This strikes me as a more intelligent response to rising fuel prices than $100 rebate checks. Still, I would prefer that politicians define goals in terms of reduction targets (emissions, CO2, energy imports from specified nations etc.) and incentives for meeting those targets / penalties for failing.

In the energy sector, capital investment usually have to amortize over 20 years or more. Ergo, the best and cheapest incentive may be to eliminate uncertainty wrt future government regulation and taxation, to the extent that is legally possible. For example, Germany has guaranteed low taxes on natural gas fuel through 2020, to diversify energy sources away from oil. Afaik, it may come from any source, incl. biogas if it meets the technical standards. Carmakers are free to burn it in ICEs, reform it into H2, convert it to methanol/DME or anything else.

Politicians and bureaucrats should not be explicitly favoring any one specific technology over any other, as that stifles innovation. An egregious example is California's ZEV law, which prescribes an certain minimum percentage of sales has to be EV or hydrogen FCEV, even if you sell range-centric HEVs as well. The specifics of the law are diverting R&D funding away from alternatives, e.g. recuperation-centric hybrids, engine downsizing, membrane absorption chillers, HCCI combustion, particulate filter retrofits etc.

I agree. Don't specify technology; specify goals. Reward behavior that gets you to those goals. Discourage behavior that gets you away from those goals. We have the absurd situation where we are subsiding sub 30 mpg hybrids and giving nothing to those who choose 40 mpg non hybrids.

This is based on the bipartisan s.2025 bill I have been promoting in a few previous posts.This is probably the best chance at a bill that can pass and that will actually begin a weening from oil.I think the technolgy and the mindset on this website would be able take this foothold and vault us further and faster than the reduction goals called for in the legislation.
The environmentalists and the security hawks are finding common interest in a cleaner domestic fuel supply.We may at times arrive at the same point for different reasons and motivations.Intellectual discourse and an inclination toward mutual understanding could lead to a much broader impact upon the political landscape as well as the corporate boardrooms.
I would encourage gcc poarticipants to email or call your reps and register your support for this legislation.I believe you will find that your voice is heard.It is an election year after all.

I'm having trouble seeing how this does much to achieve the goal. Why not just put a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline from imported fossil fuels (and the equivalent for other imported fossil fuels), use the tax proceeds to build renewable energy for government facilities and for enery research, and let the market work out the technology for transportation and other energy uses.

titanic, deckchairs ect

After last year's energy bill, and the direct effect it's had on our gas prices, I have no faith in our politicians.

So you're saying penalize the consumers. Might I remind you that most had no choice in the matter of the car that they purchased! We cannot all buy new efficient cars to alleviate the burden of more taxes! Make the car manufacturers responsible for releasing more efficient vehicles. Again, we only buy cars that are available, not fictious ones.

This will never happen, but if they really wanted to change the equation quickly they'd slap a huge emergency tax on gasoline - something like $7. *THAT* would curb demand immediately, which would drive down wholesale prices. Then they could ratchet the tax back until the wholesale price dropped about a buck, then they could leave a one dollar tax in its place to fund alternative fuels, efficiency incentives, transportation alternatives, etc.

Incrementalism won't do much in terms of shifting demand, especially in the short-term.

Might I remind you that most had no choice in the matter of the car that they purchased!

NO choice? People have always had a range of choices available to them, and by-and-large they bought what they bought with the fuel prices at the time in mind - not potential future fuel price upturns.

When free markets don't work, go with the trickle up theory:
penalize consumers (higher gas $) and when they react (as only a select few are now) then the manufacturers might follow..

Gutless politicians. They need to raise the price of gas 50 cents right now and then raise it one penny per month after that. Eventually gasoline will be too expensive and we will have our own domestic energy instead of buying from Middle East dictators.

Yeah, all of the $40K+ Yukons, H2s, and F350 supercab commuter cars out there are a clear indication that the average joe just doesn't have a choice in the matter.

I think the carrots offered would work better than the tax clubbing.Look at the screaming about prices now.
Europeans pay five to more than six dollars per gallon.I heard that their cafe is five mpg higher than ours.
I dont see those kind of results flying in our more geographically spread out society.I think we need a system designed to fit our societal model as opposed to following theirs.
The two different systems would produce different solutions to problems.A cross pollination of a sort could then be exchanged resulting in ,I think, a greater creative energy.

I heard that their cafe is five mpg higher than ours.
I dont see those kind of results flying in our more geographically spread out society.

