November 20, 2008

The differing circumstances and opinions become more apparent in the comments submitted by readers. Here is a small sampling that reflects varying points of view from among the hundreds of comments sent in.

A property management specialist from the USDA in Susanville, CA writes: "I live and work in an area of California that has a relatively low population and atrocious public transportation. My commuting habits (350 miles/week) haven't changed because I have no choice."

A supervisor with the VA in Loma Linda, CA had this to say: "I am an anomaly in California; I only drive 5 miles to work. Since that distance is so short and it is a carpool with my wife I cannot imaging how to improve the commute to work. Other trips do get full scrutiny though."

An IT specialist from DoD at Redstone Arsenal, AL commented: "It is time the gas guzzling USA public put a curb on its energy use. Let's invest for the future and find new ways to 'fuel' our way of life. Otherwise, our children and grandchildren have a bleak tomorrow."

An electronics engineer from DCMA in Orlando reflected the comments from a number of readers as he says he is already conserving fuel: "I van pool to and from work. Also, as of last December (2005) I have owned a subcompact Hyundai Accent hatchback with a five speed overdrive manual transmission. It gets upwards of 35 mpg, so my overall driving habits haven't changed much."

A loan specialist with the USDA in Dickinson, ND says he has to drive: "For some of us that live far distances from work, I commute 150 miles round trip per day, the use of fuel is a neccessary evil. People ask why I don't move closer to work. The cost of housing and the school system in the town I live is far better than the town I work in. So I drive."

On the other side of the issue, this management program analyst from Washington, DC isn't concerned: "We'll be taking the motorhome on the road as often as planned despite what gas costs."

A procurement technicial from Anaheim, CA writes that he can't do much more: "Actually, the price of gas does not affect me because I don't even own a car. I take the bus everywhere. However, I still see the effect it has on others."

A revenue officer from the IRS in Portland, OR has found a solution to the cost of gas: "I work from home & normally go to the office only once a week. I do travel locally for my job & get reimbursed for my mileage. Although the amount paid per mile is probably not enough to cover the costs of operating many vehicles, I drive a 1993 Toyota Corolla and so I am probably reimbursed adequately - although not enough to replace my car! Every day that I don't drive in rush hour traffic & pay for parking to be able to work, I am happy!"

And a management analyst from the Navy in San Diego has an answer to the problem: "Instead of dependence on oil why not change it to Public Transportation. Nowadays 70% of Americans are too anti-social to ride public transportation. Government (Federal and State) should get off their political tight butts and develop better and wider spread public transport system. There is a billion dollars reason to do this."

Most of the comments concerned the issue of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

Here are comments that reflect the stance taken by most people who submitted an opinion.

A contracting officer from GSA in Philadelphia writes: "It is not my first choice to drill in Alaska, but will eventually be our only option when we are no longer able to obtain oil from other sources."

An equipment specialist from FORSCOM in Georgia says simply: "We can safely drill in the arctic and off shore. We should be doing that."

A CSI with the USDA in Woodridge, NY states: "They should start building new refineries as well because there is no use in drilling more if it has to go somewhere else to be refined. We should also be building more nuclear plants to provide a consistant supply of electrical energy. We have the technology to become more energy self sufficient all we have to do is use it. We should be working with Canada to find out realisticly how much shale oil will be to harvest and once and for all come up with a figure and the technology to do it."

An accountant with DFAS in Indianapolis, IN wants the problem resolved but without too many changes: "Somehow we need to strike a balance between the need for energy, conservation and the environment without radical changes to our livestyle."

An auditor with DCAA in Orlando contends: "The US should drill in the US for oil and invest in Research & Development for alternative fuel."

An HR specialist with the Dept. of Labor in Atlanta has this view: "Absolutely, drill whereever to get the oil we need until alternative fuel sources can be brought on line. Liquid coal and shale oil are two of the already identified sources of fuel that can be developed."

A pest controller with USMC in Barstow, CA has a strong opinion: "Not only drill in the two places talked about here, but what about the oil shale in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Why can't we put pressure on the government to do what is necessary to protect this country and it's people from what is happening throughout the world. Why do we support such people and places like Argentina, Hugo Chaves and the like with our money. These people want to see the U.S. destroyed and yet we continue to give them money."

But not everyone supported more drilling activity in environmentally sensitive areas.

An HR specialist from the Army at Ft. Riley, KS expressed this view: "The US SHOULD NOT drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge! Automobile makers should be required to build vehicles that get better mileage using fuels that we can replenish thru normal means. Until the Automotive Industry is required to manufacture more fuel economical vehicles, the US will continue to be dependent on other countries for oil. The US should not be dependent on any other country for anything. If China wanted to call in all the markers they have from the US, we'd all be learning Chinese!!!"

An architect with the Corps of Engineers in Portland, OR wrote: "Pumping more of a finite resource won't solve the problem in the long term. Two ways to reduce our oil dependence is to construct more sustainable buildings--buildings use about the same percentage, 40% of oil as cars. The second way is for our elected officials to have the guts to raise the gas tax. This will do two things; cause more people to purchase fuel efficient vehicles, and help pay for the upgrade of our deteriorating transportation infrastructure--roads, bridges, etc."

An IT specialist with the CDC in Atlanta had this to say: "Before expanding drilling into otherwise untouched, environmentally sensitive areas, we should be looking at conservation methods to reduce our dependance on oil - regardless of its source."

A contracting officer with the Air Force in Oklahoma contends: "Drilling in ANWR won't produce significant enough amounts to make a dent in our seemingly insatiable appetite for fossil fuels - plus, it would take 5-7 years to come on line. I wouldn't mind them drilling offshore Florida or elsewhere, if for no other reason than to 'share the wealth' when it comes to environmental impacts."

And an renewable resource advisor with the Dept. of Interior in Lake Havasu, AZ commented: "It is time for the U.S. to promote alternative fuels and to stop our oil dependency. My husband and a friend have been making bio-diesel for three years and we use it in our 2004 250 Diesel 4X4 Ford truck. But our friend bought a new 2007 250 Diesel Ford Truck and it does not accept the bio-diesel. What did FORD do? Are they in Coo hoots with the Big Oil Companies? Bio-diesel is easy and cheap to make. The U.S. could easily convert to using this and other alternative fuels. It is time for all of us to make the change so that we are not paying for future terrorist activities."

Our thanks to the many readers who took the time to vote in our recent survey and a special thanks to those who sent in their written opinions on this issue.