Military Hybrid Hummvee
05-19-2012, 04:20 PM
#21
Banned
Thread Starter
On a more mundane level...
Base Commanders should make these procedures mandatory;
BOISE, Idaho — Members of the Idaho Army and Air National Guard in Boise have ramped up efforts to conserve energy and minimize their environmental impact, yielding significant savings and accolades in recent years.
Investment in green technology and large-scale recycling highlight environmental policy priorities at the base at Gowen Field that stem from high ranking leaders and are carried out by soldiers and airmen throughout the facility.
Maj. Jim Hawkes, an environmental manager at Gowen Field, told The Idaho Statesman (http://bit.ly/Ikih33 ) that goals of conserving, minimizing waste and preventing pollution are a year-round effort.
"We celebrate Earth Day every day with little stuff," Hawkes said.
That includes switching to efficient light bulbs, controlling building temperatures with a computer and cleaning up old fuel spills.
And it also includes an emphasis on recycling that in 2011 kept 1,000 tons of paper, plastic, metal and wood out of the local landfill.
Reducing the cost of waste disposal helps the base's bottom line, according to Gowen officials.
Last year, more than 250 cubic yards of cardboard boxes and packing material were donated locally and reused by area businesses, saving nearly $1,500 in disposal costs.
Senior Airman Heidi Caye, who was a finalist for a national-level environment al protection award, said the effort is revealing items that are simple to recycle, such as aluminum cans and water bottles.
Operating the base's recycling center — which repurposes missile containers, old desks, cardboard boxes and obsolete policy manuals — is paid for by recycling thousands of pounds of munitions from Gowen's live firing ranges.
Other green investments have cut costs and also helped the base win the Air National Guard Pollution Prevention Award in 2010.
More than half of Gowen Field's facilities have been retrofitted with more efficient lighting fixtures that save more than $6,000 a year. The rest of the facilities will be upgraded this year.
An innovative sprinkler programming system automatically adjusts to wind, temperature and rain, cutting water consumption in half and saving more than $20,000 a year.
Hawkes points to another project: cleaning up sites on base contaminated years ago by jet fuel. The project is funded by more than $1 million in federal dollars.
"Of the 13 original sites, we are down to one," Hawkes said.
Staff members aren't afraid to get dirty in their search for new areas to recycle and save, pouring through the base's Dumpsters to discover patterns of waste as part of a new program.
Senior Airman Heidi Caye, who was a finalist for a national-level environmental protection award, said the effort is revealing items that are simple to recycle, such as aluminum cans and water bottles.
"The program is in its infant stages, but we think it will work out," she said.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...ational-Guard/
BOISE, Idaho — Members of the Idaho Army and Air National Guard in Boise have ramped up efforts to conserve energy and minimize their environmental impact, yielding significant savings and accolades in recent years.
Investment in green technology and large-scale recycling highlight environmental policy priorities at the base at Gowen Field that stem from high ranking leaders and are carried out by soldiers and airmen throughout the facility.
Maj. Jim Hawkes, an environmental manager at Gowen Field, told The Idaho Statesman (http://bit.ly/Ikih33 ) that goals of conserving, minimizing waste and preventing pollution are a year-round effort.
"We celebrate Earth Day every day with little stuff," Hawkes said.
That includes switching to efficient light bulbs, controlling building temperatures with a computer and cleaning up old fuel spills.
And it also includes an emphasis on recycling that in 2011 kept 1,000 tons of paper, plastic, metal and wood out of the local landfill.
Reducing the cost of waste disposal helps the base's bottom line, according to Gowen officials.
Last year, more than 250 cubic yards of cardboard boxes and packing material were donated locally and reused by area businesses, saving nearly $1,500 in disposal costs.
Senior Airman Heidi Caye, who was a finalist for a national-level environment al protection award, said the effort is revealing items that are simple to recycle, such as aluminum cans and water bottles.
