The more compelling argument for "all of the above", in my opinion is that the CO2 price is a stick and the RPS is a carrot.  As long as we remain unable to contemplate a CO2 regulatory system that provides explicit incentives to CO2 reduction, you need a balancing carrot.  It should, in order to be economically workable apply uniformly to all CO2 reduction measures, pro rata with their impact to work... which is far from how a current RPS is framed.  But as long as we don't have that, we remain struck with a CO2 regulatory structure that insists upon increases in energy costs and reductions in CO2 emissions which really only guarantees the former, unless you have perfect global participation.  (Since driving up US energy prices in the name of CO2 reduction will simply shift CO2-intensive industries overseas as long as there are overseas countries not subject to those regulations.)

That is in no way meant to suggest that such a result is an inevitability of CO2 regulation - simply that it is an inevitable result of shitty CO2 regulation.  And so far as that's the only option on the table (sadly, that is the case today), we need something RPSish to bring lower-cost CO2 reductions on line and balance the economically disastrous consequences of shitty CO2 regs.

We need cap-and trade to cover the industries that a renewable portfolio wouldn't cover!  Chemical plants, manufacturing, large auto fleets owned by companies or governments, shipping, and also (but eventually, since legislation has currently been written to leave it out) agriculture.

No matter how much clean energy the utilities use, these industries would still be spewin' out GHGs.  A cap-and-trade is needed to cover 'em.

http://www.tomorrowsworldcompetition.com/

These kids wrote scripts or sent in videos on water efficiency and climate change flooding. Hopefully in the process they'll make a lot people think about their own water efficiency and carbon footprints.

Never hurts to put your ideas out there, so let's encourage them to keep at it. Give them a view and spread the word!

That's true, but I think David's point is not that an RPS might preclude C&T, but rather that a C&T could preclude an RPS.  And if we ever designed a C&T properly, it would.  So far, that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

To your point though, since an RPS only covers part of the emissions sources, and since a C&T provides no explicit incentive for investments in CO2 reduction in those sectors that it does apply to, if an RPS is to be the patch to fix a C&T bill, it does need to be bigger than just electric. 

My only comment is that your assessment of the carbon price required to make existing coal uneconomic seems very high. Most estimates I have seen are in the $50 to $100 per ton range. These are still high carbon prices, but nowhere near the $1000 you claim here. I'd be equally concerned with whether the $50 per MWh alternative complaince credit price of the current Markey Waxman RPS scheme is sufficient to push out existing coal generation.