Yesterday, at the International Auto Show in Detroit, Federal Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced a research program called "Freedom Car" to aid in the development of a hydrogen economy.

Philosophically, the idea has been enticing for some time, since it is an energy source that does not produce greenhouse gases or nuclear waste byproducts.

Not only might hydrogen prove to be the lynchpin in future economies (replacing the internal combustion engine) and aid in the stabilization of our environment (through reduction of carbon dioxide emissions), but the program is being pitched as an effort to protect the national security of America (by reducing dependence on foreign oil).

In actuality however, the day's announcement is likely to put an already shaky economy under greater stress, increase global warming, and do little for the security of the average American.

How is it possible that such a great idea will have such manifestly negative consequences? Simple. It cancels an 8-year, billion dollar program to increase the fuel efficiency of transportation. Fuel efficiency can happen today, whereas mass hydrogen cell production and distribution is a ways off. This means, say, 10 more years of increasing fossil fuel usage and increased dependence on foreign oil.

In turn, that is another 10 years of increasing contribution to global warming, a destabilizing climate, and all the associated disaster relief costs that go with it.

And, although the government and mass media may doubt global warming, insurance companies do not.

Who do you think will bear the costs of this one?