The problem isn't the business community in general so much as specific businesses. In Washington State we're voting on an initiative to put a price on emissions. It's supported by Microsoft, REI, Ben and Jerry's, and a bunch of smaller businesses and business alliances. Its business opposition is one generic business organization (Association of Washington Business) plus the Western States Petroleum Association.

The problem is "concentrated pain, diffuse benefits." Putting a price on emissions is an existential threat to businesses based on fossil fuel extraction or combustion. It's a nice-to-have for businesses that provide alternatives to fossil energy, like solar installers. For most other businesses it's not a key issue either way. This is similar to how most American businesses would be happy-to-indifferent about the existence of municipal broadband services, but private providers of broadband services fiercely oppose that option.

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E...

I'm on board with the idea that of all the ways to implement an anti-carbon system a trading system would be the best. It creates a real market.

But calling businesses hypocrites is being unfair - there is already a hypothetical market for carbon emissions where the price is $0. The government is going to drive the price up to something high enough that it will change business behavior, by extension causing businesses losses.

They aren't doing anything unreasonable, government steps in, value disappears. They're being completely reasonable by venting and asking for some sort of compensation. Asking for that compensation in the form of a subsidy is selfish, but once the government gets involved all bets are off, so why not aim for the stars and see what they can wrangle?