The authors only use the misleading phrase "carbon price" in their article rather than the honest and accurate "carbon tax" because they are trying to convince already over-taxed Canadians that this tax is not just another tax like all the others, but it most definitely is. 

 Professor Ragan at one time regularly argued that taxpayers should receive reductions in their income taxes to compensate for paying carbon taxes, but he does not anymore. Why is that?  As an economist he knows that raising taxes ( even if the government and its supporters continue to call it the imposition of a carbon price) will reduce consumer spending and economic growth.  But the Professor is also silent on the implications of this policy-induced reduction in economic growth and higher unemployment.  Again why is this?