digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Gas consumption per day: U.S. vs. Rest of the World

economist.com — For anyone still confused about global politics, this pretty much sums it up.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Dotnetsky, on 10/13/2007, -226/+285It doesn't really "sum up" much of anything, other than to confirm what we all know: that the US has the biggest and most productive economy in the world, and can certainly thus be expected to be the biggest consumer of gasoline.
    • sonaro, on 10/11/2007, -49/+22And get it for cheaper since we buy in large quantities.
      • knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -29/+81and go to war for it
        • LooseCannon1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Perhaps, like any other valuable resource in the history of mankind..such as Salt, Gold, Water, etc.

          This time, however, it wasn't for oil, but against terrorists funded by it.
          • knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2oh, yeah. i forgot about the aluminum tubes for the uranium enrichment and the yellowcake that was bought in niger and the rolling biochemical laboratories and the proof positive testimony given to the UN.
      • Rekzai, on 10/11/2007, -26/+36If by buy you mean steal....
      • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -16/+28No, America just doesn't tax the hell out of gas like all of the europeans countries. This is a ***** statistic that means nothing. Americans do not live in cities. You euros would do the same if you had the space but you people keep the one lane roads and have to live in cities to keep your job.
        • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -13/+21Actually, America subsidises gasoline at a rate around $7/gal. That's why we have it so cheap.

          Meanwhile, you've missed what the actual fallacy in the graph is: It should be gallons consumed per unit land area yearly. The US is a far bigger place than any of those european and third world countries, China excepted. I'm actually tempted to normalize the graph in this way.
          • wordsofwisedumb, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14The thing is no one made Americans spread out so far. Sprawl is the reason for the disjoint, you are right about that. But what if sprawl is the problem? Could it also be the reason for other problems in America? Could driving everywhere instead of walking could be tied to obesity? Could the huge success of social networking websites and the resulting low quality pseudo friendships be caused by the difficulty teenagers in suburbia have when they try to get together with their peers? Maybe sprawl is part of the problem?
          • bugsy187, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Gasoline is subsidized at $7/gal? Can we see your sources?

            Also, why would you divide volume used by land area? The purpose of the graph is to show consumption by nation. I don't see what the point is. The US is using more gasoline than all of the listed nations combined, a larger land area.
          • acl123, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7If you're trying to defend America's gas consumption you're not doing a very good job. Try buying smaller houses and making an effort to live close to where you work. Buying big houses far away from where you need to be every day is part of the greed that makes that graph so horrendous.
        • unpluggedboy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11America subsidizes gasoline at $7/gal? This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
          TAXES on gasoline in America already account for 20~25% of its cost (Not to mention the corporate taxes which simply raises prices by that amount, screwing the consumer twice). In Venezuela the price of oil is about 60 cents per liter. THAT's a subsidy.
        • davidrools, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11the $7/gal subsidy, I think, refers to that study done by some economist (it was on digg like a year ago) where he took into account all that the government spends on war, health care, and other issues that directly relate to securing gasoline at the prices we pay.
        • dark_helmet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@unpluggedboy 60c/L isn't a subsidy, if there were no taxes on gas (in Canada) it would be under that. Right now with all the taxes, on a good day, it is $1.03/L, on a bad day $1.10. I'm assuming by oil you mean gasonline.
      • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37Temptation got the best of me. Here's the lineup:

        (Gas Consumption^2)/(Population*Land Area) in l^2/km^2/cap
        Taiwan: 894.08
        US: 624.92
        Japan: 499.29
        UK: 329.22
        Germany: 274.93
        Italy: 177.14
        S. Korea: 125.08
        Venezuela: 50.87
        France: 42.14
        Mexico: 37.68
        Canada: 32.47
        Spain: 31.89
        Saudi Arabia: 27.58
        Iran: 25.04
        Australia: 15.03
        S. Africa: 12.56
        Russia: 3.48
        Indonesia: 3.41
        China: 1.39
        Brazil: 1.13
        India: 0.21

        We still look pretty bad, mind you, far as gasoline overuse goes.
        • quarkie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I definitely applaud your attempt at finding a better metric... but:
          I personally think a better metric would be: (L/person) / GDP

          i.e.: how efficiently do we use the gas - how many litres do we consume for each $ of GDP, or the inverse how many $ do we get per litre?
        • BarneyF, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Good calculating, but actually your logic is flawed. It obviously makes no sense whatsoever to include the area of Alaska into your calculation, since more or less no one drives there. It would make more sense to limit your view to "fairly heavily populated areas" or some such.
          I'm not a statistician, but I think the standard deviation from the mean population density needs to be worked into the equation...
          Be that as it may, the squawks you hear from America about "needing" gas more than other people because of geography make no sense at all when you consider that the cars (&SUVs) here get fewer miles to the gallon than anywhere else.
      • themastersb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2If as in buy you mean steal.
      • danarama, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1uh well it shows you are proportionally WAY out of whack in gas consuption, needlessly so and that your economy basiclaly is gas and oil consuption and that all your silly oil and gas wars are being fuled by the addiction. shows a lot if you know anything.
    • Colozeus, on 10/11/2007, -34/+15It also shows how "private oil" is ridiculously overpricing gas. And please don't even bring up the lame excuse that we don't have enough refineries. Even if that's the case, there is no reason for gas to be priced this high. A commodity that has such a tremendous effect on all aspects of the economy should be completely government controlled.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11ummm...it shows how big oil has actually been conspiring to keep oil prices way too low. They are looking long term and want their business to be around in 50 years, which won't happen if you have european type prices.
        • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10it's kept "low" through huge tax subsidies and by securing supplies around the world through tax-funded armed conflict. we pay a lot more for oil than you think. the price at the pump is just a fraction of the cost.
      • coldphoenix, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9If you think gas prices in the US are high, then you wouldn't believe the numbers you'd see if our government hadn't been keeping the price of gas artificially low to please our whiny american asses.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Did you not see the prices of gas in other countries? It was in the same damn picture! Most countries are way more expensive.
        • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Exactly......other countries have HIGHER gas prices because of all the social BS they "want". Got to pay for it somehow.
      • jamaph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ooo.... Nice response xen0blue.

        I think that the government should institute more funding and incentive for the oil companies and car manufactures to create more fuel efficient vehicles, and new fuels. Along with creating more scholarships and grants to help colleges conduct better research, and encourage heavy investing in the private sector for alternative fuels.
      • cbuddha42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Are you trying to be funny? Private interests is how capitalism works.
    • killiansman, on 10/11/2007, -69/+152It only sums up how wasteful of a society we are. And you sum up the average American's arrogant sense of entitlement.
      • JimmyTheClam, on 10/11/2007, -59/+21***** off hater.
      • ooloo, on 10/11/2007, -51/+23.........You're a douche...one of the "Hate America First" crowd.

        The reason we 'consume' so much is because we are the most productive. DOH!!!

        Why don't you move to Africa so you can float down the rivers in a hollowed out log if you're so concerned about gasoline usage........
        • stmiller, on 10/11/2007, -24/+34We are not the most productive. China by far is the most productive nation. We are the most wasteful. And arrogant, as proven by your very mature statement...
          • fugazi, on 10/11/2007, -11/+13Ok please look at the GDP from each country and show me how you think he is wrong.
          • ShuttleDisaster, on 10/11/2007, -11/+12China is the most productive nation? Source?
          • LooseCannon1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3China is the most productive? By what measure, exactly? GDP?

            Is this another statistic from the 'Pulled-From-M'Ass Institute' you leftist idiots always run to?
      • gmavz, on 10/11/2007, -40/+11your a ***** idiot. go live in another country for a day
        • derning, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28YOU'RE ... not YOUR.

          Bah!
        • Burn, on 10/11/2007, -8/+24I already do. It's called Australia, and it's awesome.
        • Pigglesworth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6You'd be surprised how easy it is to do. In fact there are billions of people who do it every day!
        • bugsy187, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19I've had friends from Europe live and work here. They went back home and said they would never live in the US permanently. Their work and living experience here was awful and I'll confirm it. We have pretty miserable boss-worker relations here and miserly social programs. People in France get a minimum of 7 weeks of vacation per year. That applies to even the lowest level workers. Germany has comparable benefits. Many Americans get little or no vacation. On top of that, it's illegal for bosses in France to ask people to work weekends. The poorest person in It's also interesting that a poor person in England has a longer life expectancy than the wealthiest person in America. We're getting the shaft here, and bad.

          Why shouldn't we sample the fruit of our work? Why shouldn't we have nationalized health care when every other industrialized does? America has much room for improvement. Chanting about how great we have it is interesting propaganda. We have certain freedoms, but let's keep the benefits rolling forward. Unfortunately we're losing our freedoms to the war on "terrorism" and our benefits are sacrificed more and more to corporate profits.

