while cheap gas definitely has something to do with it, the US is also designed differently. we have much more open space, and much longer commutes than most countries, especially those in europe. i live in jacksonville, fl, and when i was living in the suburbs and commuting downtown, there was literally no option other than driving all the way into the city. i live 2 miles from downtown now, so i bike, but that wasn't an option before.

Way to break the Slog.

That's not a study. It's cherry-picking. You could probably make an even better graph plotting square miles. Notice that places like the US, Canada, and Australia -- vast continental nations with tons of empty space between settlements -- look similar, while incredibly dense, small countries look similar. Or income: that looks like a straight GDP per head chart too.

Meanwhile, sky still blue

That's a rockheaded conclusion. You know how small the Netherlands is compared to the US, how tightly compact and different from US cities the Dutch cities are?

Not a good conclusion.

Correlation does not imply cause.

Logical fallacies 101.

So what came first, the chicken or the egg? Do we have such sprawling suburbs because our gas is so cheap? Perhaps if gas taxes were higher we would find more ways to build density and transit.

BTW--In Australia, Canada, and the US the vast majority of people live in cities so the square mile comparison is almost useless. Take Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, and Montreal out and there are about seven people in Canada. Same for those fun loving Aussies.

Of course, since cheap gas is a necessity in this country, it stands to reason that it's more of a political issue here than in the Netherlands. Therefore, in the U.S., politicians who suggest raising taxes on gas get booted out of office. In the Netherlands, voters just shrug.

Meh, living here in italy, I'd have to say that the fact that even the small towns have decent bus service, trains run to most anywhere, and scooters don't burn that much gas, small cars are necessary to find a parking spot, these things count a lot more than the price of gas. Oh yeah, diesel cars are wayyyy more common here than in the US also.

Still there are too many cars in the cities, way too many, and almost all cities have really high particulate levels. Eventually you're going to see cars banned the same way cigarettes are here.

keshmeshi cuts to the crux of the issue in #8. Well said.

Look, I'm all for a great mass transit system and people driving less, but the reality is, this is a big country and whether or not trucks, planes, trains, or ships are used to deliver goods, the price of gas is raising the price of everything we eat or use. Something needs to be done, even if it's just a lowering of fuel prices for commercial use.

Urban Dweller's point might make sense if all urban dwellers stayed in their apartments and never went to another place. Just because Australia and Canada are the most urbanized countries in the world, and the wide-open West is the most urbanized part of the United States, doesn't mean that people don't travel between those cities. In the Netherlands, you can't drive very far even if you want to; the whole country's a hundred-something miles across. Seattle and Spokane wouldn't fit in it.

The fact that this is terrible analysis doesn't mean that the point -- gas taxes are good -- isn't true. It's annoying that people use such transparently bad arguments to make good points, because it makes the points look bad.

What do you mean "work"? Obviously higher prices (taxes) lead to lower consumption, ceteris paribus. But is lower consumption what we want?

Imagine we taxed Velveeta singles at the un-American rate of 1000%. We would see consumption of breakfast sandwiches dip below that of Brunei. But would that be good?

The goal of our energy policy should not be to reduce consumption per se but to charge energy users pay the real cost of energy, externalities included.

Gas effects all of us, as pointed out by Elswinger, whether you drive or not. Until we have decent public transportation (it can happen in small towns, too) and live locally, gas prices will be a huge factor in elections. But the discourse about gas is always "how can we get more?" vs. "how can we phase such a need for it out?" People need to give up their New Zealand apples and Peruvian mangos....

I travel quite frequently on business and pleasure and drive my fair share with two kids. But the reality is that our gas is as cheap as it has ever been. Our fuel prices in this country don't reflect the price of production or the cost to provide the infrastructure for cars.

So--how do you change American society to favor transit and density without allowing US fuel prices to rise? Our economy is built in large part on cheap gas. Perhaps if we taxed it a bit more and required cars to be more efficient, we could begin to change our wasteful, polluting ways.

I just moved to central Ohio, and it would be literally impossible to get around here without a car. You can count the number of bus routes on your fingers and toes, and many of the roads have no shoulders or speed limits too high to make bike riding safe. Slog keeps acting like Americans have some unreasonable addiction to cars, but the simple fact is that the U.S. isn't built like Europe for the most part, and yes, you can NEED cars. Unless walking for several hours straight to get around is considered reasonable.

What CHZA said. Not every city is like SF, NYC, Chicago or Seattle. Even cities with elaborate bus systems aren't feasible for public-transit-only travel. In San Antonio, I was stranded after 7 pm most nights. I couldn't go out on the weekends unless I was with a friend who had a car.

I drive my hybrid car to Whole Foods and to work. If everyone in America would just eat organic sustainable food and drive a hybrid car, there'd be no global warming.

Because having money to buy slow, expensive cars and expensive food is just SO EASY!