Former Sen. John Warner works with greens to sabotage Navy

Because the military’s first goal to be the dumping ground for reject energy technologies.

E&E Daily reports:

… The military’s alternative energy efforts have received accolades from both sides of the aisle and got a shout-out during President Obama’s State of the Union address. But with election-year politics ramping up and the military’s budget being squeezed, some Republicans have said the military’s energy investments are misplaced.

“You’re not the secretary of the energy, you’re the secretary of the Navy,” Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) told Mabus at a budget hearing last month (Greenwire, Feb. 23). Forbes, whose district includes Norfolk Naval Station, said he understands why the military is going after renewable power but suggested that other issues such as ship-building are higher priorities in an austere budget environment.

Such criticism is unlikely to arise during today’s hearing, though, and retired Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) will likely attempt to dispel any notion that the military’s energy efforts carry a partisan tint.

Before retiring from his seat in 2009 — the seat now held by Mark Warner, who is no relation — John Warner co-authored a key provision in the 2009 defense authorization bill requiring the military to consider energy and climate change in its top strategy document.

John Warner, who is himself a former Navy secretary, has been working with the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate since retirement, traveling to military communities around the country to raise awareness of the connections between the three issues. [Emphasis added]

“The Department of Defense is the largest consumer of energy in the world,” he said in an interview with E&E Daily. “Our energy consumption is something that we simply have to tackle for reasons of military capability, and we might just be able to help the rest of the country along the way”…

Related reading:

2 thoughts on “Former Sen. John Warner works with greens to sabotage Navy”

  1. Dear Craneman: Does a 300-ton crane actually weigh 300 tons, or that’s just it’s capacity, right? Why isn’t everything FLOWN in, so roads are not a factor? Because even if it COULD be brought in by road, you’d have to have predators overflying it on the way in, anyway. Maybe we could buy one of those ANT 222s–the largest jet cargo carrier. load-up the Ant, have it pulled-off during a 110mph fly-by and hope its not trashed by a padded-fall-snatch. Helicopters, sky-cranes, could bring in the blades? The taliban would be constantly firing rockets, I guess, at the one, if it HAD been brought in and set up. We put a 12″ twin turret on Fort drum,near Corrigador in Manila Harbor during the 30s and that turret-cover HAD to be several dozens of tons, unless it was assembled via welding, insitu. I LOVE coastal artillery. I’d take a brace of 16″, 50 cal.–Perfect for someone with 80′ holsters.

Comments are closed.