          On the up side they did like American people, who they said were smart and friendly.
          • Nitesmoke, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4"People in France get a minimum of 7 weeks of vacation per year" France's unemployment rate is at over 10%. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4496797.stm The US is at less than 5% at the moment. France is way better, huh? Why do you have so many friends from europe that live and work in the US if it sucks so bad? I love the way europeans come to our country to work and constantly complain about how it isnt like europe. As far as I know the US is the only country in the world with thousands of people sneaking INTO monthly. How many people are sneaking into france? And of course we're friendly, paris france just had to have a national "be nice to tourists" day. wonder why. because french people are famous for being assholes. hey, id be an ***** too, if we had 10% unemployment.
          • seppie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13at least when we here in Europe are unemployed, we don't end up on the street begging...
            And there is plenty of "sneaking" into Europe. Every day there are boats coming from Africa trying to go to Europe. Most of 'em die along the way..
            but how would you know, since American news hardly ever covers anything what happens OUTSIDE of your country.
          • Nitesmoke, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2because dead a bunch of africans dying on boats on the way to europe really affects my life. whats worse, not watching european news all day being american, or being european and obsessing with american news? europeans always talk so much *****, but their economies suck. if you dont like how much oil i use, then do something about it. have one of your kings or whatever you have to do something. o, i forgot, continent of pusies.
      • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -17/+30I love how he says something about America being wasteful (something I dont think anyone in the world would disagree with) and the 3 right wingers jump in and call him names, just typical!

        PS if you say someone is an idiot.. at least do it correct or you look like more of an idiot. In the case you used, it's you're.
        • LooseCannon1, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Of course, we're the most wasteful, exactly because we are the most productive! And by any measure! You can create without some waste.
          • Continuum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Go around and count the number of things that say "Made in China" compared to the number that say "Made in the USA". Who won?
        • AJH16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm a right winger and I endorsed this comment. Important life lesson for all, name calling doesn't help your cause any. (Quickly makes another dig account and logs on to bash right wingers in an obnoxious manner, making my real viewpoint look smarter...)
      • killiansman, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15@oloo: I do realize that we are the most productive nation, but along with that we have a responsibility to be as economic as possible with our resources. And no, I'm not part of any "Hate America First." In fact, I want it to be as great as possible, but that's not going to happen until we can stop being so arrogant and see our flaws.

        @gmavz I actually lived in Venezuela for about 4 years.
        • alfisdrake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It's not about geographics, or about how far my work is. It's about culture.

          I live in Chile (Pretty much in the ass of the world). And the gas here is about 1.20 - 1.40 dollars / liter.

          I walk to many places, and i am the minority. The subway (Metro) system uses to be awesome. But now, since the last change in structure (Search google for Transantiago), is a mess almost unusable. If you don't use some kind of self-owned gas-motor-driven vehicle (car, sub, etc), you are a 'paria'.

          It's not about how much a productive economy you are (South Korea is not the third world, exactly). Is about how well your structure is working in benefit of the little people in terms of taxes (nearly 70% of gast cost in my country are specific-taxes) and well being for anyone.
      • spiffytech, on 10/11/2007, -16/+3"Wasteful and arrogant"

        I'd like to point out the difference between how American formed vs. most other countries in the world. The entire Old World and much of South America was formed in a time where you had to walk everywhere you went, and possibly ride a horse or boat. Even in the latter cases, your travel distance was limited. If you went a couple hundred miles it was a major trip. Consequently, all communities and and resources (food, iron, etc.) were organized in fairly tight clusters within a very short range of each other. Fast forward hundreds/thousands of years, and the cities haven't moved. Most people can still walk/bicycle to school or work or the store, and the dense population makes public transportation easy to implement.

        Contrast this with America. America was first populated by Europeans around the time that railroads began springing up. In fact, railroad carts were often used to move supplies from the coast to inland cities in America. By the 1800s, locomotives were in full swing, allowing America to become one of the geographically largest countries in the shortest time in history. This was because America was one of the first countries to exist in which citizens had almost always had the ability to travel 20-40 miles in a hour, not a day. Consequently, everything here is very spread out. I drive 40 miles each day to go to work/school, then 30 miles back kinda towards home for church several days a week, then home.

        Would I like to drive less than 10 miles a day, and be able to ride a bicycle for most of that? Sure. Unfortunately, most Americans who aren't still living at college or in a big city like New York don't have that option. Many people wind up going to a different city to work, because the job opportunities aren't near home, and the home opportunities aren't near the job. You often need to go to a different city to buy a certain kind of product because your 10-mile radius hasn't been accustomed to being independent of non-local supply lines for hundreds of years. Had America been born before railroads, this would be different. We'd be a geographically small country with a decent public transportation system and wouldn't burn so much oil driving to different cities or flying across the continent.

        Just think about all of that before you blame our extreme oil consumption on wastefulness.
      • spiffytech, on 10/11/2007, -12/+32"Wasteful and arrogant"

        I'd like to point out the difference between how American formed vs. most other countries in the world. The entire Old World and much of South America was formed in a time where you had to walk everywhere you went, and possibly ride a horse or boat. Even in the latter cases, your travel distance was limited. If you went a couple hundred miles it was a major trip. Consequently, all communities and and resources (food, iron, etc.) were organized in fairly tight clusters within a very short range of each other. Fast forward hundreds/thousands of years, and the cities haven't moved. Most people can still walk/bicycle to school or work or the store, and the dense population makes public transportation easy to implement.

        Contrast this with America. America was first populated by Europeans around the time that railroads began springing up. In fact, railroad carts were often used to move supplies from the coast to inland cities in America. By the 1800s, locomotives were in full swing, allowing America to become one of the geographically largest countries in the shortest time in history. This was because America was one of the first countries to exist in which citizens had almost always had the ability to travel 20-40 miles in a hour, not a day. Consequently, everything here is very spread out. I drive 40 miles each day to go to work/school, then 30 miles back kinda towards home for church several days a week, then home.

        Would I like to drive less than 10 miles a day, and be able to ride a bicycle for most of that? Sure. Unfortunately, most Americans who aren't still living at college or in a big city like New York don't have that option. Many people wind up going to a different city to work, because the job opportunities aren't near home, and the home opportunities aren't near the job. You often need to go to a different city to buy a certain kind of product because your 10-mile radius hasn't been accustomed to being independent of non-local supply lines for hundreds of years. Had America been born before railroads, this would be different. We'd be a geographically small country with a decent public transportation system and wouldn't burn so much oil driving to different cities or flying across the continent.

        Just think about all of that before you blame our extreme oil consumption on wastefulness.
        • gordeaoux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Then shouldn't we build or remodel our cities to use less oil? Isn't your argument that our country and it's entire setup wastes oil simply because of how it is structured?

          I agree with what you pointed out, just not the conclusion. Our entire system promotes wastefulness, and it will take a long ass time to shift to a more efficient system.
        • factorof2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7No. It would more than likely be far more costly and wasteful to try and remodel an entire nation's metropolitan areas to suit not using as much oil. And in the process we'd probably use the same amount of oil in the construction and delivery of materials we would have anyway. My mother used to work for American Airlines, the cost of moving their entire headquarters in the northern DFW area to the outlying suburban areas would almost certainly be astronomical. Now imagine doing that for almost all suburban workers. I just don't think it's any more cost effective in the long run.
        • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11@factorof2 - you need to stop thinking short term and think on the long term and how much money/oil/lives we save by constricting urban sprawl, raising mpg efficiency of vehicles, pouring money into public transportation, financial incentive to use less fuel, conserve more, not drive hummers to work and back...

          The only thing that would NOT cost money NOW to solve this problem is doing nothing, which is what a lot of us do.
        • factorof2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4That wasn't the subject of gord's reply now was it? It was about restructuring cities, which isn't smart. Refer to your own post for that one.
        • SirDocOfTardis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4it's not just distance, the people use their cars for more than the important. This is the problem, down to the shops and back for a bag of sugar, drop the kid off at their friends one block over, out in the car. Pick them up again, our in the car. And not in economic cars either, but SUV's and big monster cars that eat petrol like no-one's business. We don't live in a merry ol' England where we skip to work and sing the day away. People works miles from where they live, but commute in on trains and such, they avoid the trip to the shops in the SUV. Most anyway, we're not perfect yet, but we've started
        • ShinSennju, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0So i guess a market unnecessarily flooded by SUVs is not wasteful, give me a break
      • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Ah, I wouldn't apply that particular statement to all United States Citizens; some of us take the bus, you know.

