In part of the ongoing effort to halt climate change by reducing gas emissions, French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently elaborated on his plan to begin taxing carbon dioxide. The tax will likely take effect in January and represents a noble step toward the development of clean energy, as France is now the largest European economy to take such a measure.

But the French carbon tax strikes an awkward note in that it has incensed taxpayers who think the tax is unfair and too high while simultaneously disappointing environmental advocates who say the tax is simply not high enough. Is Sarkozy’s carbon tax doomed for failure?

The tax is set at 17 euros, or 24.78 American dollars per ton and will effectively translate into a slightly higher price of oil, gas and coal – for example, a gallon of gas will cost about 15 cents more. Naysayers claim that Sarkozy has picked an inopportune moment, to implement the tax, as taxpayers are struggling in the wake of the economic downturn.

But the “Bling Bling” president has tried to assuage the fears of the doubters by promising subsidies to households and offsetting the new carbon tax with a lower income tax. Big carbon dioxide producers, like oil refineries, will be exempt from the tax. The measures taken to ensure that no one will incur financial burdens from the tax negate its original purpose – to serve as financial punishment for using harmful energy sources. Not only does Sarkozy’s carbon tax make his taxpayers angry, but it’s too low and too cushioned with loopholes that it fails to do its job.

Wall Street Journal blogger Keith Johnson wrote that the taxpayers have little to worry about, whereas the environmentalists’ fears are valid. “In reality, France’s carbon tax is basically just a gasoline tax—and a tiny one at that,” he wrote. “Environmentalists are dismayed because the modest tax will do next to nothing to change consumption habits.”

The fact that the French people are up in arms over something that will have little net effect on how many taxes they pay is proof that the word “tax” is one of the most terrifying things to come out of a politician’s mouth. If this is the case, why not justify their anger and impose a legitimate tax?