Rob … I agree I have simplified the problem. For sure, there are energy sources that produce GDP with relatively little carbon. Further, the US experience is that our service economy produces more GDP per unit of energy than, say, China or India. However it remains true that the current economy is reliant upon carbon-based energy, and it likely will continue to be in the future. Further, many other economies are likely to develop with carbon-based energy. Hence to a good approximation economic success is correlated with carbon dioxide emission. An integrated climate and energy policy must de-correlate carbon dioxide and economic success. You mention organic farming, what seem, to you, like the most likely candidates to de-correlate carbon and energy and economic success?

With a little luck here is a figure:

Figure 1: Energy Consumption by Fuel from the Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency.

Katie: There are many questions open. I agree. In fact if you look at the news today, there are already suits being filed to claim that pollution regulation has to remain at the federal level. There is the interesting curiosity; the Clean Air Act does allow California to act. Hence if states align with California they have a chance. What is important to me, the path of litigation now has a foundation. A year ago, this really was not true. I think that this has raised the importance of litigation in acceleration of climate policy tremendously.