Though I am left feeling a little frustrated that this lengthy work appears to be missing the conclusion at the end. IE: ok-- and your conclusion is ---? Possibly it is early in the article "But there is simply no precedent showing that a cap-and-trade system would deliver in time the significant cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions that scientists say are critical to prevent catastrophic climate change"

What I feel would be helpful here, is a summary of how this new bill may be improved, based on the experience of "cap and trade" in SO2 emissions, in the Senate version.

Though, I still feel it shows that a straight CO2 tax would eliminate the special-interest-congressional-meddling that riddles the current bill and is the lightning rod for partisan criticism and likely resulted in the less-than-optimal success of the SO2 programs of the past.

If your research has reached a conclusion, please state it. Though I understand the risks. :)

I didn't get all the way through your article, but another problem was on the issue of "allowances."  Back in the day, air pollution permits had a "maximum emission rate" expressed in watts, BTU, resulting pollution, etc.  These allowances were set very high, assuming dirty fuels such as coal or Bunker-C fuel oil.  All the company had to do was to convert to natural gas or import some Wyoming coal and the problem disappeared overnight - instant credits of thousands of tons.  I am not sure if the Waxman bill allows such gaming of the system.

You can bet the lawyers will have a field day with this hot potato though, since they get to comment and sue over any agency regulations in addition to the Congressional votes.  Things should be interesting this fall when the Senate debates the bill, and then EPA and other agencies have to draft regulations such as an "advanced notice of proposed rulemaking" (ANPR).  Hah, they'll be fighting over the clear meaning of words buried in the thousand-page missive as opposed to "unclear legislative intent."  Oops, did I infer the rule is too dang long and is too darn laden with pork?  Me?? 

Should be interesting viewing!

I don't have a lot of good to say about the concept, no matter how good it sounds.  If it works so well, why are CO2 emissions not being significantly reduced in Europe?  Were folks trading phoney date plam tree and airline miles for credits that were used for extra in Eastern Europe?  From a practical standpoint, such Ponzi schemes never really worked as well as they were advertised. 

The alternative seems to be a carbon tax.  Excuse me, since when did a tax every help anybody?  I believe in helping the needy and stuff, but with a carbon tax?  You must be crazy.  The way to limit CO2 is by restricting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in terms of grams per mile, pounds per million BTU, pounds per therm or million cubic feet of natural gas, grams per kilowatt-hour, kilograms per tonne of fuel, or whatever rate-based measure you can find.  Plain and simple. that's how you do it.

As for the electrical comment, I kindly ask that you show evidence that electrical technology is somehow not up to standard for being able to replace current technology at the drop of a hat.  The only thing holding those technologies back are the money grubbing companies making billions off their old technology.  Fat lot of good that did them (like GE).

From the consumer's perspective, the costs are just built in, so there's no paperwork to be done.  When you pump your gas, the seller will have arranged for permits to cover its use.

I'm certainly worried about the potential giveaway of billions of dollars worth of carbon permits to the energy industry, given corruption trends. If we imagine that it is politically possible to have a 100% auction system, however, there would be no reason for companies to pretend to be worse than they are, and thus there wouldn't be a "bunker coal" situation.  Two problems solved at once!  If money from the auction were distributed equally to all American citizens and maybe permanent residents, those consuming the least would come out ahead and there would be better incentives to reduce all around. 

It will be important to have the infrastructure in place for taking more dramatic action if it does turn out to be needed, or increase the cap if the earth is doing 'ok' and the models start looking more livable.  There's no reason auctions couldn't be held quarterly or even more often, and this would allow a rapid response to actual results.

Cap and trade will increase costs or some people, but it will also reduce the extent to which the costs of consumption are externalized and produce a system that is more fair to those who use less.  The tradeoffs between different consumer choices will shift, so that a decision that is best for the environment is more likely to also be better for the purchaser's bottom line.  Hopefully water usage and trash production will also factor in somehow, so that these metrics don't worsen.

Remember, we're not just talking about climate change.  Ocean acidification will probably cause the elimination of shellfish, reduce fish production, and kill off reefs - all within the lifetimes of most people here.   Personally, I like being able to eat fish.