That doesn't make sense to me. If we're more spread out, somehow "requiring" more vehicle-miles per person, then we should be the ones with the higher mileage vehicles. And since we must drive more highway miles, and that generally is a more efficient means of travel, then again that would mean we would have higher mileage vehicles.

seven dollars a gallon would destroy the economy eliminating the capital needed to fund alternatives.Incremental withdrawal from oil addiction is what is practically achievable.Cold turkey would be a violent and perhaps fatal treatment.

Yes. Absolutely. Penalize consumers for buying and retaining cars which burn more fuel than necessary and create incentives for buying more efficient cars. Remember that there's a huge reservoir of used cars and SUVs out there. Even if manufactures were to stop shipping gas-hogs today, the older cars would still continue to guzzle.

The only way to reduce fuel consumption is to increase the cost to consumers. We have to either accept that or accept ongoing short supply, dependence on foreign sources, and environmental destruction.

I think a $1/gal tax on gasoline is a step in the right direction. Add windfall profits taxes on the oil industry, increased tariffs on imported oil, tax rebates for operating fuel efficient cars, and increase research funding for alternatives such as electric cars. Then we might have a chance of staving off disaster.

I doubt we'll do it though. So, basically, I'm saying we're screwed.

seven dollars a gallon would destroy the economy eliminating the capital needed to fund alternatives.

I said it would be an emergency tax to change demand over a short period of time. They could certainly rebate back the proceeds of the temporary tax to offset the effect on the economy.

Cold turkey would be a violent and perhaps fatal treatment.

We'll never know what would happen since it never will be tried. But gasoline demand doesn't respond to small price changes. It's like boiling a frog.

What I meant to say Joseph is that the American public would never accept paying another three dollars per gallon to achieve a 5mpg increase.
Whether they should accept it is another question.With the current hand wringing over three dollars a gallon I suspect their would be a public lynching of anyone who imposed six dollars.
Understanding the general public psyche and political landscape has to govern the ideal towards the doable.This legislation is by no means ideal but it is a light year ahead of anything seriously proposed and agreed to by both parties to date.If you dont strike while they are agreeing it could be a long time before anything is done.

I see way too many Big Government suggestions here. Ultimately you can't wait for *them* to take action, nor can you use it to effect social change. Forget them. Take action yourselves. If you have money to invest, buy stock in alternative energy companies that need capital for their projects.

As for old gas guzzlers I have been toying with an idea.Perhaps wealthy environmentalists{hollywood types who preach green and live in a 40,000 sq. ft. house mebbe} could contribute to a fund that would then be used to purchase older vehicles at a premium from people that cant afford to replace them.The owners would then be more able to buy a newer more efficient model.George soros,bill gates etc.,if each of us write a letter it might inspire one gazillionare to take it up.

Find me one politician who would propose your emergency tax.Again ideal as opposed to doable.

Cervus;if this bill passed investment capital will stampede towards alternative energy.It would be a force multiplier far beyond our gcc investment club.

Acase in point,the energy blog,goldman sachs invests thirty million in Iogens cellulosic ethanol plant.Another round of financing will be required for the full commercial scale up.The 2005 energy bill actually opened the door to the financing of much of what we read about here.
Investors want to know the direction the feds are headed before they invest.This follow up legislation I guaruntee would accelerate the pace of investment in alternative energy.That is the goal isnt it?

Find me one politician who would propose your emergency tax.Again ideal as opposed to doable.

Gerald, read what I first said. "This will never happen, but if they really wanted to change the equation quickly they'd slap a huge emergency tax on gasoline."

It will never happen. I understand political realities.

I was just pointing out what the solution would be if we had a system which actually worked to produce the best outcomes. People whine about things, but then they penalize people who do what's necessary. Happened to Carter and it happened to the congressional Democrats in 1994.

I see way too many Big Government suggestions here. Ultimately you can't wait for *them* to take action, nor can you use it to effect social change.

First of all, individual and entrepremeurial action are not mutually exclusive from policy initiatives. This is a democracy and ultimately we should be able to decide what to do with the powers and resources we give to those who represent us in government.

The theoretical option I posited is not something I support, because as I acknowledged and is obvious, it won't happen. But it was to highlight what it would take to change behavior in a short period of time, which is supposedly what everyone wants, right?

