Tariffs on solar panels ‘will harm’ US national security
PRESIDENT Donald Trump has long vowed to make the US military stronger than ever before. He now has an opportunity to do exactly that.
The US International Trade Commission is proposing tariffs on imported solar energy panels for Trump to approve. That may be tempting for the president, who has put forth an “America First Energy Plan” and could see tariffs as a way to enact it. But it would be a grave mistake - one that would hurt our national security, cost veterans their jobs and increase power bills for everyday Americans.
The US military depends on a diverse set of energy resources, and increasingly that includes solar energy. Over the past seven years, the price of solar has dropped by 70 per cent, giving our military a cost- effective, reliable, flexible source of electricity for its operations. The tariffs proposed would significantly raise the cost of solar energy, jeopardising the financial viability of solar projects at US military bases across the globe and threatening our long-term security interests.
Make no mistake: Tariffs would directly harm US national security and needlessly put the lives of American troops at risk.
As a commander in the US Air Force, I saw firsthand how energy affects America’s national security. The military is our country’s single largest energy consumer. Energy is vital to every part of our mission. And when the military is forced to rely on a single source of fuel to power its global operations, the consequences can, quite literally, be devastating.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we relied on oil to power almost every part of our forward operating bases. It came at a high cost, both in money and in lives. Transporting fuel to our bases, many of which are in remote regions, requires convoys to navigate dangerous supply routes, and for our military to deploy troops to protect them. Between 2003 and 2007, more than 3,000 Americans died or were injured protecting these convoys.
When he was commander of US Central Command in 2004, Jim Mattis called on the agency he now leads to “unleash us from the tether of fuel.” Mattis was right when he said that then, and it’s still true today. I am agnostic to what fuel the military uses, so long as it doesn’t put Americans at risk.
The military also needs reliable energy. Here in the United States, military bases often serve as emergency response centres, like they did for communities in Florida and Texas that were hit by hurricanes this fall. We cannot afford to have power in these facilities go out for sustained periods. But too often, it does. In fiscal 2016 alone, the Defence Department reported 701 power outages on military installations that lasted eight hours or longer. The majority of these were a result of grid disruptions that would not have happened with solar.
Meanwhile, the price volatility of traditional fuels makes it difficult for our military to efficiently budget and plan. With an energy bill totalling US$ 4 billion, price shocks can have a serious effect on the Defence Department’s budget.
The real price we pay for our nation’s energy is even higher: Maintaining stability in regions where fossil fuels, especially, come from requires significant resources.
The president seems to recognise this, which is why he and several of his predecessors have sought to boost US energy independence. —
The tariffs proposed would significantly raise the cost of solar energy, jeopardising the financial viability of solar projects at US military bases across the globe and threatening long-term security interests.