Oped: Why clean energy means national security

As a veteran, I've served in a fight that was largely about oil. By passing clean energy legislation, Congress can promote national security — as well as jobs and a healthy climate.

Rick Hegdahl

Rick Hegdahl

As a retired member of the U.S. Navy and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I've served in the line of duty in a conflict that was — in large part — about oil.

While I feel honored to have served my country, it is my sincere hope that we do all we can to keep from sending more of our young men and women inti harm's way. America can do this by making the shift away from fossil fuels and to clean, renewable energy and significantly reducing the pollution that causes global warming. I urge our Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to honor our veterans by leading the way.

To that end, in February I joined fellow veterans as part of the National Veterans for American Power Tour as we held events at the State Capitol and near the Space Needle, to ask our senators to do just that.

Make no mistake: climate change is a crucial national security issue. Global warming-related disasters such as droughts, wildfires and hurricanes are already increasing, and even the Pentagon is worried about the political instability those cataclysms create. Moreover, as we draw closer to the day when the world's oil reserves run out, the fights over what remains will only grow more bitter and deadly.

In these challenging times, we are all painfully aware of the threats to both our national and economic security. Our foreign affairs, defense policies, and economy are linked to energy policy through our dependence on foreign oil. We are sending billions of dollars overseas to pay for oil, leaving us vulnerable to unstable or hostile regimes. Our oil expenditures in 2008 broke down to equal $1.2 billion every day; $50 million every hour; $837,000 every minute; $14,000 every second.

Clean energy and climate policies will help us free ourselves from the perils of depending on foreign oil. Transitioning to a clean energy economy and improving the electricity grid would allow us to get our power from renewable sources here at home. By reducing our reliance on oil, we not only reduce our exposure to oil-related conflicts overseas, we will also give our energy dollars to a growing number of American business that are providing jobs in clean energy and energy efficiency.

If we spend our energy dollars here at home, we can expand our clean energy production and increase our use of renewable energy, creating millions of jobs that can't be outsourced.

Despite the current economic downturn, Washington's clean energy economy is still growing. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that our state's current clean energy policies alone could create 2,000 new green jobs by 2025.

Clean energy policies will save us money, too. According to another analysis, stronger energy saving standards and building codes could save approximately $750 per household nationwide by 2020 and $3,900 by 2030. Policies that invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency could cut the federal deficit by $24 billion through 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And, clean energy solutions would cost American households just a few dollars a month.

I have worked with leaders across the state who are working hard to make American energy independent. In late September, I participated in the Governor's Global Climate Summit with Gov. Chris Gregoire, who helped lead the way in calling for strong climate change policy. She stressed the importance of taking action now, and cited Washington's leadership in enacting energy efficiency and renewable standards in our state.

In June the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act and I applaud Representatives Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen, Jim McDermott, Dave Reichert and Adam Smith, for voting in favor of this bill as paramount for economic, environmental, and national security.

Now our senators have the opportunity to take that leadership to the national stage as a federal climate bill is under real consideration in the Senate. America has the opportunity to be a world leader in the new energy economy, taking control of our energy future and putting Americans back to work while also improving our national security. I urge Murray and Cantwell to show their commitment to myself and all other veterans by ensuring we pass national climate and energy legislation in the strongest possible form, immediately. We are counting on them to create more jobs, a cleaner environment, and greater national security by leading the rest of the Senate.


About the Author

Rick Hegdahl of Bellevue is a small business owner, the father of a 15-year-old daughter, and a retired member of the U.S. Navy who served 24 years, including two tours for Operation Iraqi Freedom in Kuwait in 2002-03 and 2005-06. He serves as a senior adviser and Washington state team captain for Votevets.org. He can be reached at editor@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Tue, Apr 13, 8:32 a.m. Inappropriate

Scroll up to the story about the Brightwater sewer fiasco. Scroll over to the story about the WaMu executives who "knew" subprime loans were sinking the company. The same kind of misinformation is being peddled by many clean energy charlatans. Should we explore different, more sustainable energy sources? Absolutely. Should we dupe the public into funding that exploration with lies, misinformation and hyperbole? In my opinion, no. "It's gonna save money. It's gonna provide jobs". Yeah. PSE just raised rates due to a state mandate to tap "clean" energy. And, as for those "green" jobs... what's the state's current unemployment level? It should be less than zero with all the "green" jobs we've been "promised". No. The clean energy/climate change (ad nauseum) topic is as prone to ineptitude and corruption as the Brightwater sewer and the WaMu sewage.

BlueLight

Posted Tue, Apr 13, 8:47 a.m. Inappropriate

Good piece, Rick, we'd love to have you come out and speak on this subject here in Yakima. Your military credentials might help get the message through.

Posted Tue, Apr 13, 12:15 p.m. Inappropriate

This is a seriously flawed piece, factually. Transportation and Agriculture are by far the most oil intensive activities, and generate the most CO2. The generation of electricity, on the other-hand, is largely fueled by coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear. Another speculative market for predatory capital dressed up in liberal drag is not the solution, but instead, sensible transportation investments, and rational agricultural policy. The patriotic over-tones, meanwhile, are largely misplaced. Canada and Mexico produce the bulk of our exported oil.

Gregory Wade

g

Posted Wed, Apr 14, 9:58 a.m. Inappropriate

We can see from the denialists in this thread how hard we need to work to get the message across. It would be a scathing indictment of us as a people if we had to wait until the largest corporations see the dangers of global warming and tell us what to do.

Posted Wed, Apr 14, 10:36 a.m. Inappropriate

Rick - you're missing a much bigger picture. This "Green Energy" initiative is accelerating another calamity that will hit as soon as 2012. China has a monopoly on rare earth elements (REE), which will really hit hard starting in about 2012. www.iags.org/rareearth0310hurst.pdf. Without REEs, America can't make many of the military, green technology, commercial, computer, laser, and industrial equipment. But China can.

Further, read the report and you'll see just how polluting the REE mining is in China. They process ore much differently that does America and most in the West. Much of the pollution ends up in the Pacific via the Yellow River. Some of it is airborne, which later precipitates on the Pacific Northwest.

Every large windmill requires about 538 pounds of neodymium. China controls 97% of it and will stop selling it in 2012. Rather, they will force the west to buy the components from them. The only "green" in green technology is the money lobbyists and the Chinese make. Meanwhile, America sends it money to China, so China can loan it to us, so they can buy up our resources, and thus control more of our government's policies.

I too am a retired Navy veteran, and are sickened when I see what our Congress, and state leaders are doing that undermine our economy.

Posted Thu, Apr 15, 7:06 p.m. Inappropriate

serial: denialists abound

"Sustainable" to pacify the environmentalists, "development" for the corporations (Orr 1992). That covers the waterfront. Life goes on, less likely human forms, is all.

afreeman

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »