I saw a government owned Fusion hybrid on the roads a few weeks ago. It looked a bit different, so I took notice that it had government plates. Getting 40 mpg around town is the right way to go and leads by example.

I fully agree with SJC. Ford deserves to supply 100 000 + Fusion Hybrids (2010) to governments and agencies. The postal services and armed forces could by another 100 000+ Escape hybrids etc. By 2015/2020, most of those hybrids could be changed for BEVs.

Cities could buy 100 000 + small BEVs (in 2010/2012) to replace their huge V-8 ICE gas guzzlers. London is doing it, why not NY, LA, Chicago, etc?

In a democracy, governments are the people and should give the example.

The situation at the Postal Service deserves mention. They have a staggering operating deficit which is growing worse every day as mail volumes drop. Reducing delivery days gradually to two-say Tues and Friday. Scap most of the delivery fleet and replace them with hybrids. Overall potential to save huge amts of fuel and CO2.

Reduce government - reduce energy consumption and waste.

Reduce fleet size - reduce fuel consumption.

A double win - win.

nordic:

I fully agree with you for all residential areas. Daily deliveries is an over-kill. With better use of Internet, a weekly paper mail delivery should be enough. Wonder what would happen to the 50 000 + unemployed mail-persons. Would UPS, FedEx etc hire them?

A progressive downsizing form one a day to one a week delivery over 5 years may be easier to manage.

King Canute Barack ... Obama should set his throne on the beach and sign an executive order that the tide should not go in or out.

Obama should mandate the use of Combined heat and power units in every government owned building Capstone makes such units Honda (Freewatt) makes such units. UTC sells complete units that also do airconditioning with waste heat. If we want lower CO2 electricity and lower fuel consumption this is one of the best ways to do it. Mass production should lower the costs greatly. ..HG..

HG:

Many old acquired ways may have to be changed, including what we eat, what we drink, what we drive, what we use for HVAC & lighting, etc.

The majority will resist most changes unless they can be convinced that they will be better off financially. Seventy two v...... may not be required but in the land of the g.... b.... $72/week tax credit or equivalent incentives may help. If that doesn't work double it + a national free lottery to make 1000 + new millionaires a week etc. In other words... buy them in. Of course the USD may drop in value, but it will any way with all the current hand outs. What is another 20%?

The United Technologies (UTC) Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC) technology has been successfully used in banks and hospitals where 100% up time is essential. They run at high temperatures, so waste heat can run absorption coolers. There is enough case history to show that these would be good in Federal buildings as well.

Henry, Harvey and SJC - I'm with you on this emphatically. Though not directly familiar with the UTC units the general premise is an excellent one. Start demonstration projects installing CHP/CCHP in government buildings. Emphasize those demonstrations to other business sectors, i.e. office buildings (e.g. progressive tech companies) and develop a focused SBA loan program for manufacturing entrepreneurs.

The next step is a municipal demonstration like Santa Monica or Boston for Residential Poer Units (home CHP.
This is the biggest energy move Mr. Chu could make to lower consumption of coal-based electric energy in the US.

Harv, in a democracy, the government follows the mandate of the people on the large scale. To educate that mandate, they can create demonstration projects like the above.

SJC:

Hospitals need uninteruptible power due to the nature of their work. Banks have to ensure that financial data is not lost due to power failures.

Government offices could go blank for days and the majority would rejoice.

Seriously, can we produce energy locally at a competitive price with large power plants. Most of our e-power is from Hydro and production cost is below 2 1/2 cents/Kwh from most plants. Of course, distribution cost including 50 + % government dividend + 15% sales taxes + profits is much higher. Domestic rates are between 6 cents and 8 cents but some industrial rates (aluminium foundries) are as low as 2.8 cents/Kwh.

I doubt that FCs could even come close. Solar e-power is 20 + cents/Kwh. Wind power is 9.8 + cents/Kwh + a 1.5 cents/Kwh subsidy + 1 cent/Kwh network connecting cost.

The idea seems to be to reduce green house gases, not find the lowest cost per kWh. If you use natural gas more efficiently, you produce less green house gas.

And we are looking for solutions that can be applied on a global scale. What never gets factored into the cost of hydro is the environmental cost of damming rivers, lakes and streams, building artificial lakes and the watershed use issues.

While these high temp FCs may not be the most cost effective right now, they could become so. And ICE or Sterling CHP generators running NG are very low cost and efficient depending on local electric rates.

Just heard Obama's won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Even from the solely economic perspective, these type of action will help the many.

The last "Presidential order" as I recall was to go to war in Iraq under false pretence.
Why is this Democrat leader so unpopular with so many? because he is a democrat? Or his well recieved orations showing desire for your nations health care and more peacefully engaging with the rest of the world?
A proper leader doing the job well IMO.

Change can get people upset, it can be good or bad change from their perspective, but it always means the present situation will change. If you are comfortable with the situation at hand, you will resist change. If you are an opponent and change brings about good you will lose, so you oppose anything that will allow your opponent to win, even if it is good for the country you live in. Odd behavior, but that is the nature of things at the present time.

Well, President Obama can lead by example and stop needlessly flying Air Force One all over the world. Along with putting his wife on a different private aircraft to the same destination.

Today with video conferencing, e-mail and other forms of communication, there is no reason for such waste.

Until he behaves responsibly, I will continue my wasteful ways. Oh, wait, I conserve.

There is some sentiment that this Nobel prize was a reward for criticizing America.

-

Major changes are required for many countries.