Also, to think that government can't affect social change - that's pure cynicism and ignores things like Roe v Wade, Brown v Board, the '93 Budget, or Bush's budgets. All of these things profoundly shifted the dynamics in this society.

Government is 1/5 of this economy, and to just brush it off as hopeless is not productive, IMO. And this is coming from someone who ALWAYS looks first to what he can change either through his own action or through enterprise.

5 minutes to take a quick survey around the office: Results indicate people are mad about gas prices and expect sub $2/gallon prices again. Most people don't care about having a more efficient vehicle. They only want cheap gas...government action IS required as people will not make the "right" choice on their own.

The "soak the motorist" penalties of $1-$7 gas taxes won't help. Especially since constituents vote with their pocketbooks.

The best thing we can do is make the automakers build more fuel-efficient vehicles such as by raising CAFE and measure like this energy bill (a good idea IMHO) while phasing in alternative fuels like ethanol and biodiesel

We are way beyond the point of letting the markets react. This solution is not only the most expediant, it would actually work. Congress has actually presented a bill that would solve our long term energy needs and we are disputing the only viable solution. All cars will require signifacant increases in efficiency; hydrogen, ethanol, and biodiesel will all require battery technology in order to be effective. No one can present an argument against that. Why not use technology that is sitting around on shelves right now to end this madness.

Two thoughts:
Item 1. A carbon tax, which would include gasoline and diesel, should be incrementally ratcheted over several years. The future ratcheting should be well publicized. The revenue generated could be split evenly between all citizens and legal residents. This would encourage switch to more eco-friendly vehicles and alleviate the pinch to the consumer.
Item 2. A government financing scheme for ground coupled (also known as geothermal) heatpump conversions. For example: 80% of the cost of a ground coupled heat pump conversion up to $10,000 would be an income tax credit in the year of installation. It would be paid back $1000 per year for the next ten years. Most of the installations would replace either oil or gas fired heating. The heating load would be transfered to the electric grid which is generally either coal or nuclear generated.

I know Im a pest but as a political junkie I really believe this is a rare moment.At a time where our government is at war with itself there is a bill they have come to agreement on.
As ugly as our system is, it comes together from time to time and accomplishes great things.For all that believe nothing will get done I say call or email your rep. Only half the dang country votes so if you take the time to participate you could be part of the solution rather than part of the fatalistic silent masses.

You are right elmer it was a splendid day.

I just got an email from capewind.President Bush has joined in opposing an ammendment slipped into the coast guard bill to kill the capewind project.Ted Kennedy and Stevens of Alaska joined to kill the project.{strange bed fellows eh}Now republicans and enviro groups{interesting couple there} are working to save the project.I joined an email campaign a few weeks back when it looked like the project was killed.Getting involved apparently worked.

The reason they wont push cafe faster is they cant. Unlike what people thijnk the simple fact is none of the politicos has the backing needed to take the kind of voting hit they would take if they did push it.

Thats why the new revised cafe standard is soo vital you can push for more fuel eff in the segments that wont get you run out of office;/

What do people REALY want?

They want a car as safe as thier current car as comfy as thier current car and as peppy as thier current car and they want to get around cheaper in it.

What you REAly shoul;d do is provide a 1 billion dollar bonus to each domestic car company that manages to produce a car and sell it in volume that gets beyond 75 mpg.

A 3 billion dollar bonus for each domestic car company that manages to make a wide selling 100 mpg car.

And a 10 billion dollar bonus to each company that makes a mass selling 150 mpg car.

A gas tax would be dead on arrival (DOA). It would be political suicide for any congressman that voted to increase gasoline prices on top of already record high fuel prices. A gas tax might have been a good idea three years ago, but it ain't gonna fly as we move into the era of peak oil.
Take money out of hydrogen fuel cell research and put it into developing better batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. It won't solve our current problem overnight, but it will get us where we need to be sooner than last year's poor excuse for an energy bill.

Indeed, batteries are key.

That's probably why the oil companies are so afraid of them.

A punative tax on gasoline is the only real way to change behavior. Offset it with other tax changes and such to make it revenue neutral or better for the most vulnerable in society.
As an asside, the excise duties on tobacco alcohol and petrol in the UK are collectively known as "sin taxes". It used to strike me as odd that gasoline was grouped like that. I doubt if it was forward thinking, but it is a grouping that now makes some sense.

No, there's another way to change behavior besides a punitive tax: Give people a much more attractive alternative. (I.e. don't raise the cost of what they're doing now, lower the cost of what they could be doing instead.)

