That said, you've got it exactly backwards. People with lower incomes need the tax increase _now_. They won't be able to drive if we let the market self regulate because the development of true alternatives will take a lot of time. On the other hand, those people who can afford $8 gasoline _don't_ need to worry about increasing gasoline taxes.
What you are still talking about is something that punnishes the lower income brackets (who in my observations are frequently the ones who drive gas guzzlers out of necessity). Usage taxes only serve to discourage use of a product or service, which ultimately hurts the economy because the use of those products/services are what generates income for everybody. Don't get me wrong, the WalMart philosophy has hurt us as well, but artificially increasing the prices of goods doesn't help anybody but the government.
We need to raise gasoline prices by taxing the heck out of it, and we need to do that now. This doesn't mean that we have to price people out of the market. With smart price discrimination, you can tax fuel inefficient vehicles more and you can give tax credits to folks who have lower incomes. It's all been done before.
So we are then going to identify low income people with gas guzzlers and give them credits? This is an excessively complex method that has lots of room for abuse, will most likely not get taken advantage of by those who need it (I can't tell you the number of homeless people I've known who can't get welfare because they have no address to mail the checks to), etc.
This is a misconception. Let me say that again - as someone who generally thinks that the market does a much better job than the government, I can't ignore the overwhelming evidence, both in theory and practice, that markets are _not_ good at foresight, at least not when it comes to the long term. Market forces drive new developments if the time horizon is restricted to a few years. Beyond that, however, there is a general consensus that the influence of market forces declines sharply.
I agree with you that markets are not good at foresight. But what you are talking about is hurting people in order to generate a market, which may work to some degree, but ultimately still hurts the people who can't afford it. You are exactly in the category of people I list who can afford these taxes, and as such it is very easy for you to talk about this sort of punishment on the lower income brackets.
The current situation is a good example. As someone who can afford $8 gasoline, I would be in a position to just wait for prices to rise enough so that people will be forced to change their driving habits. Ironically, the people you're worried about, however, would be better served if we _didn't_ let that happen and instead increased the price of fuel now by a smaller margin to prevent very large increases in the future.
I would argue that you can not make that statement for those people, and also that you are not in a position to dictate that sort of thing for them. Look at Europe, which has a massive gas tax, and as I recall the theory there was to encourage propagation of fuel efficient cars, so basically what you are advocating. I remember paying $100 to fill up a 15 gallon tank two years ago in Switzerland. While people there do tend to drive more fuel efficient vehicles and take advantage of public transport more, in the high number of years since they've imposed it, I haven't seen any radical technologies out of them, but it has hurt their economy. Europe has engineers, too, and we aren't the only ones who can come up with these new technologies. The biggest thing is that a number of people drive drive diesel vehicles, which, while they have gotten cleaner than they used to, still emit tons of pollutants. I understand you are advocating a high gas tax which then goes directly towards development of new technologies (which I do not believe is in the European method), but it seems pretty clear to me that this method still does not work.
That said, the biggest difference I always point out between Europe and America is that in Europe people do not need to drive as much as they do in America, simply because things are not so spread out. Plus, my friends in Europe say it is much more common for things to just shut down. In two years of living in semi-rural Pennsylvania, we've had one snow day from work. Zurich shuts down a lot quicker.
Had we done that 20 years ago, we would have been paying $2/gallon instead of $1/gallon. Yes, that's more expensive, but compared to what's going on now, it's not significant. And we could have used that extra money to develop alternatives, not to speak of deterring people from buying SUVs that they don't need.
20 years ago, $1 meant a lot more than it does now. I could potentially have seen your argument make sense about 10 years ago, when I filled up the Volvo for 98 cents/gallon due to the Russians flooding the market and driving down the cost of oil substantially, but even then I would be against it.
No personal attacks here, but econ is one of my passions
-Felix
Nor any personal attacks at you. Economics is one of my passions as well. Clearly, you and I come from different schools of thought on this. Yours is typical of what I'd expect of someone who does well for himself and lives in California (not a bias or stereotype, just an observation

). While it is a school of thought I heartily disagree with and have never seen any convincing evidence that it actually works other than on a piece of paper, I still respect your opinions.
My opinion comes from spending a lot more time around that lower 50% bracket and having a reasonable understanding of what they go through (I say reasonable, because my personal experiences at that level are minimal, at best, and I am fully aware of it). While we do need to think 5, 10, 50, 100 years down the road, it is equally important to think about today. If you can't put food on the table today, you won't be here in 5 years. The important thing to do is figure out the appropriate balance such that you invest in the future without strangling the present. I do not believe anyone who argues for "taxing the heck out of gas" today has a good idea of this balance.
I would, however, be fully in favor of imposing a policy of "No, you can't buy that item that you can't afford," since obviously a number of people can't figure that out for themselves. Were we to do that, everyone would truly be better off. People don't need $500,000 houses when a $100,000 house (or less) will suffice, nor do they need that brand new laptop and 42" television. However in a number of parts of this country, people do have a fairly pronounced need to drive.