Speaker 1: The Pentagon is among the many American institutions trying to
Speaker 1: get green, but should it be? Today on the podcast,
Speaker 1: we look at what the U. S. Military wants to
Speaker 1: do and what it is doing in regards to climate change. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome back once again to Parts per Billion, the
Speaker 1: environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm your host, David Schultz.
Speaker 1: So there's a term in the military world called mission creep,
Speaker 1: and basically it refers to when the scope of one's
Speaker 1: goals slowly creeps outward, it eventually gets way too broad
Speaker 1: without anyone noticing. Is the Pentagon getting into mission creep
Speaker 1: territory when it comes to climate change? Some Republicans on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill think so. Last year, twelve GOP senator sent
Speaker 1: a letter to General Mark Millie, the Biden Administration's Joint
Speaker 1: Chiefs Chairman, saying that the Pentagon's climate adaptation plan is
Speaker 1: distracting from its mission to maintain a quote ready and
Speaker 1: lethal force. Millie and the rest of the An administration
Speaker 1: begged to differ. They say, not only is it not
Speaker 1: a distraction, but actually working on climate issues makes the
Speaker 1: military more ready and more lethal. That's what we're gonna
Speaker 1: be talking about. Today with Bloomberg Law reporter Stephen Lee.
Speaker 1: He's been doing reporting on what the Pentagon is doing
Speaker 1: to reduce its own carbon footprint and also what it's
Speaker 1: doing to get ready for the effects of global climate change.
Speaker 1: And on that second point, I as Stephen to explain
Speaker 1: to me a war game the military recently conducted called
Speaker 1: a black start exercise. That is when the military basically
Speaker 1: pulls the plug on the power at a military base
Speaker 1: and then they try to start it back up to
Speaker 1: see how resilient they are. You know, a lot of
Speaker 1: military facilities draw on the same power grid that we
Speaker 1: all use, so if there's a blackout, they need to
Speaker 1: know that the really mission critical systems that are crucial
Speaker 1: for homeland security national defense are still running on backup
Speaker 1: power and also that they can come back online quickly.
Speaker 1: So they're trying to find weaknesses in the system and
Speaker 1: it's you know, this goes to the Pentagon's overall push
Speaker 1: to install micro grids so that they're less reliant on
Speaker 1: the sort of public utility network, and it's something that
Speaker 1: they've been doing for a while. They've they've they've been
Speaker 1: gathering information to switch to seven clean energy, which would
Speaker 1: include both renewables and nuclear and they're trying to source
Speaker 1: this at a reasonable price, and they've gone big on
Speaker 1: solar and and what they say, really a big theme
Speaker 1: of the Defense Department's overall push here is that why
Speaker 1: are we doing this stuff? It's because it makes us
Speaker 1: a deadlier fighting force. They consistently say that, Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a means to an end, it's not the end itself. UM,
Speaker 1: tell me more about sea level rise though. That's something
Speaker 1: that you wrote about too. You're talking about, uh, some
Speaker 1: of these military bases that are in low lying areas. Uh.
Speaker 1: Then there's some talk. It sounds like it's just talk,
Speaker 1: but there's some talk of moving these bases. What's going
Speaker 1: on here? It is it is a reality that that
Speaker 1: obviously that they would prefer not to do that. Moving
Speaker 1: a base would be obviously huge thing to do. You know,
Speaker 1: they'd have to get a lot of funding, they'd have
Speaker 1: to get environmental permits, there would be a ton of
Speaker 1: pushback from the local community that relies on that base
Speaker 1: for their economies and the politicians that represent those local
Speaker 1: communities exactly, so they would rather not do that, um,
Speaker 1: which is why right now they're they're focusing on the
Speaker 1: same kinds of resiliency steps that everyone else takes, which
Speaker 1: would be building levees, hardening the infrastructure, in some cases
Speaker 1: raising the buildings and roads. But as you say, they
Speaker 1: are talking internally about moving bases if they had to,
Speaker 1: because it is a real problem that they are seeing.
Speaker 1: One of the basis that you mentioned was this Marine
Speaker 1: Corps facility at Paris Island, which is a really famous
Speaker 1: base where a lot of Marine Corps go to get trained.
Speaker 1: I'm sure if you're Marine you probably will never forget
Speaker 1: your time at Parris Island. But that's one of the
Speaker 1: places that they're thinking about, you know, moving right. They
Speaker 1: have said that two thirds of their installations across the
Speaker 1: country are threatened by flooding, drought, or wildfires, and they
Speaker 1: have seen the impacts of climate change with their own eyes.
Speaker 1: They they they have had um, you know, major damage
Speaker 1: happening at places like Camp le June in North Carolina
Speaker 1: that was hit by Hurricane Florence in it cost about
Speaker 1: three and a half billion dollars, and then a month
Speaker 1: later Tindall Air Force Base in Florida was hit by
Speaker 1: Hurricane Michael. That was about price sagon that was a
Speaker 1: four and a half billion dollars. So it is happening.
