Here in Canada, the "hysteria" is due to the perceptible economic slowdown, bordering on recession, associated with the carbon tax.
If such a minor tweak is enough to make businesses pull investment, then surely more than tripling the price would be ill-advised.
Then you have the fact that transport, and hence fuel, affects the price of most goods, so fears of a recession (decrease in purchasing power) are not unfounded.
Also consider that, while justified as addressing a "tragedy of the commons scenario", rarely do such tax dollars go towards mitigating the externalities in question.
The tax would sting less if it was being spent building renewable energy rather, than initiatives that are charitably described as contentious and perhaps more accurately described as pandering.
If we could avoid the graft and self-dealing usually associated with federal spending, that would likely cut down on the complaints as well.
Putting carbon taxes towards externality mitigation would be double dipping. The whole point of the carbon tax is that it is pure incentive as it is, nothing more should be needed.
And giving the carbon tax back to people as a dividend is not pandering, it's making a highly regressive tax progressive.
Giving money directly to people is the purest and most effective form of economy pumping. So while carbon-intensive businesses are hurt other's will benefit; recession fears are completely overblown.
And the carbon tax is the most efficient form of carbon mitigation strategy. Did you see the recent news about Doug Ford's plan being twice as expensive as the carbon tax?[1] And it is imposes the costs almost exclusively on industry, increasing the chance of a recession much more than the carbon tax it would replace.
Then you have the fact that transport, and hence fuel, affects the price of most goods, so fears of a recession (decrease in purchasing power) are not unfounded.
Also consider that, while justified as addressing a "tragedy of the commons scenario", rarely do such tax dollars go towards mitigating the externalities in question. The tax would sting less if it was being spent building renewable energy rather, than initiatives that are charitably described as contentious and perhaps more accurately described as pandering. If we could avoid the graft and self-dealing usually associated with federal spending, that would likely cut down on the complaints as well.