        'Wasteful', in the context of gasoline use, applies to the ***** who own hummers. Especially those with license plates that say '7 MPG' and park it in Center City. Seriously, I hope someone keyed that arrogant *****'s urban assault vehicle.
        • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Press your local government for higher taxes based on weight of vehicles. They not only pollute more, use more resources and are a general nuisance, they also cause maure damage to roads, yet pay the same amount in taxes as people who drive smaller cars or people like me, who choose to ride a bus and a bike instead.
        • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I live in oklahoma city, and we have no public transportation. Anyway you see SUV soccer moms, but most SUV or truck drivers are farmers, or contractors. YOu do see the ***** with hummers also. Even though our gas is relatively cheap. We are still burning a huge hole in our pockets.
      • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -21/+2Screw the rest of the world then. Let's see.......we pretty much saved Europe in WW1, WW2. Next time, (which if you don't get a handle on muslim extremist soon) fix your own damn problems.
        If you don't like it, LEAVE. Bunch of damn socialist trying to figure out how to make the USA a socialist utopia. I know I know....socialism works...it just hasn't been tried by the right people yet. F*ck off!
        • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm sure lots of elderly people eating cat food to be able to afford their medication agree with you
        • jamdogg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wait until he has to open his can of catfood then ask his opinion. (that is if he lives that long, he is so full of hate and death comes early to those types)
    • gmavz, on 10/11/2007, -26/+11You are 100% correct
    • raskali, on 10/11/2007, -36/+156Japan's economy is about half that of the US and yet they use 1/7 the gasoline. So it would seem to sum things up quite nicely.
      • Yodacola, on 10/11/2007, -24/+12You make very a poor comparison. Japan's economy is driven differently than the United States. In fact, the United States is clearly a petroleum-driven economy. SO, it would make sense for the United States to use so much gasoline.
        • toast1226, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19Not to mention that Japan is also a much smaller country and it's pretty crowded over there. A lot of them use subways, trains, and buses to get to where they need to go due to traffic.
        • raskali, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4What do you mean their economy is driven differently, you saying they use horses and carts? I think you'll find the US economy is driven by coal and electricity any ways.
        • dragoonex, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9So wait, your saying it's appropriate for the US to use that amount of oil, just because they're a petroleum-driven economy? If thats the current mindset in America, then they will never kick the oil addiction.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4They might use 1/7 of the gas we use but they are also much smaller in geographic size. That was a stupid comment.
      • Donwangugi, on 10/11/2007, -9/+48Actually Japan's economy is one third the size of the US and it is a bunch of islands the size of Montana. So it has far fewer roads and cars.
        • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Perhaps we need fewer roads. And cars.
        • Donwangugi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Maybe if we all moved to one state. that might work.
      • jmg703, on 10/11/2007, -14/+37You overlook the fact that the US is also much large than japan, jack.
        • maffiou, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't know how long it takes to compare car size in the Us and in Japan, but if you take a look a the average MPG per car in both country, you're in for a shock... There is no arguing that the Us is less enrgy conscious than any other country in the world... Be it because of the way of life, or something else...
        • harksaw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And China and Canada are larger than the US, bu use much less fuel.
      • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Size might have something to do with it. We're roughly 25 times as large as Japan. According to Wikipedia, the US is 9,631,420 km squared, while Japan is 377,873 km squared. The former divided by the latter is 25.4.
        • Kamill85, on 10/11/2007, -2/+325.4 you say... Taking the 1/3 less productivity from Japan, that makes US 8.4 times more wasteful than Japan.
        • homanh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yea because we all know that the area of the US is bigger than the rest of the world combined AMIRITE?
        • tedc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Consider, however, that most people spend most of their time commuting or running errands around town -- not travelling all the way across the country. This suggests there are some serious problems with urban planning that other countries have overcome. Even within the US, there are good cases and bad cases. A guy in a wheelchair in Manhattan would have about the same accessibility to services as a guy in a car in say Phoenix. Taking the car away would be about as cruel as taking the wheelchair away when the nearest corner store is like a mile from your home (and attached to a gas station at that). In some cities, having two cars is not a wasteful extravagance -- it's a matter of survival, and it's the idiot planners who are to blame. The best you could do to save gas in a place like that would be to move to smaller cars/hybrids or maybe car pool. I doubt public transit could do much for that kind of sprawl.
      • NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Do the words "population density" mean anything to you, sunshine?

        -jcr

      • saigumi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Off the wall question, but did this graph include fuel used in oceanic shipping? Most of Japan's food is shipped in, while most of the US's food is trucked around. That actually uses way more fuel than "some jackhole in a SUV". As Americans, attempting to 'eat local" should be a high priority in fighting the use of fuel. Unfortunately, with the destructive moving of corporations, including produce growers, to Mexico and elsewhere makes that extremely hard.

        My grandparents have an acre in the back for growing stuff. My parents and I have Victory Gardens and this is in the middle of suburbia where more people are worried about their lawns and flowers instead of something useful.
      • zippy757, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Actually, US = 14, Japan = 4.3 as of 7/1/7
      • glock22ownr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You know I am so sick of comments and stories like this, what the ***** do you think we do in the US? Do we say "Hey, what shall we do today?"... "Gee I don't know, I'm bored! Let's go drive around and burn some gas!"

        I've lived in Europe, and the reason folks use less gass there is because they don't have to drive 6 miles(~9.6km) to get frakkin groceries. Or drive 15miles(24km) to get to work. Needless to point out that with the US being as large as it is shipping goods also uses loads more gas. Most of that consumption is probably commercial. ***** !!
        • ShawnMunro, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0maybe people should ask themselves the question why stuff if so far away in the US due in some part to the sprawl and that you have to take a car everywhere.
    • mastertop, on 10/11/2007, -14/+39Right, but still, I'm impressed by the quantity used by countries like South Korea or South Africa, or even India which uses MUCH more gas than China, and another noticeable fact ;
      Canada uses WAY more gas per habitant (about 3 times) than Americans... An insteresting graph would be about the gas per habitant.
      • ryanjensen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9No, South Africa and South Korea aren't near 1 billion gallons a day, all the countries are stacked on top of each other to show how the US uses more than all of those countries combined. I was surprised to see that Japan uses more than China (they're in descending order starting at the bottom).
      • iluvgossip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Another thing about China is that the cabs are required to use natural gas rather than petrol. The economy is growing and more and more people are buying cars even though the government requires payment of a large tax for the privilege of buying one. In the last few years our apartment building has gone from one car parked in front to about 8. Still a tiny minority of the occupants but the trend is clear.
        • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Are you in China? Where?
          • iluvgossip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Xi'an in Shaanxi province. Xi'an is famous because of the Terra Cotta Soldiers nearby.
      • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Look above. I posted average gas consumed per habitant per square km.
      • Seraphym, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The statistics would have to be as a percentage of population like you said, and then grouped into levels of industrialization of a country and the relative standard of living of a country (a rich country is going to be able to afford more cars), to mean much of anything.
    • atheinostic, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27The U.S. economy as a proportion of the total world economy is large, but not nearly as large as the proportion of the world's gas we use.
    • VeganG, on 10/11/2007, -18/+10If we're the biggest and most productive economy in the world, why is it in the *****?
      • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10If you think the US economy is in the *****, you need to travel.
      • iluvgossip, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4How is it in the *****? Almost all of the economic indicators say we are in boom times.
        • elmuerte17, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3deficit spending. in a couple years the entire government budget won't be enough to make interest payments on the national debt.
        • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Perhaps youd like to help me sell my house, then?
      • Archon810, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1When was the last time you checked ETF tickers? Try going to yahoo finance and click on them little buggers.
      • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Non-sequitur. We have the most productive ecnomy in the world, but aren't increasing our production at a rate that is sustainably competitive with other nations. This could be due to fiscal failure on our part, or fiscal success on the parts of other countries (both of which are happening).
      • thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7I'll make it easier. Go to a bank that exchanges the USD to another currency and tell me how much you lose.
        • aaronm67, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9The value of the US dollar doesn't represent the strength of the US economy.
        • Kamill85, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Haha, oh yes it does, dummie.
        • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Non-sequitur. The money you lose in the exchange is a combination of the bank's fee and rounding errors. A closer match would be "Exchange $100 USD for a set of other currencies, preferably about 10 of them from other strong econmies. Return in a month, and adjusting for bank fees, use that value to rate the performance of the USD versus the economies of those other currencies."

          The problem with making quips about economics is that, similar to any software design taking twice as long and costing more, any economic concept is MUCH more complex.
      • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2He's been listening to SCARE America again, or the Daily KOS, CNN, NPR or the rest of the liberal main stream media. Gloom and doom.
        The cup isn't only 1/2 empty, rich evil European white males have stolen it.
    • ScrabbyDoo, on 10/11/2007, -27/+140Are you saying that the US has a more productive economy than :

      Japan, China, Canada, Russia, Germany, Mexico, Britain, Italy, Iran, Australia, France, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, South Africa AND South Korea .....

      COMBINED?

