Good idea. The rich should also be penalized for their purchases, though it won't affect their wallets as much. But one exception should be to those who use trucks in their professions (farmers, construction...).

Here'a gas consumption tax idea which would directly benefit people who don't drive at all:

Everybody gets 500 gallons of automotive gas annually at the regular tax rate. Need more? Pay more tax. Hell, double it.

Don't drive? Then you can sell your unused right to purchase 500 regularly taxed gallons to someone whose gas guzzling vehicle would otherwise force them to pay the surtax. If the surtax is $1, you could pocket up to $500, depending on marketplace dexterity.

Don't drive much? Sell off the unused 200 gallons, etc. Same principles, less payoff.

Drive a lot? Pay more.

I really distrust solutions that add more complexity. The simplest solution would be to gradually increase taxes on gas allowing market forces to encourage movement to more efficient solutions. Note that this doesn't simply benefit purchasers of one solution but increases the value of walking, bicycling, car pooling and other methods.

Note this method can be made acceptable to many true fiscal conservastives by offering to reduce other taxes to an amount equal to incrased energy taxes.

The problem with this and the reason why (exhibiting cowardice) environmental activists don't advocate it, is that the American public hates (did I say HATES!!!) any tax or impediment on their god given right to drive what they want to when they want to. Thus the return of the vehicle license fee to it's historic levels was the passionate issue in the recent California recall election. It doesn't matter that most of the funds go to cops and firefighters. It doesn't matter that the recent medicare drug measure will cost them a similar amount of taxes....

I should also note that if your idea reaches the point to be actually effective then it will start draining the public treasury many, many billions per year. People will not buy the tax producing guzzlers and will buy the subsidized vehicles. And if you don't keep the subsidies in place you risk a return to the old big car order.

As for the idea that business should be subsidized directly I'm sympathetic, but there is a tax right off for the gas. Also higher prices encourage greater efficiency and help local providers because they have less distace to travel. Business or certain types of business can be aided with reductions in other taxes and fees. These can include an increase in the estimate of cost per mile. But it makes sense to give lower costs to the guys who travel 2 or 3 per truck and carry half as many loads rather than reward inefficiency. Because everyone is dealing with the same burden it works out competively.

To me the solution (for cars) is depend on the market. Raise the cost of fossil fuel based energy. Products will adjust and people will make choices about that which has more value. Cost increases designed to mprove performance will occur, there is less need for legislative and regulatory tweaking with required standards whch may go against public desires and thus alienate the population.

However the public does not buy into the need for conservation and so all kinds of convoulted methods are proposed. I personally think that all that can be done is wait for the market to force huge jumps with the trauma. If tens of billions are to be spent rather than subsidize private car purchases I would suggest solar systems on government buildings and hospitals (which could at least keep them sort of functional suring the day,) geo thermal cooling and heating and other direct investments in alternative technology. However I don't think that these funds are availible.

I completely agree with jlarson. The gas tax is the most elegant solution. In fact, I think any time a politician claims to be "energy independence", they should immediately be asked, "Why don't you support a higher gas (or carbon) tax?" If its the notion of "more taxes" or regressivity they claim not to like, its not an excuse. Fossil fuel tax legislation could easily be made revenue-neutral and even progressive by offsetting one or more other regressive taxes (e.g. raise the personal exemption level on income taxes).

They (gas guzzlers) are already more costly simply because they use more gas. What this would amount to would be a subsidy for businesses selling more fuel-efficient cars, which would harmfully limit competition.

The fact of the matter is, if so many people care about car's fuel efficiency, they will buy more fuel-efficient cars. If they don't, then our government, which represents the will of the people, should not force them on us.

I also agree that the gas tax should handle this. I generally feel that in most cases the (taxed) consumption of any product should pay for any costs it incurs. Therefore, I think gas tax should exclusively be used to pay for streets, highways, public parking, traffic cops, signs, lights, regulation enforcement, etc. It should also fund research and solutions to problems such as oil cleanup, pollution, obesity, health issues due to smog, collision injury prevention, and anything else that is a direct or indirect result of using the automobile.

Here's an idea: If you like the idea of a "pump tax" on automobile fuel, simply send a check to the government treasury- state or federal, your choice- in the amount you feel is appropriate. I suggest a 100% rate- that is, for every dollar spent on fuel at the pump, send in an equal amount to the government.

Oh, wait, I see a flaw in this- you want ME to pay the same tax rate!

I agreed with:

"I think gas tax should [exclusively] be used to pay for streets, highways, public parking, traffic cops, signs, lights, regulation enforcement, etc..."

Where you lost me is "It should also..."

We have that now; highway use taxes go into the general fund, where they pay for education, health care, welfare, military spending, and, incidentally, sometimes, streets, highways, public parking, etc...

Another idea that will never see the light of day-

Base registration fees on vehicle weight divided by EPA city mileage rating, using published figures.

A 3,000# car that gets EPA city 22 mpg has a score of 136.4, a 2,500# car that gets 40 mpg has a score of 62.5, a 5,000# SUV that gets 8 mpg has a score of 625. Use whatever multiplier you wish to arrive at dollar amounts.

This also encourages motorists to buy newer, more efficient vehicles, but doesn't prohibit the old-car enthusiast from pursuing his hobby.

I give SUVs another 10 years or so, and then the law of supply and demand regarding oil will kill them. (lots more people, lots less oil) Nothing more is needed.

What ever happened to the right to chose to either drive a fuel sipper or a gas-guzzler? This sounds an awful lot like communism if you ask me.