tal concerns with practical needs. Pressuring the mili-
tary to embrace values and practices of sustainabil-
ity in the 1990s was a difficult process, but once the
military embraces a new direction, it creates processes
to implement that change. Those processes continue
to affect military planning and practices, including
the development of more complete cost accounting
methods to assess resource use (AEPI and USAEC
websites, e.g.). The Army “Strategy for the Environ-
ment” emphasizes that sustainability is a critical com-
ponent of readiness, and that sustainability requires
full cost accounting (AEPI 2010). With its formidable
buying power and its reach across societal classes, the
military can be a powerful force as an innovator and a
mechanism for social change.
Since 2009, the DOD has been working to reduce
energy consumption in combat zones. The U.S. mili-
tary is the largest industrial consumer of oil in the
world, using more than is consumed by 85% of the
world’s nations (Davenport and Dreazen 2011). Fuel,
in addition to being expensive to purchase, is diffi-
cult to transport in combat zones and provides a very
vulnerable target to the enemy. The military is find-
ing ways to reduce fuel needs, which reduces weight,
increases agility, and minimizes the number of very
vulnerable fuel transport targets, including soldiers,
in addition to reducing pollution. Efforts to develop
more efficient vehicles and adopt technologies to al-
low low energy bases of operation in remote areas
are part of the cost and risk reduction work. By 2013,
the Air Force plans to certify all of its aircraft to use
renewable fuels (Ricks 2011). The DOD has adopted
non-combat goals, including efficiency goals at instal-
lations and commitments for incorporating green de-
sign technologies in all new construction. For exam-
sharon
(sharon)
#1