A lot of “green” projects are humbug, but cutting energy usage, using non-potable water for watering lawns and gardens, and recycling things for which a reasonable price is paid for used/scrap (of which brass, esp. in the form of reloadable shell casings, and aluminum are certainly examples) or when recycling provides disposal at lower cost than land-fill usage, are all things every large organization should do to cut costs without sacrificing mission.
(I’m all for “green” when it coincides with cutting-costs or provides documentable human health benefits commensurate with the costs, but otherwise regard “green” projects as at best romantic humbug, and at worst statist plots.)
Yep. It's all about actual results, not predictions, dreams, or anything like that.
If going green works in a situation, embrace it. If not, discard it. No emotions one way or the other. Let the numbers speak for themselves. And it seems like here, going green is having a positive effect.
Agreed, what he spoke of as “conservationism” is what we teach in the Boy Scouts. Yet, he’s being called all sorts of names. So are we doing it “wrong” in Scouting by teaching conservationism? There’s a difference between environmentalism and conservationism.
What many don’t realize, is that like the USAF, there are the infrastructure (BASE) commanders and the combat (WING) commanders assigned to the same installation.
Their responsibilities are quite different. The base commander needs to operate as efficiently as possible and maintain the infrastructure required for the wing commander to be able to perform their job.
Yeah, his point about saving energy on a FOB to reduce logistics convoys is a good one. Those were always very soft targets for terrorist raids, so they required a lot of security, which pulled combat troops (sometimes) off patrols.