Reihan argues against the cap and trade bill, but a study on the costs of conventional pollution makes him advocate for a carbon tax:
I'm struck by the idea, advanced by Randall Parker among others, that a modest carbon tax could make nuclear power far more competitive with coal electric so much so that, Parker suggests, we'd immediately stop building coal electric plants. Again, I believe that climate change is a serious problem, a stance that not all conservatives accept. But if burning coal is also causing serious health problems, that strikes me as a decent argument for slapping the equivalent of a sin tax on its use.
Agreed on all counts. A small but gradually increasing carbon tax along with serious investment in nuclear and non-carbon energy strikes me as more fruitful and less costly than cap-and-trade.