Pentagon: renewable energy means (military) power

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The advancement of renewable energy technologies is now a vital strategic interest of the U.S. military, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said in a speech today.

Reducing the military's dependence on fossil fuel sources is correlated with its ability to project power overseas, Lynn said. The secretary explained that an energy strategy must become a "fundamental part" of military planning, according to UPI.

The U.S. military's involvement in several long-term engagements has made fuel management an important consideration in the Pentagon's war planning, Lynn noted. He also called for increased energy conservation in military operations.

The secretary highlighted the military's recent biofuel and solar pilot projects. In March 2010, the U.S. Air Force launched an A-10C Thunderbolt II fighter plane that was powered by a biofuel blend. The flight was considered a success.

The reasoning behind the test flights is obvious: The Air Force alone burns 2.4 billion gallons of jet fuel every year. It can either spend its resources on fuel or fighting wars - think of its as a 'guns and butter' argument, but affecting the military.

Marines in Afghanistan have been innovating the use of solar technologies in the Central Asian theater. One unit of Marines is now functioning entirely on solar power that is used to charge radio batteries during long patrols, lighting for tents at night, and lowering the fuel requirements of mobile command centers.

In January, U.S. President Barack Obama signed an appropriations bill requiring the military to buy only American made solar panels. Lawmakers added the provision over concerns that China unfairly subsidizes its renewable energy industries.

http://www.smartplan...tary-power/5846

[Vi-Jay 218]

Good news.

Most of the technology, historically and even what we use today, was needed, motivated, financed or created by the military and or NASA.

and, Good on ya Obama! Purchase from Americans is the right idea but, pork begets tax.

Goooo Green!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everyone understands that we cannot miss the train to future energy sources. If we do, we slide from our dependency on foreign oil into a dependency on future energy technology. Everyone understands that. Everyone except the majority of the GOP, that is.

[dalegg 143]

This is why there will be moon wars over helium 3. Russia vs US- game back on.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Everyone understands that we cannot miss the train to future energy sources. If we do, we slide from our dependency on foreign oil into a dependency on future energy technology. Everyone understands that. Everyone except the majority of the GOP, that is.

A balance of energy sources would be nice.

However it's just as ignorant to not allow drilling/refining of oil as it is to ignore the capabilities in using solar power in certain areas.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A balance of energy sources would be nice.

However it's just as ignorant to not allow drilling/refining of oil as it is to ignore the capabilities in using solar power in certain areas.

We spend billions of dollars a year subsidizing a commodity that doesn't need any fcuking subsidies: oil. Not only are we stupidly funding with bilions of dollars of taxpayer money year after year this energy source of yesterday, we argue over every dime that should go into exploration of tomorrow's energy sources. It's not about whether or not we drill. We are drilling. It's about insisting on investing in the past rather than the future. That's what the next generations will pay dearly for as they will depend on Europe and Asia for the technology to harvest future energy sources.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

We spend billions of dollars a year subsidizing a commodity that doesn't need any fcuking subsidies: oil. Not only are we stupidly funding with bilions of dollars of taxpayer money year after year this energy source of yesterday, we argue over every dime that should go into exploration of tomorrow's energy sources. It's not about whether or not we drill. We are drilling. It's about insisting on investing in the past rather than the future. That's what the next generations will pay dearly for as they will depend on Europe and Asia for the technology to harvest future energy sources.

You do realize there's a big difference in a companies keeping their money versus taking it from other people right.... It's not on the backs of taxpayers if someone is keeping their own money. Exxon Mobil's overall US Tax burden (we're not talking income taxes) far exceeds $4 billion for them alone.... Part of the reason why these companies are given that tax break is because of how much foreign oil they are out there getting for the US and the tax burden they have overseas. It's astronomical. The "big evil" oil companies pay out A LOT of money to stay in business around the world.

We are drilling? Yeah, we're drilling where we are still allowed to. Permit after permit to drill in other areas is denied time and time again and the Environmental Whackjobs have blocked new refineries for over 30 years.

So you tell me what's smart and what's not.

Oil is not the 'past' It is the present and the future as well. To think it's not is ignorant as hell.

That goes the same for solar, bio-fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.

You need a fine balance.

Our "dependence" on foreign oil though is thanks to the environmental lobby (aka criminal front groups) who would rather us be that way than play smart.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You do realize there's a big difference in a companies keeping their money versus taking it from other people right.... It's not on the backs of taxpayers if someone is keeping their own money. Exxon Mobil's overall US Tax burden (we're not talking income taxes) far exceeds $4 billion for them alone.... Part of the reason why these companies are given that tax break is because of how much foreign oil they are out there getting for the US and the tax burden they have overseas. It's astronomical. The "big evil" oil companies pay out A LOT of money to stay in business around the world.

Cry me a river, why don't you? Just the five biggest oil companies have raked in close to a trillion dollars in profits since 2000 and you want to tell me - or worse yet - expect me to buy into this idea that they need to be subsidized to stay in business?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Cry me a river, why don't you? Just the five biggest oil companies have raked in close to a trillion dollars in profits since 2000 and you want to tell me - or worse yet - expect me to buy into this idea that they need to be subsidized to stay in business?

Stop saying they are subsidized. They aren't.

They pay more in taxes in a month than you will ever see in a lifetime.

Allowing a company (many in this case) to keep some of their own money is not subsidizing...

