Robert, I think that most of the recent decline in consumption of gasoline has been due to the recession, especially the crash in the home building industry. Some of the decline in consumption has been a longer term reaction to higher prices, but gas is now $2.39 a gallon where I live--which is pretty low in comparison to the average price over the past two years.

In other words, what I am saying is that the total demand for gasoline has gone down (DD curve shifted down and to the left) rather than merely having the quantity demanded go down due to an increase in price.

Housing construction really nose dived this summer if you read the stats its basically dead. This is a huge industry that vaporized in the US.

Although we like to think that demand destruction is a individual thing people use less.
Unless they alter there lifestyles permanently its probably better to think of it as demand suppression. As long as you own a car there is a chance you will drive it more as your circumstance change including simple things like the weather. Demand destruction would be sending a car to the dump and getting a more fuel efficient car. Trading in a car with lower gas mileage probably does not result in any decrease in demand esp as the economy sours as people decide its more cost effective to buy the cheaper used car and defer purchase of a new vehicle. So overall fuel efficiency would be the rate at which used cars with poor gas mileage where scrapped vs the fuel efficiency of the new cars.

In a slowing economy the rate that cars are replaced and end up as scrap declines.
You can look at Cuba as and extreme example they don't replace their cars with the latest fuel efficient ones despite gasoline being in tight supply.

And of course you get into issues where if one person conserves lowering the price then someone else will defer their own conservation efforts.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/10/16/suv-pickup-sales-increase-...

Auto sales have sunk to their lowest level in more than 15 years, but sales of SUVs held steady at their August level of 4.4 percent of the U.S. market. While large pickup trucks made up about 14 percent of vehicles sales, the highest level of the year, MSNBC reports.

SUVs and pickup trucks’ August sales rose 27 percent and 43 percent, respectively, compared with July.

At the end of the day the simple concept of individual demand destruction has holes in it you can literally drive and SUV through. In fact the whole concept does not have a lot of scientific backing. People assume that decreases in VMT mean people drove less because of some reason but plenty of scientific papers exist that have repeatedly debunked this myth.

Here is one excellent report.

http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/library/trans/trafficvolumes/vmtrpt.pdf

Now my thesis is that real demand destruction is caused by job loss not by any of the other factors that are traditionally associated with decrease in gasoline demand.
The other is of course long term increases in overall fuel efficiency but this change in fleet efficiency is slow to occur.

This leaves for this summer the collapse of the housing industry as the primary culprit for any demand decline and its especially important since it employed a large number of illegal aliens esp from Mexico. Remittances are down substantially and we have evidence that a fair number of immigrants have returned to Mexico as work prospects dimmed in the US. Having a fair number of people simply leave will do wonders for your overall fuel usage.

You can look at the housing industry collapse the demographics of its work force etc in detail but its obvious that it will impact total VMT esp once you also include the pyramid of industries directly and indirectly related to housing and commercial construction that also declined.

Its a big change and we had the housing bubble of the century how big ?
Well lacking a detailed study its pretty safe to assume this industrial collapse accounted for most of our demand destruction.

And even more interesting when you take a deeper look into how VMT is calculated its not and exact science with about a 5% error term. I've looked into how its done and you could easily have inflated VMT estimates when new subdivisions are added from the construction traffic. Generally this is not a huge issue since the subdivisions are eventually filled and the traffic pattern inflation is justified.

A couple of VMT links.

http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2008/04/21/the-future-ain...
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/07mar/05.htm

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6358&page=15

https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/darb/dai-unit/ttss/...

http://www.uctc.net/scripts/countdown.pl?231.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1995/August/Day-23/pr-944.html
http://www.gmupolicy.net/its/pdfweb/VMT%20Estimation.pdf
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2645573

Politically VMT is an important number since VMT in one of the important criteria for determining where and when roads will be expanded.

Congestion alone and its effect on real gasoline usage and the impact of construction traffic is in itself a large subject.

Why do I keep bring this up ?

Well if I'm right about how demand destruction works and the MSM is wrong then demand destruction is highly correlated with job loss and even more closely correlated with the housing industry and its workers demographics.

Once the housing industry is gone which it basically is we cannot expect a lot more contraction in demand except via extensive job loss in other industries.