If the gov't put all its focus on jump-starting EV's, we'd get the most bang per buck in terms of reduced oil consumption and reduced emissions. Fund battery R&D, underwrite factory construction, and give consumers tax breaks when they buy the cars. Tell people they can fuel a 200-mile/charge Civic-sized EV for one fifth of the current cost/mile of a gasoline Civic at $3/gal., and they'll line up to buy them.

Many households in the US have more than one car, and would therefore be very happy to have one (or N-1) EV(s) and one gasoline vehicle. They could still make long drives in the gasoline car, but they could shift a lot of their daily commuting and errand running to the EV, to their and everyone's benefit.

Let the market sort out gasoline prices and availability, but EV's are one of the VERY few times when I think the gov't should "pick a winner" and back a specific technology. The potential benefits are immense.

I urge everyone that wants to solve our transportation fuel problem to check out www.bettah.com. The short Flash movie describes how plug-in hybrid gasoline or diesel/electric vehicles are a bettah way to go.

I'm glad to see that all you surburbanites can afford $7 a gallon gas. I can't. Most peole in rural areas can't. We are already stretched too thin to be arbitrarily taxed to death by Big Brother so he can mismanage funds and lose the original focus in red tape.

The real problem with CAFE is the definition of car vs. truck. Under the current rules the PT Cruiser is considerd a truck and therefore Chrysler doesn't give a rip about it's fuel economy. It helps out all of their crappy Hemi Rams and Durangos. Until CAFE is rewritten to include GVWR or off-road worth, no increase in the standards will help. The car companies will simply build more sub-par vehicles that barely meet the entry and departure angle requirements to be called trucks.

To a certain degree a government technology mandate is neccesary for a conversion to an electricity based auto drive system. The feds need to set a common battery voltage so only a single type of DC charging system could be mass produced for use at workplaces, motels, and even some restaurants. Why DC? Rapid charge batteries will need high current capacity and batteries charged at off peak hours at a slow charge rate would not overload the grid. Efficiency is improved by not inserting an inverter into the charging station and a rectifier into the car. For all manufacturers to collude in setting this voltage they need a congressional exemption to anti-trust laws. Congress could also authorize the Society of Automotive Engineers or some other professional organisation to set the standard. What ever the method standards need to be set.

i have read some very good ideas above, but in the real world we know they will never be put into effect by the powers that be. people are complaining about the high price of gas well boys you just wait, a while from now we will all look back and think of the good old days when gas was 3$ a gallon, there are still people buying hummers now, they prob think 3$ is the highest price they will see but just wait boys there is a huge oil shock on the way and all those hummers will be worthless and i will laugh my ass off bye bye GM

Lame circlejerk by politician. I got a radical idea: Lets
stop pretending the PT Cruiser, Ford Escape, Subaru Forester, Cadillac Escalade......
are TRUCKS.

Bush passed up the opportunity to slap a $1 a gallon tax on gasoline on 9/12/01. While that is the best incentive, I don't see it happening until Bin Laden takes over Saudi Arabia's oil fields.

The government could promote batteries by subsidizing their cost in any hybrid, or EV at the rate of 80% for one year, and then reducing that subsidy to 70% year 2, etc. This would make plug-ins affordable, and build a base for battery research and production to bring the costs down. That won't happen either, but it is an idea. Meanwhile, higher gas costs will ultimately change our behavior while Congress dithers.

I'm amazed that someone like Lou Grinzo would make this claim:

No, there's another way to change behavior besides a punitive tax: Give people a much more attractive alternative. (I.e. don't raise the cost of what they're doing now, lower the cost of what they could be doing instead.)

I haven't seen anyone save wonks like myself propose a gas tax that would even recover the cost of defending the Middle East.  Since 9/11, we should add most of the cost of Homeland Security efforts to that.  What we have now is a huge subsidy of gasoline consumption by the general taxpayer.

It's time to make motor fuel users pay the full costs, both direct and indirect.

And John Ard complains:

I'm glad to see that all you surburbanites can afford $7 a gallon gas. I can't. Most peole in rural areas can't. We are already stretched too thin to be arbitrarily taxed to death by Big Brother....