Speaker 1: They are seeing it right now. Um. So let's now
Speaker 1: move on to what the military is doing to address
Speaker 1: its own contribution to climate change. Um, you talked about
Speaker 1: you know, several things. Can you highlight a few of
Speaker 1: the things that the military is doing. One of the
Speaker 1: things that caught my eye was it seems like they're
Speaker 1: really trying to electrify all of their vehicles and move
Speaker 1: towards uh, you know, electric tanks, electric armored vehicles. What's
Speaker 1: the status on that. That is something that they really
Speaker 1: do want to do. And again that they they say
Speaker 1: that the reason they do that is because it it
Speaker 1: makes them more effective at completing their mission. Right. If
Speaker 1: you have an electric vehicle that is, as they say,
Speaker 1: forward deployed, then you don't have to have tankers going
Speaker 1: out to try to supply them. Uh. It reduces your
Speaker 1: vulnerability because you know, electric vehicles have a lower or
Speaker 1: a smaller heat profile and so they're harder for the
Speaker 1: enemy to spot. And as everyone who's driven on the
Speaker 1: road knows, electric vehicles are quieter exactly right. Right, So
Speaker 1: again it's all about the mission, uh, you know, becoming
Speaker 1: a more effective fighting force. But there's lots of other
Speaker 1: things that the Pentagon is trying to do, you know,
Speaker 1: to to to sort of green their operations. Some of
Speaker 1: them are really minor, like adding uh sort of fins
Speaker 1: to the aircraft to make them, you know, more aerodynamic
Speaker 1: and using less fuel. I think you wrote about how
Speaker 1: they they're at some basis they're just not mowing the
Speaker 1: grass there to turn it into more of a carbon
Speaker 1: sink and let you know, trees and forests grow. That's
Speaker 1: it's as much a small thing, but yeah, that does
Speaker 1: actually help reduce their their carbon footprint. Yeah, it's a
Speaker 1: good example of uh, you know, an effort that they
Speaker 1: are taking that is not a big ticket item, but
Speaker 1: the entire Pentagon is really bought into this and they
Speaker 1: are really trying just kind of across the board. And
Speaker 1: then there's big ticket items too. Write like there's a
Speaker 1: lot of funding that is going towards R and D,
Speaker 1: different kinds of batteries, um, different kinds of fuels, you know,
Speaker 1: and as you say, moving bases, hardening aces. Uh. So
Speaker 1: it's just really there's there, it's a very broad range
Speaker 1: of activities that are going on. And then there's also
Speaker 1: kind of strategic exercises, right, war game planning that they're
Speaker 1: doing to make sure that they are prepared for a
Speaker 1: sudden typhoon that comes up in the middle of a
Speaker 1: naval exercise, that kind of thing. So the Pentagon is
Speaker 1: bought in, as you say, but not everyone is happy
Speaker 1: about that. You reported that around a doesn't or so.
Speaker 1: Republican lawmakers signed a letter saying that the Pentagon should
Speaker 1: not be doing this, This is distracting from the mission
Speaker 1: and a waste of money. Can you talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about the criticism there, um, what's the argument that
Speaker 1: they're making. Well, the letter that you're referring to came
Speaker 1: from twelve Republican senators last October, was led by Jim
Speaker 1: in Hoff. We know where he stands on climate chang exactly, uh,
Speaker 1: And Senator Roger Wicker at the time said that the
Speaker 1: Pentagon's move towards climate adaptation is part of what he
Speaker 1: called a woke agenda. So that is the kind of
Speaker 1: messaging that you sometimes hear from Republicans. But I actually
Speaker 1: think that in general, most Republicans do seem to be
Speaker 1: on board with these efforts. They seem to get that
Speaker 1: d D needs to respond to coastal flooding that's in
Speaker 1: and dating basis. They seem to get that there does
Speaker 1: need to be more R and D two, for instance,
Speaker 1: helps soldiers who are suffering from extreme heat in the
Speaker 1: Middle East and Asia, and they want to make sure
Speaker 1: that the military is strong and capable. But as you say,
Speaker 1: I mean, there is this kind of messaging that the
Speaker 1: military needs to focus on fighting wars, defeating the enemy.
Speaker 1: Let's set aside some of this green stuff. Is it
Speaker 1: possible that that messaging could take root and sort of
Speaker 1: that the whole issue could become politicized and that those
Speaker 1: sorts of provisions get stripped out of the budget. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that, given how politicize the issue of climate
Speaker 1: change already is, I don't think we can rule it out.
Speaker 1: But to this point it feels to me as though
Speaker 1: the Pentagon has done a good job of framing this,
Speaker 1: as you know, of of making the military case for funding,
Speaker 1: and that I think is what you need to do
Speaker 1: to get Republicans on board. Yeah, I mean, I didn't
Speaker 1: think about this until just now, but it's worth pointing
Speaker 1: out that, you know, a dozen Republican senators signed on
Speaker 1: to this, but there are fifty Republican senators in Congress
Speaker 1: right now. That means that a majority of the Republican
Speaker 1: caucus probably saw this letter and said I don't want
Speaker 1: to sign this, So that kind of speaks for itself. Um.
