During the presidential campaign, I personally heard then Senator Obama say at least on two occasions that Americans may have to get used to turning down the thermostat and getting by on less. Now I hear speeches by our rulers (shouldn’t we be referring to them as representatives?) about all the jobs that will be created with the new green energy we are going to produce. We hear about how this new direction will make life better and reduce our need for oil while cleaning up the environment.

Sounds like great promises.

I know, it is early in the game and there are lots of innings left. But I wonder how many runs we have to spot the other team before we get a new pitcher. Let’s look at some data.

First of all are the comments. To me, they seem a bit contradictory. If we have to become less comfortable and live with less, how is that making life better? Isn’t the American way about improving our status in life? If we have to do with less, wouldn’t that mean less manufacturing and fewer jobs? Is that making life better? Oh, maybe they just meant for those under the golden umbrella or with a government pension and I just did not hear them say that.

Next is reducing our need for oil. Politicians have been calling for that as long as I can recall. Certainly every leader since Carter has claimed that as a goal. I think they forget the law of supply and demand. One of the easiest ways to reduce oil consumption today is to produce biodiesel. We have the materials and technology. We also have the capacity to provide supply. Hollywood celebrities from Ed Begely to Daryl Hannah to Robert Redford have spent a lot of time and their own money to demonstrate how to go green. However, judging from a chart recently posted by the government’s Energy Information Administration, we have been building capacity but the market (us real people) is not buying. Europe uses much more diesel than we do but they have raised tariffs on importing biodiesel as they don’t want the excess capacity in the U.S. to lower market prices over there. Apparently they think they have plenty.

Solar and wind projects are going to go forward. However, they are having difficulty in locating the gear. The first hurdle is space. It takes 10 times more land area for the same production from coal or nuclear to provide the same amount of energy. Wind and solar projects have to be placed where they will be the most efficient. Now they are finding that the locations do not allow lines to be connected to the grid in a straight line without passing over land they don’t want disturbed. It is too costly and inefficient to run lines out of the way and projects are dying on the drawing board. Companies are trying to devise products that citizens can more easily use with their homes. However, local ordinances in many cases will not allow such construction. I read that even Al Gore was turned down for a permit to install alternative energy devices on his mansion estate. As the costs rise, it is less palatable to the public.

Long ago, I learned that if I went to the shop floor and told the foreman or the workers what to do, it almost never worked to my satisfaction. However, if I engaged those same people in a discussion and asked them to help come up with solutions, I could insert ideas and let them develop them as their own. Results nearly always exceeded expectations. Unfortunately, this group in Washington thinks that by sitting us down and telling us what is going to happen they are having a conversation. Their mouths are making promises that….