There's a multi-part answer to that question. First off, in the big picture, energy and carbon are very closely related. So if you do one you're going to get the other one whether you like it or not. The struggle you get into is that some electricity is produced by hydroelectric, which you could argue is close to zero carbon, and some is produced by coal, which has very high carbon. Of course, that varies from region to region. What do you do? That question has befuddled many a person who considered what was a “fair” system.
In the U.S., there is very little hydro, so they take electricity and multiply by three to account for the power-plant efficiency and say that's how they'll adjust for the whole carbon aspect. In Canada, it has been suggested that we should use the number two, which accounts for our having much more hydroelectric, which I think is probably a good Canadian compromise. Some will argue that it should have been the number one, and some will argue it should have been the number three but—