They are intentionally using the (successful) cap and trade approach designed for acid rain as a basis for assuming that cap and tax for CO2 will work the same. They are playing with the facts in a big way...
The first method for reducing SO2 under the CAA acid rain requirements was to switch to lower sulfur western coals. This certainly benefited western coal producers and coal transportation services (rail).
The second method was to install flue gas desulfurization systems. Not cheap technology, but not magical technology either. These have been getting better and better over time, and to the chagron of EPA and environmentalists that just want to kill coal - the result is that the CAA requirements (including acid rain) have made it more feasible to fire higher sulfur eastern coals once again. I'm sure it pisses them off mightely that technology has made it possible to once again the other half of our vast coal reserves, but that's the way the ball bounces.
They are attempting to fight this with EPA/DOJ suits against power plants, but the technology to remove SO2 appears to be winning (though they are getting plenty of pounds of flesh in the process.).
CO2 control is a different beast all together. As with SO2 there are two parts - collection and disposal. Flue gas desulfurization waste can easily be put in a landfill, and where feasible can be used to replace gypsum in the manufacturing of wallboard or even for ag-lime.
With CO2 the issues are different - first the disposal. Even after you capture CO2 disposal is an isssue. Unlike the SO2 which is bound in solid FGD waste it remains a gas making it much harder to safely "put" somewhere. Pumping it into aquifers, or other places underground and under the sea seem to be the best ideas (geological storage). Unfortunately, nobody knows how long it will stay there, who would take responsibility for a CO2 "belch" that suffocates a few thousand people, or whether our ground water will be turned into carbon acid.
This half of the equation - sequestration - is the radical's fall back point for killing coal. Even if technology and economics make carbon capture feasible - they have the nuclear option of attacking sequestration. Don't get me wrong - they are all for spending the money to study this now - but once their other methods for killing the use of coal stop producing results they will switch gears and run with this without hesitation. It's not about the environment - it's about knocking us down a notch or ten and reducing our standard of living.
Carbon capture is the other aspect. Combining the need to selectively grab CO2 gas from a flue gas stream, condense it to make a liquid so that it can effectively be transported from point a to point sequestration, you get a huge energy penalty.
Huge in terms of 10% - 25%, minimum. That means that every coal plant will need to expend 10% - 25% of it's output just to capture CO2 and prepare it for sequestration.
On the very low end - that means that for every 10 plants that do this - another one needs to be built just to maintain the current supply of electricity and associated supply margins.
Cap and trade might be applicable where the technology and feasibilty exists as it did with the acid rain program. For CO2 it is a whole different ballgame...
Ahh, but it isn't a way to kill wood as a source of energy. Just turn it to charcoal and use it as a soil amendment. It is in fact an effective "nutrient sponge" that could reduce fertilizer requirements significantly.
It's high time we found a way to finance restructuring our disastrously overstocked National Forests anyway.
What about the use of CO2 in the growing of algae that produces fuel oil? The cricket chirps are maddening.