education.
A check of all one hundred Senators' websites in early August found that at least 85 of them had either issued
a press release on energy this summer or had an energy section prominently displayed on their homepage. No
politician on the national scene can afford to ignore energy.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Efficiency Counterplan Cards
[ ] Tax rebates and loan guarantees can encourage efficient autos without increasing
spending
From a budgetary perspective, the most striking feature of the policies that we propose are that they are remarkably
revenue-neutral, particularly when compared to the seemingly endless litany of tax credits usually proffered to
reduce U.S. oil dependence. While we do not claim to have performed a rigorous analysis of future federal budget
implications, we can offer several insights into how these policies are likely to affect the Treasury. The most striking
conclusion is that our policies will make money for the government, with no new taxes, thereby reducing the deficit.
Many of our policies are revenue-neutral by design. For example, feebates (pp. 186–190) are explicitly revenue-
neutral, since the fees paid by buyers of less efficient light vehicles are used to fund rebates to buyers of more
efficient models, keeping them in balance year by year. Further, if the federal government replaced its own half-
million-vehicle fleet over the course of a decade using our proposed government procurement policies (pp. 197–
203), by 2025 it would save nearly $2 billion (present valued) from the $350 million in annual fuel savings. How?
The answer is simple. The net present value of the fuel savings over the vehicles’ 14-year life- times, at the
government’s energy-savings discount rate of 3%/y, is ~$8,200. This far exceeds the incremental retail price of State
of the Art vehicles ($2,544 from p. 70, note 345, excluding any government bulk-purchasing discount), so the
government saves nearly $5,700 in present value for every vehicle it buys.
Our preferred form of financial support for automakers’ and suppliers’ conversion (p. 203–204) is qualified loan
guarantees, not tax credits, because that’s revenue-neutral to the government, and borrowers are given the correct
incentive to invest wisely. Defaults on loans wouldn’t be an expense to the Treasury because of offset equity
warrants. Thanks to feebates, the loan beneficiaries would be producing the most profitable cars in the industry.
Feebates therefore present good asset risk mitigation, both from a project finance perspective and from the lender’s
perspective. Similarly, financial support for low-income leasing (pp. 191–197) would be made within the constraints
of financing criteria acceptable to the industry in light of collateral value and default rates. Based on experience in
micro-credit programs in other countries and in revolving low-income energy-efficiency loans in the U.S., it is
plausible that default rates could be dramatically lower due to peer pressure exerted by the community and the
incentive to build a personal credit rating. Since the ultimate interest rate will be defined by the empirical default
rate, we believe the government itself will be no worse off by extending its credit as we have proposed. In fact, it
may be much better off if welfare rolls are reduced as a result of the program: if scrap-and-replace reduces welfare
rolls by just 1%, as is plausible once low-income wage-earners gain the affordable personal mobility they need to
reach more job opportunities, the federal government will save $166 million each year—dwarfing any projected
losses from default.

Michigan 2008
DoD Procurement
Efficiency Counterplan Cards
[ ] Fuel efficiency won’t decrease gas tax revenue – sales and income tax increases will
offset any losses
One concern about improved vehicle efficiency is the corresponding reduction in fuel-tax receipts at both federal
and state level. It’s economically efficient to increase user fees to offset that lost tax revenue (pp. 212–213);
however, policymakers who don’t like this option should recall that the increase in income tax revenues from the
income freed up and the economic stim- ulus created by not purchasing unnecessary oil almost entirely offsets the
decline in gasoline tax receipts. How is this possible? Fuel expenditures act like a regressive tax on society, insidious
and pervasive. It follows that a reduction in fuel expenditures acts like a tax cut, and a progressive one at that.
Therefore, we relied on the most recent evaluation of large-scale tax cuts from the Congressional Budget Office,
which states that every dollar of tax cut increases GDPby $1.50.961 To determine the future federal income- tax
revenues from a reduction in oil expenditures, we used this relation- ship, and deducting consumer savings and lost
oil company profits from GDP, then applied standard estimates for personal and business taxes.962 We found that by
2025, in our Mobilizationscenario, annual GDPwould increase by $77 billion, income-tax receipts would increase
by $8.4 billion, while gasoline taxes would decrease by $9 billion, yielding an annual shortfall of only $0.6 billion,
half of which would be made up from fuel savings in the civilian fleet alone.
[ ] Energy efficiency is key to solving competitiveness – business leaders are willing to

