I'm keen to find out how the models play out with a lot of open water in the Arctic. The water reflects less, but there should be more moisture in the air, hence more snow in the surrounding land. I posted a question on this to a realclimate thread but didn't get past the moderator.

One of the easiest "fixes" is to redo CAFE standards/law and remove the "two fleet" rule.

"Nor would it have to repeal the CAFE rules that are now a sacred cow. It would simply have to allow auto makers to meet the fuel economy standards with any mix of autos made in domestic or overseas factories.

Under the nonsensical "two fleet" rule that now applies, manufacturers meet the standards separately with their "domestically" and "nondomestically" produced fleets. What does this have to do with making sure U.S. consumers get good mileage? Nothing. It's a naked handout to the UAW at the expense of the companies and their customers."

The entire article can be found here. It is a free read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584326266699163.html

High-efficiency diesel ...

I could only support new diesel applications if we can save a comparable volume of diesel fuel from other apllications. The reason is that the relative amount of diesel versus gasoline (and other distillates) is largely invariant (i.e. we can't change it much), and diesel is already in relative scarity. So while diesel engines are thermodynamically more efficientl than say gasoline engines, overall the relative consumption of the two fuel types cannot vary by much. Even without created new diesel demand in the car market, demand reduction for diesel is more important for the overall system balaance than demand reduction for gasoline.

Now, if we can aggressively reduce diesel demand, by such actions as improving trucking aerodynamics, electrifying trains, producing hybrid construction equipment, and buses etc, then perhaps we can free up enough diesel to pursue your solution.

of course his rhetoric is against reality. he like most us politicians are beholden to pro isrial groups due to the large amounts of cash(ironically that cash comes from the 4 billion annually we give to the state of isrial) and influence they have in the lobbying realm. this is the main reason why we for a long while have been going after states said country views as evil.

The problem of course is risk management. As President he has to listen to national intelligence departments. He can't afford to say if things go to hell in a hand basket ... "Oh yes, I got that idea off TOD".

The pace of events in Afghanistan has already outstripped campaign rhetoric. Everyone in Afghanistan wants to negotiate. Everyone is sick of the war. And Afghanistan seems to function best when no one tries to establish central power over its multifarous peoples, and the current stalement is now recognized as unbreakable.

As awful as the Taliban is, it has been successfully infiltrating the government for years via its Senate, which is a cabal of bought-off warlords whose loyalties are drifting away from Karzai. If the Taliban was to become too strong the warlords probably would rebel against it too. No one accepts the right of Kabul to rule, and the only thing keeping the war going in its current form is the West's insistence that there be a Western-style government in Kabul ruling over a fictional nation-state.

So now the British and the Europeans are beginning to give in to the ugly reality, and the US can't hold the country by itself. I guess the war ends when we find a way to pretend that we've won, just like in Iraq.

PE Obama needs to also reverse some of his own campaign promises: e.g, to take troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. Half great, half terrible.

And his recent rhetoric on Iran completely disregards the NIE report -- Iran dropped its work on nuclear weapons several years ago. And the NPT grants them the right to pursue nuclear power.

If Obama remains within the embrace of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies and their associated corporate partners, it guarantees disaster going forward.

I am in full agreement with you. I hope you take advantage to Change.gov to let him know your thoughts. If we change our foreign policy sufficiently along the direction you would like, I would need to trade in my Nom-de-guerre.