      Welcome back to earth, US are living a wasteful lifestyle, much to the detriment of the whole world.
      • NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -22/+2Your question makes no sense. The USA is more productive than any of the other countries you listed, and of course more productive than their average.
        • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Your reply makes no sense. The graph compares against the COMBINED amount, not against any single country, or any average of the countries.
      • Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Responder learn basic maths.
    • MotleyTool, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26All the more reason for the US to be a front runner in changing it's policy towards fossil fuels. Why is it that Europe can force higher emissions standards than the US? If we are so prone to using gasoline because we are so developed, why are we perfectly happy not to imrpove?
      • sonicdevo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Because noone wants to pay $4+/gallon of gasoline.
      • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Because then we'd have to actually DO something?
      • TopherT, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I want to pay 7$ per gallon of gasoline. I want the extra money to be used to fund next generation technology for cars which run on renewable fuels. I drive a '93 geo metro, I get 55 MPG highway. 7$ gas will have me spending as much as most of you guys do.
    • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -14/+75I love how the oh-so-liberal digg suddenly turns into a bunch of conservatives when it hits close to home. Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk. With all of the ***** I see on here about global warming and big oil, I have to say that I am quite surprised at all of the responses in this thread defending mass consumption of gasoline.
      • sinurgy, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5News flash...digg isn't necessarily "oh-so-liberal". I'd say the digg community in general is much to smart to be left or right.
      • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7How do you know it's not different fractions of the digg population at different times?
      • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2that's like saying the digg users who pretend to know economics are all libertarians. Though it is true to an extent.
      • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I'd say most of the people I talk to regarding energy conservation are all for it.. as long as they dont have to change THEIR lifestyles.
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -20/+90Wait a second... what's so "productive" about the US economy? As far as I can tell, all we produce is bombs and Paris Hilton...
      • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -18/+6Yeah, and anytime some idiot tries to take over the world, everyone comes running to daddy (USA) to bail them out!
        • EvilWalksWithMe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I think you might find that in much of the world the self imposed 'daddy' (USA) forces themselves into a nation under the disguise of 'bailing them out'.
      • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10p51d007 -
        So who is it who's trying to take over the world, exactly? (Aside from USA that is...)
      • NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5"As far as I can tell,"

        I wonder if your lack of perception is willful, or a product of our dismal school system.

        -jcr
        • TopherT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Not entirely inaccurate in terms of what we export. Our manufacturing sector is pretty weak in this country. We sell alot of insurance, movies and weaponry abroad. Oh, and huge amounts of bonds increasing our debt.
      • glock22ownr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Chandon:

        Sounds like you need to educate yourself...
    • d3lta, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9You forgot to add, "and can certainly be expected to be the country leading CO2 emissions worldwide..."
    • twrife, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Ever been to China?
      • burtonbe, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3They sure are a lot more productive at producing poisoned dog food and dangerous counterfeit medicine than the USA; I'll give them that.
    • tb0n3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2006, the average daily consumption of gasoline in the US was 377 million gallons per day. Converting to liters, it's actually over the 1.4 billion on the graph.
      • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1the graph looks to be about 4 years old
        • tb0n3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ok, 2003, 370.9 million gallons per day. Still over the 1.4 billion liters line.
          • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Check your math ...

            To convert from Gallons to Liters, multiply the number of Gallons by 3.7854. 370,900,000 x 3.7854 = 1,404,004,860, or 1.4 bn liters
          • tb0n3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah? And?

            Last time I checked, 1,404,004,860 > 1,400,000,000.
    • myeyesarered, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18even if you combine the members of the EU to 'one economy' it's bigger than the u.s. and uses far less than them.
      but the reasons are obvious: over-sized cars, no insulation in houses etc.
      • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Don't forget oversized houses, lack of decent public transportation, too many people who 'wouldnt be caught dead' on a bus, lack of a decent cross country speedy rail system....

        And #1... car culture.
    • daneyh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11hahaha, you're kidding right?
      sorry to burst your bubble but the U.S isn't the most productive economy in the world.
      • cbuddha42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Huh? The U.S. is the most productive national economy in the world. Show me a single country with a larger economy.
        • syntex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Productivity is the relationship between production of an output and one, some, or all of the resource inputs used in accomplishing the assigned task
          The most productive isn't necessarily the largest.
    • Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12US economy is not the most productive economy in the world, ever heard of China? If we take the whole of Europe, the economy in the EU and EUZone is far more productive than the US and consumes far less.

      Stop trying to make excuses- you waste fuel, you're excessive in your lifestyle, sort it out.
      • LooseCannon1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5"US economy is not the most productive economy in the world, ever heard of China?"

        Really? Did you, also pull these statistics from the "'Out-Of-M'Ass' Institute for Left-wing Anti-American Tirades"? Because, you're a little off there, Nelly:

        According to the CIA World Fact Website:

        China — GDP: $10.17 trillion (2006 est.)
        United States — GDP: $13.13 trillion (2006 est.)

        While it may be true that snapping together Barbie play sets can be very hard work, not being able to actually purchase them cause you make 11 cents a day isn't very productive.
        • jamdogg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Did you not see the graph you ignoramus? Now add the Chinese economy with that of the EU, is the US economy still more?
          Is the gasoline consumption still higher? Now add Japan, now add South Korea.
          Get the picture?
        • Seraphym, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And how many people in China or the EU, as a percentage of the total population, are able to afford a 7-passenger SUV, or the fuel cost to drive one? Consider that millions of Chinese, EU citizens, Koreans, Japanese etc. walk, ride a bike, or take public transportation to work because they don't have enough money to have any other option....

          I'm not saying the US doesn't consume insane amounts of oil (for which much of the payments end up funding Middle-eastern intolerant fundamentalist ideologies that want to establish a world-wide caliphate), but you can't look at these numbers out of context - and that context includes relative wealth.
      • zippy757, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1wow...talk about someone completely uninformed...the Chinese economy, is one of the least productive in the world, ranked at 108.

        http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GRVGPSD
    • wbgo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Americans drive a lot, and a lot of them drive extremely thirsty cars that no European would consider buying because fuel costs would be too high...
    • shackleton1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Public transport is generally more expensive in Europe than driving a car. Although price is certainly a factor, the primary reason that there's less petrol use in Europe is that people plain travel smaller distances.
    • spencerbrosch, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5America has full control over Iraq, where 60% ! of the worlds oil resides, its not like there going to run out for a while.

      You didn’t believe that stuff about evil dictators’ e.g Saddam did you? There are evil dictators all over the world. Does America care about them? No because they have little recourses


      HOW THEY STOLE IRAQ'S OIL:
      1) They attacked Iraq - using taxpayers' money.


      2) The US oilgovernment siezed control of Iraq's oil, including the sale of that oil:
      America has now proposed that "... Britain and the United States - known as The Authority - would decide how income from the sale of Iraqi oil would be spent."



      3) They are going to spend the sale proceeds on "reconstruction" - meaning that American oil companies like Halliburton will get the money:
      These are the companies that funded the Bush admininistration and its personnel into power. These are the companies that provide many of the personnel in the Bush administration:



      These corrupt oilmen will make $billions from Iraq's oil, from oil-industry-related contracts - and even more by manipulating global oil markets, using their new control over the world's second largest supply in Iraq.



      It is nothing but armed robbery on a gigantic scale.



      War is increasing terror!



      "Mr Rumsfeld acknowledged that Iraq may have destroyed all its chemical munitions and weapons of mass destruction before the US-led invasion..."





      Stop being a Naive and shallow nation. There are alterative to supporting these oil men
      You can with kits of the internet easily run you cars on:
      1) water
      2) alcohol
      3) vegetable oil




      In the future when you have no oil left to make your Playstation 5, you will soon take notice.
      • Caruthers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3America does not have full control over Iraq and 60% of the worlds oil does not reside there.
      • johnrohan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Thank you for posting this. A liberal friend of mine said I was exaggerating when I said there were still people claiming that we went into Iraq to steal the oil. Thanks for proving her wrong.
        Now riddle me this: If we are making so much $$ stealing Iraqi oil, then why is the US government losing so much money in the war?
        And wouldn't other countries be eagerly jumping in to join, if it was so profitable.
        America doesn't take any of the Iraqi oil. The Iraqi government takes the money, and its their only source of income, since there is no taxation system in Iraq.
      • jamesfaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1America seized control of Iraq's oil - it's not quite the same as stealing. The parties that make money from the oil are the US Oilcos and associated industries, not the US Govt. The US Government - and therefore the US public, who supply the funds via taxes, is being bled dry by the ongoing war and occupation.

        Iraq has considerably less than 60% of the world's oil - but it has the 4th largest oil resources. Apart from that, point well made spencerbrosch.
    • spencerbrosch, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1America has full control over Iraq, where 60% ! of the worlds oil resides, its not like there going to run out for a while.

