Elections have consequences, and this story is a good example of that.  According to Kyle Morris, our army is going green — as in "climate change green":

The U.S. Army unveiled a plan this week to tackle issues surrounding climate change, including the establishment of an electric vehicle fleet, as well as the reduction of the branch's greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan, outlined by the Army in a document titled "Climate Strategy," calls for the service to cut its emissions by 50% by 2030 from 2005 levels and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The strategy aims to establish an "all-electric light-duty non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2027" and an "all-electric non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2035."

"There are 950 renewable energy projects supplying 480 megawatts of power to the Army today … scoped and planned through 2024," the Army strategy stated. "The Army will continue these and other efforts under the Army Installation Energy and Water Strategic Plan to maximize resilience, efficiency and affordability on every installation."

"Climate change threatens America’s security and is altering the geostrategic landscape as we know it," Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said in a message included in the strategy. 

"For today’s soldiers operating in extreme temperature environments, fighting wildfires and supporting hurricane recovery, climate change isn’t a distant future, it is a reality."

Insisting that the "time to address climate change is now," Wormuth said the Army will "lead by example" as it works to address the effects from climate change that have "taken a toll on supply chains, damaged our infrastructure and increased risks to Army soldiers and families due to natural disasters and extreme weather."

Sounds good, but are we sure that all of those natural disasters are happening because of climate change?  Has that actually been proven, or did someone mess up the temperature models again?  

A few days ago, The Wall Street Journal had an article entitled "Climate Scientists Encounter Limits of Computer Models, Bedeviling Policy."  I was not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it came to graphs and models, but it sounds to me as if maybe those computer models may not be so reliable after all.  Nevertheless, we are going to "woke" our army so we can make ourselves feel good about climate change.

My question: Can we still win a war and protect the homeland?  Isn't that the purpose of our military?  Soldiers have fought in inhospitable places before.  It comes with the territory if you are a soldier.

Secondly, what are our potential enemies and adversaries doing with their armies?  Is China's military going green, or is it still planning to rely on fossil fuels?

Somehow I don't think a lot of this would have been happening had President Trump been re-elected. My guess is that President Trump would have focused on keeping a strong military that can win wars rather than virtue-signaling.

Last, but not least, I hope electric military vehicles go more than 200 miles and that our enemy does not blow up all of the charging stations.  It would be tough to have lots of tanks on the field and no place to plug into.  It's one thing for that to happen between Dallas and San Antonio, but a battlefield is a different matter.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk).

Image: chuckgray via Pixabay, Pixabay License.