Exxon Mobil simply will not play that game, and that is one reason it is hated by the political class, an in-the-tank media, and the various groups who seek the end of free market capitalism. The other key reason is simply that they are successful. Generate your own list of most hated American companies and you will also generate the list of the most successful: Exxon, WalMart, Merck et al.

A carbon tax falls equally on those for whom reduction of carbon emissions is cheap and easy and on those for whom it is technologically impossible or economically prohibitive currently. Cap & trade, on the other hand, provides flexibility for those for whom reductions are more difficult or more expensive to purchase allowances from those for whom the reductions are cheaper and easier.
However, in its simplest form, cap & trade does not provide an incremental stream of redistributable revenue to the government. The “cap & tax” variant, on the other hand, provides the government revenue stream by adding allowance sales or auction expense to the already daunting investments required to actually reduce emissions. The greatest concern for the government under “cap & tax” is the fact that there is a revenue stream flowing between those required to comply which can only be captured through the existing income tax code; and, only on a net basis.

A carbon emissions cap, established at current emissions rates and reduced by 2% per year through 2050, would achieve the Administration’s “wish” for an 83% reduction by 2050. The ability to trade would reduce the overall cost of compliance; otherwise, the trading would not occur.

Question: “What carbon tax rate or carbon price would accomplish the “wish” on schedule?” I believe the answer is both unknown and unknowable. I am sure the federal government is perfectly capable of adjusting the rate, over several decades, to achieve the desired result.

(I am concerned that I used the phrase “on the other hand” twice in the same comment. I am not even an economist!)