It appears that Big Media is finally catching on to President Obama’s alternative-energy ruse, underscoring our ongoing argument that short-term profits in green energy are elusive at best.

Leading up to the Obama administration’s monumental $819-billion stimulus package, major news outlets have begun to run stories that challenge the viability of the alternative-energy component of the bill.

Alternative energy is certainly inevitability – whether or not it makes economic sense for American taxpayers and businesses. And eventually, maybe in our lifetime, renewable sources of energy as envisioned on the grand scale of President Obama and his followers will fulfill the promise of energy independence, environmental improvements and lower costs than fossil fuels.

In the meantime, however, the persistence of the White House to tout alternative energy as an instant fix that creates new jobs and energy sources to alleviate suffering among the unemployed amounts to nothing more than a cruel myth.

While we have been telling readers for months now that green won’t yield any near-term profits for reasons that are political, financial and technological, we see that Bloomberg and The New York Times have finally drawn a similar conclusion – perhaps starting a stampede away from the green monster.

On January 26th, Bloomberg ran a piece that said President Obama “may find it harder to increase renewable energy than his predecessor…”

The Bloomberg piece, in particular, cited the current credit crunch as a huge obstacle toward the construction of a widespread renewable-energy infrastructure. According to Bloomberg, “Obama’s goal to double U.S. renewable- energy by 2012 may take years longer because even fully funded projects take at least three years to develop.”

Further, the Obama folks set unrealistic goals strictly in terms of logistics, as many of these massive new energy projects can years to plan before the first hole is dug.

The New York Times, meanwhile, took a more political angle in their story of January 27th. The Times characterized the renewable energy struggle as geopolitical, with the service-orientated economies of the east coast mostly oblivious to the fossil-fuel mandate of manufacturing elsewhere in America.

This clash could pose some high hurdles for green-energy advocates to clear as they exert pressure from a lofty position of entitlement.

“There’s a bias in our Congress and government against manufacturing, or at least indifference to us, especially on the coasts,” the Times quoted Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio as saying. “It’s up to those of us in the Midwest to show how important manufacturing is. If we pass a climate bill the wrong way, it will hurt American jobs and the American economy, as more and more production jobs go to places like China, where it’s cheaper.”

Even Democrats from these so-called brown states could find themselves in a pickle as they try to balance the needs of their constituents against the partisanship of the new White House.

For decades, California has led the nation in environmental regulation, including the most sweeping effort to address global warming by imposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012.

As the Times reports: “But California and many East Coast States also differ sharply in the extent to which they depend on coal — a fossil fuel that is a major culprit in producing carbon emissions. California, for example, derived only 20.7 percent of its electricity from coal and 40 percent from hydroelectric power and renewable sources in 2005, while Ohio drew 86 percent of its electricity from coal that year, according to the Department of Energy. Other states of the Great Lakes and Plains are much more like Ohio than California in energy usage.”

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, told the Times, “My message over all is that for us to support what needs to be done in addressing global warming we need to demonstrate that, in fact, jobs are created. It’s not a theoretical argument. We have to come up with a policy that makes sense, that is manageable on the cost end, that creates new technology — and that treats states equitably and addresses regional differences.”

With the Times, Bloomberg and other major media outlets getting wise to the big green lie, investors can easily find themselves in the position of waiting much longer for a profit than the hucksters and politicians would lead you to believe.