Obviously cap and trade would negatively impact some businesses and benefit others. All targetted efforts do that. It doesn't matter if it is building up for a 600 ship navy (Reagan), home energy credits (Obama), "investment credits" (read outsource to China Credits) (Clinton/Bush) or what have you.
I think that government can have a role in shaping future technology (the National Institutes of Health and the bazillions of inventions in health care, the Department of Energy and the significant developmental in nuclear power, NASA and the multitude of inventions in advanced materials).
So yes, some sort of punitive left-wing stifling anti-technology anti-human effort is a bad idea.
Nevertheless, fuel standards did spur innovation. CA emmision standards did spur innovation, and the companies that spearheaded that innovation did very very well and created jobs ... at the expense of old auto.
For every job killed by mandate, it is likely another one is created ... sometimes more. And yes, some mandates are stupid and only kill jobs.
I would support cap and trade for innovation purposes, not for climate change purposes, but I cna't see how it would actually work to my perceived benefit. So, in the end, while I am warm to the notion (again not for any of Mr Gore's reasons) I can't see it actually working for what I want.
So, instead, I would simply like to see research funding in the areas I believe important increased ... and that means some taxes.
Taxes give us smart things like the Virginia Class submarine, and some things not so smart, the F22 fighter. They give us power grids and highways, and goofy subsidies to transfer manufacturing oversees.
It is difficult to appropriately use government in this way. On this both sides fail.
[(I know I know, smaller gov, all good ideas come from industry (except for the all, the good, and the ideas part) and so on].
| 
