War Machines mad for greenhouse gases ( Archived) (6)

This is a reprint of a letter to-the Editor from the newspaper Times Colonist of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada May 20, 2007 page D3, that a friend sent to me. Pay close attention to the figures of fuel consumption. Re-read it and think about all the implications that this implies:
"Operation Trident Fury wrapped up on the west coast of Vancouver Island just as the world is grappling with global warming.
I have been trying to reduce my carbon footprint and it's not easy, but my problems are nothing compared to the Pentagon's.
According to a recent Pentagon study, the Department of Defence is the largest single energy user in the U.S. In the second World War, the U.S. used about a gallon of fuel per soldier per day. The amount rose in the 1991 Gulf War to about 4 gallons and, in 2006, to 16 gallons per soldier per day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The authors of the study comment that the military must take immediate steps to change over to alternative and renewable fuel sources.
The Pentagon is concerned about declining oil supplies and rising costs, but apparently not about global warming. Trident Fury involved 40 aircraft, 8 warships, and one submarine for 10 days.
The World Watch Institute reports that an F-15 jet consumes 908 litres of fuel per minute at peak thrust. An F-16 jet on a one-hour training mission uses as much fuel as the average American motorist consumes in 2 years. A battleship uses 10,810 litres of fuel per hour.
Perhaps in addition to alternative fuels, the Pentagon should consider sustainable alternatives to war."
written by Mary-Wynne Ashford of Victoria, BC.
Thank you Mary-Wynne for such an enlightening letter; it deserves to be heard around the world!
In a quick scan of fuel consumption by various militaries around the world, the Pentagon is the world's single user. No doubt about it.
What are your views, opinions on this consumption? Will it eventually affect you; the available supplies of civilian fuels...what does anyone think about the short and long range implications of this....

Its very significant how many good oppinion is available on a subject like this one ..

Solitare you know my oppinion.. its like I said ..


*************its too late **************

Who ever wrote this should have checked their facts better. But as most that push the Urban Myth of Global Warming, they did not. Many of the larger warships today use nucealer enrgy, which has more problems that using fossil fuels which have less than using bio-fuels (only slightly by some studies, and mush more in others). I will agree with the alternative fuels, buit not on the lies of Global warming, but in pollution in general.

I couldn't agree more. It's amazing what the masses will believe if the media keeps ramming down people's throats.

I find it interesting that people think that bio fuels are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the fact is, it is still a combustion process. Not to mention engine life is severely reduced, which once again causes more pollution.

I agree with solitare and it's a big problem. However, I don't see it resolved in the near future if ever. The military has almost unlimited funding capabilities. They will never care about pollution or global warming. Not if they want to keep fighting wars. All they have to tell the public is: "If you want us to reduce fuel consumption, you are killing the troops and the terrorists win." With that slogan they can get away with anything. They better start converting their tanks into submarines because there won't be much land left after all the ice is melted.