Also as you look beyond the housing bubble it becomes difficult to find another industry that can collapse rapidly and result in drops in demand. I'm not saying it won't happen but generally it seems that going forward overall unemployment is a better gauge of demand. Demand will probably now decline because of general employment factors
housing stands as a fairly unique industry in this respect.

Bottom line is the chances of further changes in demand happening fast enough to result in low energy prices are doubtful. The economy would have to collapse faster than oil depletes. This may happen but then oil prices would fall dramatically which would tend to stimulate the overall economy. And by dramatic I mean back down to 10 dollars a barrel. If supply really exceeded demand because of economic collapse then oil prices will dive.

Right now and what we have seen to date is no indication that the supply of 70 dollar oil exceeds demand. If real supply was limited then the price of oil would be falling far faster then it is now. Demand for 70 dollar a barrel oil is healthy and demand for 60 would probably even be higher.

Given the unique nature of the housing industry the tango between oil demand and economic collapse will probably result in higher oil prices and this summer should probably considered a one shot reprieve that probably won't be repeated.

As we head into this winter when the housing industry traditionally slows in most of the US we will get a better picture of the real reasons for VMT declines and the associated demand drop. I expect changes in VMT to drop well into the noise level and it will remain flat to slowly declining and well correlated with unemployment regardless of the price of gasoline.

"Demand destruction" is not a term used by economists because it is inherently ambiguous.

Time after time I've seen confusion on TOD when using this term. Sometimes it is used to mean a decrease in quantity demanded as prices rise, other things staying the same. Sometimes it is used to denote a shift in the whole demand curve--due to recession. Sometimes it is used to mean both.

I suggest that we discard the use of the term "demand destruction" and instead use economic terms as economists have defined them. Whatever else you might say about economists, we do have a well defined terminology. Anything of value in economics can be expressed either in words or tables of numbers or graphs or equations; these are just different ways to present information. We should not be any sloppier in our use of words than we are with numbers.

I agree 100%

Obviously I agree that the demand curve shifted as the housing industry destructed this is demand that will not return in the foreseeable future.

For all kinds of reasons this is very much a one off event. Surprisingly is one of the few large industries that we really don't have to have.

Other forms of demand may have declined with high prices but its sensible that low prices will spur demand that was simply suppressed because of price alone.

Demand destruction i.e a downward shift in the demand curve for individuals is difficult to prove as long as those individuals have jobs. Its safe to say that a steady increase in unemployment numbers represents a aggregate shift of the demand curve downwards that insensitive to the price of oil. Just like my demand for a new Ferraris remains zero even if they slashed the price by 50% or a crappy house in CA for that matter. Increasing rates of unemployment is one of the few ways that demand for gasoline absolutely drops regardless of price.

Short of dropping quickly into and all out full blown depression its difficult to come up with another major shift in the demand curve as what occurred with the demise of the housing industry.

As and example the other big bubble of the past decades is agricultural land prices as this bubble is probably popping with a vengeance right now. Does it lead to a shift in the demand curve for oil ? Well probably eventually since land is used as collateral for loans to plant at some point crops grown will decline and the demand for oil from agricultural will decline but a big driver in this would be if oil prices continued to increase increasing planting costs faster then agricultural land prices collapsed. So probably its a combination of both that would cause this industry to use less oil but its highly doubtful it will result in low oil prices.

You can do the same for the airline industry or practically any industry you pick and its doubtful that low oil prices are the outcome.

The one case that stands out that stand out remains a fast depressionary collapse and I'd argue that high oil prices are better than this solution at first glance.

Given the willingness of the Central Banks to intervene in the economy and the fact that the populace has no problem taking on tremendous debt that will never be repaid I'd argue that instead of a fast collapse primarily from the financial industry collapsing we instead will see oil prices rebound and go ever higher and the feds keep attempting to pump the economy only slowing the collapse rate and building a ever larger mountain of debt. High oil prices will pay a key role in grinding down the economy and indirectly lead to ever higher unemployment making ever greater economic intervention required.

This is the slow route but slow is relative a fast financial collapse if it was to occur is probably less than a year away will a slow collapse with high oil prices allow the economy to collapse over a period of 4-5 years with the debt load eventually leading to a financial collapse not seen in modern times.

