The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal 2013 maintains strong support for clean energy, despite reductions in military spending and little support from both sides of the political spectrum.

President Obama's budget allocates approximately $1 billion for energy conservation, retrofits and renewable energy projects -- up from $400 million in 2010. It also includes $150 million for the Energy Conservation Investment Program and $32 million for an energy technology testing program, designed to facilitate commercialization.

DOD would see $486.9 billion in cuts over the next 10 years under the president's plan, but military leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the development and use of sustainable energy.

Navy budget officer Rear Adm. Joseph Mulloy said this week that spending on green energy initiatives would remain fairly steady, calling the programs significant for "tremendous tactical reasons."

"Everything you can do to [reduce] energy use and drive the same tactical output ... is important," said the admiral in a press briefing this week. Minimizing fuel transport and refueling operations means reducing risk for the Marines, Mulloy added.

By continuing to invest in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the fiscal 2013 budget maintains support for military research on aviation biofuels. It also offers strong funding for biotech research through the Department of Energy, and incentives for biomanufacturing industries.

The commitment dovetails with the announcement made last summer by the Navy and the departments of Agriculture and Energy to spend $510 million on advanced biofuels over three years.

"The U.S. military is as vulnerable to fuel price spikes as any consumer -- and all Americans continue to be hit hard by oil and gasoline prices," said Brent Erickson, executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), in a statement yesterday. "Rapid development of alternative advanced biofuels should be a national security priority, and we thank President Obama for recognizing this in the budget proposal."

More good than harm?

An important part of the president's State of the Union address was his pledge to support clean energy. He announced that DOD "will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -- with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year."

Michal Rosenoer, biofuels policy campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said Obama's definition of clean energy does not coincide with that of her organization, however. She said, regarding advanced biofuels, that funding the military's program means promoting practices that are "absolutely environmentally destructive."

"Greenhouse gas reductions are not the only thing we need out of biofuels," said Rosenoer. "Clean energy needs to be clean not just for climate, but for the environment as a whole. We shouldn't be sacrificing water quality and air quality for greenhouse gas emissions alone."

Further, she said, it's unclear whether DOD's focus on advanced biofuels is improving America's energy security, since only a small amount of the renewable fuel is commercially available.

"We shouldn't be subsidizing it and the military shouldn't be buying it until we're sure these biofuels are doing more good than harm," she said.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) had a similar criticism of Obama's clean energy plan following last month's State of the Union speech.

"Right now, we're investigating a scandal where the U.S. military is buying this bio-jet fuel at a huge premium," said Issa. "In other words, we as taxpayers are paying far more than the market price just to make the point."

Issa's spokesman, Frederick Hill, confirmed that the House committee has been investigating green energy programs, saying the committee had found "huge expenditures" and that the goals were "far from being met."