Billions For Climate, Not One More Cent For Defense

[Geee]

Investors Business Daily:

Federal Priorities: A new report shows we have spent $70 billion on climate change since 2008 while our strapped military is ordered to become energy-efficient. Imagine weapons that don't harm the environment.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor Thursday to decry the green agenda being imposed on the military by the Obama administration at the same time the defense budget is being sacrificed on the altar of runaway deficit spending.

Inhofe produced a Congressional Research Service report that showed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. During that time the Defense Department spent nearly $4 billion on energy efficiency and climate change activities.

We wonder if the environment is the uppermost thing on the minds of soldiers being shot at by the Taliban and avoiding being blown up by IEDs. But it does seem to be on the mind of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

"The area of climate change," he recently told the Environmental Defense Fund, "has a dramatic impact on national security."

Spending money on climate change reduces the amount of money that can be spent on defending the United States and its interests. We suspect Panetta will have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran long before rising sea levels threaten the Pentagon.

"Which would you rather have?" Inhofe asked. "Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force Base solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-35s or modernized C-130s?

"Would you rather have $68.4 billion spent on pointless global warming efforts or would you rather have more funds put towards modernizing our fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and help defend our nation against the legitimate threats that we face?"