The Military-Environmental Complex

• Date: 01 August 2015

8-2015 NEWS & ANALYSIS 45 ELR 10763

A R T I C L E

The Military-Environmental

Complex

by Sarah E. Light

Sarah E. Light is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania.

Two competing theories vie for dominance regard-

ing the relationship bet ween the U.S. military and

the natural environment. On the one hand, because

legal rules permit the military to disregard environmental

laws when t hey conict with the militar y’s national secu-

rity mission, one might be left with the impression that

the military’s mission conicts inexorably with environ-

mental protection. Yet, the military is currently engaged in

an extensive undertaking to improve its sustainable energy

use by reducing demand for fossil fuels and developing

renewable energy sources. e mi litary is undertaking

such actions not only in response to congressional direc-

tives and presidential executive orders, but also voluntarily

in response to its operational and national security needs.

In some ca ses, the military is leveraging private na ncing

rather than taxpayer funds to drive innovation. Such coop-

eration among the military, private nanciers, and tech-

nology rms has the potential to transform for the bet ter

not only our nation’s energy prole, but also the military-

industrial complex. is new Military-Environmental

Complex should become a factor in the debate over regula-

tory instruments to combat climate change. At the same

time, however, these relationships warrant some caution to

prevent rent-seeking.

I. Military Exceptionalism

Environmental law doctrine tells us that the militar y is

exceptional; when needs of national security and prepara-

tion for wa r conict with environmental goals, environ-

mental goals must bend. Indeed, many federal statutes not

only acknowledge but support the view that the environ-

ment and national security are in con ict.

Under virtually all federal environmental laws, the

President may grant time-limited, renewable waivers from

environmental obligations for specic agency activities if

such waivers are “in the paramount interest of the United

States” or in the interest of national security.1 In some cases,

the agency head—for example, the Secretary of Defense—

rather than the President, may make that determination

without further executive review.2 In addition, in a time of

national emergency or after a declaration of war, Congress

has provided a blanket exemption for military construction

projects “not otherwise authorized by law that are neces-

sary to support such use of the armed forces.”3

In reality, however, the relationship between national

security and the environment is far more complex.

A. Exceptional Mission Alignment

Despite these exemptions, the U.S. Department of

Defense (DoD) has demonstrated t hat national security

and the militar y’s mission are deeply intertwined with the

need to reduce energy u se and develop alternative, renew-

able fuel sources. In fact, the DoD’s exceptional energy

use cre ates a unique synerg y bet ween t he military’s mi s-

sion and the need for energ y sustainability.

e DoD is t he largest single c onsumer of energy in

the nation.4 e military’s total energy costs in scal

year 2013 were $18.9 billion, approximately $4.1 billion

of which were facilit y energy costs and $14.8 bil lion of

1. See, e.g., Toxic Substances Contr ol Act, 15 U.S.C. §2621 (201 2); Coastal

Zone Manage ment Act, 16 U.S.C. §1456(c )(1)(B) (2012) ; Clean Water

Act, 33 U.S.C. §1323(a) (2 006 & Sup p. V); Sa fe Drinking Water Act,

42 U .S.C. §300h -7(h) (200 6 & Supp. V); Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, 42 U. S.C. §6961(a) ; Clean Ai r Act, 42 U.S.C. §741 8(b)

(2006 & Supp. V); Co mprehensive Envi ronmental Respo nse, Compen-

sation, an d Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9620 (j) (2006 & Supp. V); see also

Federal Leaders hip in Environmental, Ene rgy, and E conomic Perfor-

mance, Exec. Ord er No. 13514, 3 C.F.R. 248 (2010) [he reinafter Execu-

tive Order on Sustainability].

2. See National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §470h-2(j) (2012); Ma-

rine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §1371(f)(1); Endangered Species

Act, 16 U.S.C. §1536(j) (2012).

3. 10 U.S.C. §2808 (2012).

4. O   D U S’  D.  I 

E’, D  D A E M R:

F Y 2013, at 16 (2014), available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/en-

ergy/energymgmt_report/FY%202013%20AEMR.pdf [hereinafter AEMR

FY 2013].

e full version of this Article was originally published as: Sarah

E. Light, e Military-Environmental Complex, 55 B.C. L. R.

879 (2014). It has been excerpted and updated with permission of

Boston College Law Review and Sarah E. Light. Please see the full

article for footnotes and sources.

Copyright © 2015 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.