But we would appreciate a detailed accounting of how much it will cost to switch to alternative energies, build more eco-friendly buildings and attain the goals Chancellor William Kirwan wants to attain ? especially because those are some of the same ideas that Gov. Martin O?Malley and legislators want to force on people statewide.

We do not doubt the need to find alternative sources of energy. Even the heads of multinational oil companies say that cheap sources of crude are on decline as major wells peak with not enough new, easily exploitable fields discovered to replace them. Combined with political instability in oil-rich nations and growing demand from developing economies, high prices are here to stay. Worse, conflicts over securing resources could loom as well.

But that is no excuse for keeping residents in the dark about the price of switching to and the science behind alternative fuels.

In 2007, the Government Accountability Office estimated that alternative fuels and technologies “by 2015 could displace only the equivalent of 4 percent of U.S. annual consumption. Under these circumstances, an imminent peak and sharp decline in oil production could have severe consequences, including a worldwide recession.”

If that is true, attaining the schools? goals looks highly unlikely without a Manhattan Project effort to develop other energy sources.

And that will cost much. It already is, as ethanol mandates have sent commodity prices soaring, along with the price of food. Actions have consequences ? and one of the biggest consequences of a greener Maryland will be making it a much less affordable one for everyone, and especially for its poorest citizens. And scientists around the world are finding that clearing land to grow crops for biofuels creates more greenhouse gases than the fuels help to reduce.

This evidence must be factored into both the University System goals and those of the state. Fervor in the employ of science and economics benefits everyone. Detached from reality, it can only cost us.