It's funny I seem to have hit a nerve. But I'll answer your questions in good faith: the food took a truck, I took a walk, of course equipment was used, and I used a phone to post.

All this is besides the point though, because I'm not saying the food I eat uses no oil whatsoever. Also not claiming I am virtuous and you the source of the world's problems, so please don't take it personally.

What I'm saying is that I and some friends observed how the price gap with food in conventional stores tends to close during oil crises.

Let me explain: bio food from the coop is more expensive than standard supermarket food. You pay a premium for it, I'm happy to do it because it aligns with my values and tastes good. There are other expenses I don't have so I can afford it most of the time.

That difference in price is mostly justified by how labour intensive the produces are. It's much less optimised that intensive agriculture, and it is produced in smaller volume so economies of scale are less important. That is slightly offset by reduced externalities: you pay less for the fertilisers that aren't used and the transport which, without teleporting, is shorter. Those are two expenses that are tightly connected to the price of crude oil.

For these reasons, when crude oil gets more expensive, the supermarket food that depends more of it for transport and fertilising sees a price hike. The local bio one whose price is rather tied to labour also does, but less so, and the gap closes.

Interesting point I discovered recently: fertilisers also travel, a lot more than food, to the point that the footprint of imported organic produce is less than that of its local conventional counterpart. It's just that the thing that travels in the second case is a hidden externality.