We have a problem in this country: we use too much oil. It pollutes the air, increases global warming, and forces us to police the Middle East to ensure a stable energy supply, which has helped radicalize angry Arab youth. What’s the easiest way to reduce oil consumption? A gas tax, as Matthew Yglesias noted recently. Taxes cause some inefficiency, but shifting relative prices is a far more efficient and effective way to reduce oil consumption than government mandates. That’s why even conservatives like Greg Mankiw, the former top economist in the Bush White House, have supported it. Mankiw wrote a 1999 article in Fortune titled “Tax Gas Now!”, which argued that a gas tax paired with an income tax cut “may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer.”

So what’s the problem? The public hates it, and politicians won’t go near it (Mankiw had to eat his words later). One reason is that the government’s commitment to ensuring that people get a fair deal from a gas tax is not credible. Politicians have every incentive to take the extra revenues and put them toward more pork while taking back the accompanying tax cut over time. So why not have an independent Federal Reserve-type board of economists that’s responsible for adjusting the tax cut to maximize fuel efficiency without creating economic dislocation? The board could also be responsible for creating a yearly tax rebate that could be administered separately from the normal income tax system. That way people would see the proceeds from the gas tax coming back to them in a transparent way.

If we’re going to make progress on reducing fuel consumption, we need a different approach. Why not this one?