Last I heard the Alaskan oil was all headed for Asia as closer ports. Things may have changed, but at least a few years ago virtually none of it ended up in the American supply chain.
For a while in the 1970s many police departments changed over their vehicles to natural gas. Production of nat gas was increased heavily and the bottom fell out of that market when oil supplies regained equilibrium.
As for hybrids, we standardly get between 42 and 56 mpg with the Honda Civic Hybrid we got. The mileage seems to depend more on whether we catch up with a tank of real gas or have to use the 10% Ethanol stuff. It is a comfortable car that we have had now for about 7 months and there have been absolutely no issues that required a visit with the dealership under the warranty. The capability to make more efficient vehicles is there but there has to be the will and foresight to get them out there on the market. And yes, for the moment if you only drive a limited amount the expense of any new car purchased for better mileage is not economical. What you save in gas you will pretty much pay in higher taxes and the raised insurance premiums on any new vehicle. But when you need a new vehicle anyway it may be worth looking into. We needed a new vehicle when the existing one was about to collapse, and because gas prices were going down some last November and December when we bought it, the premium for a hybrid was only around $2000 but the tax break was I think $2200 for getting a hybrid. We did the calculations for my son, who is driving a 2000 Taurus and figured he would, with his annual mileage and current mpg and at the current prices, save about $1700 per year in gas. But his Taurus is old enough it has virtually no trade in value but it is still a reliable, well cared for vehicle. If and when it is time for another vehicle he will probably get a hybrid but for now it is not worth chasing down one.
I expect at least to some extent that the fuel efficient vehicles such as the Civic Hybrid are fashionable graspings at fuel savings. We did go with it because there is a sense of social responsibility in trying to limit our use of a non-renewable resource. We don't do that in all aspects of our lives, but this one seemed both sensible and do-able. It is a 4 cylinder so not the roaring power of most American cars, but it has sufficient pickup to get you out of trouble in traffic. I still drive my 1999 Ford F150 with its big Triton because with our farm we do need to be able to haul rolls of hay for the critters and pull trailers and such. Hopefully by the time it needs to be replaced there will be a more efficient vehicle in a format that can meet our needs.
Marketing of vehicles in the US creates the "need". There is little reason for most of us to be driving big SUVs and trucks, though a need has developed because it is unsafe to be the smallest car on the road. Perhaps some sanity will come out of all this and the multi passenger vehicles will be available for multi passenger families but not hawked as sexy for the young single solo passenger.
We cannot anticipate that taxpayers will support, nor will legislators push, technologies for which they do not perceive a current need. It is sort of like the credit card--some folks use it as a convenience and can pay it off each month; some folks use it as a way to have now what they can't afford now and may not be able to afford in the future either. So planning for 10 years from now is almost as obscure a notion as planning for 50 years from now.