I simply don't understand support of this bill.  On the one hand, we do need to raise more tax revenue to prevent (if this is even possible any more) hyperinflation from the two wars, the stimulus, the bailout frenzy, and now the healthcare reform proposal.  From that perspective, the cap and trade revenue is vital, as it will draw funds from all socioeconomic classes instead of trying to finance every proposed project with money from the popular-to-pick-on $250,000+ group.  On the other hand, more heavily taxed corporate entities face no competitive disadvantage by passing the cost of the taxes immediately to their customers through rising prices.  There are only four possible outcomes for energy markets: 1) an emissions-eliminating, cost-neutral innovation will enable companies to save the environment and face no resulting economic hardship (unlikely), or 2) energy companies will go out of business due to increased cost of business, 3) energy companies will stay in business but see a major hit in profits, or most likely, as corporations pursue self-preservation, 4) consumer fees rise for all energy companies simultaneously, and corporations bear none of the brunt of the new tax by acting in tandem.  So either we witness a truly miraculous engineering feat or more companies go out of business or there is a nation-wide regressive tax on energy expenditures.  I'm praying for a miracle, but the government is betting against one so that it can soak up middle class dollars without facing the political consequences of a traditional tax.

Head of the Democratic National Convention and Democratic Governor Tim Kaine spoke a little about cap and trade:

KAINE: Yeah, it would, it would be difficult for me to do either cap and trade or universal health care as governor if the feds don't do it.

(full transcript: http://motorcityliberal.blogspot.com/)

The reason that Kaine thinks it would be difficult to implement a cap and trade system in just Virginia is that the state would lose massive numbers of jobs and corporate tax dollars when/if energy producers moved their operations to other states to keep costs low.  What's important to realize is that this same reasoning also holds on the international level.  With no enforceable international mandate or equivalent system, energy producers would be well served to simply move their operations abroad.  In this scenario, it is the United States that loses jobs and corporate tax dollars to competing countries.  With corporations seeking to lower costs and nations seeking to attract corporations, only blind corporate patriotism will stop the flow.  And that's just the economics.

The reality is that most of the fervent support for this bill is people that just want corporations held responsible for their environmentally unfriendly practices.  This bill does that--but again, it's jurisdiction only extends to American soil.  So when we cap our emissions but 20% of our energy production goes abroad to nations with no cap, net global emissions could increase!  To use illuminating but arbitrary numbers, if the U.S. caps emissions at 1,000 emission units but loses 20% of energy production, we're using up all of our cap with only 80% of our previous culprits.  That means that at least 1,250 emissions units (80% of 1,250 is 1,000) by companies that used to operate in the United States.  The rest of the companies (more likely to be carbon emitters, as they fled the country to avoid carbon emissions taxes) are free to pollute indiscriminately.  Given, a 20% outflow is a huge number, but the key to this point is that if the carbon emissions aren't decreased by more than the net outflow of energy production, a net INCREASE in global emissions would occur!  One more time with arbitrary numbers: if we decrease emissions by 10% as a nation but lose 12% of energy production, global emissions increase by at least 2%.  I support corporate environmental responsibility, but cap and trade just doesn't seem to make sense, economically or environmentally. 

The only thing that does make sense is that the government needs more tax revenue to fund its rising debt, and even fleecing our top earners can't pay the bills.  Sometimes change is just change, not improvement.

The bill's got problems.  But I think you're echoing some misinformation in the "tax revenue" bits.  As currently written, unless I'm mistaken, the proceeds from the carbon market get passed back to ratepayers, to help keep electricity costs realistic during the transition to a lower-carbon economy.  That's why, per the CBO's analysis, the cost will average out to only around $175 per household in 2020.

It's worthwhile to pull a bit more of Tim Kaine's words down (while excising the inane commentary from Glenn Beck in that transcript) since he's quite in favor of national carbon caps, and charging for carbon pollution, and makes good points about how important it is globally as well as nationally:

KAINE: Yeah, it would, it would be difficult for me to do either cap and trade or universal health care as governor if the feds don’t do it. I mean, I do think we’ve got to have a cap and trade or equivalent system to start to control carbon emissions. And we have to do it in a way that, you know, deals with our environmental challenges, doesn’t overly cripple industry, but that also is a strong enough leadership step so that there’s a meeting of world nations at Copenhagen in December. We really need India and China to do it too. You know, we don’t want to do it — they need to do that because they’re such growing economies. They won’t do it if we don’t.

HOST: Well, they won’t do it period, but that aside.

KAINE: Well, I think, I think that there’s a good chance that they will. Actually, there’s some good things that China’s doing that’s ahead of us on this right now.

KAINE: But they’re growing economies at a pace where they have their own challenges, but if we do not walk into Copenhagen in a leadership position, they’re going to not do anything either.

KAINE: So, I think we do need to move. But cap and trade program just in one state, frankly, I do not think is that workable.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/26/glenn-becktreasonous/

This Wall Street Journal article has some more illuminating numbers; not sure where you got $175 from:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

I get my numbers from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which released an analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill in June:

http://globalwarming.change.org/blog/view/costs_of_carbon_reduction_by_2020_40-340_a_year_per_household