Green energy.

• Author: Kojro, Chester A.
• Position: Readers' Forum - Letter to the editor

* In reference to, "Amid Political Backlash, Pentagon Pushes Forward With Green Energy" (April 2012, p. 8), I strongly object to the misrepresentation of the opposition to the Pentagon's pursuit of green energy.

In the 2nd paragraph, Sandra Erwin opines, "When did efforts to save lives and money become cheap partisan fodder?" An unnamed military official says it is "sad" that the military's campaign to burn less fuel and to secure alternative sources of energy is being politicized. This is a deliberate and obtuse conflation of two separate and distinct issues, reducing consumption and developing alternative (nonpetroleum) sources.

The Pentagon and the nation will obviously benefit from reduced fuel consumption. More advanced-technology fuel-efficient engines, generators, and utilities are worth pursuing, as is reduced consumption through revised operational procedures. These will certainly reduce the cost of fuel and quantity transported, with all the ancillary burdens, risks and costs entailed.

The problem is with that idiotic "alternative sources" boondoggle, especially Navy Secretary Mabus' "Green Fleet" demonstration where he intends to develop and...