StF(atR) and CYTtD? - Tradable Permits

I have a question for the left: If Kyoto is so great, why is there so much skepticism and outright denial of the benefits of tradable emissions permits, especially WRT mercury, but also WRT sulfur (a program that is now accepted as successful by everyone except the hardest of the left)? And, BTW, why isn't there more credit given to George H.W. Bush (not "W"), who after all signed the 1990 Clean Air Act that put the sulfur (or is it "sulphur"?) "cap and trade" program into effect? Y'know, as opposed to Bill Clinton, who signed no major environmental legislation at all (granted, for 6/8 of his term he wasn't working with his own party, but then neither were Nixon, Reagan, or HW, all of whom did sign environmental legislation).

I have a question for the right: If tradeable emissions permits are so great, what is wrong with applying the same lessons to carbon dioxide a la Kyoto? (hint: I actually think there is a legitimate answer to this question, but I can't think of a problem with tradeable CO2 permits in principle)

I have yet another question for my fellow free market environmentalists: If Coase was right, shouldn't we be getting behind more such proposals? And, BTW, who is going to enforce them? Obviously, the government. Sure, a significant portion of the monitoring and enforcement could be contracted out. It might even be enforceable on a contingency basis, though I'd be concerned about rent seeking, but even that wouldn't be significantly different from the current situation (yes, Dorothy, government bureaucrats and politicians do engage in rent-seeking).