"The purpose of taxing energy is not to cull profits from profligate energy use, but to make profligate energy use unprofitable."

You mean make a person pay a higher cost for energy.
People generally don't profit by leaving a TV set on.

"A graduated and ratcheted energy tax in the 70s would have quickly encouraged consumers to conserve, and companies to provide more energy efficient automobiles and appliances. And it could have been done with a lot less pain then that it will require now. It would have gradually encouraged alternate energy sources, conservation, efficiency, and non-energy solutions to problems, like having people move closer to work and building structures that did not require air conditioning in the dead of winter because they were cheaper to build that way."

If you believe this, why didn't Clinton do this?
Why don't countries which tax energy like Europe provide significant answers?

Now, the recent higher gasoline prices did cut demand a little bit. Mostly from poor people who can't afford the higher price.
Not to mention, being part reason the economy tanked.

All this nonsense to cause the likes of Al Gore from wasting energy and it doesn't have any significant affect people making 1/10th the dough Gore is making.

How about the idea that such ideas are misguided?
And are not cost effective.

If your policy was that all people who making less money should pay more for energy- you would get more result from such polices. It's essentially you proposing, but is slightly more focused- and less disguised.