Should you be allowed to drive on lesser roads when the Thruway or an interstate is nearby? You will use more gas on the lesser road. Because you have to brake more often. And you have to stop and start in towns and cities.

If you will use more gas, maybe the government should prohibit this type of driving. To lessen your consumption of fuel. To lessen your carbon footprint. For the good of the rest of us.

Does this seem ridiculous to you? Your federal government just banned old-fashioned light bulbs. For the same reason. That is, for “improved energy efficiency”.

Maybe some day your all-powerful government will ban some of your driving. It makes sense, doesn’t it? Why should the family next door be allowed to drive three big cars? And be allowed to burn five times the fuel you do in your one small car?

If banning incandescent light bulbs makes sense, wouldn’t a ban on excess driving also make sense?

Now if the feds were truly interested in improved energy efficiency, they would ban private jets. This year America’s private jets will burn 3,000 million gallons of fuel. That is not 3 million, or 300 million. It is 3,000 million gallons of fuel.

How many incandescent light bulbs do you suppose all that fuel could light?

We have 11,300 private jets these days. The number is expected to grow about 1,000 per year for the next ten years. Probably 600 to 700 will fly football fans to New York for just this year’s Super Bowl. John Travolta owns eleven jets. Including a Boeing 707.

Does this sound like energy efficiency to you?

The feds and state government already tell you how much fuel you can burn to heat your house. In subtle ways they do. When you build a house, these governments tell you how much insulation you must have. They limit how much glass you can have. If you want wall to wall glass you will have to stack twenty feet of insulation in your attic.

While they do this to you they don’t keep a super-rich guy from building a 30,000 sq. ft. mansion. Or two or three. You have read that Al Gore burns humungous amounts of fuel in his jets. To fly to give lectures at $100,000 a pop. Lectures on how stupid you are to want old-fashioned light bulbs.

Any number of movie stars do the equivalent. They rally ‘round the Green flag. Then they fly to St. Barts in their fuel-guzzling jets.

Will your government get ‘round to banning your boat? Why not? There is no question of your boat being energy efficient. It ain’t. For the simple reason that you don’t need to run it. Unless you are a fisherman.

While they are at it, maybe they will ban those gigundous fuel burners called ocean liners. That will bring about some energy efficiency.

Your old desktop computer burns a lot of electricity. Should the government ban it?

And how about some of our activities that are damned inefficient when it comes to energy use? Like casino gambling. Americans drive millions of miles and burn millions of gallons every year. In order to lose billions of dollars. While casinos burn tens of millions of dollars worth of fuel to heat the losers.

And how about those vacation trips. Your neighbors fly all over the country on theirs. Why should they be allowed to burn so much fuel? Should government limit vacations to one per family per year?

My point is that your government handlers are selective when it comes to controlling you. Down to the light bulbs in your house. They tell you they are looking out for your own good. They only want to reduce your carbon footprint or whatever. Right.

Do you suppose energy efficiency is truly their goal? If so, how many private jet flights do you suppose your congressguys take every year? Any chance they will ban those?

From Tom...as in Morgan.