News

December 3, 2008 - Army Green: Not Just a Color Anymore?
Among the many considerations attending United States Army operations - from training and deploying troops to the massive administrative and support infrastructure - environmental sustainability hasn't always been high on the list.

But its carbon footprint - or "bootprint" in military speak - is the subject of the Army's first annual Sustainability Report (PDF), released this fall.

Using the reporting framework established by the Global Reporting Initiative - the multinational group based in Amsterdam that provides guidance to companies seeking to analyze and publicly report their environmental practices - the 60-page document assesses the Army's green efforts from 2004 to 2007.

"The Army is at the very early stages of its sustainability journey," the report states in its introduction. "Although we applied the G.R.I. reporting framework for this first report, there is still much progress to be made and still much to learn."

Tad Davis, a deputy assistant secretary in the Army's Environment, Safety and Occupational Health division, said he devised the idea for an annual Army sustainability report after meeting with executives and studying the sustainability reports of Fortune 200 companies.


The findings were varied. The report concluded, for instance, that 78 percent of 301 new construction projects met the Green Building Council's "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED Standards for 2007. Meanwhile, only 16 of all 155 Army installations have comprehensive sustainability plans in place, the report found.

Mr. Davis says that starting in fiscal year 2008, $63 billion will be spent to ensure that every new Army building will at least meet LEED "silver" standards - a mid-level rating. He expects a greater up-front cost, but says that the Army will recoup this loss in the first two to three years, and that its sustainability efforts will ultimately reduce operational costs by 35 to 40 percent.

The Army dedicated $1.5 billion to its environmental programs in fiscal year 2007.

Among trends moving in an "undesired direction," according to the report: the Army generated over 45 million pounds of hazardous waste in fiscal year 2006, a 35 percent increase over 2003, and an 8 percent increase in pounds of hazardous waste generated per $1,000 net Army cost of operations.

The Army also managed to derive just 2.1 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, falling short of the 3 percent renewable energy requirement mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Meanwhile, on the transport front, the report found that of the Army's 60,000 non-tactical vehicles, 48 percent are currently alternative fuel capable. Mr. Davis said that the Army is also discussing increased carpooling and is experimenting with sustainable community designs on its bases that would make greater use of walking and integrated bike paths.

As for tactical vehicles, striking a balance between sustainability and battle-readiness is much harder task. "On the civilian side," Mr. Davis said, "they're trying to come up with a lighter frame and chassis. What we're trying to do is the opposite - make them heavier and put more armor on them to better protect the soldiers."

Nonetheless, given the potential for cost savings - and the tactical allure of energy independence - the Army says sustainability is now integral to securing its overall mission.

Dan Nolan, a retired colonel in charge of energy projects for the Army's Rapid Equipping Force, told the New York Times last year. "It's the right business for us to be in."

A report by the RAND Corporation and sponsored by the Army Environmental Policy Institute, released earlier this fall, echoed Mr. Nolan's remark.

That report cautioned that "if not properly addressed in planning or operations, environmental considerations can increase the costs of an operation and make it more difficult for the Army to sustain the mission."

Author: Azadeh Ensha
Publication: The New York Times

« Back to News | Read Full Article »

Search for Articles

Print Friendly Version
Think Green. Design green. Build Green.