think long term
When we win the Oil Endgame, what is the prize? Using the same Yankee ingenuity that secured our independence
two and a quarter centuries ago, we can once more secure our independence from a different form of remote
tyranny. Like the first Declaration of Independence, forming the intention to win the Oil Endgame is a statement of
political will. But this second Declaration of Independence is much more: it is also a competitive strategy for
business and an operational strategy for the military, because achieving national competitiveness through advanced
energy efficiency will fortify both profits and security. Business leaders are realizing that energy efficiency is a key
to low-cost production, profitable operations, and beating the competition. But winning this game together as a
nation means more than that: it is the key to creating a world where one would want to live and do business, where
more customers can afford to buy one’s products, and where life and commerce can thrive undisturbed by violence.
American business leaders are starting to find their voice as leaders of something greater and more visionary than
raising next quarter’s earn- ings per share. From making decisions every day under the discipline of the market and
the challenge of uncertainty, they’ve learned that for companies, as for countries, the world is shaped by surprises.
They know that the long-run winners are those whose foresight leads them to create adap- tive mechanisms to
handle discontinuity gracefully. Business leaders understand that the world energy system is especially subject to big
surprises, ranging from oil-supply interruptions, price swings, and political upheavals to climate change and oil
depletion. Economist Edgar R. Fiedler remarked, “He who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass.”
But as seasoned executives know after picking ground glass out of their teeth for years, surprises are the
evolutionary pressure that invigorates and empowers agile businesses. Surprises are like the meteorite-induced
climate shock that distinguishes the smart, scurrying mammals from the previously dominant reptiles. Planning for a
surprise- free energy future is dangerous; indeed the biggest possible surprise would be if there were no surprises.
Based on that expectation, the earlier and greater our reduction in oil dependence, whether for reasons of pre-
caution or profit, the less massive and disruptive oil’s future shocks will be. As Paul Roberts says in The End of Oil,
“the real question…is not whether change is going to come, but whether the shift will be peaceful and orderly or
chaotic and violent because we waited too long to begin planning for it.”977 When the “insurance premium” of
mitigating the likelihood and effects of future shocks is negative, because the substitutes cost less than the oil, the
case for buying the substitutes promptly becomes a compelling theme in any business case.

Aff Dod Procurement

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Aff Dod Procurement

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Michigan 2008

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 3

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 4

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 5

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 6

Unstable supplies of oil will cripple militaries dependent on fossil fuels

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 7

A Korean Conflict Causes global thermonuclear exchange killing all life

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 8

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 9

Advantages of Renewable Energy Systems

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 10

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 11

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 12

Forward deployment is critical to US hegemony and deterring Asian nuclear conflicts

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 13

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 14

Our domestic grids vulnerability is increasing - Attacks on US electricity infrastructure would

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 15

A terrorist grid attack would collapse the US economy

Thank you to Jason Tiberius Peterson for this impact card

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 16

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 17

This impact to all of this is Readiness - Military Readiness is key to hegemony

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 18

The return of great powers and great games

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 19

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 21

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 22

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 23

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 24

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 25

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 26

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 27

First Scenario – North Korea

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 28

Second Scenario – Iraq

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 29

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 30

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 31

Air Dominance is key to US hegemony – deterrence, supply and suppression. It is overlooked

This impact to all of this is Readiness - Military Readiness is key to hegemony

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 32

The return of great powers and great games

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 33

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 35

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 36

[ ] Military procurement of renewable energy is an Incentive for private use of

[ ] Military procurement is incentives to defense contractors to develop renewables

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 37

[ ] The DoD classifies coal gasification as an alternative energy

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 38

[ ] The Army is too dependent on fossil fuels because consumption is high

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 39

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 40

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 41

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 42

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 43

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 44

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 45

[ ] US airpower is key to deterring a North Korean first strike by countering their

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 46

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 47

Produced by Kendall, David, Sarah, Marta, Mindy, Colton 48