Why carbon taxes won't work

This is a well-reasoned argument for why carbon taxes aren't a feasible option for decreasing carbon emissions, despite seemingly widespread consensus among economists that taxes are better than a cap-and-trade system. Among its points:

1) The politics of implementing a carbon tax will require huge, economy-distorting compromises that will limit its effectiveness;

2) We have no clue what the optimal price is;

3) A carbon tax designed for the expected case can safely be avoided for decades, while a carbon tax high enough to ameliorate a low-odds disaster scenario would be insanely expensive. I had to read this one a few extra times to understand it, but I think the argument is that it is cheaper and more effective to invest in alternative technologies for the next 40 years than to implement a gradual tax over that time that probably wouldn't do much and would cost a lot. The problem, of course, is that this doesn't account for the costs of transition at that point. Also, if you believe that the private sector is best place for these new technologies to be developed, then you have to give them an incentive to develop them, for example by making it more expensive to stick with the status quo.

I suppose you could also just give the money directly to the private sector to do the research. Maybe by taking away direct and indirect subsidies for emissions-producing practices? (Though that, again, raises prices for consumers.) Regardless, it's a thought-provoking way to think about how the current proposals for tackling global warming aren't necessarily compatible with political or economic reality.

Side thought: I wonder if our broken patent system is ready to deal with the prospect of alternative energy technologies... will the AET industry fall more on the side of biotech (pushing for stronger patent protections) or Silicon Valley tech (pushing for weaker patent protections)?