Since peak oil is not recognized by the mainstream everyone seems to have chosen option 2 under the believe that we can successfully inflate our way out of this somehow.

Probably overall a fast financial collapse now is probably the best long term solution since it leaves most of the system intact and the resource base in place to do something different. And GW, peak oil, overpopulation fiat currencies etc all the ills of today's societies arguable could be reviewed and we could probably even do something about it. The second road of continually pushing the economy only to have oil collapse it leaves us with less in my opinion.

"Given the willingness of the Central Banks to intervene in the economy and the fact that the populace has no problem taking on tremendous debt..."
Populace may be willing but does populace have the money to loan? Or will we be depending on rest of world to loan us the money? Will they keep that up at current rate? Remember we've a war or two or three to fight and we plan to cut taxes. (At least so the candidates say.)

In the US, the Government has essentially agreed to buy bad debts. At present, the debt holders seem to be investing in short-term treasuries, i.e., lending the money back to the Government, because of the general attitude of fear in the credit markets. Thus rates on short-term treasuries are extremely low. It will be interesting to see what happens to these rates when they want to take the money out and lend it to someone else. Then we'll find who has money that they are willing to loan to the feds.

I agree that job losses must have been a major contributing factor to demand reduction. But I wouldn't discount foreclosures. This forces families to relocate. They often would have to move from a remote suburb to some apartment that typically would be closer to work. I would expect that foreclosures would reduce the average commuting distance.

My bet on the next industry to generate massive job losses is the automotive industry. There is a downward spiral involving fewer VMT, lack of credit and car sales. Recent news suggest that Detroit is already traveling this path.

This forces families to relocate. They often would have to move from a remote suburb to some apartment that typically would be closer to work.

The problem with statements like this is every time it may be true it could also be false
thus its a statistical thing. On average I'd have to think that distance is not and overriding factor. In the US most families have both spouses working and generally their jobs may not be nearby so close for one may be farther for another. The point is we really don't know and the chances are its a wash to many other factors influence where people live.

My bet on the next industry to generate massive job losses is the automotive industry. There is a downward spiral involving fewer VMT, lack of credit and car sales. Recent news suggest that Detroit is already traveling this path.

I thought so also but when I looked I found that VMT for the rust belt states has been flat for years. Even Detroit has chanced little despite the long economic slowdown.

I'm not finding the links off hand its getting late here.

But for example here is one.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/06_m...

No huge changes between growing and stagnant cities.

The link I gave for St. Louis above has similar stats to Detroit.

Here is one for the rust belt states.

http://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/doc/2005/10yr_15.pdf

On page one you can see that VMT for all these states has increased slowly despite the deteriorating economic conditions.

VMT does not grow much if at all but whats important is it also does not suffer a steep decline despite the slowing economy.

Another good site on VMT.

http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?&a=90249&c=39561

Bottom line is that even severe economic decline seems to result in slow growth to flat VMT !

This is important since its what a lot of people believe will result in moderate fuel prices.
Historically when we enter a recession VMT flattens and is highly correlated with the housing industry decline. Since we had a monster bubble and unprecedented decline in housing its small wonder that we have seen not just the traditional flattening but a decline.

Thats it the party is over all historical data even for regions that by any standard have depression level economies indicate that VMT will effectively remain flat. This means that once oil supplies have depleted to balance remaining demand we probably will see gasoline prices increase.

We probably have not hit the point yet where gasoline prices will act as a significant curb on demand. Economic factors alone will not shift the demand curve down to create a excess.

Everything I have found indicates we will be going into a Recession and then Depression with ever spiraling gasoline prices.

And finally a lot of people are expecting that OPEC I question this assumption.
Given that depletion marches on and the we are ever closer or past world peak I suspect this time around small cuts will be capable of putting a floor under prices. Given all the economic/VMT data I've looked at.
For peak oil it looks like the crash of the housing industry is a Indian summer as another poster on this thread put it. Its a short respite before we get back on the high energy cost economic stagnation treadmill.
I hope you enjoyed a fall drive.

Thanks for the reply.

Was it you that first posted this graph? It is the history of US VMT since 1983.

