What is Digg?50 Comments
- cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16What a silly argument. If the military could run vehicles without the need of fuel resupply, they'd be all over it like terrorists on AK-47s.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I find it funny the old diesel electric is now "green". What was it 50 years ago? The real environmental science the military (and others) is doing is boring stuff like land and water management, noise impact analysis, hazardous materials disposal, etc.
- statikuz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Hypocritical? Since when does the military by definition hate the environment?
- satx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11It's not hypocritical. The military has nothing against green technology per se, they're just obviously not biased *towards* it. All they really want is any energy, it really doesn't matter what type it is. It also doesn't matter who or what gets in their way; they're going to get what they want.
- HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Next thing you know, they'll be using armor-piercing depleted pollen flowers.
- crashbang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Well it kinda makes sense. The US military is the largest single consumer of jet fuel in the world. By doing this, they become a fulcrum around which you can build the industry.
Good for them. - nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Bunker-busting rainbows
- fortressgame, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10they are just doing it for different reasons - they actually don't give a ***** about the environment, but if you know anything about the way the military works you will understand that transporting fuel is a big deal. your supply chain is really hard to protect. you don't just stop your tank at a local gas station, you have to bring it in and ship it around the country.
- ChemEng, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The key is using REALLY dense depleted pollen flowers. ;)
- UrbanVoyeur, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The military will always be in favor of anything that decreases their petroleum usage and transport costs or shortens their supply lines. That includes both bringing fuel, water, batteries and electricity IN and taking waste OUT. That's why they are particularly interested in tech like bio-diesel (less waste food and food oil to dispose of ), high efficiency co-generation garbage incinerators (for everything else), and water recycling & grey water systems.
I think they will also find that like their consumer counterparts, hybrid and electric vehicles are have lower maintenance costs and longer MTBF - qualities that are music to military ears. - Typhoon2009, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Hey, it's the military, whatever less money they have to spend the better for them.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Depleted Pollen is a war crime!
- jonnyboy1544, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Just as long as they aren't being forced to do it and it's sustainable. The last thing they need is an out of touch enviro politician in DC telling them they are mandated to be green. Yes, there are proposals on the Hill pending right now to do that.
- FleetAdmiral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Best comment I've seen all day
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I fail to see how this could be a bad thing. Good for them.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I agree. For example, nuclear reactors on ships are an amazing win-win for the earth and for the military. It's an incredible source of power, and Rickover started the US Navy's amazing nuclear program and training system that has resulted in no accidents throughout its history. Instead of burning nasty fossil fuels, big ships and subs are nuclear powered. It's not that they're always going out of their way to be green (far from it), but they can see when something just makes sense.
- RayInLA, on 10/10/2007, -4/+78. Recycling human bodies in to worm food.
- Dustmuffins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It could actually be strategically advantageous to have green military equipment that requires little infrastructure support. The long supply lines were holding back the US forces from advancing at full speed through Iraq.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2noahhoward trolling? No wai!
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sorry for pointing out the absolutely obvious Notque. If I've somehow damaged your vision of flowers falling from the sky whilst th military frolics in the meadows I apologise.
- Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is actually not surprising. When I was in, my barracks had a motion sensor that would shut off all electricity if no motion was detected. Imagine playing a game and having to jump and flail your arms once every 30 minutes. It made it damn near impossible to download torrents over night as well.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What kind of backward-ass, evil, ignorant conservatives ***** are digging down this statement?
- ChemEng, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2From the title of the article, I thought it was going to be about the 7 new lines of cammo.
/dissappointed - noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Which is great because if the tech lives up to the military expectations it will generally have no problem in the civilian sector. The military doesn't commit to a technology without running it into the ground and rebuilding it first.
- finnyfinn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Right, it has nothing to do with being green and everything to do with optimizing resources. The military has no concern for the environment, and anyone that would laud these things as green or eco-friendly should think about the overall impact of military operations on the environment. There's just no way a few hybrid vehicles and solar radio chargers is going to mitigate the negative environmental impact of military operations.
- Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm
- jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Digg is generally anti-military now
- sakuraz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You gotta enrich it with rainbow for it to be feasible though...