Paying defense costs with a gas tax is anything BUT arbitrary.  I have already cut back my driving quite a bit, and I replaced my last car with one which gets 50% better mileage.  My proposal for a gas tax would give you a HUGE rebate on your FICA taxes, so you'd have the money to pay for the gas if you really needed it.  It would also make anything you could do to reduce your consumption a very well-paying proposition.  (There's Lou's "more attractive alternative":  just lighten up on the gas pedal and pocket the savings!)

Tom Deplume says:

The feds need to set a common battery voltage so only a single type of DC charging system could be mass produced for use at workplaces, motels, and even some restaurants.

The basic effort here shouldn't be directed TOWARD anything in particular, it needs to be directed AWAY from petroleum consumption.  There are a whole bunch of different ways to accomplish this, from battery vehicles to ultra-efficient diesel vehicles to pedestrian neighborhoods.  Subsidizing one or another misses the point, because the "preferred" solution isn't going to work for lots of people.  If you TAX PETROLEUM and GIVE THE MONEY BACK, then you effectively subsidize everything that works.  Do that, and you'll get bigger results faster and cheaper than any other way.

Quick question for those that want to subsidize everything. How is government suppose to finance those subsidies?? Raise income tax. Not likely. Borrow from China, Middle East (or who ever is paying our bills now)?? There aren't many people that want to lend us money anymore.
Sooner or later we all are going to need to chip in. Unfortunately, American way is to pretend that everything is ok until some tragedy wakes U up. If you look at every mayor change in America, it was reactive. It was after something bad happen, like oil shock of 70'ies, 3 mile island, etc. I guess it is a good time to prepare for some shock event. Buy yourself efficient car, pay off your debts, etc. and don’t wait for government to solve our energy problems any time soon.

How in hell gasoline tax will improve America oil independence? Guess which oil wells will be closed if America will manage to halve fuel consumption: domestic or Arabs?

Andrey. Given the fact that the U.S. has a much higher cost of producing oil than the Arabs, seems like your statement would be true. However, nothing will make us independent other than getting off oil entirely or somehow forcing domestic producers to produce and sell for the domestic market. Nationalization is another option.

Gasoline taxes will reduce consumption, of course.  The domestic oil producers are still going to be getting the market price, so the reduced needs will be made up by cutting imports.

I think we should have an initiative where each gallon you buy in 2006 is taxed to put half a pint in the SPR.  It would be 1 pint in 2007, and a pint and a half (roughly 10%) from 2008 onward.

Gas now costs $3 per-gallon. The policy response coming out of Washington DC to this ranges from pathetic ($100 rebate) to bad (suspension of the gas tax) to even worse (price controls). Fortunately, there are policy options available to the US that are infinitely superior to those currently being considered. These options would not only exert downward pressure on gas prices, but also put money in people’s pockets, while reducing traffic congestion, global and local air pollution, and road and parking costs. In addition, all this can be achieved without raising taxes, increasing the budget deficit, building new refineries or drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.

This combination of benefits can be achieved because the US transportation sector is enormously inefficient in economic terms. In many respects, the transportation sector is the “Soviet Union” of the US economy, regularly violating the fundamental micro-economic principle that the price paid for a good or service should vary with the costs of producing it. More than half the total cost of driving is either external (meaning that the cost is paid for by someone other than the motorist) or internal but fixed (meaning that the motorist pays the same price regardless of how much he/she drives).

Neither external nor internal fixed costs are reflected in the price of driving, giving motorists a faulty signal to drive more than they would otherwise. Some low-benefit driving is therefore inefficient in the economic sense because the actual cost of producing this “marginal” travel is greater than the benefit (or, to put it differently, more than what the driver would be willing to pay for it, if he/she were paying full freight). Overall, we would be better off if this marginal travel were not produced and consumed, and the savings spent on other goods and services of greater benefit. Incorporating external costs and internal fixed costs into the price of driving gives motorists market signals that encourage efficient behavior.

External costs can be included in the price of driving through what are known in economics as “corrective” taxes. This is the justification of seemingly exorbitant gas taxes paid by drivers almost everywhere outside the US. There is widespread consensus among economists of all ideological stripes that higher gas taxes in the US are justified on efficiency grounds. The problem is political: higher gas taxes mean higher prices at the pump for already outraged driver/voters.

On the other hand, incorporating internal fixed costs into the price of driving can increase efficiency without inciting political opposition because drivers already pay for them. When these internal fixed costs are converted to variable costs, all drivers enjoy incentives to reduce driving of minimal benefit. As a result, aggregate miles traveled and gasoline demand decline, putting downward pressure on gas prices. In addition, motorists who do reduce their driving get to pocket the cost savings that result.

