This is a good point you are bringing up. There will naturally be push back. It is in our natural self-interest, and especially the self-interest of corporations, to not have to pay more. I did not mention this in my comment, but I will have you know that Professor Nordhaus is equally supportive of cap-and-trade. They are both equally effective in his eyes if executed to their potential. Which one is best is dependent on the country and its culture. For instance, Americans are particularly sensitive to rising taxation proposals than their European counterparts. Given this, it may be challenging to pass a carbon tax in the United States. It may be easier to have a cap-and-trade policy passed instead. It's nice to know we have this swift alternative, especially in this time of urgency. But something to consider is that the institutions needed to implement and support cap-and-trade are either non-existent or immature within the United States. Execution may be poor as a result. A carbon tax, however, will likely have greater success given tax institutions are well established here. Although American Conservatives are more resistant to the idea of rising taxation than their Liberal counterparts, know though that a portion of them do believe global warming is an issue that should be addressed. Given this, I believe a carbon tax or cap-and-trade is a winning strategy to win them over versus the popular proposals on the left, which is to reduce emissions through the means of overt regulation or government-owned projects.

Interesting. Cap and trade sounds similar to a carbon credit system but I think it could work in the US