These days, we’re accustomed to rhetoric not matching reality. But that doesn’t make it any less disappointing.

For years, we’ve heard any number of elected Bay State officials tout the commonwealth’s “green” credentials as one of our strongest selling points. And they’re right, to a point.

We boast an enviable collection of LEED-certified buildings and a strong stable of environmentally conscious builders.

The kinds of companies themselves that choose to make a home in Massachusetts – from solar panel manufacturers to software giants – generally tend to have a more progressive, eco-conscious bent.

Our thriving student population has long been at the epicenter of the green movement, and the institutions they attend have largely followed suit.

It all adds up to an impressive green resume. On paper.

But the reality is tempered by the sorry state of the very institution that should stand at the top of the list, but instead has fallen to the bottom – the MBTA.

There is no understating the importance of a viable, efficient public transit system in creating the foundation for reliable urban growth. Beyond the environmental impacts – which are significant – there are obvious practical implications inherent in an effective mass transit strategy.

The T does more than simply bring commuters to work, though that is certainly among its greatest attributes. And it is more than just another component of what bureaucrats and planners throw into the catch-all bin of “infrastructure,” though it is that as well.

But more than any singular function, the T provides for those with no other means. For seniors with limited mobility, it provides movement. For students without a car, it provides flexibility. For tourists without a clue, it provides a map. And for residents with places to go, it provides options.

If Massachusetts was the green, progressive bastion our leaders proclaim it to be, then the T should be providing even more for its residents and visitors. But instead, because of a combination of poor management and regulatory ignorance, the T is wrestling not with the question of if these provided services should be cut, but rather by how much.

We should never have gotten to this point, especially given how much public emphasis our leaders have placed on progressivism and smart growth. If these really were such high priorities – and nobody is saying they shouldn’t be – then the T should have been central to them.

The T hasn’t suffered because of a lack of demand, either. By all accounts, T ridership has skyrocketed in recent years, thanks in large part to rising gas prices, increased congestion and added service.

Now we know our elected officials aren’t always the best businessmen, but basic, tenth-grade economics teaches us that when demand rises, supply has to increase.

So why, then, are we forced to even consider the idea of cutting service – and worse still, charging more for that reduced supply?

Anecdotally, we’ve heard that T riders are willing to accept a fare increase in order to keep current levels. This in itself is a remarkable concession on behalf of any consumer. Generally, paying more means you’re getting a moderately improved level of service.

But apparently not in Massachusetts.

Until local and state officials alike reconcile the red-ink reality of the T’s situation with their overwhelmingly green rhetoric, Massachusetts – and Massachusetts residents – will continue to fall short of our progressive ideals.

T riders are voters, too. And we urge them to vote their way to a solution, demanding legislative action to eliminate the specter of a more expensive, less reliable and less useful public transit system.

There is no other alternative.