I dont know about the US, but the Australian economy is called hot, heavy and wet. Meaning Australia uses more energy, water (and pollution) to produce one unit of GDP than most other nations. Another sign of inefficiency.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11-621-MIE/2005023/tables/table1.htm

Note how Canada is similarly wasteful. Their cities are designed much like ours. All those transport-miles then get multiplied by our low mileage vehicles.

As far as transportation, I think ~10% of our oil use goes towards shipping goods. Certainly not trivial, but not the biggest component either.

Everybody still hates me in this city and I hate everybody.

As for conservation, I think those that are crying about it being an infringement on their rights are a small minority. I'd say most are either lazy, or just don't like being criticized. Tell somebody how wasteful they are, and they'll either argue rather lamely, or just look embarrassed and hope the subject gets changed.

As for energy, others have covered a lot of it. It's worth noting that over the last 20? years a growing part of the population of the US has moved to areas where they use more energy than ever before (e.g. Arizona, for cooling and water supply.)

Fundamentally, as energy prices rise, you'd have to think much of Arizona will likely become increasingly uneconomic to live in. This probably applies to other areas of the country too. (Generally, heating seems to be more energy efficient than cooling at this time.)

1. As mentioned above about lack of central heating (though not everywhere I've lived in Deutschlandia, etc.)

2. Lack of air conditioning in most homes/buildings. General tendency not to have multiple large fridges and freezers and the garage. Greater tendency to turn lights off, if one is not in the room.

3. Gas is more expensive (for driving), and there is the density and shorter-commute argument, even for those not living in a city. In most cities there is decent public transit, and there are decent train systems as well.

I don't know if these things can account for all of the cited gap, but they are general and generally observed lifestyle differences that would seem to account for some of it.

_
"The german quoting guy is a little bit out there." (fleece)

This means that it is worth building a decent public transport system as ridership will justify it so less dependence on cars and a larger precentage of the population can't afford cars anyway.

There is less need for aircon and high output heating systems as the weather is milder on the whole.

Houses are smaller as land is more expensive and the people poorer so less area to be furnished or put more material stuff in.

Cars are smaller and more fuel efficient as petrol is very expensive. Plus smaller roads anyway.

Higher percentage of electricity generated by non-coal and oil burning piowerstations.

I'm pretty sure that USian population would rise up if forced to drive small 4 cylinder cars and live in the cramped rabbit hutches that us Europeans put up with :).

That's easy, you raise gasoline and natural gas and electricity prices to the same levels as they pay in Europe.

Hummer go bye-bye. (I think this is already happening?)

People would adjust their A/C thermostats.

In 5 years you'd see a huge shift in the cars people buy.

Over 15 years you'd see a massive investment in public transit.

My favorite hobby horse is changing the building code to require residential housing to be more energy efficient. The cost would be minimal, and you wouldn't see benefits for 10-20 years, but over time it would make a huuuuuuge difference.

Then, as others have mentioned, there is the preference for large cars in the states vs. a preference for small cars in Europe. I've started doing research to by a new car and I'm astonished at how many cars in the ``small car'' category get less than 30mpg and have as much space as my mid-sized Passat from last decade.

In re: energy, I really don't know.  Transmission loss (the cost of transporting energy or goods) is probably pretty high, but we're also built aroud limitless supply thinking.

I've been chatting with the wife about changing the house to DC power.  Making our own wind generator and buying solar panels (the city would give us huge cash to do so, thus meaning it would cot us only about $12k), running propane appliances and getting rid of non-esential services.

I wonder what that would be like?
---------------------------------
Taken out of context I must seem so strange - Ani DiFranco

I don't have anything more to add about the energy thing, except that I don't think it's fair for us not to claim business/industrial usage as part of our per capita consumption -- all that feeds into the lifestyle that we partake of and enjoy. I was bitching to my German friend about the heat a couple weeks ago, and she said "Yeah, it's like that here, only we don't DO a/c. Not in homes, not in office buildings, i.e. big glass-and-concrete boxes. For about six weeks out of the year, it's a bad scene." Here, if you have no a/c in your apartment on a hot day, at least you have the option of visiting a frigid movie theater, supermarket, etc. While that may be more efficient than cooling each individual home, it also uses a lot more energy than not cooling anything, and that's just one area of our consumption.

--
Do not misuse.

Interestingly, according to the DOE, the civilian sector's greatest expenditure of energy is not in petroleum/transportation use, but "losses." If we want to cut down on energy use as individuals, the decision to drive a Hummer or a Cooper Mini might make less of an impact than the decision to make one's home more energy efficient. Better insulation, more energy efficient appliances, fewer appliances, fewer and more efficient lights; a universal effort to make every American home more fuel efficient would, I think, accomplish more to save fuel resources than trying to price SUV's out of the hands of individuals poorer individuals.

Which is a shame because I do hate SUVs.

You pay a big premium for such items. The cost/benefit for some of those items is still being decided. Consumer Reports says hybrids cost enough extra that it's 5+ years before you break even on gas usage. If a standard clothes washer is $200, how much in water/power do you have to save to justify the $1000 front-loader ? How long will it take to break the difference, provided the machine lasts that long. If I can buy a cheapo, small water heater, installed, for say $300, why pay upwards of $2-3k for the flash-heater ?

Now, some of those numbers are off the cuff, some from talking to plumber friend, etc. But the point is, being environmentally/energy conscious is now a luxury pursuit. Something the wealthy can afford to do, but not the hoi polloi.

Better, faster, cheaper, and environmentally friendly, gotta pick at least the last two this time if you want people to change.

Unplug your home electronics when not in use.  Each draws power and sits in a standby mode all day.  It's a huges waste.  So unplug them. 

Use a fuel efficient vehicle.  Hybrids are currently best. 

Oh yeah, and don't use your dishwasher for anything but a drying rack.