2 thoughts on “Hagel: ‘High priority’ for DoD to save money on energy”
It’s very desirable for a SecDef to be aware of costs, including vershlugena $60/gal fuel that is more harmful to the environment than fuel based on Canadian tar sands would be.
Every government department should be aware of its stewardship role. For SecDef, that would start with national security, extend next to the well-being of SecDef personnel, continue to maintenance of hardware and real estate, and include a thought for the taxpayers’ costs and investments. When stewardship can include care for the environment, yes, let’s do that too. Leak as little oil as may be, perhaps suspend sonar if a vulnerable animal is nearby (maybe not), dispose of wastes appropriately.
The armed forces have long been involved in major recycling of things like aircraft and ships, only it was always called scrapping them.
So he’ll stop paying $60 a gallon for fuel?
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
It’s very desirable for a SecDef to be aware of costs, including vershlugena $60/gal fuel that is more harmful to the environment than fuel based on Canadian tar sands would be.
Every government department should be aware of its stewardship role. For SecDef, that would start with national security, extend next to the well-being of SecDef personnel, continue to maintenance of hardware and real estate, and include a thought for the taxpayers’ costs and investments. When stewardship can include care for the environment, yes, let’s do that too. Leak as little oil as may be, perhaps suspend sonar if a vulnerable animal is nearby (maybe not), dispose of wastes appropriately.
The armed forces have long been involved in major recycling of things like aircraft and ships, only it was always called scrapping them.
So he’ll stop paying $60 a gallon for fuel?