      You didn’t believe that stuff about evil dictators’ e.g Saddam did you? There are evil dictators all over the world. Does America care about them? No because they have little recourses


      HOW THEY STOLE IRAQ'S OIL:
      1) They attacked Iraq - using taxpayers' money.
      2) The US oilgovernment siezed control of Iraq's oil, including the sale of that oil:
      America has now proposed that "... Britain and the United States - known as The Authority - would decide how income from the sale of Iraqi oil would be spent."
      3) They are going to spend the sale proceeds on "reconstruction" - meaning that American oil companies like Halliburton will get the money:
      These are the companies that funded the Bush admininistration and its personnel into power. These are the companies that provide many of the personnel in the Bush administration:
      These corrupt oilmen will make $billions from Iraq's oil, from oil-industry-related contracts - and even more by manipulating global oil markets, using their new control over the world's second largest supply in Iraq.

      It is nothing but armed robbery on a gigantic scale.

      War is increasing terror!

      "Mr Rumsfeld acknowledged that Iraq may have destroyed all its chemical munitions and weapons of mass destruction before the US-led invasion..."


      Stop being a Naive and shallow nation. There are alterative to supporting these oil men
      You can with kits of the internet easily run you cars on:
      1) water
      2) alcohol
      3) vegetable oil

      In the future when you have no oil left to make your Playstation 5, you will soon take notice.
      • zippy757, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, most of IRAQs oil has gone to pac-rim countries, like China, which virtually all sources that track oil, including hostile middle east countries, agree to. Your statement that US stole OIL is an urban myth. The consumption of Iraq based oil dropped after 2002.

    • t3hp0d, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5What a load of total ***** you talk Dotnetsky. Your gas consumption out weighs all the other countries combined. Your GDP does not. Your argument is the usual knee-jerk defensiveness borne out of insecurity about your nation and has no basis in fact. The graph in question doesn't give any information on which you base your ridiculous assumption. Get a grip. You muppet.
    • Cerebral, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You are all clearly missing what this graph is showing.

      It shows that we are winning... and by a big margin as well.
    • zippy757, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not sure that gas consumption is 'the' core issue of global politics.... As an FYI, the chart is a little biased, as you need to include the 'output' of the consumption to properly balance the equation. The output is a country's GDP.

      Using data from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf ,

      the GDPs are: US - 14 Japan - 4.3 China 2.6 Canada 1.2 Rissua 2.9 Mexico - .8 Britain - 2.3 Italy - 1.8 Iran - .2 Australia - .7 France - 2.2 Brazil - 1 SA - .3 Indo - .2 Ven - .2 India - .9 Spaon - 1.2 SA - .2
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I guess that's why we gotta bomb those thurr kuntreez. lol. We HAD to bomb rugsandistan. It's the amuuurkan way!

      Reality check. oil is not fossil fuel, it is actually abiotic. carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. it is a NATURAL gas which trees love to eat. and we loooove that oxygen which is produced from tree poop. The sun is causing global warming. fact: mars and pluto polar ice caps melting as well as the ice rings and moons of the gas giants. Sun has doubled in radiance.

      you people are idiots, probably still think 9/11 was carried out by al cia'eda. go vote ron paul and research what a false flag terror event is. it's not about oil. oil is something we use in our leisure and sport environments, doubling its price when i'ts basically a renewable resource is subjugating the free american spirit. desensitization. *sighs*. its so hard to explain to ppl who are still stuck in the maze.
  • neiltc13, on 10/11/2007, -88/+86What this really proves is that people use cars which use far more petrol than they need to and use them far more (probably unnecessarily, say going to post a letter or to a small shop or something, where other cultures would just walk) than other countries.

    What is shocking though is that people continually claim on here that Americans somehow "need" their cars more than people in other countries since it is a larger country and there are lots of motorways. These people fail to realise that motorway driving is the most economical - keeping the car going in a straight line at a steady speed uses very little petrol. So, why then is more petrol used?

    I am actually sick to death of Americans complaining about this. Here in Britain you can see clearly that it costs over $80 to fill up a Honda Civic, yet in the US it is less than half that. Please, start complaining when, like us, you are paying over $6 per gallon for your fuel. Until then, the rest of the world will just see you as being whiny bastards, which really is nothing out of the ordinary.
    • Sell, on 10/11/2007, -48/+15Actually I think you tea sippin pussies are jealous. Jealous because you look like idiots driving your scooters to the pub.
    • SirNoobius, on 10/11/2007, -27/+75you dont know what you're talking about dude. my school is 25 miles away and the nearest bus station to my house is 5 miles away. I usually drive 30-50 miles to work. nothing here is in walking distance. and yes we do need our cars and we can't live without it so STFU.
      • CiXeL, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16i drive an hour and a half one way twice a day from homestead to miami beach daily. of course my situation is a bit different. i cant find jobs less than an hour away where they dont require you to know spanish.
        • ltmon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Although I'm not blaming you or SirNoobius personally, I really wonder why public transport in the US is so far behind pretty much the rest of the developed world. I too have to drive for an hour and a half to get to work, but instead of driving I can grab a train for an hour and pay less in the bargain. Australia is every bit as large as the U.S and we love our big cars -- but even our generally inferior public transport is head and shoulders above what I experienced in the states.
          • CiXeL, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7its because we no longer control our government. corporations do. and they do whatever makes them the most money.
          • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Because it's large. We only have really good public transport in one place: the NYC Metro Area. But anywhere else, and you pretty much need a car.
        • Crimsoneer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Then maybe...just maybe...you could get your government to tax fuel and use the money raised to build some public transport? Oh, wait, that would raise fuel prices, and you can't have that.
        • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Perhaps if you chose not to live in the middle of urban sprawl... just sayin'
      • joerad010, on 10/11/2007, -9/+18Exactly. I have my job about 20 miles away...the only jobs within walking distance are minimum wage, and I would need more then one to keep working. My college is a good 30 minute drive...we Americans, unfortunately, have spread our cities out so much that we NEED to drive everywhere
      • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13how big does your car need to be?
        • thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7Big enough to transport cans of shut the hell up.
      • swanny89, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Its because cities that experienced major growth after the automobile became widespread in America were designed with the car in mind. Europe was well established before the invention of the car and was designed to have everyone walk everywhere. Just take a look at middle America: every building stands by itself and has a ginormous parking lot around it to accommodate cars in accordance with city code.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -9/+42the U.S. has Urban Sprawl. I had a 60 mile round trip to get to high school everyday.
      • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7Other countries have this too! You can't use this as a justification of the extreme gluttony the US exhibits!
        • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Maybe part of it is we don't have 7 weeks vacation per year and drive to work instead.
    • ghostfish, on 10/11/2007, -9/+17Isn't most of the gas cost issue in Europe due to crazy high taxes and not the cost of crude?

      Also, I'm in the same boat as the poster above me, my round trip to school every day is more than 50 miles, so STFU about driving more than needed. The logic neiltc13 is flawed as well. Just because it's more efficient to drive on the highway doesn't make 30 miles of highway driving take less gas than 3 miles in the city.
      • dignews, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8well in britain I know that petrol (gas) has a big percentage of tax. We actually get charged tax on top of tax so we are being taxed for the tax the government put on our petrol.
      • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Perhaps moving closer to your destination would work in your favor. I hear distance learning is big these days.
    • swanny89, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Plus the only reason you're gas costs so much is the taxes on it. It wouldn't be that much more expensive than ours if you took off the tax.
      • Crimsoneer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5And thats why instead of hummers, we have buses, which instead of ***** up the environment like you do actually helps.
        • quarkie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2do your buses take C02 and other green house gases out of the air?

          there is a difference between helping and not hurting. I can walk by a dying person on the street but thats completely different than taking him to the hospital.
        • swanny89, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Do you have any idea what kind of money it would take to create a public transportation infrastructure in every moderately sized city in the US that was as effective as a car? I live in a city of about 90,000 people. I took a trip to Boston once and loved the ability to take a subway train and not have to worry about parking etc. But that kind of infrastructure is just too damn expensive to put in every American City.
        • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ swanny89 *shrug* either deal with it now or when oil runs out and then deal with it then except in super fast scramble formation

          BTW - do you think sitting in traffic to and from work in every major city during morning and afternoon rush hour isnt costing people anything?
    • ihlemic10, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Its that much because you have taxes for a decent transit system on your gas. Work is 15 miles one way, driving through traffic takes 35 minutes, a bus takes over 2 hours. Why should I spend my time like that. If transit in the US were decent I would actually use it. Before I could drive, I rode the bus for 6 months to work and it sucked, never on time and any weather would cause delays.
      • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Your transit routing must be really messed up if it takes 2 hours to get somewhere by bus that it takes 25 minutes in traffic.

