Will Increased Gas Taxes "Combat Global Warming"?

You left out part of that article. It also mention the reason for the revenue shortfall. People are simply driving less due to an all ready existing economic hardship. Why make every ones life more miserable. Punishing them for doing the right things sounds just like government logic? Whats going to happen, people are going to become less and less sensitive to environmental concerns. And for very good reasons. It makes me wonder if that's not one reason mass transit is such a American failure. Raising taxes has always been the bureaucratic solution for ignoring the real problems. Why should this be any different?

Having a gas tax (or even better, a price floor on a gallon of gasoline) doesn't do much to help global warming directly; but giving investors and inventors a reliable forecast of prices is critical if they are going to put billions into R&D of a new technology.

That's the main barrier right now behind any alternative, that oil prices fluctuate so much that anyone behind a new technology has absolutely no way of saying with any confidence whether their new idea will end up being economical. A price floor on the other hand would give them something to shoot for, a target price they can compare their idea to when advertising it to investors.

I agree that as part of the process, substantive subsidies to the oil & gas industry should be phased out and eliminated. And I also agree that if the 40 cent increase materializes that the lion's share should be more than a gesture, it should be used directly for research or implementation of programs.

Perception is everything, as you note in your last paragraph. But there's a lot of watchdogs out there on this issue, and I don't think Congress is going to be fully able to pull the wool over our eyes on this. Time will tell; after the bail out business, I lost faith -- again -- in the ability of Congress to act in my best interests.

Well certainly, tax the hell out of fuel consumption. That will make all the libs feel warm and fuzzy. They are punishing who ever they feel should be punished. They will then be able to push the cost of living for all, including the poor to new heights. Notice how both parties have forgotten their pledges to solve the energy problem once the price of fuel has dipped. But fear not, their hero "Socialism Man" (would that be S M) is on th horizon, to save the day. He and his trusted "libby" companions, Reid,Pelosi, Frank and the gang will be there to steal from the working and give to the nonworking, to redistribute wealth and find one more way to feel, warm and fuzzy. When all else fails, Tax, Tax, Tax. We'll show them.

I would favor an increase in gas tax if other taxes were reduced equally because there are enough benefits to increasing the incentives for increased efficiency. That isn't going to happen though. Californian Democrats are drunk spending other people's money. They pretend that the tax goes to this and that. In fact it goes into the general fund. If you don't believe me, research where the gas tax money in the clean up fund goes. I can tell you this, it isn't going to clean up sites. It is being held by money-spending addicted state bureaucrats. I know this first hand.

Note: you said: Donald Rumsfeld admitted in 2001 that the Department of Defense was so poorly managed that it couldn't even account for $3.4 trillion dollars.

Ignoring the fact that they had been in office for about 9 months the budget was just under 2 trillion a year? You figure it out. Do you think they couldn't figure out where 3.4 trillion was spent when they had a two trillion dollar budget or are you being fooled again by biased information?

(Oops sorry, I thought you were Richard)

Your question with a WILL makes all the difference as no one can assure us where our taxes will finally be applied. If your questions had been done with a SHOULD, the answer is affirmative.

Well it depends on the degree of the tax and what the funds are used for. If it's some tiny little 5 cent per gallon tax used just to improve roads, it probably won't have much effect on global warming.

A 40 cent per gallon increase isn't too shabby though. I think that's sufficient to persuade people to drive less, or at least to get more fuel efficient vehicles, which has the same effect.

It would certainly be better if at least some of the funds were used to invest in ways to combat global warming, but that will be the result when we enact a carbon cap and trade system.

I certainly agree we need to eliminate subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and that our defense budget is ridiculous and needs to be reduced and used more efficiently. But I also think that a carbon tax or cap and trade system could be an important tool in addressing global warming as long as it's done correctly.

No it wont, only a devout America hating socialist like Dana would think that any increase would combat a fictitious epidemic.

Yes, it will deter more people from driving.

Sounds like typical Marxist drivel, tax the little guy out of existence while feeding the corporate giants from the public trough.