This situation is analogous to flat-rate water use fees. If consumers pay by the year and not for the amount of water used, no one faces any incentive to fix leaky faucets, to sweep the driveway instead of hosing it down, or to avoid over-watering the lawn. As a result, everyone’s water usage goes up and aggregate consumption goes way up, along with water rates. When fees are changed to per-gallon basis, everyone has an incentive to use less resulting in lower water consumption and prices.

There are two areas in the transportation sector where internal fixed costs can be converted to more efficient variable costs: auto insurance and “free” employee parking at work.

Currently, car insurance is a fixed internal cost, sold on an “all you can drive” per year basis. William Vickery, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1996, proposed an alternative which bases premiums on miles driven in addition to existing rate factors such as age, gender, DUIs, accident history, location of residence, credit score, etc. Within any rating class, the less you drive the more you save, so every driver enjoys an incentive to reduce the number of miles they travel. Each driver decides which miles provide the least benefit and can be reduced with minimal pain, while preserving the option of driving when the perceived benefit is great.

“Free” employee parking at work is similarly a fixed internal cost, although mostly invisible to the employee. Currently the compensation package for almost all US workers includes “free” parking at work. Of course, providing this parking is not free but has a cost of $50-100/month that reduces the employee’s take-home pay. Effectively, the employee pays for his parking spot regardless of whether he drives and parks or not. The solution to this distortion is Parking Cash-Out. This means that commuters who are offered subsidized parking are also offered the cash equivalent if they use alternative travel modes. Each commuter decides how to get to work, but those who choose to walk, bike, carpool or ride transit can now pocket the parking cost savings that occur.

Just how big are the effects of these two proposals? It is estimated that a 6-cent per-mile auto insurance incentive would reduce total miles traveled by roughly 10%, while Parking Cash-Out typically reduces automobile work commuting by 10-30%

The beauty of these proposals is that they are truly “win-win”, in that the increase in efficiency and consumer welfare is truly a net economic benefit, not merely a transfer from one group in the economy to another. In addition to reducing the price of gasoline, these proposals would also benefit motorists and non-motorists alike in numerous ways: Collision costs, injuries and deaths would be reduced because all drivers would be traveling less and getting in fewer accidents, and crash-prone drivers would face particularly high per-mile incentives to reduce their mileage. Car ownership would be more affordable, as insurance is converted from an ownership cost to an operating cost. There would be less traffic congestion (especially at rush hour due to Parking Cash-Out), less global and local air pollution, and reduced road and parking costs. Low-income drivers would be able to purchase only as much insurance as they need, no longer forced to choose between driving uninsured and buying prohibitively expensive unlimited–mileage coverage.

Instead of wringing our hands about high gas prices, looking for foreign and domestic scapegoats, and mortgaging our kids' future so we can maintain our wasteful driving habits just a little longer, we should get to work on solutions that reduce the market distorting inefficiency of our transportation sector.

6¢/mile for insurance?  That's not just several times what I spend for insurance, it's about what I spent for fuel!  And how would you measure a high-risk driver's mileage in rented/borrowed cars without a Big Brother-style tracking system?

Nope, bad idea.  It may be economically efficient, but the social costs are prohibitive.

6¢/mile for insurance? That's not just several times what I spend for insurance, it's about what I spent for fuel!

We pay about 20 cents per mile, but we only put on about 7,000 miles per year. But I think what the person is proposing is that the insurance company would reduce your rates by 6 cents for each mile you don't drive, so in your case (where you're paying less than 6 cents per mile) that would work in your favor.

And how would you measure a high-risk driver's mileage in rented/borrowed cars without a Big Brother-style tracking system?

When you rent a car, they track your mileage already. They use the "high tech" system of checking the odometer when you check out and again when you return the vehicle.

Nope, bad idea. It may be economically efficient, but the social costs are prohibitive.

Without giving it much thought, it would be very difficult to reach such a conclusion so quickly. Use your imagination a bit.

It could easily be done simply by paying for insurance at the pump, with a risk-adjusted premium tailored to each driver. Then you could do odometer checks at auto inspection time.

Not really that difficult to pull off.

There are many hidden subidies for driving. Some big ones are: city road maintenance paid by property (and other) taxes; zoning that requires business to provide free parking for shoppers; free street parking.

If people paid the true cost of driving, we'd all be better off.