        It takes me 30 minutes to get to school by car or it takes me 1 hour by bus. I still choose the bus. Are you really in such a rush to get to work?
        • ihlemic10, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1When you work at 7 in the morning, 2 hours on a bus sucks. Not to mention you don't want to wait 2 hours to get home. Yeah Seattle area transit sucks if you are not going to Seattle.
    • stmiller, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16For those complaining how 'this is how it is in the US, we cannot do anything,' I've got an interesting chart for you:

      http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/images/sep06/images/ngasf2.gif


      • DerekJ212, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The only interesting thing about that chart is how the established lines show linear growth (if growth at all), while the projected lines decide that it will change to something that is exponential..
      • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hey, I do my best to buy fuel efficient vehicles and promote that business, but really, that's all I can do about fuel efficiency. And I'm not exactly able to buy a new vehicle every year just to promote fuel efficient vehicles. Politicians aren't really bringing up fuel efficiency that much, and the ones that do usually have a pretty long shot at getting into office. Really, there's not much we can do. The best solution at this point is to start a movement to reduce fuel consumption. That's not something that's easy to do. I have a 50 mile commute to work every day. If I moved closer to where I work, I'd be moving away from the city (yes, I actually live closer to the city and work well outside of it) and end up having to drive a good distance to get anywhere for any of the amenities and stores the city has. Believe it or not, that IS how it is in the US.
      • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3So I guess it's a good idea to buy Japanese cars, then.
    • PakoBedejo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18neiltc13...
      What you fail to realize is that Americans live in free-standing houses, mobile homes, & apartment complexes. Please don't stereotype all cities/counties by what you see on Sex in the City.

      Where I live, the nearest public transportation would be a 90 minute walk. I can drive 2 miles to a drugstore, wal-mart, lowes, home depot, sam's club, burger king, subway restaurant, etc.

      Post WWII American Urban/Rural planning was done by a bunch of pricks who were patting each other on the backs about how great we are as a nation. They had their heads so far up their asses, they never imagined Americans wouldn't want to drive 20-40 miles to work every day & at least 3-7 miles to go to the store for Asprin. Their legacy of urban sprawl will haunt the US for decades to come & I blame that generation for America's current woes. Sure, they helped to end WWII, but they spent so long celebrating, that they doomed the next 3 generations to excessive debt, wars for oil, & and losses of liberty.

      We can only begin to recover when communities take enough responsibility to create workable public transportation alternatives and when zoning boards decline new commercial/industrial developments 3 miles out of the city & new housing editions in similar locations.
      • wordsofwisedumb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Sprawl is the problem. It is also the reason for other problems in America. Driving everywhere instead of walking: obesity. Making it really hard for teenagers to get to locations to hang out: teenage depression, social networking sites, pseudo friendships. Long commutes on linear streets rather than a city grid: traffic congestion. No public transportation: unemployment for the already poor and stressful beginnings and ends to the day for everyone who commutes.
      • sigloiv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I actually believe there's a ton of truth to this statement. There was a similarly-minded article I read a little while ago about how bicycles could solve many of the problems you just listed, without significantly modifying our sprawl.

        I agree on a more personal scale as well. I'm a 15 year old teenager living in California suburbia (three quarters of the Digg community has just stopped reading...), and, as a result, I can't drive yet. Aside from the occasional rides I get from my parents, I end up biking or walking to do almost anything socially, and you wanna know something? It's really not that bad. I'm looking forward to driving, but more often than not, I'll probably continue to walk or bike into town.

        In other words, just a little bit of effort on citizens part could fix the issue, without changing our sprawl issue at all.

        P.S. This is all coming from a libertarian who thinks that global warming is BS. :D
    • jhaks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7A lot of America lives in suburbs where the nearest market or store is a few miles away. What should also be posted is the waste per capita around the world and energy consumption per capita around the world.
    • jmg703, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4You are clueless. You make too many assuptions about how you think life is here in America. Stay on your little island if you don't like America so much.
      • jhaks, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Sorry, but YOU make to many assumptions. I ***** LIVE IN AMERICA. You should come off your little fantasy land and grow up.
    • Konrad9, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Places in the US *are* further apart on average.
      On the other hand, we have way too many ***** driving 10mpg SUV's.
      And on the other hand, I could easily walk to the little grocery store down the street, and I know a lot of people in the same position.
      • pjam3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Do you actually walk to the grocery store? I mean if I have 5-10 grocery bags to take home and a lot of stores wont allow you to take a shopping cart away from the store, how do you get your bags home? I guess you have to buy a shopping cart, but how does that help a 60 year old or a 70 year old or some parent with 3 kids. On top of that many places don't have sidewalks. So you walk to the store with your cart, walk home and get hit? Yeah, no thanks. I'll take my car when I can.
        • Psych77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I walk to the grocery store. I have a choice - carry a lot of shopping home once, or go to the store more often. Sorry, I know that means you might have to get off your fat arse and get some exercise, but you could try it. Oh, and I assume from the phrasing of your comment than you're not a 60 / 70 year old or some parent with 3 kids, so how does their existence justify your driving???
    • aurorous, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10You guys are all right you can't get around most parts of America without a car. My trip to work is almost 40 miles each way.

      BUT... When (not IF) the oil runs out it just means you'll be that much more screwed. The oil won't run out all at once mind you the price will simply keep going up until you can't afford to go to work or school anymore we already used up all the easy to to get too oil in the world. Honestly how long do you think we can continue to find 70+ million barrels of oil per day?

      As it stands right now I have to work half a day just to make enough money to gas up my car for the week to go to work (assuming I don't go anywhere else). I'm planning on changing things before it gets to the point where I'm working 2 days in order to gas up and go to work. Only the most brainless idiot in the history of the universe would consider it efficient using a 2 ton automobile to move a single 200 pound person from A to B. You might want to start lobbying your public officials to invest in public transportation now because it'll be a lot more expensive when everybody's scrambling for busses and trains because the cities are paralyzed for lack of fuel. And thats before you consider the impact of not being able to grow food for lack of oil based fertilizers and pesticides and the skyrocketing costs of transporting food consumer goods and EVERYTHING else you buy in a store.

      10 years from now when we competing, if not warring with India and China for the diminishing oil reserves life in America will be a lot harder for most people. As much as you don't want to think about you will be so much better off if you start planning for it now.

      On the upside without cheap transportation globalization fails, walmart and all the other mega corps go bankrupt if they can't import cheap crap from China and transport it to Kansas
    • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Not whinnieeeee........just smart......If you want to roll over without complaining about high prices, that's your business.
    • RecordHigh, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Frankly, you're the one that is whining about the cost of gas... apparently because you have to pay massive taxes to support your country's big social programs.

      And regarding your point about Americans "needing" their cars. It's not exactly like we Americans set out to produce a wasteful and unsupportable way of life. Americans were prosperous for a long time -- and generally still are; therefore, the big detached homes and cars were affordable for us. Until the cost of energy or damage to the environment begins to degrade the average American's way of life, there really isn't much motivation too change the status quo; this isn't an American phenomenon, this is just human nature. One thing that *is* particularly American is that when serious problems do begin to threaten our way of life, I'm confident that we will be resourceful and flexible enough to develop a new, more efficient technology to keep our way of life going. And we will probably be the ones to drag the rest of the world along with us.
    • Hellmark, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Where i live, I'm about 45 miles from the nearest public transportaion. Town is 7 miles away, but jack ***** is there, so for most things I have to go 30 miles. I have no option other than to drive.
    • cbuddha42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Lots of Americans like living in suburbia. They do not want to live in the city. This means things are further apart, and they must go further in the course of their daily activities. The only convenient method currently available for doing this is cars, so Americans drive a lot. Why is this so hard to understand? That's why we use lots of gas.
      • Psych77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I live in the country in England. i don't want to live in the city. This means things are further apart, and I must go further in the course of my daily activities. The only convenient method currently available for doing this is my car. However my car is 1.6 litre which gets me an average of 40ish mpg. Oh, and yes, it is fast enough, and yes, it is large enough, it's just not the size of a tank. It's that outside of the US car makers have learned how to build engines properly (not to mention chassis, suspension, etc).
  • emanggid, on 10/11/2007, -37/+193this graph is a little tricky.... i mean i will admit we have an amazing addiction to gas and we need to conserve and go green, etc, there's no doubt about that.

    But - you have to take in account that the US is the 3rd most populated nation in the world, and most other nations trail way way behind us. Also, take in account how we are way more developed than the other two largest countries (chine, india) and basically every family has at lest 2 cars (stereotypically speaking).

    Also take into effect our infrastructure: our nation is built to drive in. It is not uncommon for people to drive over an HOUR a day....in big SUVs.

    Add up some of these factors and you can see, at lest, WHY we consume so much...