Speaker 1: There was one piece of criticism from a Republican this
Speaker 1: is in the House here in one of your stories
Speaker 1: that I wanted to address because it seemed like it
Speaker 1: was not just the typical sort of partisan back and forth.
Speaker 1: This was from Republican Michael Waltz, who's on the Armed
Speaker 1: Services Committee. He mentioned that a lot of the rare
Speaker 1: earth metals that are needed for solar panels and needed
Speaker 1: for batteries that are going to be potentially going into
Speaker 1: these electric tanks are controlled by China, and that that
Speaker 1: doing this sort of increases the military's reliance on China,
Speaker 1: which could potentially be an adversary. What do you think
Speaker 1: about that? Is that does he have a point there
Speaker 1: or is this more sort of just sort of partisan posturing. Well,
Speaker 1: I think he does have a point. The US does
Speaker 1: not have a very mature rare earth mining industry. A
Speaker 1: lot of these minerals are imported from, you know, mostly China,
Speaker 1: but also other nations like Australia and Canada, Kazakhstan. So
Speaker 1: it's a legitimate point. And the Biden administration gets that.
Speaker 1: They are trying to kick start some semblance of a
Speaker 1: domestic rare earth mining sector because they know that the
Speaker 1: US is so reliant on a foreign supply chain, not
Speaker 1: just for the military. So they've given grants to private companies.
Speaker 1: They have made investments to try to create an end
Speaker 1: to end domestic supply chain that would include not just
Speaker 1: the mining but also the processing of you know, lithium, cobalt, nickel, whatever,
Speaker 1: and and they're also funding research to get some of
Speaker 1: these rarits from other sources, like maybe we can extract
Speaker 1: it from coal mining waste, and all of this has
Speaker 1: been going on actually for several administrations. But the problem
Speaker 1: is that it is hard to create an entire industry
Speaker 1: from scratch, especially if it has to compete with a
Speaker 1: very mature industry overseas that is supplying these minerals for
Speaker 1: very cheap. There there is a global market for these
Speaker 1: rare where you can buy it for not that much,
Speaker 1: and so how do you compete with that? And also,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is like stupidly obvious, but it's called
Speaker 1: rare earth for a reason. You know, these aren't abundant
Speaker 1: materials that are easy to mind. Um, finally, let's get
Speaker 1: into the three point one billion dollars. That's how much
Speaker 1: the Biden administration asked Congress to give it for you know,
Speaker 1: climate adaptation and climate investments in the coming fiscal year
Speaker 1: that starts October one. Is it going to get that much?
Speaker 1: Is it going to get less or is Congress going
Speaker 1: to give it more than an ask for here? What
Speaker 1: do you think? Well, you know, whenever we're talking about appropriations,
Speaker 1: it's just very hard to say. But I think there
Speaker 1: is a good chance. It's kind of strange to say
Speaker 1: that because we know that Congress always pushes back on
Speaker 1: the president's budget, but it is the military, and we
Speaker 1: we also know that the military is often an exception
Speaker 1: when it comes to funding. I think that in general,
Speaker 1: it's fair to say that Congressional appropriators like to give
Speaker 1: the Pentagon money. And I think again, one of the
Speaker 1: keys for the Pentagon here will be to make the
Speaker 1: case that this money is going to be used to
Speaker 1: improve its ability to fight and win wars. And I
Speaker 1: think that that kind of messaging could persuade some of
Speaker 1: Biden's opponents that the three point one billion dollars is necessary,
Speaker 1: and to this point it seems to me as though
Speaker 1: they've been doing a pretty good job of that. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: that was Stephen Lee talking about the greening of the military. Uh, Stephen,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. This is great.
Speaker 1: Thanks David, and that's it for today's episode of Parts
Speaker 1: per Billion. If you want more environmental news, check us
Speaker 1: out on Twitter. We use the handle at environment I'm
Speaker 1: at David B. Schultz. That's B as in fireworks blowing
Speaker 1: up in my neighborhood and keeping me awake at night.
Speaker 1: Today's episode of Parts for Billion was produced by myself,
Speaker 1: David Shultz. Parts Are Billion was created by Jessica In
Speaker 1: Rachel Dagle and is edited by Zach Sherwood and Chuck mccutgeon.
Speaker 1: Our executive producer is Josh Block. Thanks everyone for listening.
Speaker 1: Taxes and accounting are complicated, but finding a good tax
Speaker 1: podcast shouldn't be. Listen to Talking Tax, the podcast that
Speaker 1: breaks down all of these issues on a weekly basis.
Speaker 1: Every Thursday, Talking Tax will explain the latest issues for you,
Speaker 1: from corporate filings, to diversity within the profession, and even
Speaker 1: the latest on the version in cannabis industry. Download and
Speaker 1: subscribed to Bloomberg Taxes, Talking Tax wherever you get your podcasts,