Reply #121: To the contrary:

[muriel_volestrangler]

From the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the leading independent analysts of economics in Britain:

A recent survey of the literature carried out by the Centre for Transport Studies at
University College London (Hanly, Dargay and Goodwin, 2002) suggests that a 10
per cent rise in the price of fuel reduces fuel consumption by around 2.5 per cent
and the volume of traffic by 1 per cent after a year. The traffic volume falls less than
the fuel consumption because of the incentives to switch to more fuel-efficient
vehicles. The authors estimate long-run effects of a 6 per cent fall in fuel
consumption and a 3 per cent fall in traffic volume, and that the effects on vehicle
ownership are small and uncertain. These estimates imply that had the real rates of
duty been maintained at their peak values since 1999, we might expect current fuel
consumption to be around 4–5 per cent lower (and as much as 9–12 per cent lower
in the long run).

http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14926/1/14926.pdf

The study also points out "Amongst OECD economies, Turkey and the Scandinavian nations take the largest shares of GDP in environmental taxes. The UK obtains a greater share of tax revenue and a greater share of GDP in environmental measures than the OECD averages. The US takes the smallest share of both total revenues and GDP in environmental taxes." And I'd point out that the US also pollutes the most among the OECD countries.

And for US studies:

One such study is Explaining the variation in elasticity estimates of gasoline demand in the United States: A meta-analysis by Molly Espey, published in Energy Journal. Espey examined 101 different studies and found that in the short-run (defined as 1 year or less), the average price-elasticity of demand for gasoline is -0.26. That is, a 10% hike in the price of gasoline lowers quantity demanded by 2.6%. In the long-run (defined as longer than 1 year), the price elasticity of demand is -0.58; a 10% hike in gasoline causes quantity demanded to decline by 5.8% in the long run.

Another terrific meta-analysis was conducted by Phil Goodwin, Joyce Dargay and Mark Hanly and given the title Review of Income and Price Elasticities in the Demand for Road Traffic. A PDF file of the study is available here. If you're interested in the subject, it's an absolute must-read. They summarize their findings on the price-elasticity of demand of gasoline as follows:

If the real price of fuel goes, and stays, up by 10%, the result is a dynamic process of adjustment such that:

a) The volume of traffic will go down by roundly 1% within about a year, building up to a reduction of about 3% in the longer run (about five years or so).

b) The volume of fuel consumed will go down by about 2.5% within a year, building up to a reduction of over 6% in the longer run.

http://economics.about.com/od/priceelasticityofdemand/a/gasoline_elast.htm

I want everyone to use less fuel. I'm not interested in 'getting your votes' - I'm British, and you can't vote for my favoured party. But I am interested in decreasing the carbon dioxide the world emits - 20% of which comes from the US. Everyone's CO2 emissions affect everybody.