Military Green

America spent nearly a trillion dollars on its military last year. That was more than triple China's (second in the world) spending, more than triple the EU's spending, seven times Russia's (third, and engaged in war with Ukraine), and about as much as the total spending by nations #2 thru #10.

That's a whole lot of green, and a notable chunk of it was devoted to missions other than national defense. There’s much to criticize there from a libertarian perspective.

Today, however, I want to point out the cost of a different sort of green - that of "green" energy initiatives in the military. These initiatives, ordered by the Biden administration, include replacing 170,000 non-combat Department of Defense vehicles with electrics, transitioning petroleum-burning ships to biofuels, seeking to go 100% carbon-free (or "carbon free," as in buying carbon offsets) by 2030, spending on electric propulsion systems, battery farms, wind and solar farms, and much more.

All this will cost money, and a lot of it. Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars.

To replace what works just fine.

Here's a perfect place to inject Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window.

---

---

As with the Cash For Clunkers campaign, disposing of functioning equipment is a destruction of wealth, and that lost wealth doesn't occur in a vacuum.

In the case of the military, it will adversely impact operational readiness. This means reduced military capability, reduced ability to defend the nation from foreign hostiles, and American lives at greater risk. And, since it's near-certain that this will be used as an argument for increased military budgets, it also means printing more money, which means more inflation and damage to America's long-term prosperity and Americans' living standards.

Many on the Left, the Biden Administration included, would have you believe that "green" creates jobs. People will have to build all this new stuff. But the wealth destroyed in the process will cost us in other ways, including jobs, with a net negative effect.

All for what? China isn't going to actually chase net-zero, or even curtail its carbon output beyond what occurs naturally as market forces and technology have their way. Nor will the other BRICS nations, nor will the developing world. Especially if, as greens insist, we limit our new energy production to wind and solar power.

Beyond that, our lack of domestic supply of minerals and metals critical to wind and solar and batteries makes us hostage to the nations that produce them. Did I mention that China dominates in that department? If you want to see what being held energy-hostage to a hostile foreign power looks like, look no further than Europe and Russia. Germany's energy suicide - closing coal and nuclear plants based on green dreams - and subsequent reliance on Russian natural gas emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine.

National defense is a core governmental function, even for the most minarchist among us. America's military is unsurpassed in ability, but a nation $37T in debt can't afford to simply fling additional hundreds of billions in order to "green" its military, especially given how quixotic the pursuit of net-zero actually is.

Instead of engaging in green fantasies, our leaders should ensure our military continually adapts to evolving technologies and changing threats. The lessons of the Ukraine War, especially with the advent of drone warfare, should set our future priorities.

Fortunately, Trump rescinded many of Biden's green military initiatives, something that goes squarely in the Good-Trump column, and something that serves as a reminder of the perils of a Harris Presidency. Hopefully, whoever succeeds Trump, whether Team Red or Team Blue, realizes that military preparedness should not take a back seat to green foolishness.