A carbon tax makes more sense than the “carbon credit trading” scheme, particularly since carbon credit trading has the same economic effects as a tax but it’s payable to the carbon credit brokers instead of to the government.

Conversely:
1. If anthropogenic carbon is not a massive hazard to the planet – and I believe there is a lot of room for debate despite the “unanimity of the experts” on the subject, it’s a massive drag on the economy for no reason.
2. If the revenues go into the general fund to be handed out as favors, instead of accruing to productive endeavors or actually fixing the real (not hypothetical or perceived) problems of atmospheric carbon, it’s again a massive drag on the economy for no benefit.

If carbon is a problem, the “invisible hand of the marketplace” will fix that problem in due course and far more effectively than an carbon credit, tax, or government program.