You don't like gas taxes.

A few weeks ago, I suggested that increasing them, with the extra money going to encourage alternative fuels, would be a good way to begin weaning the nation off its dependence on foreign oil and to take power away from oil-rich despots.

Judging by your reaction, however, you are about the same as Congress. As one oil official told the Associated Press this week, the nation is sending a mixed message: Produce more oil, but reduce demand for gas.

Those of you opposed to my suggestion generally summed up your argument by saying you are tired of high gas prices that make it difficult for you to live, while the rich seem to get by with little trouble. (There were some other, thoughtful, replies having to do with the private market and consumer behaviors, or with skepticism that any viable alternatives exist.)

I can state with a fair amount of certainty that most of you don't like paying what you now have to pay at the pump, that many of you blame this on oil companies without considering other factors, that you would like to be less dependent on oil, and that many of you have strong feelings as to how to remedy the situation.

Oh, and that some of you think I'm an idiot. But that's true no matter what I write.

I can also say, from studying debates in Congress, that each solution comes with consequences, and some of them are unintended.

When I wrote that column, I was fairly certain no politician would actually propose hiking gas taxes. But earlier this week, the Senate considered, then rejected, slapping $29 billion in new taxes on oil companies. That may not have been a direct tax on gas, but you can bet the costs would have been passed on to consumers.

Money raised would have gone toward the production of ethanol and biodiesel fuels. It also would have funded wind power and other alternatives for the generation of electricity.

But as soon as the discussion began, the unintended consequences started rearing their heads.

• Oil companies said they would cut back plans for more refineries. A lack of refineries has been blamed for rising gas prices in the United States. But it makes no sense to invest in such a thing when the nation wants to move toward alternatives.

• Critics of ethanol said it would raise the cost of food (ethanol is mainly made from corn), or that it would harm the environment by pumping carbon into the air.

• Some critics attacked a plan to force Detroit to make more energy-efficient cars. If we get more miles to the gallon, the thinking goes, we will drive more — kind of like how water-efficient toilets make people flush more. That would hurt the environment and increase the demand for more highways.