Sbsp affirmative- arl lab- ndi 2011
***Budget Extensions*** FF kill the budget
Download 1.74 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Solving energy solves the greatest part of the budget
- Oil dependency forces tradeoff – huge fuel costs cripple funding for other programs
- The DOD budget is zero sum-Increasing oil prices are wreaking havoc on other programs
***Budget Extensions***FF kill the budgetNo DoD green tech – promising efforts just fall shortPES Europe 8 (Think tank, “Solar: the military’s secret weapon,” 2008. http://www.pes.eu.com/assets/misc/issue-9-think-tank-military-solarpdf-33.pdf) The army has been making many bold declarations in recent years about the need to wean itself from fossil fuels. It is “imperative” that the Department of Defense “apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations,” concluded one Pentagon report. “Effectively immediately,” thunder another, Pentagon planners must factor in “energy efficiency” when designing “all tactical systems.” That’s because the Defense Department is not only one of the world’s largest consumers of oil and gas — guzzling “110 million barrels of premium fuel and 3.8 billion kilowatts of electricity at a cost of $13.6 billion.” It is also ridiculously expensive: war-zone fuel prices can reach up to $400 per gallon. The military’s record of answering those green clarion calls has been uneven, however. For every promising, isolated effort — wind-powered bases, waste generators in Baghdad — they have been disappointments, too. Long-promised hybrid Humvees [four wheel drive trucks] never materialised and “urgent” pleas from battlefield commanders for green power stations were nixed by the Pentagon. Solving energy solves the greatest part of the budgetBeach 9 (Dr. Fred C, Post-Doc Fellow at the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at UT Austion, Naval Officer, Naval Aviator, Surface Warfare Officer, “DoD’s Addiction to Oil: Is there a Cure?,” March 15 2011. When it comes to reducing a budget, whether it is a fiscal budget or an energy budget, the biggest gains to be had are in the largest budget categories, and for DoD that means the operational energy budget. Over 70% of the energy consumed by DoD goes towards operations. This includes energy for aircraft, ships, tactical vehicles, and expeditionary bases used in training, deploying, and sustaining our armed forces around the world. Since operational forces are mobile by nature, they demand fuels with the highest possible energy density and transportability, namely petroleum based fuels. For moving large quantities of people and material around the world, the most “energy efficient” means is by ship and the least is by air. Conversely, the most “time efficient” means is just the opposite. As America and the rest of the industrialized world has become addicted to “just in time” and “overnight” delivery of every imaginable commodity, so has DoD. Oil dependency forces tradeoff – huge fuel costs cripple funding for other programsWald et al 9 (General Charles F Wald, Former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command, General Gordon R. Sullivan, Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, and Former Chairman of the CNA MAB, Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command, “Powering America’s Defense,” May 2009. In addition to burdening our military forces, overreliance on oil exacts a huge monetary cost, both for our economy and our military. The fluctuating and volatile cost of oil greatly complicates the budgeting process within the Department: just a $10 change in the per-barrel cost of oil translates to a $1.3 billion change to the Pentagon’s energy costs [45]. Over-allocating funds to cover energy costs comes with a high opportunity cost as other important functions are under-funded; an unexpected increase results in funds being transferred from other areas within the Department, causing significant disruptions to training, procurement and other essential functions. In addition to buying the fuel, the U.S devotes enormous resources to ensure the military receives the fuel it needs to operate. A large component of the logistics planning and resources are devoted to buying, operating, training, and maintaining logistics assets for delivering fuel to the battlefield—and these delivery costs exceed the cost of buying the commodity. For example, each gallon of fuel delivered to an aircraft in-flight costs the Air Force roughly $42 [35]; for ground forces, the true cost of delivering fuel to the battlefield, while very scenario dependent, ranges from $15 per gallon to hundreds of dollars per gallon [35]. A more realistic assessment of what is called the “fully burdened price of fuel” would consider the costs attributable to oil in protecting sea lanes, operating certain military bases and maintaining high levels of forward presence. Buying oil is expensive, but the cost of using it in the battlespace is far higher. The DOD budget is zero sum-Increasing oil prices are wreaking havoc on other programsMorehouse et al 8 (Thomas Morehouse, Chairman of the DOD Task Force, “Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy”, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf, February 2008) SV Recently, tight supplies and strong demand have characterized the oil market, putting upwards pressure on prices. Fiscal Year (FY) 07 is the first year the DESC has changed its standard price in mid-year. This price is used by government customers to budget for fuel purchases. In real terms, world oil prices are currently near historic highs, approaching those of the oil crisis of the early 1980s. From 2004 to 2006, DESC fuel sales more than doubled from $5.9 B to $13.6 B., most of the increase being due to rising prices for petroleum products. Such rapid increases in the commodity cost of fuel get leadership attention because of their effect on budgets. DoD operates on a six year Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) funding horizon. Increases of this magnitude mean that large sums of money must be re-programmed in order to meet operating costs, wreaking havoc on programs from which the funds are taken. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.74 Mb. Share with your friends:
|