The Economist has an article out this week that does not like the House's Waxman Markey Climate Change bill. It supports President Obama's plan that would have auctioned all credits, creating revenue the the government could then hand out as it likes. Instead, Waxman-Markey gives away 85% of its carbon credits to industy. In this way, they will recieve the windfall from this bill, not the government.
So, the Economist seems to favor tax increases, while Waxman-Markey favors corporate welfare. The article makes the good point that: "it means that the permits go not to those who value them most (as in an auction) but to those whom the government favours." Republican's (who claim to oppose both tax increases and corporate welfare) the article expects to: "berate the bill as both a job-destroyer and a handout to big business." Its hard to be both, which points to the difficulty that Republicans are having trying to craft a message on this issue.
Environmentally, all that matters, however, is that the cap is tightly put on. The rest is just how you share the money.