Perhaps the ETS is flawed. Perhaps not. We don't know yet as we haven't seen the details.
I find a great deal of dishonesty in all this. If the AGW story is true and the world is facing a catastrophic rise in temperature, sea levels, storms, etc., then why choose the most expensive ways to stop CO2 emissions when we can do it far more cheaply using existing technologies like nuclear power and hydroelectric power? All other forms of power generation are too expensive and insufficient to replace our existing coal fired power stations. I thought time is also running out and there's a great urgency to turn things around. It doesn't make sense to me. Either we are facing a climate catastrophe and we must do whatever it takes to avert it, or it's all a big con. Perhaps I'm missing something. Can someone please explain it to me?
