economic and social factors. This is especially relevant
in assessing security issues related to particular prod-
ucts, materials, and/or processes.
Reality Check
If the DOD is serious about being a leader in sus-
tainability this must be reflected in funding priorities.
While the DOD (2010c) Strategic Sustainability Perfor-
mance Plan lists several large-scale investments, in-
cluding $1.2 billion dedicated to energy security tech-
nology, this ranks at the lower end of funding when
compared to significant weapons systems. Because
sustainability initiatives can be viewed as a force mul-
tiplier, or even a new type of ‘weapon’ in the DOD
arsenal, it should be funded as such.
Related to funding is the flexibility necessary to
ensure sustainability initiatives can be realized. There
is a litany of well-intentioned efforts throughout DOD
to improve environmental conditions expressed in
formal memoranda and press releases, but were either
never funded or hamstrung by funding restrictions, or
‘red tape’ and hence did not achieve their goals. For
example, a 1992 report found a significant restriction
to encourage more recycling, due to commanders not
having the latitude to work with the private sector to
obtain markets which would offer the best price (Fun-
ke et al. 1992). Almost two decades later, Lovins (2010)
reported there are bureaucratic/logistical barriers to
fully implement procedures to enable better assess-
ments of long-term costs and savings from energy-
related initiatives.
The size of DOD offers the potential to take advan-
tage of economies of scale to make many sustainable
efforts viable, to benefit both the military and broader