"yeah, it's a tax. We need to raise taxes on energy."

Even that isn't quite accurate. Not all energy usage produces carbon emissions (think e.g. solar power and wind power); and the tax is only on carbon.

And the support for Obama may be due to the "Obama cult" effect, but this is just my totally wild guess.

Solar and wind are collectively less than 2% of U.S. energy use, so at least for the first several years, taxing carbon means taxing energy. I will be a happy man when the meanings diverge.

grist.org

"It raises energy prices. That's a tax, right?"

Subsidy diversion can raise carbon based energy prices and lower renewable energy prices.  The right will call any government regulation of "free" markets that raises costs on industry, that they then pass on to consumers a tax.

Think tankers like CEI will always do this.  With cap and trade or a tax hike on gasloine for instance, it really is what they say.  Costs passed right down the line to those who can least afford it.

With subsidy diversion, it is the withdrawal of corporate welfare for titanically profitable multinational energy monopolies, and application of the savings directly to incentives for consumers to invest in renewables and conservation.

We can make this political argument work and convince a majority.  No way to make it fly with cap and trade or new gas taxes.  Giveaways for corporate cronies both.  Cap and trade benefits hedge funds.  New taxes benefits contractors like KBR and Halliburton.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog