Can You Name the Planet's Biggest Gas Guzzler?

[Ichingcarpenter]

For decades, fuel consumption has been a major green issue. From miles-per-gallon to hybrids to alternative energy options and beyond, we surely now realize that the term "gas guzzler" is never a compliment. However, there's a dirty little secret rarely mentioned by the corporate media: The U.S. military is the single-largest purchaser and consumer of oil in the world.

"All the tanks, planes and ships of the U.S. military burn about 340,000 barrels of oil per day," explains Michael Graham Richard at TreeHugger.com. "If you break it down, the Air Force uses the most fuel, followed by the Navy, and then the Army. If the Department of Defense were a country, it would rank about 38th in the world for oil consumption, right behind the Philippines, a country with a population of 90.5 million people."

According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book, when oil consumption is broken down per capita, the U.S. Department of Defense ranks fourth in the world (behind three actual nations, that is.)

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/planet-biggest-gas-guzzler.html

[marmar]

1. The incestuous relationship between the Military-Industrial Complex, Big Oil, Big Finance...etc

nt

[trof]

2. That was exactly my guess before reading this.

[TxRider]

3. Are they sure?

That would be what almost 500 million gallons a month?

The U.S. airline industry uses more like a billion gallons a month. 85% of that for passenger planes.

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp?pn=1

[MH1]

4. Airline industry = multiple purchasers

sure you can twist and parse the words differently than they did, and maybe make a great case for your "logic".

But that would really be intentionally missing the point. (Oh wait ...)

"Biggest" vs. "did you know it was this big?"

[TxRider]

5. OK

But it could be argued Army, Navy and Air force are multiple purchasers as well.

I guess the point I was trying to make is U.S. airline passenger travel uses about 2x more fuel than the military.

Don't know what interstate trucking uses, likely also larger. Lotta trucks out there hauling our goods.


Just thinking out loud as i try to put that article in perspective in the big picture of where U.S. energy consumption goes.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Bullshit arguement and you kown it

Your flawed Logic is astounding

[TxRider]

7. In what way?

I'm not even arguing, just trying to get a perspective on what scale of usage that is in comparison to other uses.

You tell me, what % of fuel usage is the military out of the total U.S. fuel consumption overall?

The military if the article are correct uses 15,980,000 gallons a day.

A significant but not an enormous slice of our overall consumption in scheme of things.

We in the U.S. total about 915,983,000 gallons a day I assume including the military

So for every 900 gallons we use in the U.S., the defense department burns 15 gallons.




Airline travel uses about 30,300,000 gallons a day.

Transportation in the U.S. overall uses about 641,188,100 gallons a day.

We burn about 378,000,000 gallons of just gasoline per day in our cars and trucks that use gasoline.

Just to supply some perspective on the fuel guzzling we do as a nation... Per EIA statistics.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. But you confronted the facts at first and now you appease

or rationalize the the waste

ARE YOU ENABLING THE WASTE BY DEFENDING THE WASTE
FOR WAR?

Indefensible

Your first argument is where you compared one entity vs
independent corporations and then tried
to argue .....the navy... the airforce.... the army are not the same
sacred Cow.

[TxRider]

9. Ohh

I misunderstood.

I though this was about comparative fuel usage.

It's an anti war thread?

I took the DOD as an industry(military industrial complex and all), and the airlines as an industry.

Kinda like we talk about coal as an industry, oil as an industry, manufacturing as an industry when talking about C02 emissions, or wind as an industry, solar as an industry when speaking of national power generation statistics.

Excuse my ignorance at not realizing in this particular case of national statistics only singular corporations properly apply for comparison... My bad..


BTW I am not rationalizing anything. Just stating facts to put things into an overall perspective.

[kristopher]

10. Your verbiage is wrong

When discussing energy consumption, transportation is a "sector", manufacturing is a "sector".

Sectors are composed of many individual consumers making many individual decisions.

The Department of Defense is a monolithic entity that in purchasing decisions often resembles an individual consumer more than a sector.

There might be a tangential unrelated discussion to be had about the nature of the Department of Defense, but your remarks do not capture that.

The OP was dealing with DoD as a huge monolithic entity, which is unquestionably a valid perspective.

Your comparisons are not wrong, they are just totally aside from the issue raised by the OP.

[TxRider]

13. Could well be

Point being 340,000 barrels a day of consumption is a big number, but just how big? Depends on perspective.

I find it rather meaningless by itself, without being put into the context of total U.S. consumption, and comparative usages to other consumption rates to get a perspective on just how big the number is relatively speaking to the U.S. energy consumption picture.

Is that not logical and germane to the subject?

How big is an ant? To a flea he is huge, to an elephant he is tiny. The relative perspective matters does it not?

[unhappycamper]

19. The Air Force burns about 300,000 gallons of jet fuel a month in Afghanistan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7229125

[rollingrock]

11. The problem is compounded

because military vehicles and the defense industry are probably exempt from any sort of fuel efficiency regulations, emissions standards, etc.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Exactly

War should be more environmentally friendly. When you're breaking things and killing people, it should be done as efficiently as possible.

Pardon me for my rantings.

[rollingrock]

14. Not to worry

if war doesn't soon put an end to the human race as we know it, our environmental destruction of the planet probably will...it's a win-win for everybody!

[Canuckistanian]

15. Well, that certainly cheered me up

Hmmm, war or environmental destruction.....

Nice to know I have a choice. :sarcasm:

[rollingrock]

16. Don't mention it

look on the bright side though, the profits of the defense establishment will never be threatened. because making them follow emissions standards would cut into their profits, and obviously, we can't have that.

[TxRider]

17. I doubt it

Surely any combat vehicle like a humvee or tanks is exempt.

But the massive number of cars and trucks and whatnot likely fall under the same regulation as any other government vehicle at any other agency. They certainly buy those cars and trucks from the same car makers we do.

Dunno where you go to find out though.

Here is all I could find in a quick search...

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/21/20958.htm

[TheWraith]

18. Not really.

Fuel efficiency is extremely relevant for military vehicles because it defines the support logistics. For instance, the more efficient a jet aircraft is, the farther it can go from base before it needs refueling. Likewise for say a HUMMVW or supply truck.

This of course is balanced against performance, such as being able to climb hills or fly at supersonic velocities, but efficiency is always important in engineering.

[rollingrock]

20. Good point

vehicles with low emissions tend to get better fuel efficiency. and when you are in the middle of a battle, the last thing you want to do is run out of gas because the humvee or whatever you're driving gets really crappy gas mileage. the more times you have to stop and refuel, the more it exposes you to the enemy.