It’s always weird to hear conservatives doubt the idea of peak oil and then you have the U.S. Navy doing this
The Great Green Fleet is debuting at the 2012 RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) exercise, the largest ever international maritime war games, engaging 40 surface ships, six submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel from 22 nations. For the first time Russian ships are playing alongside US ships, and naval personnel from India are attending. Many fleets here are sharpening their focus on alternative fuels and working to assure the formulations are codeveloped with their allies. “We’ve had dialogue with the Australians, the French, the British, other European nations, and many others in the Pacific,” and they all want to take “the petroleum off-ramp,” Cullom tells me. “We don’t want to run out of fuel.”
You can’t live off the land at sea, which is why the Navy has always looked far into the future to fuel its supply lines; the job description of admirals requires them to assess risk and solve intractable problems that stymie the rest of us. Peak oil, foreign oil, greenhouse emissions, climate change? Just another bunch of enemies. So when the Department of Defense set a goal to meet 25 percent of its energy needs with renewables by 2025, the Navy found itself fighting on familiar ground. Four times in history it has overhauled old transportation paradigms—from sail to coal to gasoline to diesel to nuclear—carrying commercial shipping with it in the process. “We are a better Navy and a better Marine Corps for innovation,” Mabus says. “We have led the world in the adoption of new energy strategies in the past. This is our legacy.”
It goes beyond supply lines. Rising sea levels lapping at naval bases? A melting and increasingly militarized Arctic? The Navy is tackling problems that freeze Congress solid. What it learns, what it implements, and how it adapts and innovates will drive market changes that could alter the course of the world.
But not without a fight. Six weeks before RIMPAC 2012, Republicans and some coal- and gas-state Democrats tried to scuttle Mabus’ Green Fleet by barring the Pentagon from buying alternative fuels that cost more per gallon than petroleum-based fuels—the biofuel blend cost more than $15 a gallon—unless the more expensive alternative fuels come from other fossil fuels, like liquefied coal. This tricky logic made sense to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)—”[The Pentagon] should not be wasting time perpetrating President Obama’s global warming fantasies or his ongoing war on affordable energy”—even though seven years earlier Inhofe helped secure a $10 million taxpayer fund to test renewable military fuels, more than half of which went to a company in his home state. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed, calling the purchase of biofuels “a terrible misplacement of priorities” and adding, “I don’t believe it’s the job of the Navy to be involved in building…new technologies.” Mabus, who’d already bought the biofuels for the RIMPAC demo, fired back: “If we didn’t pay a little bit more for new technologies, the Navy would never have bought a nuclear submarine, which still costs four to five times more than a conventional submarine.”
A good look at the politics behind change in any institution, even one that needs to be as cutting edge as the U.S. Navy.
Navy knocked off Notre Dame again and this time the Midshipmen made it look easy.
Ricky Dobbs scored three touchdowns and Alexander Teich ran for 210 yards to lead Navy to its third victory against the Fighting Irish in the last four seasons, a 35-17 rout on Saturday at the New Meadowlands Stadium.
The 84-year old series, which Notre Dame (4-4) once owned like no other in college football history, now belongs to Navy (5-2).
In 2007, the Midshipmen snapped their NCAA record 43-game losing streak to Notre Dame with a 46-44 win in overtime at South Bend, Ind. Last year, Navy did it again, winning 23-21 at Notre Dame Stadium, the first of four straight losses that ended the Charlie Weis era.
Over the last year I have noticed a trend when in a mixed group of churches (often evangelical) and NGOs. It is the local evangelical churches inability to organize or work with outside groups. All of them share the following characteristics.
- The needs and convenience of the local church are more important than other partner agencies.
- Other partner agencies or the community are expected to conform to the church’s convenience, even though it is a big inconvenience to other parties.
- The church has a much bigger need for recognition than other agencies and groups.
The result is the same, the church is excluded in future discussions and is left on the margins while it’s reputation is hurt. One frustrated NGO leader that I know talked about dealing with adults and children and evangelical churches was put into the children category.
Over the years several people have seen this and suggested that pastors are relationally retarded, they just can’t interact outside of a hierarchical power structure. Bill Kinnon and I have talked about the narcissistic personality disorder and he also suggests that some pastors are sociopaths. I have noted that many evangelical churches don’t play well with others but I am sure in some cases that is the issue.
I wonder if in many cases it is a case of never interacting outside of the confines of the church. Growing up in the church –> Bible College –> Youth Worker –> Seminary –> Associate Pastor –> Sr. Pastor leads to fairly limited worldview as it totally focused on the life of the church. The church has been and continues to be a persons entire life. An entire career spent organizing within the community mean when in a situation where they need to be part of something bigger, they behave the same way they do inside the church, the needs of the church become the most important. The issue isn’t that pastors are jerks, it is that their education and career path hurts them. The more I think about it, the more it becomes a correctable issue.
What if we slowed down the path to the pulpit, either as denominations or as seminaries. What if a two year stint in the Peace Corps or something like working for the Canadian Coast Guard or navy was part of the journey? What about a two year stint in the mission field working grunge jobs and funded by the church that is sending them out to ministry. My friend Gloria always says that church staff need to work in the real world and the more I think about it, the more I agree with it.
The purpose is to show potential church leaders a bigger world and also put them outside the church for a while. Let them figure out some more about their personal faith, their calling, but also teach them how to work with other groups, learn what it means to be at the bottom of the totem pole. It would also teach them how hard it can be to make ends meet, be a good spouse, parent and participate on the life of the church. It would give them an idea how how much they are asking and how much people are giving towards the life of the church and what that means.
I know some people will leave the ministry along the way, they are going to find a better spot and serve. They may choose a career in the Navy, a career working in microfinance in Africa, or choose a career in business. Some will even lose their faith but that happens now. For those who are really called to pastoral ministry, it will give them a bigger worldview, a network a friends outside of the church, some more life experience, and the ability to understand how to work as part of a team, rather than just “lead” a team.
There is a reason why for years, culture valued leaders who served in the military as we felt that being part of something bigger than ourselves was a prerequisite of leadership. Even President Obama did this during his years as a community organizer in impoverished Chicago neighborhoods. Maybe a four year Bachelor’s of Theology needs to become a six year degree with a year breaks between year two and three and year three and four. A Masters of Divinity may require an approved year of learning outside of the seminary applying what has been learned. The Peace Corps, becoming a reservist, serving coffee in a Starbucks, being an intern in a shelter, or spending a year with YWAM become a required part of the curriculum. By moving people outside the church for education, we may just make them better church leaders who have learned some important skills connecting with others, building partnerships, and living in the community.