Greg Mankiw's Pigou Club Manifesto talks only about taxing gasoline. Go read the manifesto if you don't believe my analysis. That's why I'm not joining the club, because I don't see why it's so important to to reduce gasoline usage.
But it is true that, perhaps, I overemphasized the importance of bovine methane as a source of global warming. According to the EPA, landfills and stray natural gas emissions are bigger sources of U.S. methane emissions, although cows are still a big source. And it's not clear to what extent methane and carbon dioxide can be traded off. The same amount of methane causes twenty times the global warming of carbon dioxide, but methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long.
So going back to the issue of carbon dioxide, electricity production causes more U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide than transportation. So the U.S. can signficantly reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by converting its fossil fuel electricity plants to nuclear plants. At the same time, this would actually save us money instead of costing us money, because nuclear energy is the most economically efficient form of electricity production, and this will even become more so in the future as there are technological advances in nuclear reactors, while electricity generated from coal will become more expensive as we use up our nation's stockpile of coal.
But gasoline has nothing to do with electricity generation, so the tax on gasoline will have no effect on all the global warming being caused by electricity. Nor would a "carbon tax," which is something that someone metioned in a comment, I didn't read anything about a carbon tax in the Pigou Club Manifesto. The reason why nuclear power plants aren't being built isn't because coal is too cheap, it's because government regulations are not friendly to the construction of nuclear power plants.
Anyone truly concerned about global warming would forget about cars and gasoline and instead lobby for changing the regulatory environment so our fossil fuel powered electricity plants can be replaced by less expensive and more environmentally friendly nuclear plants. But ironically, it's often the very people who scream about global warming who are opposed to nuclear energy.