The False Conflation of Coal and National Security

Like many Americans, I watched with disgust as the Islamic State catapulted to power through a vicious campaign of intimidation, extortion, and violence. From the ashes of an Al Qaeda offshoot, the terrorist group had quickly become one of the top national security threats facing the United States and its closest allies. When I received military orders to deploy as part of the counter Islamic State task force, I felt a strong duty to help dismantle and defeat a group that had no right to exist. Politics and partisanship never entered the equation. It was a matter of national security.

The rigidity of the Islamic State ran in stark contrast to the freedom of choice that characterizes the American spirit. If we do not like a politician, we can vote for someone else. We can share our thoughts openly. Different religions can be practiced without fear of reprisal. We can launch new businesses, even if they disrupt existing ones.

After returning from my deployment, I began focusing on a different yet deeply complex challenge: the transition from a carbon-intensive energy grid to one powered by renewables. The plummeting costs of solar and wind have made the grid’s transformation as much about economics as the environment. Consumers, corporations, markets, and public advocates have made their choice clear to transition to clean power.

Fossil fuel competitors are afraid, and they should be. For the past five years, renewables have made up the majority of added power capacity in the United States. To confront this massive change, energy giants such as Shell, Exxon, and BP have begun to invest heavily in clean energy technologies. Other companies, predominantly in the coal sector, have taken a different tack and pled for U.S. government intervention.

Wealthy coal barons have found a pawn in Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. In addition to dangerous regulatory rollbacks, Secretary Perry and the Trump Administration have proposed a multi-billion dollar bailout of failing coal and nuclear plants that would cost American taxpayers dearly and lead to thousands of premature deaths due to carbon-based pollution. The energy consulting firm ICF estimates that the total cost of Perry’s bailout could cost electricity customers $3.8 billion every year through 2030. This blatant act of intervention not only stands in the way of progress, environmental stewardship, and consumer choice, but also goes against a free market orthodoxy that has long been a core of Republican economic policy.

Secretary Perry has proposed using emergency wartime measures to enable a corporate coal bailout under the guise of “national security.” As a veteran, I find this insulting. This falsehood minimizes the sacrifices that military service members routinely make to keep the United States safe. In reference to the bailout, Perry recently stated, “You cannot put a dollar figure on the cost to keep America free.” Free from what? Certainly not from legitimate national security concerns such as terrorism, cyberwarfare, and Russian and Chinese aggression. Free from progress? Cheaper energy sources? New jobs? Cleaner air?

In actuality, there is a negative correlation between fossil fuels and national security. Clean energy would enable the U.S. Navy fleet to extend its time at sea and avoid predictably docking in dangerous foreign ports. Our marines and soldiers wouldn’t be reliant on fuel convoys to keep the lights on at remote forward operating bases. Our airmen wouldn’t need to commit considerable resources to patrolling a thawing Arctic that has led to unprecedented Russian and Chinese military encroachment.

In addition to Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, at least 16 senior officials at the U.S. Department of Defense in the past year have recommended solutions to combat climate change, citing its negative impact on military infrastructure, readiness, and geopolitical tensions. Rising temperatures and sea levels will push already fragile countries deeper into conflict. States such as Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and the Philippines are among the top ten of states to be negatively affected in the immediate future.

Our military leadership knows that climate change is a threat to the United States at home and abroad. The actions taken by Secretary Perry look backward, not forward. By acting on behalf of rich coal executives, the Trump Administration is directly contradicting the choice of electricity consumers and free markets. Instead of intervening in energy markets over false pretenses, it’s time that our president and his Cabinet focus on true national security threats, like Chinese and Russian cyber intrusions into our grid infrastructure. Trump and Perry still have a choice, and it’s about time they make the right one.

Scott Schwartz is a member of Truman National Security Project’s Defense Council. Prior to entering clean energy, Schwartz received his MBA from the Yale School of Management, served in the U.S. military, and worked as a risk and strategy consultant. He continues to serve in the U.S. Navy Reserve as an Intelligence Officer. Views expressed are his own.