What if the extra VMT are a dead weight economic loss? Money that could have been used for investment, consumption, etc just gets literally burned out the tail pipe?
Also, I don't think density is the only variable in predicting value per mile traveled.

New Jersey is the most "dense" state (ha ha!) at 438 people per square km, but it is mostly a consistent low suburban density without much hinterland, thus cars rule the road and traffic is a nightmare in many areas. Contrast that to Alaska at 0.42 people per square km. The density across the state is extremely variable, from vast uninhabited regions to dense urban areas and small isolated self contained villages. I doubt there is much traffic in Alaska

Perhaps the difference is the amount of time and fuel simply spent in traffic.

The lost time/productivity argument is the most plausible sounding to me.  Another post for another day....
It does sound plausible, but one supporting inference would be that the excess driving is coming out of the company's time (lower productivity) and not out of family time (lower quality of life). I'm thinking here that vmts are strongly influenced by commuting but have no evidence that's so.
I suspect that part of it is the dead weight economic loss, but on the other hand, if I lived in Montana and could go fly fishing one fine spring day ... why would I go build GDP?