Seizing on his newfound power as freshly installed member of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, North Bay congressman Jared Huffman on Tuesday introduced the Gas Tax Replacement Act of 2015, an ambitious plan to reset the formula through which federal highway-infrastructure dollars are collected.

Huffman’s office reports that the linchpin of his bill would replace the two longstanding federal taxes now slapped on a gallon—18.4 cents for gasoline, 24.4 cents on diesel—with a “life-cycle assessment-based carbon tax.”

Huh? That’s a fancy way of saying that gas would now be taxed based on its aggregate carbon emissions as it went from being a lowly pool of oil stuck underground to a gallon of high-test at your nearest gas station.

The fuel taxes collected by the feds roll into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used to support transportation projects and upgrades. About half of California’s state transportation budget comes out of the Highway Trust Fund, about $4 billion on average a year since 2011, reports Huffman in a release announcing the bill Tuesday.

Of that, Huffman’s office notes that almost $300 million a year goes to highway and transit projects in the Bay Area.

But that’s not enough, says Huffman. The Highway Trust Fund is “chronically underfunded” in an era of crumbling roads and aging public transportation networks. His bill, he says, would ensure that it’s sufficiently funded.

Huffman notes that “the federal gas tax hasn’t been updated in 20 years and has routinely faced insolvency. In 2014, the Highway Trust Fund nearly went insolvent, requiring Congress to pass a short-term fix stabilizing the fund.”

Generally speaking, Huffman’s plan would set the tax on gas and diesel based on where the fuel came from and how it was produced. Gasoline produced using “dirtier” drilling methods, such as shale extraction, would be met with a higher tax, for example. Gasoline with a biofuel component would be taxed at a lower rate.

The bill would leave it to the Environmental Protection Agency to develop these so-called life-cycle assessments for gas or diesel. His bill sets an initial tax of $50 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions tallied along the way to a righteous and welcome $2 gallon at the pump.

The underlying idea behind Huffman’s push is pretty clear: support long-overdue transportation-infrastructure upgrades while taking steps against the end of the word at the hands of climate change.

Huffman’s bill comes as it’s ever more clear that he’s seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party. He was named to the aforementioned transportation committee and the House Democrat leadership also brought him into the fold as an assistant whip to Minority Leader Steny Hoyer.

A report on Monday in the Marin I-J featured beaucoup quotage from a Knowledgeable Professor that Huffman’s clearly on the rise in the House of Representatives. His ascendancy comes at an interesting time, since just last week Sen. Barbara Boxer, the longstanding senator from the North Bay, said she wouldn’t be seeking a fifth senate term in 2016.

Huffman was quick out of the box with a tweet that said he would not run for Boxer’s seat.

Citing the supremacy of federal law, last week U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson overturned a law that made it illegal to sell foie gras in California.

Ken Frank, executive chef at Napa’s La Toque restaurant, has been one of the most vocal critics of the ban since it went into effect in 2012. I interviewed him the day after the sale of foie gras became legal again. Foie gras is once more on the menu at his restaurant.

What was your reaction to the judge’s ruling?

I was surprised. Very pleasantly surprised and overjoyed. We knew that a ruling was going to be coming soon, since it has already been 40 days since the hearing. [The judge] was being very careful to make sure this ruling is really solid. It was either going to be really good for us or really bad for us.

Is this it? Is it over?

I see this as game over. It’s going to be hard to appeal the fact that federal law trumps state law. It addresses the sale of foie gras in California. It does not solve the problem of production in California. I would be really surprised if [California foie gras producers] were to come back.

What efforts are there to bring back production in California?

The law is flawed in so many ways. I long ago predicted that it would crumble under its own weaknesses. I honestly thought it would be found invalid before it was even enacted, but that didn’t happen because of the eight-year period before it was enacted when everyone just kind of went to sleep and didn’t realized how nasty it was going to be when it got here.

Where do you get your foie gras?

We get foie gras from New York, and over the last couple of years after [Sonoma Artisan Foie Gras] was forced to close, we’ve used foie gras from Hudson Valley [Foie Gras] and La Belle Farms. Both are excellent products.

I personally know people at both places who are outstanding individuals who take excellent care of their animals. Activists just can’t understand that ducks don’t have to be tortured to produce foie gras. They can’t win an honest argument, and they don’t make one.

What do you say to those who think foie gras is inhumane?

I don’t think you can any longer make a credible argument that foie gras is torture. As raised on the few American farms that produce foie gras, they have gone to great lengths to address all sorts of animal husbandry issues. The ducks are very well treated. They have nothing to hide.

Ducks, in fact, do have a remarkable ability to store food in their necks. It is a natural phenomenon that allows their livers to retain fat. It’s a unique biological process to certain migratory fowl, especially ducks that are bred today. [At these farms], you can see ducks that are clearly not being abused and clearly not suffering. It is far from torture.

I am very confident that the foie gras we use comes from farms that practice very high levels of animal husbandry that everyone should be proud of.

Why are you so passionate about this issue?

I do not appreciate a small, well-organized vocal minority telling everybody else what to do. I think this falls squarely within the realm of choice. I’m happy to engage activists in a discussion about animal rights and eating meat as long as they’re prepared to have an honest discussion.