Biofuel foolishness: Hamstrung Navy
As China ramps up its naval aggression, evidenced by the recent near collision of Chinese and U.S. warships in the South China Sea, the U.S. cannot afford to divert precious resources to the political pipe dream of a biofueled Navy.
Yet Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is undeterred in his support of a “farm-to-fleet” initiative with the Department of Agriculture, premised on the goal of replacing naval diesel fuel with biofuels — which are about seven times more expensive, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis.
Reality check: China for weeks has been threatening U.S. allies and laying claim to resources and commerce in the East and South China seas. In response to the aforementioned close encounter with an American guided missile cruiser, China's Xinhua news agency says the USS Cowpens “broke into the Chinese navy's drilling waters” and “triggered the confrontation.” But it was the Chinese ship that cut off the American cruiser in open waters, according to a senior U.S. Defense official.
Despite this and other world trouble spots, the Obama administration is pursuing a purely political goal that's of absolutely no benefit to America's defense. Writes Capt. Ike Kiefer, a naval aviator who teaches strategy at the U.S. Air Force Air War College, “Biofuel prices have proven (to be) as volatile as oil prices and are likely to be more so once subsidies end.”
National security — shipbuilding and maintenance — trumps political pander. The Navy needs to deep-six this biofuel foolishness.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.