Spending Bill Clears Military Use of High-Carbon "Liquid Coal .

An amendment to a major military spending bill before the Family would lift a 2007 federal law barring the Defense Department from using alternative fuels, like synthetic oil made from coal, that create more climate-altering pollution than conventional fuels.

A card containing the amendment cleared the House Armed Services Committee this month.

The military`s annual expenditure of some 120 million barrels of oil is not merely an enormous cost to the union government but likewise a strategic risk because of the unpredictability of world oil markets, military analysts have said. The Defense Department has a destination of obtaining 25 percent of its vigour from renewable sources by 2025.

As a consequence of the 2007 law, written by Democrats, a substantial percentage of that movement is now focused on developing advanced biofuels like those made from algae with reduced carbon footprints. But the stress on biofuels has been criticized by Republicans, who contend that the strategic imperative of reducing dependency on foreign oil outweighs the motivation to subdue the military`s carbon dioxide emissions.

Were the provision barring high-carbon fuels eliminated, the Defense Department could renew its exploitation of synthetic oil made from coal - a process perfected by the German military during World War II when its approach to oil reserves was blocked. The carbon dioxide emissions associated with coal-to-liquid fuel are about double those from conventional oil.

Citing the military`s own recognition of climate change as a home security threat, Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, called for Congress to eliminate the provision allowing the procurement of high-emission alternative fuels.

"Congress should hurry the evolution and deployment of significantly cleaner domestic biofuels instead of spending tax dollars on dirtier fuels that accelerate global warming, which will foster unrest in nations impacted by global warming," Mr. Weiss wrote in an essay.

Supporters of the provision, however, note that current law prohibits the Defence Department from buying oil produced from Canada`s oil sands, potentially increasing fuel costs to the military - and its reliance on more far-flung foreign suppliers. Crude from oil sands is more carbon-intensive than traditional oil, but only marginally so, studies have found.

"At a sentence when American forces are combating terrorists abroad, it is particularly necessary for the Pentagon to get the versatility to safe and formulate alternative sources of fire from a friendly ally," Marty Durbin, vice chair of the American Petroleum Institute, a lobbying group, said in a statement this month.

Earlier this year, the Defense Department`s pursuit of experimental low-carbon biofuels was attacked as a scourge of money in a study by the Rand Corporation.

That account was criticized by a top Navy official, who said it contained several misrepresentations and errors, including a loser to evaluate whether the military`s enormous purchasing power could speed the evolution of affordable biofuels.

"We get do to some far different conclusions," Tom Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, said of the RAND report at a military conference in January.