In a statement released by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, the department head re-emphasized the importance of advancing energy technologies while conserving our resources.

In a statement released by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, the department head re-emphasized the importance of advancing energy technologies while conserving our resources.

The message is not new. We’ve been hearing it for decades, and a presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) that was marked by the theme was short-lived and not particularly popular.

It seems Americans are fans of abundance in whatever form it takes, and take a colder approach to the nattering nabobs of negativity scolding us for our wasteful habits.

But let’s get real, folks; we are far and away the most wasteful nation on earth. We use fossil fuels, electricity, and natural resources far disproportionate to our population relative to the rest of the world, and produce the most garbage, emissions, and other waste than any other nation. That dubious distinction may soon be bestowed upon our Far-East counterpart, China but–for now–we’re the undisputed gluttons of the world.

Granted that, with a certain level of consumerism and capitalism, there comes the inevitable side-effect of waste and energy usage. Another, more positive aspect of capitalism, however, is the advancement of technology: you’d think more resources would be going into making our products and lifestyle more energy efficient.

But as the law of supply and demand so elegantly and unequivocally shows, the cheapest energy will get the most use. New technologies are–by nature–more expensive when they’re in the infancy of their development. This is whether you’re talking about flat-screen TVs, personal
computers, or, to use an automotive example to illustrate, clean diesel. It takes the deliberate will of corporate America to make the investment into these technologies. Otherwise, you have the government mandating such technologies which, at least to businesses, is the less desirable alternative.

But that brings up the next point. If businesses build it (e.g., clean diesel again), will they come? (”They” being the American consumer?) Will most people buy a product or service simply by virtue of its energy efficiency? Perhaps Ed Begley Jr., George Clooney, or a few flannel-wearing eccentrics in the Vermont Backwoods may make the switch. But given the choice, most people will choose the cheaper product with more perceived immediate benefits.

Personally, if the cost of such technology was within being 15-25 percent higher than an equivalent conventional device, and I felt it offered the majority of the functionality of its “normal” counterpart, I’d probably go for the “energy efficient” version of whatever gizmo is offered. I’ve already dutifully replaced all the lightbulbs in my home with compact fluorescents. Granted, the initial cost is 5-10 times that of conventional incandescents, but I can appreciate the real savings every time I open my utility bill. They’ve paid for themselves many times over in the past 4 years I’ve been using them.

I have no problem putting solar-panel tiles on my roof, owning a Tesla, and installing double-pane windows. To me, I’m not sacrificing a thing with those products (except my bank account in the case of the sexy little Tesla roadster. Supposedly the electric roadster’s maker is working on more affordable models. I’m looking forward to seeing them.).

But until the collective consciousness of Americans decides to make the decision to buy newer, more efficient (though sometimes more expensive) products, and companies can produce them for not an outrageously extortionary premium, we’re going to continue to be lured to the bargain bins at the mega-marts, and stuff our body-on-frame, V-8 full-size SUVs with these trinkets.

- Edward A. Sanchez