 The issue of climate change is there are so many climate sensitive diseases and so many ways by which climate change could affect human health through heat waves, air pollution, infectious diseases, malnutrition, but even if climate change doesn't happen, the way our energy policies are right now, they're very damaging to public health, be it from air pollution from coal-fired power plants to burning fossil fuels for transportation. The damages from coal-fired power plants in 2005 amounted to $62 billion. We looked at the damages from gas plants and on a per megawatt hour basis, a megawatt hour of generation from coal on average is producing about $32 of damages and if it's from gas, it's producing about $1.60 of damages. So again, these are all in terms of local health costs from the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that are coming out of these plants and become particulate matter and have impacts on chronic bronchitis and premature mortality and asthma. We're thinking about where to go in terms of generation capacity. These health damages are something that would be factored in along with the capital and operating costs of actually building more generation capacity. What's our number one epidemic today? It's obesity in the United States. What's contributing to that? Well, poor nutrition, but also poorly designed cities. We drive everywhere. Cities have been designed for cars rather than for people and we've done some calculations showing that if you were to reduce vehicle miles traveled by 20%, you would have hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations avoided, billions of dollars in health care savings simply from getting out of our car and walking and biking and having better mass transit, multimodal transportation. So I think mitigating climate change by reducing fossil fuels could be one of probably the most beneficial health interventions we've had in over a century.