Operating the base's recycling center — which repurposes missile containers, old desks, cardboard boxes and obsolete policy manuals — is paid for by recycling thousands of pounds of munitions from Gowen's live firing ranges.
Other green investments have cut costs and also helped the base win the Air National Guard Pollution Prevention Award in 2010.
More than half of Gowen Field's facilities have been retrofitted with more efficient lighting fixtures that save more than $6,000 a year. The rest of the facilities will be upgraded this year.
An innovative sprinkler programming system automatically adjusts to wind, temperature and rain, cutting water consumption in half and saving more than $20,000 a year.
Hawkes points to another project: cleaning up sites on base contaminated years ago by jet fuel. The project is funded by more than $1 million in federal dollars.
"Of the 13 original sites, we are down to one," Hawkes said.
Staff members aren't afraid to get dirty in their search for new areas to recycle and save, pouring through the base's Dumpsters to discover patterns of waste as part of a new program.
Senior Airman Heidi Caye, who was a finalist for a national-level environmental protection award, said the effort is revealing items that are simple to recycle, such as aluminum cans and water bottles.
"The program is in its infant stages, but we think it will work out," she said.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...ational-Guard/
05-19-2012, 04:23 PM
#22
Banned
Thread Starter
Also;
It's not just the troops' uniforms that are green: The U.S. military says its investments to conserve energy and water are beginning to pay off, with benefits for cost, national security and troop safety.
The Army has cut water usage at its permanent bases and other facilities around the world by 31% since 2004, according to Pentagon data. The amount of energy used per square foot at Army facilities declined 10.4% during that same period.
The data do not include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where increased troop levels caused energy usage to rise, but the military has several green measures in place there.
For example, the military has spent more than $100 million on "spray foam" insulation for tents in Iraq and Afghanistan, cutting leakage of air conditioning by at least 50%, says Tad Davis, the Army's deputy assistant secretary for environmental issues. The energy savings usually recover the investment within 90 days, he says.
The military's green efforts will result in at least $1.6 billion in savings through the projects' lifetime, says Joe Sikes, director of facilities energy at the Defense Department.
President Obama says the armed forces are investing $2.7 billion this year to improve energy efficiency. Improvements include: more energy-efficient lighting, low-flow toilets, heating and air-conditioning upgrades,and solar panels.
The military, which pioneered the gas-guzzling Humvee, was not always as concerned with conservation, says Kevin Geiss, the Army's program director for energy security. However, the Pentagon stated in its strategy review, published this year, that consuming less foreign oil and contributing less to climate change are critical to long-term safety.
"The Army's mission is not to be green. Our mission is to defend the nation. In that context, we've found it's in our interest to develop sustainable projects," Geiss says.
Greater energy efficiency also helps keep troops in war zones safer, because it reduces the number of trucks on the road carrying fuel to outlying bases, Davis says. Truck convoys are susceptible to roadside bombs, the biggest killer of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other branches of the armed forces have also made progress, Sikes says. The Navy has set a goal of using 50% alternative fuels in vehicles, planes and ships within 10 years.
Scott Slesinger of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the environmental group "applauds" the conservation measures, especially since the Defense Department is the USA's biggest energy consumer. But he says the Pentagon still needs to address its "questionable environmental legacy," which includes toxic waste sites.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...ng-green_N.htm
The Army has cut water usage at its permanent bases and other facilities around the world by 31% since 2004, according to Pentagon data. The amount of energy used per square foot at Army facilities declined 10.4% during that same period.
The data do not include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where increased troop levels caused energy usage to rise, but the military has several green measures in place there.
For example, the military has spent more than $100 million on "spray foam" insulation for tents in Iraq and Afghanistan, cutting leakage of air conditioning by at least 50%, says Tad Davis, the Army's deputy assistant secretary for environmental issues. The energy savings usually recover the investment within 90 days, he says.
The military's green efforts will result in at least $1.6 billion in savings through the projects' lifetime, says Joe Sikes, director of facilities energy at the Defense Department.
