A carbon tax would force additional costs on energy companies, who are already scrambling to lay people off in the face of low oil prices. Some would probably be hired back into the renewables/green sector, but it would probably have the net affect of getting a substantial number of people laid off. No politician wants unemployment to increase in their voter base.
If enacted at the federal level, it would increase the price of all forms of energy. The average consumer, who sees the low price of oil as a small silver lining on a large post-recessionary cloud, would be loathe to pay more and would blame the government for trying to take away the one "advantage" they've recently received. No politician wants unhappy voters blaming them for higher gas prices and electricity bills.
Not to mention the enormous and protracted legal battle that big oil and coal companies would be sure to wage against a federal carbon tax.
The only thing that will get enough of the population concerned about unsustainable carbon emissions is when they see the things closest to them - food, water, housing, clothing - decline in quality or increase in price due clearly and demonstrably to carbon emissions. They need to believe that carbon emissions are the fundamental, undeniable cause of rising sea levels, a decimation of crops or livestock due to strange weather patterns, an increase in natural disasters, etc. Nobody cares about an intangible and "scientifically debatable" issue like global warming due to carbon emission until their house is underwater, especially when pollution is great for the economy in the short term.
The aim is exactly for no one to work for greenhouse gas-producing energy companies, when there are no more greenhouse gases.
Also, they successfully and gradually implemented serious taxes on oil in Europe during the post-oil crisis period, when people had gotten used to high prices. It can be done.
* If I have a position, I'll want to convince everyone that I'm right because it'll make me right (if everyone thinks energy stocks are worthless, they will be.) That's why most people with lots of skin in the game, long or short, are very happy to publicly argue that their bet is correct.
* Someone very risk-averse can think, correctly, that he's likely right, but loathe the 10% probability to lose money. Conversely, someone can be near-addicted to gambling and make bets based on very little, or someone can just be wrong regardless of their risk preference.
Overall, a random commenter's arguments seem more interesting to me than their claim to have bet on being right, even if I trust this really hard to verify claim.
TLDR; Talk is cheap, and people are much more careful with their wallets than their mouths (or keyboards).
Your second point is much more solid. I'd like to see more empirical data regarding people's risk preference across different contexts and magnitudes. Seems like an interesting topic.
But I agree that in hindsight, I did not phrase my original comment to convey the above, I ended up conveying what you refuted...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_(finance)#Short_selling_...
Under such a policy, the average consumer of fuel will break even on the tax regardless.
Google "carbon fee and dividend" or see this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCL-pushing-for-US-fee-and-d...) for more.