Unfortunately, taxes have a negative image. For example, in the US, almost every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge that they will never vote for a policy that increases tax rates.
When faced with political opposition and image problems, there are three possible courses of action. The first is to argue ones point logically, hoping to change people's minds through reason and evidence.
A second is to admit defeat.
The third is to rebrand, and change the image. For example, Canada's bitumen deposits were once called the tar sands, a name that conjures up a (fairly accurate) image of a thick, sticky, black tar-like substance. They have been successfully rebranded as the oil sands, which sounds like clean sparkling oil, with just a bit of sand mixed in.
Given how well economists have been doing with the first strategy, and that the second strategy gets us no where, I think it's time carbon taxes got a rebranding.
It's not clear why carbon taxes should be called taxes in any event. What distinguishes taxes from user fees or social insurance premiums is the absence of a quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the government. Paying more taxes does not entitle a person to more government services. By way of contrast, paying Employment Insurance premiums is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for accessing Employment Insurance benefits.
By this definition, carbon taxes are more like a user fee than a tax. There is a quid pro quo: pay the tax, burn the carbon; burn the carbon, pay the tax. Go ahead and contribute to global warming, as long as you pay your dues.
Renaming carbon taxes "atmospheric user fees" would be a start, but people are smart enough to see through purely cosmetic name changes. If funds raised through the charges on fossil fuels go into general government revenue, it is hard to argue that they are anything other than taxes. If, on the other hand, the revenues are earmarked for tax refunds, low-emissions transportation, tree planting, and initiatives to combat climate change, it becomes much easier to argue that a $0.20 per litre charge on gasoline is, in fact, a user fee.
One strength of economists is that we see through framing, and focus on underlying structures and incentives. Our weakness is that we can easily forget that framing matters.