President Obama says the armed forces are investing $2.7 billion this year to improve energy efficiency. Improvements include: more energy-efficient lighting, low-flow toilets, heating and air-conditioning upgrades,and solar panels.
The military, which pioneered the gas-guzzling Humvee, was not always as concerned with conservation, says Kevin Geiss, the Army's program director for energy security. However, the Pentagon stated in its strategy review, published this year, that consuming less foreign oil and contributing less to climate change are critical to long-term safety.
"The Army's mission is not to be green. Our mission is to defend the nation. In that context, we've found it's in our interest to develop sustainable projects," Geiss says.
Greater energy efficiency also helps keep troops in war zones safer, because it reduces the number of trucks on the road carrying fuel to outlying bases, Davis says. Truck convoys are susceptible to roadside bombs, the biggest killer of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other branches of the armed forces have also made progress, Sikes says. The Navy has set a goal of using 50% alternative fuels in vehicles, planes and ships within 10 years.
Scott Slesinger of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the environmental group "applauds" the conservation measures, especially since the Defense Department is the USA's biggest energy consumer. But he says the Pentagon still needs to address its "questionable environmental legacy," which includes toxic waste sites.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...ng-green_N.htm
05-19-2012, 05:19 PM
#23
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Hey I have a better Idea , Why not leave the engines out of the military equipment ? save a lot of money for the crack heads on welfare and the evil Fuel , They can just Push the things into battle .
05-19-2012, 06:02 PM
#24
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Billions For Climate, Not One More Cent For Defense
Federal Priorities: A new report shows we have spent $70 billion on climate change since 2008 while our strapped military is ordered to become energy-efficient. Imagine weapons that don't harm the environment.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor Thursday to decry the green agenda being imposed on the military by the Obama administration at the same time the defense budget is being sacrificed on the altar of runaway deficit spending.
Inhofe produced a Congressional Research Service report that showed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. During that time the Defense Department spent nearly $4 billion on energy efficiency and climate change activities.
We wonder if the environment is the uppermost thing on the minds of soldiers being shot at by the Taliban and avoiding being blown up by IEDs. But it does seem to be on the mind of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
"The area of climate change," he recently told the Environmental Defense Fund, "has a dramatic impact on national security."
Spending money on climate change reduces the amount of money that can be spent on defending the United States and its interests. We suspect Panetta will have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran long before rising sea levels threaten the Pentagon.
"Which would you rather have?" Inhofe asked. "Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force Base solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-35s or modernized C-130s?
"Would you rather have $68.4 billion spent on pointless global warming efforts or would you rather have more funds put towards modernizing our fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and help defend our nation against the legitimate threats that we face?"
Certainly fuel and energy costs have risen for the military as for the rest of us. But wouldn't we be better served by tapping into the 200-year supply of oil under our feet and within our borders?
Wouldn't that reduce energy costs and lines of supply? How about getting our oil from ANWR, Rocky Mountain shale or from Canada and let someone else worry about the expense of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open?
As we have seen on the domestic front, green energy is not cheaper. If cutting energy costs is the military's goal, why was the U.S. Navy recently forced to buy 450,000 gallons of biofuels at an outrageous cost of $16 a gallon in place of standard JP-5 fuel for Navy aircraft that can be had for about $4 a gallon?
Let's see $16.00 VS $4.00 Only in the insanity of Liberalism would that make sense .
It's bad enough we are forced to put corn in our gas tanks, but in our fighter aircraft as well?
In a new "America at Risk" video from the Heritage Foundation, David A. Deptula, a retired three-star general, tells of how he flew an F-15 for the first time in 1977, and 30 years later, his son, Lt. David A. Deptula II, flew the same F-15 at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan.
Yet, speaking at Georgetown University in Washington, President Obama boasted that under his direction "the Air Force is aiming to get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016."
Never mind that due to defense cuts the Navy will shrink to 238 vessels and lose two carrier battle groups. Strategic bombers will fall from 153 to 101. Air force fighters would drop by more than half, from 3,602 aircraft to 1,512.
