Slashdot Mirror
Biofuels Will Power Navy's Next Deployment (sandiegouniontribune.com)
mdsolar writes with news about the launch of the "Great Green Fleet," part of a Navy plan to use 50% alternative fuels by 2020. The San Diego Union-Tribune reports: "This Wednesday, there surely will be tears, hugs and excitement as sailors begin another deployment to the world's hotspots. On the surface, it will be a replay of a common occurrence in any Navy town when sailors go to sea, but in the ships' gas tanks will be fuel made from renewable resources that has officials back at the Pentagon exuberant. 'Underway on beef-fat power' might not have the same ring as 'Underway on nuclear power,' the historic message the Nautilus submarine beamed when it left the pier 61 years ago today. Nonetheless, the Navy is trumpeting the use of renewable biofuels as a game-changer. In 2009, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced that the Navy and Marine Corps would get half of their power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2020, and that the Navy would deploy an entire carrier strike group using biofuels by 2016."
Used to be that USA and Saudi Arabia were allies of necessity. Not so much anymore. Once the US can project power without risk of getting strangled by OPEC they are no longer a necessary ally, only a convenient one.
I guess Obama telegraphed this message early on in his presidency when he gave that speech in the middle east where he basically said the US would no longer prop up leaders that are not supported by their people.
My theory is that China and the US looked at the projections for 20 years ahead: Oil production would no longer be able to keep up with demand at that point. So time to make the change, and screw over Russia while they were at it. No longer having to prop up a cluster of corrupt despots who desperately tried to hold back the future with guns and bribes is a nice bonus. ISIS and Al Qaida is basically what USA reaps from that :(
You think the USA hasn't: The USA had a civil war in the 1860s, it had the civil rights conflicts in the 1960s. It's the same thing with the difference being; holding "back the future" is way more effective under a dictator or a theocracy.
This was predicted in the 1950s but was continuously suppressed. The 1970s showed what almost-the-end of oil would be like but no government had a practical plan for it. GW Bush promoted fracking for his own benefit as much as for the hope of oil independence. It's ability to deliver was always questionable but now OPEC is undercutting its own market to ensure fracking isn't used.
Al Qaida was created by the Russian-Afghan war and empowered by the US abruptly withdrawing support for the war. ISIS exists because the USA wages war for profit (See 'War is a racket') or revenge, not actual empire-building. Imperialism requires the invading force to give back to the conquered lands, so peace and stability ensues. The USA gave Iraq an unreliable electrical grid and a collapsing political class: That did not foster stability so when problems from other countries spilled into Iraq, the country was unable to fight. That's how the USA is responsible for ISIS.
No longer having to prop up a cluster of corrupt despots ...
Did you see the earlier Slashdot article about Djibouti? The USA is moving to a flying (literally as well as the "rapid response" meaning) "assassination bureau" to protect its overseas 'interests'. Whether such policies will be used for regime-change or defense of corporate assets is an important question.