    I say this in defense, because we are wasteful, but that graph is pretty damn shocking.
    • neiltc13, on 10/11/2007, -21/+4Why does population have anything to do with this? Surely you understand that in this situation it is population DENSITY which makes all the difference - a country with a very low population density can be forgiven for higher use.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

      That said though, there is a limit to how far ANYONE will drive on a regular basis - I'm sure most Americans would not drive over an hour to get to work just like anyone in any other country.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16U.S. is ranked 172 meaning it has a very low pop density

        I drove or my parents drove an hour to get to high school every day for 4 years. If you live in the D.C, Houston, LA, or Seattle metropolitan areas, one hour plus commutes are not uncommon. In the DC area it is even worse with lots of 90-120 minute commuters.
        • d3lta, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Didn't any of these cities have public modes of transportation?
          • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9yeah, here in D.C., there is a subway system built over 30 years ago, but it is nowhere near big enough to handle or even reach everyone. The metropolitan area goes about 60 miles in each direction arounf the city. No subway system could cover all that.. We are way too spread out. Property close to Metro (our subway) station is ridiculously expensive because of the convenience.
          • thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And here in LA, the public transport is very limited. I can get from point A to point B, but I would have to drive to point A and point B is nowhere near my job.
        • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Try San Francisco. My friend said 3 hour commutes were common.
        • drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We don't have one hour plus commutes in Seattle. Don't assume things and make an ass of yourself.
      • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You really have no clue, do you? From where I live, about a half hour north of Pittsburgh, I drive one hour to work every day, and one hour back. Granted, I carpool, but still, that's how far I commute every day. And I'm heading OUT of the city. People drive from where I live INTO the city, and thanks to rush hour, stop-and-go traffic, end up still taking an hour to get to work. When there's no traffic, it takes 35 minutes to get to the heart of downtown from where I live. With stop-and-go traffic, that time is DOUBLED. Add to that, lower fuel efficiency because while it's all highway driving, you're sitting still or moving very slowly most of the time.

        There's some public transit into the city, but the easiest way to get into Pittsburgh from my area is to come from the north, go around to the south side of the city, and come up into it through a tunnel in a big mountain. Public transit isn't really a viable option. Those tunnels are a major traffic choke point, and even buses get stuck in the traffic.

        Pittsburgh is not alone in its traffic predicament. This is the norm here. Our population is dense, yes, in some areas. And you can bet that the people in densely populated areas do more walking, and less driving around. At least for everyday things. Most couldn't walk to work. But get outside the cities and it's a different story.

        Our neighborhoods are all houses. Then two miles away is the nearest commercial complex, usually a small shopping center with a few clothing and entertainment stores, and a grocery store. Go a little farther for a Wal-Mart. You can't walk anywhere in the suburbs.

        My own neighborhood is on a 1500-foot high hill. It's not a housing plan, just a hill someone decided to build a house on. Other people discovered it. No two houses are alike in my neighborhood. To get to a main road, it's a least a 2 mile drive in one direction, and 4 miles in the other. And that's just to get to a main road, not anything of importance.
        • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1WHY DOES THE DIGG COMMENT SYSTEM ALWAYS REMOVE MY LINE BREAKS!?!?
          • gbro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes the comment system sucks. Does anyone know a good text hosting website? I have found that 120 seconds is not long enough to fix the formatting.
      • RecordHigh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I think you underestimate the amount of driving time *most* Americans are willing to endure to get to work. I personally work with plenty of people that have 60+ minute commutes. In fact, I would say that most of the people I work with have at least a 30 minute commute each way. I've lived in the DC and Dallas areas, and I would say DC is worse than Dallas in this regard, but not much.
    • dontspamjay, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Good post emanggid. I would also point out that this data looks to be from 2003. Hard to say if it's gotten any better or worse in the US, but I think it's safe to say that India and China have increased a bit.
    • d3lta, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9I'm sorry, but that doesn't make the graph... "tricky". Take a look at Brazil in the chart. They have a population of 187million, roughly 60% of the US population. According to the density chart, they are 10 places lower than the US. While I agree they are not as developed as the US, they still have large populations in rural regions for agriculture. Crucially, though look at the price of gas in Brazil. And look at the result of that high cost in their position in the consumption per day. You see, when faced with prices beyond their means, they used an alternative cheaper source, ethanol based fuel.

      If you're taking offense at the graph because you think it highlights you're gas consumption in poor light, you're missing the point its trying to get across... the correlation between the cost of gas and the usage. Congress has passed a law which requires by 2020 all vehicles give at the very least, 35 mpg. Its just my opinion that that is a ridiculously low target too far down the road.
      • aogail, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Brazil vs. USA is a bad comparison. The Brazillian government decided to forcibly convert much of its economy to ethanol. Their existing sugar cane farming capability helped this effort immensely. They also tax gasoline heavily, and subsidize ethanol. So, of course their gasoline usage will be far lower than USA's.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
      • johndi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Brazil has this little geography feature called the Amazon River Basin that squeezes its population against the coast. Its population density isn't that high because they are basically all squeezed into two areas the Sao Paulo and Rio mega-metro in the south and Salvador and Recife in the north.
    • jhaks, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5Your post shows that we are wasteful. Our society is structure poorly and is inefficient. We use gallons and gallons of gas to move our 200 lbs asses around for miles. Do we need SUVs? Do we need to live in such inefficient suburbs? Do we freaking need a front lawn? Do we need two cars? Do we really need giant farms to bring us food from hundreds of miles away? We are addicted and attached to this giant mammoth of a system that hinges on resources that are very delicate. Once it goes how the hell is anything supposed to happen? The fact is that we are wasteful. Period.
      • shifte, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Answers to you're questions in order.

        No,
        Don't even get me started on that one.
        Depending on the previous answer, yes.
        Based on the previous stated infrastructure of America, and most households having two people with two jobs... yes.
        Yes (we even export food from our "giant farms" around the world!)
      • jhaks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I really wonder what your purpose in this debate is. What are you arguing for? To continue your way of life? But you haven't even considered how things might be if we changed our social structure. Most of us who care, care because we don't want everyone to die and we don't want to see our civiilization burn to the ground.
      • factorof2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What does societal structure have to do with driving times necessarily? Refer to previous posts about the sheer size and population density of the US and then come back. SUVs? And the British driving Range Rovers, what are they? SUVs are far more convenient than you think they are. The next time you need to drive cross country with several people and supplies, do it in a Civic and let me know how it went. The suburbs are a matter of choice. We don't necessarily choose where to live either, much of that choice is made by development companies. Go bitch at them, not our wasteful habits. Aside from that suburban areas have extremely high tree counts where I live, most people pay extra to have trees on their property, I know my parents did. A front lawn? Sure, some of us don't enjoy parking lots outside our windows, but in a world of singular, commercial vision I'm sure you're content with that. Two cars, yes. My mother drives an hour and a half to work. My dad drives fifteen minutes, there's a difference there. Giant farms hundreds of miles away? Did you ever stop to consider that those areas of the country may be the only places to sustain certain types of crops? Try growing a lot wheat in the Appalachian mountains, and watch how fast you go bankrupt.
      • airforceteacher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0All good points. So, how do I change? How does one person effectively change. The answer for most is they can't reasons have been brought up all over this thread: cost of inner city housing, crime, tradition of sprawl, etc. I would love to have the downtown house and walk to the market everyday instead of driving all over. But, most American towns aren't made to support that (not downtown type area at all) or are undesirable/impractical due to crime or housing cost.

        So, how do we change?
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4The "good" thing about the US consumption being so high is that when the day comes that everybody switches over to EV's or hydrogen or some other form of green transport, its the western countries that will switch over first and there will be a faster reduction in emissions.
    • xShad0w, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7SUV's should die and i've noticed that familes are averaging 2-4 cars now, minimum is 2
      • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I hate SUV's as much as the next guy, unless you actually need the power (if you're pulling something) or the space (if you're a soccer Mom). But a 2 car minimum? For a family of what? If you have 2 working parents and a driving age son or daughter, that's three cars.
      • Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Tech that's the perfect example of an attitude us non-US citizens can't get our heads around. In most places it's generally 1-2, 3 in very large families, yet the US keep saying "We need at least 3 for the average family". That's just too many.
      • SirDocOfTardis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Car should be full when driven, it's not always possible but it should be the aim. 1 or 2 people in a large car, let alone an SUV, is not appropriate anymore. The school run in these monsters is a waste of fuel, what possible scenario would mean the SUV is needed in the suburbs?
    • sathishcj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Maybe if city planners had thought of these problems years ago, they would have zoned for medium - high density residential complexes, rather than create what is a rather messy urban sprawl. That is one of the reasons why many cities are so widespread that you cannot provide efficient public transportation.
      To be concise, they built cities for cars, not for people.
      • hideh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Agreed. We don't even have public transportation at my home, and at school it's just terrible--45min to get somewhere that should take 10-15. Instead we just carpool to get groceries and whatnot.
    • alvim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yes, I agree, population and development do make a lot of difference.

