Quote:
Originally Posted by noodles91380
Over the past 30 years, we have come up with loads of new technologies to both make our vehicles more fuel efficient...
|
Except that for some reason, we don't seem to have made our vehicles - as a group, there are a few exceptions - notably more fuel-efficient.
Quote:
|
...petroleum consumption has been ever increasing...
|
But consumption has increased because there are more people using it (increased population, developing countries, etc), not because the existing population was driving more.
Quote:
|
Another way to view it is from an urban development standpoint. Historically, during periods of cheap petroleum, more developments crop up on the outer fringes, people think "hey, I can live 30 miles from work, and it'll still only cost me a buck!". When energy is expensive, we see more urban infill, smaller homes, higher density, more public transit and cycling.
|
Execpt that this is what I was talking about earlier: the primary cost of commuting isn't fuel, it's time. People are willing to spend only so much time travelling to and from work (roughly an hour per day:
Is Getting There Half the Fun? - NYTimes.com ). For most people, the fuel cost is a miniscule fraction of income, and one that's easily reduced by buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle, carpooling, etc.
I'd like to see your statistics relating commute distance to fuel cost, because that's not at all the pattern I see historically. It seems to have much more to do with the simple availability of transport, and affordability of different housing types.