>A simple first step would be a sharp increase in the gasoline tax in the U.S. I'm afraid the Hudson will be lapping my ankles before that happens.
Suprisingly this probably is NOT the best way to reduce energy consumption.
There are very few devices (transportation or othewise) that exist primarily to use energy. If you buy a car, (and most of us live in places where we can't get to work without one) gas mileage is not going to be the primary concern - even if you triple gas prices. Initial cost, comfort and safety are going trump mileage in most cases - not to mention psychological factors such status, or the search for a giant motorized penis.
Similarly if you buy or rent a home - price, location layout, condition are all going to trump energy efficiency.
If we take the long term mean price of oil to be 20 $/ BBL, then there is a hell of a lot conversvation out there that would pay for it self at the current prices of oil that is not being done. For example U.S. houses are tremendously underinsulated -- insulating every house in the U.S. to R-70 would more than pay for itself in energy saved (without reducing comofort one iota). This would seem to be an indication that giving the right price signals is NOT the best solution.
This is a case where regulation is the most sensible alternative. Imagine, for instance, the US did not require seatbelts. How many cars would have them? What would it cost to get them installed as a post-production option?
So mileage requirements for cars, efficiency requirements for homes, commercial and industrial building, requirements for motors, appliances and so forth would get you a lot more energy efficiency than an oil tax. And, where an this sort of green tax currently faces working class oppposition, energy efficiency regulations may already have working class support. As the polls Nathan cited show, at least auto efficiecny regulations do; and I see no reasons that would not extend to other measures.