We're not going to make the economy green by increasing the price of oil. It has to be done by making green energy cheaper or capable of replacing oil in military contexts.
The U.S. military maintained and fueled-up all of those tanks and jets for 20 years in Afghanistan and accomplished nothing. Why should the world’s climate continue to suffer for stuff like that?
What is more important, climate change or the fuel supply of tanks?
The subsidies aren't protection against this scale of military action. It's a protection against a real war where the enemy has the ability to cut off our international supply lines or where are suppliers themselves are the enemy. This is the exact reason we subsidize corn farms.
It's very analogous to the PPE shortage we just had in the US because we outsourced all of our manufacturing to countries that took first dibs before exporting.
>What is more important, climate change or the fuel supply of tanks?
To the existence of the US government, tanks and airplanes are a more immediate need.
Investing in the military is nothing like buying more computing capacity on AWS. It's not as flexible as you imagine it to be. By the time war begins, it can be too late. Afghanistan may have been a mistake but other wars were not.
Additionally, federal defense spending as a share of GDP has fallen gradually since WWII and the Cold War. The past couple decades have been our lowest levels since the 1930s.
Finally, if you were to make substantial cuts to our military, the world and our adversaries would take notice, and we don't want the consequences of that. It's hard to grasp how much of the world's geopolitics is altered by that defense budget the American public views as 'going to waste.'
I'm not sure that I buy that. Cost is no object, the govt can afford to buy fuel if it needs it.
Conversely, any country we import oil from during war time becomes a target to the supply line.
I wouldn't vote for a party that promised to raise gas prices to 8 dollars a gallon - I don't think most people would.
