Why aren't we seeing carbon taxes in practice? (See also a version of this question under politics, https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/48764/why-arent-we-seeing-carbon-taxes-in-practice)

It seems that there are many advantages to carbon taxes, including pricing in the environmental cost and generating revenue (that could offset other taxes).  So why are we not seeing them in practice, at least not very much of them?  I can think of some reasons below, but I don't know which of these if any actually play a significant role in practice and/or are actually well motivated.  Am I missing anything?  Is there any good study of this?


Too difficult to implement / will generate an underground carbon economy. This would be a concern with many taxes, but it seems we should be able to have a pretty good handle on where carbon enters the economy given the necessary physical volumes and processing.
Will hurt economic activity.  But it seems that this can be addressed by using the revenue to stimulate economic activity / reduce distortionary taxes.
Will create too big of a shock to the economy with unpredictable consequences.  But the tax could be gradually introduced according to a schedule.
Unfair to industries that will suffer from this tax.  But we generally don't seem inherently very concerned about disruption of industries (e.g., taxi industry) and it is hard to argue that such action would come as a surprise at this point.  Also, again, the tax could be gradually introduced according to a schedule.
Will economically hurt people who can't afford it.  But this could be addressed by using the revenue intelligently (or by targeting only certain types of carbon, e.g., airline tickets).
Politically hard to sell.  Even if it is in their interest, too many citizens will reflexively complain about, for example, high gasoline prices.  But would they really feel this way when combined with, for example, a check made out from the government distributing the revenue in a basic-income sort of way?  Or is there some other effective way to clearly present it as not just an additional tax from a greedy government?
Industry is politically too powerful.  It will attack/reward politicians based on their actions and launch massive public relations campaigns.  But is it really that powerful or is that exaggerated in people's imagination?
Even though many of the above aren't actually true, citizens and/or politicians are unduly worried that they are true (or simply not well educated about the option), are risk averse, and therefore they don't pursue this route.
I think it’s mainly politics. For example, when France tried to implement increases in tax on  oil (indirect way of taxing carbon) it led to yellow jacket protest.


As you pointed out it’s easy to track who produces the carbon in the economy. Especially on industrial level in developed countries. The reason 1 could be problem in some developing countries though.
As you pointed out the revenue can offset any negative effect as with Pigovian taxes there is no deadweight loss - if set properly 
Again you answered yourself plus I would add in a long run it’s better to undergo temporary shock to avoid higher cost down hill.
I don’t think you can say it’s unfair. In fact I would say the fact that the industries create externality in the first place due to lack of property right is unfair (at least if we agree that creating externality is not fair to society which I think most moral thinkers would - although that’s question for philosophy SE).
You again answered yourself.


If you look at the attempts to introduce carbon taxes then you will see 6-8 are the main culprits. In France you get yellow jacket protests in Netherlands farmers protests, in Washington voters refused carbon taxes in referendum last year (see here)etc. - all responses to trying to introduce Pigovian taxes of one kind or another. People of any political affiliations generally don’t like taxes when they are taxes on them as well. I suppose many people also are skeptical the government will make it revenue neutral later by lets say sending check to all people so their income stays the same. In case of redistribution some might not like that and others also don’t believe social spending will increase.