There has been some periods of relatively high unemployment and/or high foreclosure rates since 1983. I think of the recessions following the stock market crashes of 1987 and 2001 for example. But there is nowhere a plateau similar to the one we have in the 2005-2007 period. There is nowhere a decline similar to the one we have in 2008. So the correlation between VMT and either unemployment of foreclosure rates do not appear to be an overriding factor. At the very least it is not confirmed by a plain eyeballing of the graph.

I am under the impression we both have to think again.

It was the mother of all housing bubbles far beyond anything we ever experienced in the past. By any metric this housing bubble was far larger than any preceding ones. Also its the peak of not just the recent bubble but the overall housing bubble since WWII.

Its the big one.

In other cases not sure why you don't see correlation VMT flattens or slows inline with previous recessions even 2001. There is a very clear plateau.

If you read my post here I jumped threads sorry.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4672#comment-425025

This is I believe the correct relationship between energy demand and the economy.

The key economic part is the number of transactions and how many are for new stuff that uses a lot of energy or in our particular case oil.

The Eused = Ntrans*Eembed
is quite similar to food.
Foodeaten = Number of people * calories desired (required)

The reason I point this out is people generally have a hard time reducing the number of total transactions either because of a growing population or that they feel the transactions are required. Going to the store to buy less food uses almost the same energy as going to the store to buy more. Going to KMart to buy one toy is almost the same as going to KMart to buy two toys. Most of the embedded energy in the form of oil lies in the trips themselves not the products purchased. You buy more coffee and drink it at home instead of at starbucks on the way to work the embedded oil is not all that different. The starbucks closes but the people go work at the grocery store because of higher demand stocking coffee.

The point is you have to look at transactions*energy cost of goods bought. You can readily save a lot of money and still surprisingly not change the overall energy equation by that much.

The embedded energy in new housing construction is HUGE and thus its not surprising that the end of the housing bubble of all time results in a drop in VMT.

The difference in the price elasticity of demand and the income elasticity of demand. The smaller plateaus during the last couple downturns are indicative of the income elasticity of demand, since oil prices were relatively stable, while the recent downturn has been indicative of the price elasticity of demand up until recently.

I am with you up to the consequences of the equation

Eused = Ntrans*Eembed

Beyond that I must disagree.

In other cases not sure why you don't see correlation VMT flattens or slows inline with previous recessions even 2001. There is a very clear plateau.

Let's take a look at a few graphs from shadowstat.com. Whats is good with this site is they correlate the official statistics with an adjusted version that takes into account changes of methodologies that occurred over time.

Let's look at the GDP here

Source: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

I can relate the small 1991 plateau in the VMT graph with the recession. Likewise for 1995. But looking at the 2001 recession, I just don't see any plateau until 2003. And the magnitude of what happens starting in 2005 doesn't even compare any of the above VMT events.

You argue this is the housing collapse. Well this doesn't chime with this graph:

Source: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/subprime-forecl...

In this graph, the foreclosure rate was at a low in 2005 when the plateau started. In 2007 the foreclosure rate was just returning to the level observed in 2001. The timeline just doesn't match. The VMT plateau was started well before the housing collapse had even begun.

Another graph from shadowstats.com is unemployment:

Again I would be hard pressed to see a correlation between unemployment level and the plateaus in the VMT graph. The 2007 to 2007 period doesn't have especially high unemployment. And I don't see a VMT plateau comparable to 2005-2007 in the periods of high unemployment.

I agree that correlating transactions with energy used to perform the transaction is a good idea. I don't believe we have identified which transactions are being avoided or optimized to justify such an impact on VMT. The candidates being brought forward by both you and me don't correlate with the VMT data.

"another industry that can collapse rapidly and result in drops in demand".....

How about Chrysler, GM and Ford: 200,000 employees and thousands more working for suppliers. If the price of oil goes up soon (as some people, including you are saying) and if it goes up a lot, these companies are history. Their former employees won't be driving so much and neither will their thousands of family members or the millions of auto worker pensioners left out in the cold.

And how about the government (some state govts) if things get bad, they will have to freeze all activity. No driving then, right. That's another "industry" that could collapse, one by one, of course, not all at the same time.

And WalMart....KMart, Target...all the big box retail stores are quite vulnerable as many things they sell aren't really necessary. People can make do without buying new stuff and a lot of it is junk.

There are a lot of vulnerable industries that could collapse at any time IMO!!!!