This time the surrender flag will be green, not white.
IBD Editorials
.
Federal Priorities: A new report shows we have spent $70 billion on climate change since 2008 while our strapped military is ordered to become energy-efficient. Imagine weapons that don't harm the environment.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor Thursday to decry the green agenda being imposed on the military by the Obama administration at the same time the defense budget is being sacrificed on the altar of runaway deficit spending.
Inhofe produced a Congressional Research Service report that showed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. During that time the Defense Department spent nearly $4 billion on energy efficiency and climate change activities.
We wonder if the environment is the uppermost thing on the minds of soldiers being shot at by the Taliban and avoiding being blown up by IEDs. But it does seem to be on the mind of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
"The area of climate change," he recently told the Environmental Defense Fund, "has a dramatic impact on national security."
Spending money on climate change reduces the amount of money that can be spent on defending the United States and its interests. We suspect Panetta will have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran long before rising sea levels threaten the Pentagon.
"Which would you rather have?" Inhofe asked. "Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force Base solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-35s or modernized C-130s?
"Would you rather have $68.4 billion spent on pointless global warming efforts or would you rather have more funds put towards modernizing our fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and help defend our nation against the legitimate threats that we face?"
Certainly fuel and energy costs have risen for the military as for the rest of us. But wouldn't we be better served by tapping into the 200-year supply of oil under our feet and within our borders?
Wouldn't that reduce energy costs and lines of supply? How about getting our oil from ANWR, Rocky Mountain shale or from Canada and let someone else worry about the expense of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open?
As we have seen on the domestic front, green energy is not cheaper. If cutting energy costs is the military's goal, why was the U.S. Navy recently forced to buy 450,000 gallons of biofuels at an outrageous cost of $16 a gallon in place of standard JP-5 fuel for Navy aircraft that can be had for about $4 a gallon?
Let's see $16.00 VS $4.00 Only in the insanity of Liberalism would that make sense .
It's bad enough we are forced to put corn in our gas tanks, but in our fighter aircraft as well?
In a new "America at Risk" video from the Heritage Foundation, David A. Deptula, a retired three-star general, tells of how he flew an F-15 for the first time in 1977, and 30 years later, his son, Lt. David A. Deptula II, flew the same F-15 at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan.
Yet, speaking at Georgetown University in Washington, President Obama boasted that under his direction "the Air Force is aiming to get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016."
Never mind that due to defense cuts the Navy will shrink to 238 vessels and lose two carrier battle groups. Strategic bombers will fall from 153 to 101. Air force fighters would drop by more than half, from 3,602 aircraft to 1,512.
This time the surrender flag will be green, not white.
IBD Editorials
.
05-20-2012, 12:54 PM
#25
Banned
Thread Starter
The guy's name is James Mountain Inhofe. MOUNTAIN 
Only a Sooner could vote for a guy named MOUNTAIN. 
The Wrongs are ranting and raving against anything Green. They're trying to "gin up" their base because mWittless Rmoney is such a poor candidate. Weak tactics.
Only a Sooner could vote for a guy named MOUNTAIN. The Wrongs are ranting and raving against anything Green. They're trying to "gin up" their base because mWittless Rmoney is such a poor candidate. Weak tactics.
Last edited by Catmando; 05-20-2012 at 07:16 PM.
05-20-2012, 01:30 PM
#27
VIP Member
Me; Yes they are. They need to save money and fuel is a big percentage of their budget. They're looking at alternative ways to burn less fuel. Is that a crime in your eyes?[/QUOTE]
Yes, if it turns out like the solar power panel company. 1/2 billion in loans that will not get paid back. This is the quantity of money their trying to cut for 5 years worth of budget cuts. Lost just that quick, shameful.
Yes, if it turns out like the solar power panel company. 1/2 billion in loans that will not get paid back. This is the quantity of money their trying to cut for 5 years worth of budget cuts. Lost just that quick, shameful.