      But you say "basically every family has at least 2 cars", and that is not something you have to "take into account" when interpreting this graph, IMHO. If the United States uses so much more gas, of course it must be because there is a whole lot more cars and other sources of consumption. That's not something you should "mind" when reading the graph, that's exactly what the graph is telling you.

      But even considering population and development... If you sum all of the european countries' populations from that graph (Spain, France, Italy, UK and Germany) you get about 300 million people, which is roughly equal to US population. It's not crazy to assume those countries are well-developed, I think. And still, their summed consumption, according to the graph, is A LOT smaller than that of the US. You can even throw in other developed countries like Australia, Canada and Japan, and still get about HALF the consumption of the US!

      I know there are lots of factors, but these numbers are still overwhelming!
    • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"It is not uncommon for people to drive over an HOUR a day....in big SUVs."

      That's an example of an explanation that's not an excuse. ;-)
    • noof, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Of course you should take population into account if you want to do comparisons. But this chart still shows that it's really important what the US does to lower their gas consumption. Lowering it by a few percent is like everyone in my country (Sweden) stopped using their cars.

      Btw, full story here: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9430924
    • biley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Totally agree emanggid, good post.
    • mikkelfunck, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Okay ... have you ever been outside USA? Do you really think that most other countries trail behind USA? Buy a plane ticket a see the rest of the world - they drive smaller cars and use public tranportation. And yes USA is a big country, but you dont drive across the country every day, as i dont drive across europe every day. And yes i have an hour drive to work every day - in public transportation.

      This graph is not tricky. I have not done it but of course you should add up population size and calculate per capita. Still USA use a lot of petrol.

      >> "and most other nations trail way way behind us"
      No they dont, at least 14 (conservative measure) from 20 countries is considered developed countries, and USA is not ahead of anyone in the developed world.

      >>Also, take in account how we are way more developed than the other two largest countries (chine, india)
      Partly true: app 250.000.000 people in india is middleclass - which is far as i know means living standards as in the western world
      http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501041206/two_indias_vpt_das.html (from 2004)
      And developed countries are by no means defined by the amount of petrol it uses. Maybe even the other way around. More developed -> less petrol consumption (far fetched - i know!!)

      >>basically every family has at lest 2 cars
      That is a choice. And if you blame poor public transport - then it is your governments fault

      >> Also take into effect our infrastructure: our nation is built to drive in. It is not uncommon for people to drive over an HOUR a day....in big SUVs.
      action or reaction? Your nation is built to drive in because you all have cars? Still thats is not a reason - more an excuse.

      >>Add up some of these factors and you can see, at lest, WHY we consume so much...
      sorry, no i cant.

    • bluepepper, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"take in account how [...] basically every family has at lest 2 cars (stereotypically speaking)."
      "Also take into effect our infrastructure: our nation is built to drive in. It is not uncommon for people to drive over an HOUR a day....in big SUVs."

      And you're mentioning that in _defense_?? How does that defend anything? It explains the waste, if anything, but it certainly doesn't defend it.
    • Longshorts, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"But - you have to take in account that the US is the 3rd most populated nation in the world"

      Fair enough, but keep in mind after adding up the petrol consumptions from 20 other countries, the US STILL has higher petrol consumption. Those 20 countries combined have a much larger population than America. You could compensate the population numbers with development statistics yes, but the US is still higher in terms of petrol I would wager.

      "and basically every family has at lest 2 cars"

      This has always stricken me as ridiculous in any household, even outside America. You really don't need two cars unless the two parents are traveling opposite directions for long distances to go to work. The destinations of a household for school and work are likely to be quite close. Oh yes I also forgot to mention one term.

      Car Pool.

      "Also take into effect our infrastructure: our nation is built to drive in."

      To this I agree, but it is just horrible design which isnt appointed to anyone in particular. I myself reside in Scotland, but from what I gather public transportation in the US is poor. In the UK, many people take the train to work. In mainland Europe green transportation gets better. Not only do they have trains and electric public trams, but they also have BICYCLE PARKING. Ive been to Italy, France and Switzerland. You would be amazed how many people use bicycles. And all for green.

      One last nitpick, especially to Americans who live close to work. America is as most of us know one of the countries with the most fat people. Why are they fat? One of the highest reasons is no exercise. Why do they get no exercise? Cos they are lazy and prefer to use cars all the time.

      Get out the cars, get some exercise, use less petrol, keep the world more green.

      (oh yeah I realize Im contradicting a popular argument :/ digg me down then).
  • tjfloyd24517, on 10/11/2007, -23/+32And we (USA) think gas prices are expensive.
    • db0255, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1....where's china? i bet they love oil...
    • dgblackout, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9america pays what now, $4 a gallon?

      a gallon is almost 4 liters.

      we, in the uk pay just under £1 for a liter of gas.

      £1 is almost $2, therefore we pay 8 times what you do in the states for gas, quit bitching.
      • rhino369, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Its mostly taxes. Vote in a new party.
      • ra2bk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You should probably check that math again. $4 per gallon in america. 4 liters in a gallon, 2 dollars a liter...so...$8 per gallon in UK... how is that 8 times as much???
      • Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Rhino, no we've been in this proportion since before Labour. It's part of the switch from income tax to expenditure taxes since Thatcher. To be honest, as hard as it is, petrol taxing has worked quite well over here.
      • TheLD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1dgblackout, you claim to be British but you are using American terms and spelling. Gas = Petrol/Fuel Liter = Litre
        • dgblackout, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1for the more retarded of the americans who wouldn't understand if i tried using uk terminology
    • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Our gas cost 40% more than the US gas. ;-) I think it's a matter of it being unusually cheap compared to highly industrialized countries before, rather than being unusually expensive now.
    • demodawid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1In my country a liter is more or less 0.64 US dollars. A gallon is 3.78 liters. That would make it $ 2.41 a gallon. Still not as good as Venezuela's $0.12 per gallon, though.
  • DevastatorIIC, on 10/11/2007, -11/+65I wonder what a similar coal-consumption chart would look like. China has tons of coal-fueled power plants that pollute far more than natural-gas fired ones.
    • antispin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4> China has tons of coal-fueled power plants that pollute far more than natural-gas fired ones.

      So does the United States.
    • rald84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10http://carto.eu.org/article2484.html

      i wondered too, first hit in google. not country by country, but US is dominant in N.A. so good idea ...
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Here's the thing - China actually *has* coal.
      • Racerx52, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What? I live in PA. And everyone has or has had family members working in coal mines. I can imagine WV is much the same.

        We have coal, who are you kidding?
        • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I was trying to compare China's coal consumption to our oil consumption. Apparently you can't telepathically determine what I'm thinking if I don't actually write it.
  • Limezor, on 10/11/2007, -26/+67Thats because 300 million people live in a country that can fit many dozens of those countries in it. There is more space in between places.
    • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -16/+11all of a sudden there is too much room? i guess immigration isn't such a problem after all.
      • Hananda, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7And population density is relevant to the immigration issue how? Of all the problems caused by illegal immigration, overcrowding isn't pressing.
    • Wayren, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4That seems to be one of the important factors people aren't considering. The US is HUGE compared to some of these other countries. Couple that with urban sprawl and an economy based on travel and car usage and that about sums it up.
    • jhaks, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Again this shows how we are inefficient. Just cause you have tons of room doesn't mean you have to be inefficient. There is nothing wrong with smaller more tightly nit communities that can sustain themselves compared to carbon copy resource sucking suburbs.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 10/11/2007, -9/+17Cause you know, Canada, China, Russia, Australia, and Brazil are tiny countries with minuscule populations. Get real.

      Americans', and westerners in general a wasteful bunch. We use way to much, including gas and any other resource we get our hands on. Do we need massive SUVs, or houses with square footage that in most countries would house 4 families? No way. The point is we over consume, and the US in general, over consumes oil.
      • iluvgossip, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3So what? In a decade or so we'll be well on the way to switching to alternative fuels. Why do you care if people want to have a big house? What business is it of yours? The British can buy big houses, and do, if they can afford it. So do Canadians. Yes, our economy rocks!! I'm not gonna cry about it. And what is the alternative? Give the government more power to tell you what to do? No thanks.
      • holyspamcans, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I totally agree with you, but you also have to take into consideration the amount of roads the United States has as well. In expressways alone, the U.S. has over 54,600 miles. The second largest expressway mileage in the world is China with almost 24,000 miles. So yes, although the U.S. is indeed over-extravagant and wasteful, we also have a lot more roads to drive on in the first place. Just something to think about.
    • cptshamrock,