I do not agree that the inability of rural Americans to adapt to higher prices is the primary reason why we have not imposed a tax on petroleum (or gasoline). There are not very many rural Americans. Their numbers in most states arre overwhelmed by people who live in cities and suburbanites.

I also do not agree that the typical American could not make massive cuts in their gasoline consumption. They simply choose not to because gasoline remains an excellent value, even if it is much more expensive than it was a few years ago. The proof in this is that nobody is driving more slowly on the highways, even though virtually everybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that most (though not all) cars will get significantly better mileage at, say, 60 mph than 75. People are not driving more slowly to save gasoline because they are still willing to substitute gasoline for time on the road.

Other examples: My company, located near Princeton, New Jersey, draws people from a 60 mile radius. Many of those people could easily carpool with another employee who lives near them, thus cutting the gasoline they consume in commutation by half. I do not know of a single employee who does this. Why? Because they would rather burn hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in incremental gasoline than to share their "space" with another employee or plan their errands differently.

Another example: When I was a kid, I remember that people would turn off their engines at open drawbridges, knowing that they would have a wait of some minutes. I can still hear, in my mind's ear, all the engines starting when the bridge goes down. Now, when you cross over the drawbridges to the Jersey shore, nobody turns off their engine. Why? Because they would rather burn gasoline to power the airconditioners and entertainment systems than save the gasoline and turn off those creature comforts. Again, even at $3 a gallon, gasoline remains a great value.

I think most suburban Americans could shave 15%-20% off their gasoline consumption without either purchasing a new vehicle or making any meaningful change to their way of life. We do not, because gasoline remains such an outstanding value compared to the things that we would substitute for it -- time on the road, other people in our car, or children in the back seat with no video to keep them company.

Rural Americans often live far from jobs, stores, and services. For example, when I was young, my dad had to drive for 45 minutes to get to work. My mom's workplace was only 15 minutes away, but jobs are scarce where there are few businesses, so he drove. Many people there are still in that position.

The nearest hospital is only 15 minutes away. Not so bad. But it's a very small hospital, with limited capabilities. A large number of people who are admitted later need to be transferred to a larger hospital. The larger hospital group affiliated with that hospital is a 45 minute drive away.

Local grocery stores charge high prices. We can drive 30 minutes to get the same items for much cheaper. You'd think that as gas prices go up, the profit in driving so far would go down, and in a lot of ways that's the case, but in some places it's not. Stores have raised prices - their costs are higher because of gas prices, too. Which brings up the issue of additional price hikes on goods to cover shipping costs, which I don't see people mentioning anywhere.

These people don't drive because they like to. Often, by the end of the week, they are sick of the inside of the car. They drive because they need to get where they're going, and there is no public transportation in areas like this. A carbon tax would likely help reduce consumption around cities, but for the most part, all it would do for rural Americans is raise costs. And since many of them aren't making large salaries to begin with - especially in the mid-west, which is still suffering economically - I see a carbon tax as causing more harm than good.

What we need is a viable alternative to gasoline. I can see how a carbon tax, by reducing consumption and thereby lowering profits, would provide companies with some incentive to find another option. I just think that there must be a better way to provide some incentive while not harming families who rely on their vehicles to get the things they need to live.

In this case, a carbon tax is designed to reduce the negative effects of gasoline. Its implementation, which I endorse, should be determined by an analysis of which of its negative effects are worse.

The negative effects or externalities are usually associated with driving:

1) Contributions to Global Warming
2) Greater Road Congestion
3) Greater Congestion may lead to higher probability of accidents with other cars/pedestrians

Personally, I feel the greater of the negative effects are 2) & 3), but mainly, #2 because I hate traffic. A carbon tax that triples (or even more) the price of gasoline near cities will lead to less traffic, which makes my driving experience a lot more enjoyable.

More evidence is emerging contesting the idea of carbon dioxide being the driving force behind climate change (formerly known as global warming until it started cooling). It appears carbon dioxide levels followed rather than led historical warming trends.

With the sun and water vapor having a more profound effect on climate how will we tax them?

Rather than applying new taxes why not just remove the subsidies on carbon production?