The bold portion is for those searching for humor?
Less cynically, I agree with you--on average and in principle. In practice, it would be complex, burdensome, and damaging.
Case 1) Mr Smith drives 60 miles each way from his rural home to his place of employment in the city. He lives 60 miles from work because he doesn't earn a lot, and that's where he can afford a safe house for his family. He made these decisions based on his assessment of the situation. When gas prices double, he's now socked with a several hundred dollar per month increase in costs. He's taxed very little already, so he won't get that back. Maybe the plan is "revenue neutral" in the big picture, but Mr Smith's life isn't the big picture--except to him.
Case 2) XYZ Manufacturing makes widgets. They receive the subcomponents by truck. Artificially higher fuel taxes drive up their cost of making widgets. They compete against foreign widget makers who don't pay these artificially high fuel prices. In addition, they compete against other widget makes in the US who will be less adversely affected by these artificially high costs. How do we keep the playing field level (domestically and/or internationally) without an incredibly costly set of tarriffs/credits/set-asides, etc?
Case 3) Do we have a national mandate to encourage related business entities (who ship subcomponents to each other) to cluster closer together, even if this reduces healthy competition from other entities located farther away? Will this make our products more or less competitive internationally?
Case 4) It's cold in northern latitudes, warmer in southern ones. It takes energy to make houses warm. Do we, as a nation, have a vested interest in inducing people to move to warmer places by punishing those who live in the north? To increase urbanization at the expense of rural communities?
Case 5) Higher fuel costs will lead to higher prices for almost all products and services. People with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their incomes on these things than do wealthy people. Thus, higher fuel prices will be, in effect, a regressive tax collected by the nation's retailers. As a nation, do we want to institute a regressive tax? How can it be avoided without tremendous complexity (and inherent additional costs--direct and indirect)?
I see a rat's nest of complexity, "friction," and expensive unintended consequences. I agree that such a program of artificially higher fuel prices is the most effective way to change behavior and lower fuel use, but the costs (to individuals and collectively) would be huge. The only practical way I see to
partially mitigate the damaging impact would be to phase them in very slowly over many years, allowing everyone to make adjustments to accommodate the most onerous effects. We'd need a very compelling motive to institute such a plan, and nothing I see comes close to meeting that standard. If fuel prices go up
on their own as a result of market forces, then I don't see any need to cushion the "bad luck" of the people and businesses who will be the losers. But if we, as a nation,
artificially raise fuel prices as a matter of policy, that's a whole different situation.
But, some will disagree.