I have this image of our troops carrying a big green plastic bin around the battlefield for shrapnel and empty shell casings, with a big "Don't Forget to Recycle!" sticker on the side.

Question: Aren't the various combatants, including us, in Iraq and Afghanistan using depleted uranium? That rather would put the kabosh on any green PR.

Dan, I'm still laughing.  

http://www.haberarts.com/

I don't think an organization whose primary purpose (after you pull aside all the cover stories) is to kill people can ever be considered green.

How is it that France, Germany and Japan manage to get all the natural resources they need without invading anybody? Oh, right, they just pay the going price.

At least in the old days pols were a bit more honest and the DoD was called the War Department. It still should be. If you want it to be more green, get rid of it. The national guard and local police can take care of protecting our territory.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Some tips for DoD:

1. Call it Agent Green, not Agent Orange.

2. Need more fertilizer? Kill more Iraqis!

3. Why we need a strong military:

"We need a strong army so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries ..."

What's the surprise?

The Army was the first place I ever went where you filed your garbage by category, and that was in the 60's. Who knew then that they were just ahead of the rest of us in recycling and in different ways of disposing of different categories of garbage?

The really large quantities of various goods the military use has since at least WW II made it a place to experiment with ways to improve both acquisition and disposal techniques, usually to lower overall cost. The fact that the M1 Abrams tank uses two gallons of diesel oil per mile is because the priority it armor thickness over fuel efficiency. I used to be involved in POL supply planning (Petroleum-Oil-Lubricants) and anything we could do to lower fuel consumption let us plan to move the same force further with greater ease. The military eliminated the use of gasoline powered vehicles so as to remove the need to plan and ship both gasoline and diesel. Using just one fuel supply system (diesel) instead of two (diesel and gasoline) sharply improved shipping efficiency. A whole category of trucks, pipes and fuel points was eliminated.

As I say, what's the surprise? Unless, of course, you are a civilian totally ignorant of how the military works.

The difference today is that it is worthwhile publicizing the efficient actions (Green has always been more efficient) they have been taking for a long time.

Before our current military insanities began, we were mostly sitting around and practicing. This adds up to a lot of energy consumed and resources degraded. Paying attention to how the military uses energy is not silly. Among other reasons, as a large consumer it can affect the market.

That the military could jump-start technologies was pointed out by Barry Commoner in the 70s. He suggested it could boost solar power by making the economical decision to use solar power in remote installations. The idea was that it in fact saved money in the right circumstances, and the increase in sales would yield economies of scale and innovation.

The cost of oil is not the big problem in warfighting (maybe for the pols back home, but not the for logistics staff); availability is the issue. Patton had to slow his lightning advance across Germany when he outran his fuel trucks. Germans were innovators in alternate fuels not because of cost but because of availability. Japan attacked us because we embargoed their oil.

A small but important issue in Iraq is batteries for electronic systems like night-vision goggles and radios. I remember hearing about a switch to rechargeables to avoid needing resupply. Ideally, an army would forage for energy, like they used to forage for food. If vehicles were multi-fuel hybrids they could use solar power for low-demand activity and burn fuel or stored battery charge for high-demand pursuit or escape.

There could be significant advantages in the field for a rechargeable army, and the effect on domestic markets would be subtstantial, given the large peacetime consumption.

I've been saying for years that the military should be leading the way in the search for alternate energy sources. The next global superpower will be the country with a military that doesn't use fossil fuels to fly its airplanes and power its tanks. As a previous commenter pointed out with the WWII references, the military's greatest weakness is its fuel supply. Knock that out and not only do the tanks not roll, neither do the trucks that bring food and ammunition.

In fact, I'd be very surprised if the military isn't already heavily invested in Top Secret alternative energy research. They'd be crazy not to.