Kill the subsidy on 7000 lb vehicles. I drive a Dodge 2500 diesel, and even if the tax breaks weren't there, I'd still drive it. I have a legitimate use for the vehicle for business purposes (lots of towing and hauling). It gets the same mileage as the 911SC. I'm not in favor of eliminating choices, but have no issues with removing incentives.
One area that needs attention is housing. You'd be surprised at the crap that goes into new homes based on cost savings alone. Builders will use crappy blackboard sheathing with virtually no R-factor vs. the foam board which has much better insulating factor.
I do agree the oil industry and automakers are partially responsible for the problems, but we are equally responsible. They wouldn't build SUVs if we didn't buy them. Our old Porsches aren't very fuel efficient, either, so watch what you preach.
Most of all, I'd favor programs that educated consumers. Promote conservation and responsible consumerism(is that a word?). Get rid of silly, backwards incentives. I recall one electric company gives a $100 rebate if you install an electric-powered water heater. That's stupid, when natural gas is more efficient and cheaper.
I feel SUVs are an undeserved scapegoat for the energy debate. If you're going to harp on efficiency, there are other more wasteful victims (small engines, old ladies that leave on every light in the house, huge water fountain at the local business complex, in general, any wasteful activity). If you want to be green, look at the big picture.
jürgen