The latest EIA figures actually show a 0.57% increase in US gasoline demand year on year over the last week.

Something I have pointed out before is that even if the total transportation BTU demand had remained constant, volumetric demand would increase because the gasoline pool now contains fewer BTUs because of ethanol. So a very small amount of demand destruction could occur, and yet be masked.

However, in general I agree with your overall premise. And I think the reason for this is that people still think this is a temporary situation.

Europeans, though admittedly in a very different situation, don’t seem to be driving significantly less at $8/gallon.

Of course they knew that the situation wasn't temporary, since their prices were much higher to begin with due to taxes. So Europeans planned accordingly, and as a result have half the per capita energy usage of Americans.

Lending support to the comment I made in the first paragraph is this story that Leanan just posted in Drumbeat:

Loss of fuel economy from ethanol-blended gasoline hits motorists in the wallet

The growing use of ethanol is making energy content more of an issue — particularly as record fuel prices crimp consumers.

The Energy Information Administration is keeping track of how ethanol is affecting average fuel economy in the United States. The federal agency projects that additional ethanol usage this year will cause average fuel economy to decline by an extra 0.5 percent.

So even if there was a 0.4% decrease in overall BTU usage, the total volume used would still increase.

I know by the math, 10% Ethanol does not sacrifice many BTU's, however, many people I talk to say they are losing 2-4 mpg since the 10% Ethanol came to market. Personally, my Subaru Outback went from 25mpg now to 22-23 and I've been slowing my highway speeds from a common 75 to keeping it under 70. That is a significant loss in efficiency from the 10% ethanol.

I live in the London suburbs, and fuel prices are currently as follows for an Imperial gallon:-

Unleaded petrol- $10.04 (average), $10.36 (max.)

Super unleaded- $10.62 (average), $11.08 (max.)

Diesel- $10.86 (average), $11.81 (max.)

My local filling station has told me that so far there has been no
fall off in demand (this was prior to the Grangemouth refinery strike
being widely known by the general public).

For those unfortunate enough to be using US gallons:-)
1 US gallon = 3.7854 litres, so at GBP 1.20 per litre for diesel,
GBP 1.20 x 2 x 3.7854 = approx USD 9 per US gallon.
unleaded petrol is GBP 1.10 a litre.

In the UK car sales rose 2.5% last year and are expected to drop very slightly this year according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). So based on the UK there is still a long way to go before much demand destruction.

The government has started moving in the right direction by grading the annual car tax to hit gas guzzlers the hardest. Cars emitting more than 226 g/km pay GBP 400 and those under 100g/km nothing but there are only two diesels that make the grade.

IMHO the sale of new cars emitting more than 226 g/km should be banned from 3 months forward. The the ex-chairman of Shell, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart has also recently said the EU should ban the sale of cars that do under 35 miles to the gallon. The theory is that even wealthy people cannot get round this.

Some local authorities have also started charging more for parking permits for gas guzzlers.

Regulation is always tricky. The U.S. CAFE standards was raised on cars, but not trucks partly helped to inspire the SUV sales boom. And which is worse a minivan getting 20mpg with 6 people in it, or a hybrid with a single person in it getting 45mpg?

I don't know what will make the biggest difference, but can't imagine any regulation can beat weathy people's desire to consume - it might as well redirect their wealth to something even worse for the environment.

I've long been on the high "sin tax" approach, even as I acknowledge it is regressive, hurting those least able to change, and having little on effect on those well enough to pay "any price".

The only other alternative I know is rationing. Combining rationing and ebay could make for an interesting market! The poor can have their share if they need it, or make a few bucks for finding a way to live without a car, or driving less.

I don't know much about rationing, but would imagine coupons would have expiration dates to prevent hoarding, and limit "inflation" of value, but expirations could still excourage fuel hoarding itself, ESPECIALLY if the ration levels are decreasing. A fun game, however played.

More effective would be a tiered excise ... at a set rate for vehicles with higher fuel inefficiency (l/km, g/m) than the current fleet average, twice the set rate for vehicles with twice the fuel inefficiency or more, no excise for vehicles from the fleet average to half the fleet average inefficiency, and a subsidy at the set rate for vehicles at half the fuel inefficiency or less.

And surplus on collections over the cost of the subsidy going to buy more energy efficient running stock for public transport.

Robert -"So Europeans planned accordingly, and as a result have half the per capita energy usage of Americans."

Europeans "planned" to live in countries 50 times smaller than the US. Good "planning!"

Geographical Europe is larger than the USA. Most of our countries are similar in size to your states.

I think the key difference is more historical than it is due to population or area. The age of settlement of Europe, and the foundational infrastructure (locations of towns, distribution of farms, patterns of land ownership, etc.) creates a much more evenly distributed population than in America. Additionally, much of US built environment developed AFTER the development of the car, especially in the western US. The result is that our post-WWII population boom was able (and in some ways coerced) to locate in suburbs built many miles from work on what was formerly cheap, minimally productive ranch land or desert. Europe experienced nothing like this (at least nowhere near on the scale that it happened in the US). The result is that US built environment is much more dependent on daily human-miles of transport than in Europe...

Not only "able" and "coerced", but also subsidized ...

... utility hook-ups for property developments charged on a per-hook-up basis without consideration of the network cost of sprawl is a cross-subsidy ...

... requiring extensions of utility network capacity for electricity, water, sewerage to be born by the existing rate base while subsidizing green field projects to "attract industry" is a cross-subsidy ...

... indeed, the roll-over of capital gains on development on a dollar basis without any matching acreage requirement encourages developers that have made a big score to look for an opportunity for a greenfield development that is large enough to shelter the capital gains.

That's without even considering cross-subsidies of support services for the auto transport system.

I think the key difference is more historical

GM was convicted for restraint of trade for buying streetcar lines in order to shut them down.

Over a half century of public policy and public subsidies has supported sprawl and suburban/exurban expansion. Roads and highways, federal and state money for new schools, post-WW II VA loans could only be used for new housing and not on existing homes in established neighborhoods, etc.

Suburbia is *NOT* the result of "natural" economic forces, but of a lifetime of public policy support and subsidies.

Best Hopes for Redirected Public Policy Support and Subsidies,

Alan

If I remember right don't Chevron own some battery technology that they refuse to let anyone use for cars?

If I remember right don't Chevron own some battery technology that they refuse to let anyone use for cars?

Either way, that kind of action is small potatoes compared to the effect of the systematic, ongoing, substantial subsidy for sprawl development.

In the film "Who Killed the Electric Car" they explained how the nice elderly couple who invented the great battery idea for GM was sold by GM to Chevron after they killed the EV1 in California.

Google "cobasys patent".

Cobasys has succesfully sued the major battery-makers of the world. Chevron-Texaco owns half of Cobasys, Energy Conversion Devices owns the other half. They have a very basic patent on NiMH-tech that expires in five years or so. Settlements with major battery-makers expires before that I think.

Do the EIA figures include the military and if so what percentage do they use? I can't imagine it is their first priority to reduce use and guess if their percentage is high then it will confuse the overall figures.