Navy torpedoes Biden-era zero emissions goal to focus on lethality
The Navy’s decision to no longer pursue a zero-emissions goal set by the Biden administration has sparked controversy and debate within the military and environmental communities. Secretary John Phelan announced the reversal of the Navy Climate Action 2030 Plan, which aimed to achieve 100% emissions-free vehicles by 2035 and 100% carbon pollution-free electricity sources by 2030, with a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Phelan justified the decision by stating that the Navy needs to prioritize having a lethal and ready naval force without being hindered by ideologically driven regulations. This move has been applauded by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who commended Phelan for his decision.
The previous Navy secretary, Carlos del Toro, had emphasized the importance of addressing climate change as a destabilizing force in the 32-page document produced under the Biden administration. The document highlighted the threats posed by climate change to naval installations, including rising sea levels, destructive storms, and strains on the energy grid.
The tension between prioritizing military readiness and addressing climate change is not new. During the Obama administration, then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus launched the “Great Green Fleet” initiative, which aimed to transition warships to renewable energy sources. However, this effort was discontinued during the first Trump administration in 2017.
Secretary Hegseth’s directive to identify budget cuts for Biden-era programs and redirect funding to Trump priorities has raised concerns about the potential impact on climate change initiatives within the Department of Defense. Programs related to climate change and other “woke” priorities could face cuts under this directive.
Overall, the decision to abandon the zero-emissions goal reflects a broader debate within the military about the balance between military readiness and environmental sustainability. As the Navy navigates these challenges, the implications of this decision on national security and environmental protection remain to be seen.