The entire fabric should be scrapped or radically changed in Iran, N. Korea, maybe Mexico and Cuba of course -

This list could be longer but the US should not be on it.

TT:

... the entire fabric should be scrapped or changed... in many countries but not in USA?

Many people think that USA style monetary, financial, business, health, education instituitions may have run their course and should be modified or changed.

What worked well for the last 200 years may not be what will work best for the next two centuries.

The current US financial disaster will cost the world over $4000 Trillions and and may impact the local economy for one or two generations.

A new financial order may be required to fix new goal posts; reduce specualtion, limit management compensations and make stock options (and other gifts) fully taxable, eliminate taxation loop holes, eliminate tax credits to highly profitable firms, eliminate financial support to politicians from lobby and pressure groups, make the Senate more representative, increase general population health protection and reduce junk food consumption and many other areas.

This may be President Obama's responsiblity to guide USA towards new levels of achievemnt if he can convince the majority that changes are required.

It seems quite likely that the USA style monetary, financial and business practices/regulations should be modified or changed. Both the last administration and this one are allowing huge personal rewards (pay & bonuses) for risky and outrageous behavior while the public picks up the tab (bailouts) when the losses come.
Now more stimulus money to reward irresponsible behavior?
But after this huge debacle, the US is still the world leader, so which system should we try?
China’s ? I have heard no one propose such foolishness.
Russia’s? Same.
Cuba’s? Michael Moore proposes this. It is utopia isn’t it?
Canada? England? Scandinavia?
Worth considering – or emigrating to.
No? Not if you want to be in the mainstream.

Healthcare is a good example of change for the sake of change with no one understanding where to. Yes, fix malpractice abuse, allow cross-state-line competition, provide base level insurance for all.

If we can pull billions from Medicare & Medicaid (good luck with that) fine, but don’t pre-spend it.

The American system that’s worked better than any other for the last 200 years should not be scrapped until there is some proven alternative. Ours may have severe problems but, who’s leading the world out of this?

The current US financial disaster will cost the world Trillions - ON PAPER - the government seems to think it still has trillions to throw around.
It’s the trillions being thrown around that will impact the next one or two generations.

And the issues with management compensation, stock options, gifts, loop holes, tax credits, lobby and pressure group power; I think it was that white haired guy that was going to clean that up, the opposite of Chicago politics.

Laws that prohibit cigarettes, junk food etc. are not so clear cut – everyone has their own ideas of how everyone else should live.

But we really, really need to outlaw water sold in less than I gallon containers – NOW.

You can lead by example. I remember Bush Sr. proposing user fees for national parks and elsewhere. The people that use it pay for it. That is like toll roads and in some places that may make sense.

If they want to tax things that are unhealthy to pay for health care, then that is fine with me. You discourage things that are harmful and encourage things that are beneficial, I do not call that "nannyism", I call that common sense.

Nannyism has a place in this highly populated world.
20 years ago second hand smoke was regarded as just bothersome.

The fact that lung cancer and obesity cost all of us is a valid point of view and, in my opinion, justifies high cigarette taxes and the banning of junk food from school campuses (with voter approval).

TT if you want to go that route, finding ways to get more people to exercise wouldn't hurt either; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw&feature=player_embedded#

It pays to have a look at what went wrong during the last few years.

The current financial crisis was USA made. Wall Streets + Bankers (and many others) milked the system for years until the bubble burst. The blow out was so big that it affected most industrial countries. Public funds had to be used worldwide to try to fix it up. Billions are still being sucked by Wall Stret and Bankers every month. Nothing has really been fixed yet.

USA's health cost is exuberant at more than 17% of current GNP. It is almost twice as much as many other industrial countries with questionnable results. Something has gone wrong and has to be fixed because cost will keep going up and results will keep going down. Tobacco related lung cancers were reduced with higher taxes. Similar actions could reduce severe cases of obesity, diabetes and many other poor diet related cancers and deseases. It is time for action with better prevention. A 100% or 200% tax on most sweet drinks may be a good start. Many other junk foods would require a shock treatment. The best way to reduce health care is with better prevention. Healthy people require less health care.

With regards to Wall Street and Banks/bankers embezzlement practices, all tax loop holes have to be closed. All their income have to be taxed much more above $200K/year. Europe is seriously thinking about a transaction tax starting at 0.015% on all trades and deposits to reduce speculation and pay back the public funds used in the last 2 years. If 0.015% is not enough, it could be raised as required, until an acceptable correction level is achieved and all public funds have been repaid.

The $$$B given to the Big-3 and friends could be recuperated with a progressive fossil fuel tax.

In general I agree with much of what you say, Harvey.

But is there ANY reason to think that federalizing health care will make it more cost effective. To make it even ALMOST affordable they must remove most of the “expanded” coverage, meaning a similar number of people will be left uncovered, and so it will then cost ONLY ~600+ Billion more.

We have very expensive medical coverage in the US, partly because it is VERY extensive; Just like most other luxuries here in the US.
Way more extensive in many respects, I suspect, than most other industrialized nations.

I am not sure prevention is very effective in reducing health care costs.
More mammograms?
Whole body scans?
More Lipitor?
If you mean what we eat – yes, that will help, but how much?
More exercise? Walk don’t ride? Sure – but how?
These things sound good but is there really anything there?

Bankers? YES; we must stop rescuing failures due to taking poor risks
or prevent huge rewards when they get lucky taking poor risks – or both.
Rewarding risk-taking with other people's money is insane.

Yes, people buy big cars and eschew EVs because gas is too cheap, gas tax is too low.