Amtrak is subsidized for instance as they do not make a profit and need all the help they can get to stay in business.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Stop saying they are subsidized. They aren't.

They pay more in taxes in a month than you will ever see in a lifetime.

Allowing a company (many in this case) to keep some of their own money is not subsidizing...

Amtrak is subsidized for instance as they do not make a profit and need all the help they can get to stay in business.

Of course they are subsidized. You can say they aren't but that certainly doesn't make it so. And what point do you try to prove with the silly argument that a giant oil company pays more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime? They make more money in a day than I will in a lifetime. As such, it would seem quite obvious that they'd pay more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime. What's your point?

Allowing a company - or an individual - to keep more of their money isn't a subsidy. I can agree with that statement. But when you build special accommodations into the tax code that provide either additional deduction opportunities or tax credits (both exist) to an oil company but not to other companies, then that is a subsidy. A business is a business is a business. There's a tax rate that a business pays on what it earns. Makes the playing field level if it applies to all companies the same. But when you give preferential treatment to certain businesses, then they are being subsidized via the tax code.

[^_^ 5,021]

Of course they are subsidized. You can say they aren't but that certainly doesn't make it so. And what point do you try to prove with the silly argument that a giant oil company pays more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime? They make more money in a day than I will in a lifetime. As such, it would seem quite obvious that they'd pay more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime. What's your point?

Allowing a company - or an individual - to keep more of their money isn't a subsidy. I can agree with that statement. But when you build special accommodations into the tax code that provide either additional deduction opportunities or tax credits (both exist) to an oil company but not to other companies, then that is a subsidy. A business is a business is a business. There's a tax rate that a business pays on what it earns. Makes the playing field level if it applies to all companies the same. But when you give preferential treatment to certain businesses, then they are being subsidized via the tax code.

STOP SAYING THAT YER GONNA MAKE PAULIE CWY

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Of course they are subsidized. You can say they aren't but that certainly doesn't make it so. And what point do you try to prove with the silly argument that a giant oil company pays more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime? They make more money in a day than I will in a lifetime. As such, it would seem quite obvious that they'd pay more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime. What's your point?

Allowing a company - or an individual - to keep more of their money isn't a subsidy. I can agree with that statement. But when you build special accommodations into the tax code that provide either additional deduction opportunities or tax credits (both exist) to an oil company but not to other companies, then that is a subsidy. A business is a business is a business. There's a tax rate that a business pays on what it earns. Makes the playing field level if it applies to all companies the same. But when you give preferential treatment to certain businesses, then they are being subsidized via the tax code.

Ok, I can play your game. Then we should do away with some of the strict regulations that oil companies have to abide by in their industry alone. No other company has to abide by certain rules/regulations that the oil companies do. So many specifically written for them and stiff penalties/consequences for not doing so. It's not fair they should have to endure this burden while other companies/industries get off free from them. Equal regulations across the board is the way it should be.

Oil companies are not 'given' money. They are allowed to keep x amount of dollar per company each year. You can call it a subsidy all you want, at the end of the day a tax break does not equal a subsidy except in the political world where it's used as ammunition on a certain cause for the wrong reasons.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok, I can play your game. Then we should do away with some of the strict regulations that oil companies have to abide by in their industry alone. No other company has to abide by certain rules/regulations that the oil companies do. So many specifically written for them and stiff penalties/consequences for not doing so. It's not fair they should have to endure this burden while other companies/industries get off free from them. Equal regulations across the board is the way it should be.

Oil companies are not 'given' money. They are allowed to keep x amount of dollar per company each year. You can call it a subsidy all you want, at the end of the day a tax break does not equal a subsidy except in the political world where it's used as ammunition on a certain cause for the wrong reasons.

Paul, you're hopeless. You're premise is that companies do not owe their share to public coffers. That would then suggest that companies do not benefit in any way, shape or form from the public services funded from those public coffers. The latter suggestion is obviously ridiculous and the your premise falls. The rest of your argument being built on that premise, falls all the same.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Of course they are subsidized. You can say they aren't but that certainly doesn't make it so. And what point do you try to prove with the silly argument that a giant oil company pays more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime? They make more money in a day than I will in a lifetime. As such, it would seem quite obvious that they'd pay more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime. What's your point?

Allowing a company - or an individual - to keep more of their money isn't a subsidy. I can agree with that statement. But when you build special accommodations into the tax code that provide either additional deduction opportunities or tax credits (both exist) to an oil company but not to other companies, then that is a subsidy. A business is a business is a business. There's a tax rate that a business pays on what it earns. Makes the playing field level if it applies to all companies the same. But when you give preferential treatment to certain businesses, then they are being subsidized via the tax code.

sub·si·dy

NOUN:

pl. sub·si·dies

1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.

2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.

3. Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.

they are not subsidized

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

sub·si·dy

NOUN:

pl. sub·si·dies

1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.

2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.

3. Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.

they are not subsidized

They are. These subsidies date back to the days when oil didn't fetch enough money on the market to cover the cost of extracting it. They were, at the time, in the public interest as they prevented oil companies from shutting down production in the US. That's no longer the case, however. Oil fetches enough money on the market and more than comfortably covers the expense of extracting it. These subsidies are estimated to be about $4 billion a year. Clearly, the largest oil companies each make more than that in profits each month and do no longer depend on these subsidies to keep extracting oil. They're outdated. But they are subsidies all the same.