1.  Dave, I can model Vmt/cap too.  We're testing hypotheses here Dave, providing evidence to make a point.  I saw nowhere in there where I said that I had a market on the correct answer, nor do I even know if the theory/hypothesis we tested there is sound.  These methods provide summaries of the data, that's all.  If you want to reverse the causal arrow, then suggest an hypothesis.  I'll test it.

  2.  If we had individual level data, I would use it.  We don't.  I have already cautioned in Stuart's first post about ecological fallacies and the like.

  3.  I don't get your normative displeasure about all of this.  We can test Stuart's reasonings, we can test Paula's reasonings, and we can test common-fucking-sense, can we not?  Data are good things, are they not?  If I can find an empirical basis for a normative case, isn't it a lot better than a normative case on its own?
Yeah, OK.

Re: #3 "[your] normative displeasure..."

is based on the statistical use of human beings and their behaviour in the aggregate. People are individuals first--at least a relatively few are, but most of them are fully acculturated and predictable --and maybe that's my problem. I can't blame you for that nor will I bring up the term "sheeple" which most people here at TOD probably don't even remember now anyway. This is my own personal annoyance and hardship--it pisses me off sometimes. People can be modelled in the aggregate-- sigh, :( -- except for ones like me who appear to be 2 standard deviations on the wrong side of the "success" bell curve.

Bad mood, lots of shit going wrong... sorry

In any case, that Peak Oil situation appears to be going OK, huh????
No worries, man.  I hope things get better for you...

Also, that's exactly what I am saying re: the ecological fallacy.  All I can make are statements about with this data is STATES and trends in those states, not individuals.