CA gas prices to rise $0.20 to $1.30/gal. January 2015?

A friend recently emailed me a Fox News article (8/27/14) which states that due to a carbon-reduction law passed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, gasoline taxes will rise $0.20 to $1.30/gallon in January.  Much of the article portrays that as a terrible thing, of course.  Toward the end it points out that, "Revenue from the auction is deposited into California's greenhouse gas reduction account. There it is used not just to reduce emissions or the cost of pollution controls for business, but also to build low-income housing near mass-transit hubs and support construction of the state's high-speed rail project."

That got me thinking--and writing my friend a long reply which I decided to post here (in case anyone's reading this blog, which I strongly doubt since I virtually never post to it)...
-------------------------
    Interesting indeed.  I had no idea gas prices were going to jump up as this predicts they will next year (by $0.20 to $1.30).  Wow... Glad I'm not still commuting to La Jolla High--or worse, Lincoln High 30 miles away.  Makes me think twice about continuing to sub--mostly at Lincoln--for a whopping $16.89/hr., or about $120/day take-home after withholding.  Now I'll have to subtract $11 instead of $8 for the 60-mile round trip (my Honda Civic averages about 32 mpg).  Hmm... on that second thought, $3/day isn't really going to change my behavior.
    See, that's the problem.  As long as the cost of continuing business (more accurately, personal and commercial transportation) as usual only creeps up incrementally over time--even jumping 33% in January ($1.30 increase to current $4.00 price) I don't think is going to force that much change in behavior.  And, to be fair, what choice do most of us have?  Very few can afford to replace their current vehicles with new EVs, and public transportation--in SoCal at least--isn't even close to what it needs to be to provide a viable alternative.  You work mostly from home and I don't have to commute anymore (though I do make the 70-mile round trip about once a week to visit my mom & stepdad in Chula Vista), but for most people not driving their own car would mean giving up their current jobs.  Heck, I once tried to figure out how to get to LJ High via Coaster and buses and figured I probably couldn't get there by 6:30 a.m.--when I needed to arrive--in any case, and the combination of train, bus(es--I'd have to transfer at least once), and walking would probably take over two hours each way given their schedules.
    I'm all for this tax, because it will definitely get people's attention and it will cause some folks to modify their behaviors... more car-pooling, use of public transportation, some  buying new vehicles may decide they really will forgo the truck or SUV in favor of a smaller, higher-gas-mileage option, etc.  But I don't think it's until gas is $8-$10/gallon that we'll really see anything like the kind of change the solution requires... and maybe not even then.  At that point I'll have to sell my 16 mpg VW camper (which will be worth next to nothing 'cause no one will want it) and we'll have to change our lifestyle considerably... no more jumping in the car to have lunch with friends, several shopping trips a week to multiple markets to buy the foods we prefer, maybe drive to CV once a month instead of once a week and/or take the Coaster and tram and bus--and about five hours travel time--to do it.  And probably no more subbing in SD Unified schools.
    Use of this revenue?  I think building more low-income housing near mass-transit hubs is a good idea--it's the poor who increased fuel prices affect the most (relative to their income).  But building a high-speed rail system?  No!...  This benefits mostly only people who travel between SD and LA (etc.) on a frequent basis, and most of them are not low-income.  Better use would be funding research & development of better (more convenient and available) mass transit and alternatives to fossil fuel-powered vehicles and the necessary (and low-to-non carbon-producing) infrastructure to support them.
    A lot of people are going to be very angry when gas prices jump (and I'm hardly thrilled at the prospect).  But IMHO they're not really getting the big picture.  And as global climate change's effects continue to be more and more drastic and immediately-felt, they're really going to be angry--and blaming it all on everything and everyone else, of course.
    Oh, and by the way, if I'm not mistaken Big Oil is still getting Big Money (deductions, subsidies, etc.) from the federal government while continuing to make Big Profits.  What's up with that?  How about we quit giving them all that Big Money and make them take the increased carbon taxes from their Big Profits instead of passing it on to consumers?  Given the money-and-politics situation I know, that'll never happen--makes too much sense and hurts the 1% too much.