Cela n'est pas une probleme, mon cher Eric.  Rene' and Georgette Magritte and their dog after the war would surely not mind a bit.

In partial defense of politicians in both Canada and the US, supporting a carbon tax with the intention of passing the increased expense on to us consumers, with the ulterior intention of discouraging us from driving (and from heating our homes too, apparently, an especially big deal in Quebec), is going to be difficult for them to do for quite some time.  Such a tax will seem unfair to those workers who do not see an alternative to driving, in order for them to go to work or even to do their work (e.g. drivers of taxis or delivery vehicles who must pay for their own fuel).  It may also seem unfair to those who live in suburbs and exurbs, who cannot go anywhere without driving (as they believe), e.g. to do such necessary chores as shopping for food -- though in their case, of course, they may be encouraged to make fewer, more economical trips.

This kind of carbon tax will not seem fair, unless and until most people have alternative satisfactory means of transportation, such as decent public transportation, and BioD's fancy-schmancy battery-bike.  (The latter, along with most other kinds of bike, would probably not be very tolerable for much of the year in Quebec, save to the heroic type.)

Just to think out loud for a moment, but the carbon tax should have nothing to do with the price of gasoline at the pump.  It should be a payroll tax (and at the same time, other payroll taxes should be reduced).  It should be levied on those people who choose to drive to work in a standard gasoline-fueled vehicle, even though an alternative means of transportation is available.  The distance traveled between residence and work, and the mileage of the vehicle, will determine the rate of taxation.

That will mean extra work for personnel departments to figure all this out, but tough!, this is the time for making some sacrifices, and we should try to do that as fairly as possible.

Hybrid vehicles should be considered an alternative means of transportation.

Carpooling should be considered an alternative means of transportation -- the experts can decide the minimum number of passengers -- , and every metropolitan area should make available to commuters information on carpools from round about.  That would probably be more difficult in the more diffuse Western cities, especially Los Angeles, which is anomalously huge and polycentric, but surely it can be done.

So there you are, problem solved.  Gee, that was easy!

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

That's a very clever solution indeed. Economic theory states that an efficient taxation environment means the same tax level on every economic resource. Else, economic disruption occurs (major or minor). Therefore, fossil fuels -and all other natural resources- could be taxed on the same level as payroll. When we would not step into the wide open pit of suggesting that the revenue's of theis tax should be used to promote environmental means -the discussion which fraction of the public expenditure should be allocated to that end is a fully different one, after all-, it can be used to lower payroll taxes, which does increase employement.

Now, think about lobbying that plan: Sorry Sir, I've got a plan to lower direct tax pressure, increase employment and improve the environment. One might actually raise more fans than just the Green, maybe even a majority.

On the answerring of the question how raising such a tax is best done, I agree with caniscandida on the goals, I do not agree on the means. If you just increase end-user prices (VAT-style), the following will happen:
People with bigger cars pay more tax
People without an alternative mode of home-work transport are punished for their impractical housing decision and have an inventive to move.
People who carpool pay half or less
People who drive hybrid cars pay less (unless it's a Lexus)
And the cost of raising the tax is minimal.