You can have nice things if you buy them. Let say you pay $100 in carbon tax but get a $100 tax break on your other taxes. Revenu neutral for you and the government. That's how it should be. Now I get it that it won't be revenue neutral for everyone. Heavy polluters might pay $150 in carbon tax and get only $100 tax break. While the less polluting person may pay $50 in carbon tax and still get the $100 tax break. There would be winners and losers, of course. So you should say that those who deserve it more will get nicer things. Heavy polluters would end up poorer but they can choose to change, such as get rid of their home oil heating.

2. The point is to do something good, reducing CO2 emissions. This can be acheived even without the governement making some special spending with that money. Carbon tax revenues is better spent on regular gouvernement programs such as roads, health, military, or reducing other taxes.
3. Oh it's not nothing. Carney removed the carbon tax, but he kept one round of cashback. The problem was that those in BC and QC got $0. And those in other provinces got various different levels. The cashback was supposed to be funded by the tax. You remove the tax, you should remove the cashback. He put everything on the debt, obviously, as those revenues were never replaced. Just like the gas tax.
4. I care. It's a matter of fairness. Why would someone have to pay carbon tax when driving with an ICE car, but not when heating with the same polluting oil (which is basically diesel)? If oil is too expensive for heating on the east coast, then great, switch to something else. That's the purpose of the tax. It will reduce emissions. You guys didn't deserve that break. On the contrary, the tax was too low. If you don't care about fairness, then please have the gouvernement send me a couple billions.

I'd say most people got mislead by conservatives and the pollution lobby, but whatever. Even if 99% of the people is against an idea, it doesn't make it a bad idea per se. I'll defend my opinion whether they are popular or not.
The main problems with Trudeau's payback were:
1. It was done per province. That mean people in the most polluting provinces got the more money back. It would have been more efficient if done country-wide (at least for provinces affected by the carbon tax), so people would have an incentive to move from provinces where the electricity is produced by fossil fuels. In short, would have a better impact on CO2 reduction for the same amount of money collected.
2. Only 90% of the money was given back to the people. Something like 10% was kept for some green programs, giving naysayers the perfect excuse to say that the carbon tax is a cash grab by the evil government.
3. The payback continued EVEN AFTER the carbon tax abolition. That was daylight robbery, giving the most money to people living in the most polluting provinces.
4. They made stupid exceptions for things like oil home heating. People still heating with oil deserve to pay tax. At least convert to natural gas.

This could cause some inflation, but it could be offset by reduced income or sales tax. Or direct paybacks to the population. So the average people wouldn't see a difference. Of course there would be winners and losers. Those spending their weekends wakesurfing with their huge boat would be losers. That's what we want. Discourage polluting activities, and make less-polluting activities more attractive in comparison, so that people can make good choices.

Of course it would survive. Especially if you take that extra tax money and use it to reduce other taxes, starting with income tax and consumption tax (GST/VAT).
It would just drive the economy towards cleaner solutions.
The problem is the pollution lobby was strong enough to convince many people that it wasn't in their interest to remove the carbon tax, and the liberals pandered.

Most people wouldn't pay $20 to get 128 more GB of storage.

There is a cellular version of the iPad as well. You need to buy that to get GPS reception as well.
No reason why the cellular version of the iPad couldn't make phone calls, but Apple possibly restricted that feature because, well, they are Apple.

Canada is a good example where anti-environmentalists won that battle. It doesn't mean it was a good idea.
I can't tell you which country pays its "fair" share of carbon credits because "fair" is debatable here. But one thing is certain, the fair value is not $0/ton like anti-environmentalists would like it to be. Several countries have a carbon tax or market price in the $50-100 range, which is enough to have an impact.

several countries have a price on carbon and people aren't starving in the streets because of it.
There is no valid argument to allow pollution to be free and unlimited.

it may not apply to all sectors but in the sectors where it applies, it does a lot to address the CO2 emissions, by putting an incentive on the exporting country to reduce CO2.

Of course Trump is not responsible for everything. But he will have done everything he could over 8 years to ensure we do as little as possible to reverse that trend.
Very few individuals can be responsible for that much damage over only 8 years.

Polluters should pay. It doesn't matter if they are rich or poor.
If you then think that the rich don't pay their fair share, raise their taxes until they do. But this is a completely different debate that has nothing to do with the CO2 emissions problem.

There are loopholes mostly because anti-environementalists complain about the CBAM. But it's a start. Hopefully the loopholes will be closed, and eventually CBAM won't even be needed because other countries will tax carbon too.

It doesn't matter if the cost of climate change is paid by the company extracting the oil or the end individual. The resulting is the same. The oil company will try to pass the cost to the individual, which will then have a choice to make: is it worth it or not? Suddenly spending that weekend on that motor boat may not be as interesting as it was before and maybe he'll play volleyball on the beach instead.

Also the main problem here is that Mozambique allows emitting CO2 for free in the process of making aluminium.