Sandy strengthens need to confront future of energy COMMENTARY Kenneth M. Klemow

THE DEVASTATION caused by Hurricane Sandy produced heart-wrenching loss of life, entire communities obliterated by floods, wind and fires, and the need for millions of people to rebuild a semblance of normalcy. For some, the pain promises to linger for weeks if not months. From the complete reworking of New Jersey’s coastlines to the freakish blizzards in West Virginia, Sandy will leave an indelible imprint on our memories and our physical surroundings.

Sandy also taught us lessons relating to energy.

One lesson is that we take energy for granted, and interruptions in its delivery to our homes and businesses profoundly disrupt our lives. Millions without personal generators either evacuated or suffered in darkened homes, awaiting a return to power that could take hours to days. The simple modern pleasures of watching television, washing clothes or keeping food cold were denied to many so dependent on electricity.

The importance of that lesson should be kept in mind as we debate the wisdom of extracting energy in our own backyards. Critics of natural gas development from shale rightly cite the risks, especially to drinking water, surface water and public health. However, they often underplay the benefits that such energy provides to consumers.

Unfortunately, distance and circumstance prevent people from fully seeing both the risks and benefits. Those who live in energy-development regions must often cope with the risks. But they don’t see the benefits that their energy provides to consumers, often hundreds of miles away. And energy consumers typically don’t worry about distant risks when they flip the switch or turn the knob. In order to have intelligent discussion about the energy options available to us, we need to honestly consider both the risks and benefits – as well as the choices in front of us. We can’t have energy policy driven solely by “no.”