Finnish Defense Ministry Pledges Sustainable Development Program

By: Wolf von Baumgart, Staff Writer

The Finnish Defense Ministry has pledged to implement a program of sustainable development in its planning and operations as part of a broader long term national program, documented in “The Finland We Want by 2050”.

“We have pledged to sustainable development with several measures and one is our aim at decreasing energy consumption in the premises by 20 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent between 2010 and 2020”, said Planning Officer, Sami Heikkilä.

The Defense Ministry program is aimed at reducing environmental damage resulting from training exercises and regular operations, facilities construction, as well as materials, energy and waste management (including increased utilization of renewable energy sources).

Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that the plan currently did not mention hydrokinetics as a possible energy source. However, Finland currently utilizes significant conventional hydroelectric sources in its domestic power production.

The Defmin pledge may be read in its entirety at:

Information on advanced hydrokinetic turbine generators may be obtained on the website or by e-mailing .

9 thoughts on “Finnish Defense Ministry Pledges Sustainable Development Program”

  1. I guess they’re going to stop frying walrus steaks on the exhaust manifolds of their Lada’s.

  2. The U. S. has implemented environmentally friendly defense policies as well. Overall, that is good policy. Just because we insist on killing and maiming each other does not mean that we have to trash the planet as well.

    I think the emphasis on greenhouse gas reduction by the Finns and this administration is a distraction from more useful environmental measures. It takes money from the real to spend on the theoretical.

  3. What is amazing about advanced Hydrokinetics is its economical cost, very low environmental impact, zero GHG emissions and ease of maintenance is that US energy policy treats it like conventional hydroelectric power ( that requires dams ) and imposes the same regulatory burden, while Delaware state energy policy ignores it , even though it can produce clean electric power @ 7-8 cents/ KWH.

  4. Not all hydrokinetic generators are alike. Kaplan-type turbines with low-friction bearings and augmenter rings come very close to maximum theoretical fluid dynamic efficiency , while other designs are less effective.

  5. I think that conservatives can have a knee-jerk reaction against any smart or innovative energy approach or environmentally effective actions or strategies.

    When the government tires to mandate things, we get a mess like the Solyndra disaster or Karma.

    But the problem is government, not innovation. Having the government try to lead innovation is like asking a walrus to dance ballet.

    But that doesn’t mean conservatives should be against innovation.

    Invention, innovation, creativity, developing new products, new ways of doing things, always searching to build a better mouse trap, relentlessly looking for a better way —

    — these are inherently American and inherently conservative.

    It is a uniquely American belief system — at least it used to be — that we can be proud of ourselves for what we did today, but tomorrow we are going to do better. What we did yesterday is never good enough for tomorrow. we have no regrets for yesterday. But we are determined to exceed our personal best tomorrow. That is America. That is what built America.

    Our belief in the free enterprise system (NOT crony capitalism but competition that is rewarded) involves a whole world view of innovation.

    So we mustn’t fall into the trap of being anti-innovation.

    But government tends to push energy innovation that doesn’t work or works only under unreasonable economic conditions.

    So our challenge is to completely ignore the stupidity of government ,and the crony capitalism, and then just go about working on finding better ways of doing things.

    So I wrote an article for AMERICAN THINKER on whether it is time for conservatives to embrace “green energy” because of the foreign policy consequences.

    The cost of green energy is greater than traditional forms of energy.

    But when you add in the foreign policy fall out and the costs of military defense caused by sending trillions of oil dollars to countries who hate us, perhaps the analysis flips.

  6. I think that conservatives can have a knee-jerk reaction against any smart or innovative energy approach….

    This seems to be generally true, although it’s usually because of forced, premature implementation of flawed technology by government regulations; the light bulb fiasco, for example.

    Obviously, the method of heating dwellings, providing light, means of conveyance and so on have evolved over the centuries. To resist technological progress is foolish; but so is the forced implementation of unproven or prohibitively expensive alternatives.

    Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Steve Jobs were both innovators and men of practicality. And they all did more for the American people than any thousand politicians or regulators put together.

  7. Advanced Hydrokinetics can produce electricity @ 7-8 cents/KWH wholesale with zero GHG emissions and the White House is not seriously looking at it from a technical and environmental standpoint.
    Environmental issues, instead of being approached creatively and objectively have become politically polarized and distorted with with various hidden adgena.

  8. Then , there is also Duckweed to biobutanol conversion. It solves the ethanol problem, removes water pollution at a profit and creates jobs.

    The politicians still don’t get it.

    It’s about time to elect alternatives.

  9. Political ideology and polarization has its limits. We simply cannot solve our problems with the same limited mentality that created them in the first place.

    It’s time for a Renaissance…

Comments are closed.