What do people who object to Cap and Trade's extra costs think of this?

Well personally I don't object to the negligible costs of carbon cap and trade. It's been shown over and over and over that the costs of the proposed cap and trade systems will only be about $100 per average American family per year, and the economic impact will be less for lower income families. See Myth #11:

http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/global-warming-my...

On top of that, an energy bill which includes a carbon cap and trade system is far more economically responsible than one which doesn't.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjbR3...

That being said, this particular bill is awful. AGW deniers and realists alike agree that corn-based ethanol is not an environmentally-friendly fuel source - its carbon emissions are on par with oil. But this bill gives $31 billion of our tax dollars to oil companies to subsidize corn-based ethanol. Absolutely terrible.

http://current.com/12uio4c

If the government wants to do something, it hires somebody who is willing to say it will not be expensive. These economic studies for what the government wants to do have been about as accurate as the climate models' predictions. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JC...

Consider that they told us that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter, http://www.fortfreedom.org/p06.htm

then it turned out to be way more expensive than coal, oil, or gas. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Compara...

They told us that the bailouts would help the economy, http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/10/w...

but instead they caused a recession so deep that it competes with the great depression. http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/05-1

They told us that "affirmative action" programs, http://epserv.unila.ac.id/jurnal/BAhan/The%20Ameri...

free trade with slave labor, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=11yILmf...

illegal immigration would all be good for the economy. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1804127

However, how much the program costs depends on how restrictive it is. http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/06/climate...

If a bill is very lenient, it will not cost much. However, energy efficiency does not accomplish everything. To the extent that we stop using energy, and making plastics, metals, glass, and other materials, we shut down the economy. Drive half as much. Pay for nuclear energy, and suffer the environmental damage and shortened life expectancy associated with that. Use half as much plastics, metals, and other materials. Then you get the idea of what it would be like to cut CO2 production in half. (I estimate that some things like eating will not be reduced, and thus, cover for additional energy efficiency we may accomplish.)

If you want to do it anyway, just publish a report that says it will be cheap.

The CBO will be wrong as usual . They miscalculated by billions for medicare and the

new heath bill . I pay enough taxes . Not to Enrich GE, Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

Taxes will not affect the weather or climate .

No idea about the USA, but in the UK the Climate Change Act, introduced by one avowed Marxist and the son of an avowed Marxist, (Darling and Miliband) plans to reduce the UK's carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels. The only way to achieve this is to destroy the manufacturing capacity of the whole country, well done Karl, you won from beyond the grave.

Long live the proletariat!