Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Solyndra Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: joseffy who wrote (465)	5/19/2012 9:48:10 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1400

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? 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.