A comment by an anonymous reader on Keep It Simple suggest that we should tax the rich and use the proceeds to finance energy conservation research.

Now Wonks Anonymous is in favor of taxing the rich, including himself, and he likes the idea of government funded conservation efforts that would include research. He does not think that this is a complete energy program.

Wonks Anonymous has great faith in the creativity of the American People, when they decide get out of their barcaloungers and do something. He would like to enlist their creativity to help solve the energy problem.

Unfortunately the only way to do this is to make it uncomfortable for them to use energy. Wonks Anonymous remembers Jimmy Carter's speeches on energy. He remembers that one of his college roommates was inspired to think about doing something about the issue. He remembers that this inspiration lasted about a week and then the roommate was back to driving the Tans Am around town.

The guy was not a bad person. He was human and he needed something to focus his attention. That is what a carbon tax would do, focus our attention through the irritation of small predictable increases in the prices of goods that used large amounts of fossil fuels.

Which is the exact thing that Cap and Trade would do with much more elaborate rules, less government revenue and greater opportunities for graft.

If we are concerned about the impact of the carbon tax on the poor we can use the proceeds for a tax rebate or subsidies for health insurance or spend the money on education. Poor people who figure out ways to save energy will be better off.

Which is another argument for the Carbon Tax over Cap'n Trade as it is currently shaping up. If we give carbon emission rights away to polluting industries we will still raise prices on goods that poor people consume. In this case the income from these price rises will go to the favored industries to be used for executive pay, shareholder dividends and campaign contributions.