Here is an article I recently read from the Ayn Rand Institute on
gasoline prices. I disagree with it, and would value receiving the
opinions of others:

There is only one sense in which we are entitled to tell the
government to "do something" about gasoline prices: insofar as these
prices are made artificially high by the government's many
regulations on oil and gasoline production.

Consider oil refining regulations. Various state governments impose
the absurd mandate that companies refine nearly 60
different "blends" of gasoline--despite the fact that cars using
today's standard unleaded gasoline, even with the overall increase
in driving, pollute very little by historical standards.
Additionally, endless red tape and "environmental impact studies"
forced by regulators hostile to industrial development, make new
construction dramatically less profitable. The costs of such
regulations are huge and raise the price of gasoline; according to
the American Petroleum Institute, "the refining industry has spent
over $47 billion over the last decade to comply with environmental
and fuels regulations--expenditures that generally yield little or
no return on investment."

* My belief is the following:

Pollution can have an adverse effect on a person's health and
private property. This is true even when pollution is created on
private land apart from the person being affected. For example,
person A builds and runs a factory on his private property. Wind
currents carry his pollution to person B. This pollution induces
health issues and property damage to person B; therefore, logically
person A must take responsibility for the damages caused to person B
as a direct result of person A's actions.

In the case of a factory, one might attempt to argue that the
existence of the factory is supported by the society of consumers,
and target society with partial responsibility for the pollution.
Thus, if society purchases the product, then society acknowledges
acceptance of the pollution that occurs.

This argument has two major fallacies:
1 – There is no such thing as "society," only individual consumers.
Pollution is indiscriminate in who it damages, regardless of whether
those harmed are actually consuming the product produced
2 – it brings liability to the consumers for the producer's actions,
meaning for example had the producer gone out and shot someone or
used extortion to bring the product to the market, the consumers of
that product would be partially responsible for the producer's
actions.

Because pollution affects health, because it directly affects
private property of individuals unrelated to the creation of the
pollution, it is a physical threat and falls within the realm of
government jurisdiction.

The effect to consumers is higher prices for products manufactured
that require pollution control.