- Neuralblaze, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Despite the controversies, it's nice to see a positive article on the US Military.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How is that not better for us?
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=8954
We are making headway. We must continue to act if we plan on really organizing and taking a stand. - UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Someone had to say it, right? *Sigh*... Buried.
- krbuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0A shame this project was put on hold. I thought it looked very interesting:
http://www.sustainabledesigncenter.com/portfolio/strawbale/forthood/forthood.htm - Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1what, you think they're going to give you the money back if they don't spend it on one thing? Of course not... they'll just find some other way to put those allocated resources to use.
- nick111, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't agree - if the military can demonstrate the economic advantages in green tech, then it might enlighten the head-in-the-sand conservatives who are anti-green just because they've decided that they hate liberals... and that to this end, it's better to listen to politicians than scientists.
- Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The Pentagon doesn't care about the environment does it? You guys realize that's where we all live? For practicality reasons, it's a concern for everyone not overjoyed by the idea of the rapture coming in their lifetime.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm
According to the Pentagon: Global Warming is a greater threat than Terrorism. - Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1well, in the world outside of rhetoric, a hybrid hummer would have a larger range than a regular one. The tanks that the US military used to roll into Iraq with essentially had jet engines in there and went through their load of fuel in a couple hours, which led insurgents to the strategy of letting the tanks go past so they could later target the fuel trucks that would inevitably come by and are significantly an easier target. And by the way you're completely off base on having to secure fossil fuels for "you" to burn, since up here in Canada we have this area in Alberta called the oil sands which has enough fossil fuels to last North America for quite a long while. The thing is there's quite the price of extraction and refinement involved.
http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oil_comes_from.htm
You are right in terms of securing oil in the Middle East allows the supply on the global market to increase (the pipelines in Afghanistan would help get it to Europe all the most efficiently) and thus the price would go down, or at least be prevented from skyrocketing. That doesn't change the fact that there's a finite amount of it or that it is energy intensive to extract going forward. The cheap oil is gone. Long live cheap oil. - finnyfinn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0How is my claim that the military is securing oil supply to keep prices low "off-base" when you admit that the cost of extracting oil from Canadian oil sands is high? And you're probably not even considering the true cost of the extraction, which would include massive environmental degradation. The western economic model puts all oil into a big free-market pool, which keeps prices low, but ultimateley puts the true cost of oil off onto the environment, because there's no mechanism to account for the long term costs of environmental degradation. Unless you're the type of complete delusional that denies human-induced climate change, you must recognize that extracting every last drop of fossil fuel from the earth and depositing it into the atmosphere is not very green. There is no cheap oil, its costs are enormous. We just refuse to pay them now, instead putting them off onto future generations that will inherit an uninhabitable world of toxic SUV leavings and broken ecologies.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Uh you mean the better for us right?
- SparkyMaGee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0They might not hate it, but war IS the MOST environmentally damaging thing that can happen. Period.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2When will Americans wake up and realize the harm the Military Industrial Complex is doing to their country?
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1OMG the military kills people???? No wai!
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Damn straight it is, and we need to work together and organize if we plan on changing it.
- theblindman2, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Of course not be definition... but you cant say that WMD's are too great for the environment.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Have nuclear weapons is pretty much be definition hating the environment. Using them is catastrophic evil.
- finnyfinn, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2There is inherent irony in a green U.S. military, aside from the camoflage of course. Not only is the military largely engaged in securing fossil fuels for us to burn for many years to come, ensuring stiff market competition to green energy alternatives, it's also paving the way for U.S. economic imperialism. Free market capitalism has the particularly ungreen quality of pretending that there is no limit to the capacity of the ecosphere to provide energy/raw materials and absorb waste. In economic terms it externalizes costs from the economic system onto the ecosystem. But like all the costs the military incurs, we'll have to pay them eventually. This is greenwashing at its finest.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8I want to see 7 ways the Military is preparing to leave Iraq.
Join our general strike on 09/11/07. Digg up my #1
It's great that they are moving to environmentally safe ways to kill people, but that's not enough for real Americans sick and tired of being ran roughshod over. We must act. - jdh24, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Don't tell Bush about this! He'll flip out
- Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3I thought they were more oriented towards red technology. BLOOD RED.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is