With all of the hyperbole of the 24/7 news coverage of our modern society, it often feels as though the world is a more dangerous place than ever. This is especially true today as a string of tragic incidents over the past year has befallen the international energy industry. We often take for granted the impressive nature of our complex system that provides energy to more people in more places than ever before in human history.

Those of us who work with our energy leaders know how hard they work to power our towns and cities, to fuel our global transportation, and drive our industries. This is not meant to diminish the horrific impact of Japan’s nuclear crisis, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the disaster of the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, or the most recent pipeline explosions in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Their toll on human life and their toll on the environment have been tragic.

It is an unfortunate reality that risk is associated with all forms of energy production, including wind and solar energy production. We have to learn from our flawed human calculations to engineer smarter, safer systems. As we look forward, we must recognize that powering the global community is no small feat, and it will require energy production from many different sources. Our industry simply has not reached a point that we can rely solely on the least risk technologies. Most energy experts agree that nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas will continue to make up the largest percentage of our energy for several decades to come. With this in mind, we must continue to mitigate risks, employ industry best practices and hold companies accountable for safety violations.

In a recent speech at Georgetown University, President Obama called on the American energy industry to increase domestic production of traditional fuels and alternative fuels; he also called for increased energy efficiency. If this fledgling recovery is going to grow us back into prosperity, we are, indeed, going to need increased domestic energy production. If we are going to reduce the impact of the increased cost of imported petroleum, we are going to need to increase domestic energy production. If we are going to improve our national security, we are going to need to increase domestic energy production. But with increased domestic production comes increased human and environmental risk. We in the energy industries are willing to take on that risk to ourselves and our families; we are willing to take on our share of the environmental risk as well because our homes must be lit, our vehicles must be driven, and our factories must be operated.

It is unfortunate that the energy industry continues to be demonized by those who, nevertheless, enjoy the benefits of our efforts, and continues to be threatened with punishment for doing the very thing that we are asked to do, and doing it more efficiently, more effectively, more reliably, more safely, and with less environmental damage than anyone else in the world.

Yes, Mr. President. We will increase domestic production; we will work to improve national security; we will do what we can to help this economy to grow; and we will do what it takes to meet the needs of the American people.

That is what we do.

We'd be wise to think about energy risk in the context of investing- there are risks at all levels, no guarantees on returns, some risks (and potentially rewards) higher than others. Even things viewed as safe over the long term have recently been proven not to be safe at all. We are told that a balanced portfolio and consistent engagement win out in the long run.

The greatest risk with energy comes when the conversation turns to absolutes -- trading one thing for another. Efforts to encourage and incentivize future technologies with potential makes sense at some level, but not at the expense of everything else, i.e the technologies that are proven and getting the job done today.

Will (should) electricity replace liquid petroleum fuels? Probably not in an absolute sense. Will every American want or find an electric vehicle practicable or affordable? Probably not. Same thing goes for the Natural Gas Act another example of wanting to flip a switch and convert milions of vehicles to some other kind of fuel, with the government helping pay the way. Are we going to convert all heavy-duty trucks and buses to natural gas? No for many reasons. Some have already done it without billions in subsidies. We have to get the mix of investments right, and recognize that there is room for more than one technology, otherwise the argument of "trading imported oil for imported lithium" starts to seem more real.

The Secretary of Energy and others know full welll that it will be incremental improvements in the existing technologies and fuels here today that will deliver a broad range of proven and real near term benefits at a cost we can afford. Using our existing resources more wisely and developing more domestic resources seem like fundamentals just as investing in new technologies that may take decades to become commercially successful. Keeping this in mind once and a while would help.

Diesel is the quintessential example of one such existing and proven technlogy that has undergone a complete transformation. Diesel engines are still 20-40 percent more fuel efficient than gasoline, the fuel is now super clean, energy dense, available everywhere, and the engines can run on blends of renewable and biodiesel fuels that are homegrown. A recent study found that diesel pick up trucks have already saved 21 times the fuel savings of all the hybrid cars combined. Diesel powers the nation's economy today and for the foreseeable future for many reason. Diesel also is a technology we've invested in that has delivered consistent returns and can do even more in the future.

As we review our energy porftolio we must balance the desire for future rewards with proven and consistent investments.

No human endeavor, including the production of energy, is completely risk free. The potential for human error or unfortunate acts of nature is present whether lighting a campfire or maintaining a nuclear reactor. Even air travel, which is the safest form of transportation, occasionally sees lapses in safety, as exemplified by the tower controller at Reagan National Airport who fell asleep while on duty last week. Last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill also illustrates the consequences of poor choices by one operator.

But despite a few cases of improper disposal of drilling fluids, the natural gas industry boast an excellent safety record, in large part because of the extensive industry safety programs overseen by state regulators as well as the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) under the Congressional Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006.

There are no documented cases by the EPA or other regulatory bodies of drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing; and the EPA is now conducting a third study that will include recommended measures to make hydraulic fracturing even safer. Just last week, the Texas Railroad Commission won a federal court case by proving that it was not Range Resources who contaminated drinking water but Mother Nature.

The recent nuclear accident in Japan was also triggered largely by Mother Nature. Anthony Pietrangelo, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute, explained to The New York Times:

"We can never say that could never happen here. It doesn’t matter how you get there, whether it’s a hurricane, whether it’s a tsunami, whether it’s a seismic event, whether it’s a terrorist attack, whether it’s a cyberattack, whether it’s operator error, or some other failure in the plant — it doesn’t matter. We have to be prepared to deal with those events."

Certainly, industry can always do more to protect against anticipated natural disasters. After Katrina hit the Gulf of Mexico, the offshore industry was able to use its disaster relief plans to successfully shut down wells and production. Although Hurricanes Rita and Katrina destroyed more than 100 offshore structures, there were no injuries to offshore workers nor were there any significant spills from offshore production facilities. Even for those structures that were heavily damaged, downhole safety valves kept oil and gas shut-in, protecting the environment. Immediately following the hurricanes, operators moved quickly and efficiently to repair damaged facilities and restore critical energy production in the Gulf.

From the time the first caveman accidently placed his hand in the first all-important fire, mankind has known about the riskier-side of energy. Over the centuries, whether it be fire from a lump of coal, or oil shale, or natural gas, or nuclear fission, or power from a dam or a local gas distribution main, the consequences of putting one's hand in the fire has always had the same result: It burns.

Our present understanding of the byproducts of our ever-more complicated energy creation only reinforces the original lesson of ‘putting ones hand into the fire can cause harm’. From that first instance through this latest disaster in Japan, history raises the same question it has every time something new comes along: Is the convenience of the energy produced worth the potential hand-in-the-fire experience?

In our modern world, where we engineer ever-higher levels of reliability and safety, the slightest retrogression makes us pause to think about what we are doing. I for one believe that this is a good thing. Hopefully, we have learned over time to be better at producing the reliable power supply that we love. By “better,” I mean that we have a fuller understanding of the total life cycle costs that are attendant with the production of the energy we use. I have no doubt that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico causes us to be more careful as the overall costs (both monetary and otherwise) are enormous—just as they are with the current nuclear crisis in Japan.

Over and over again, we believe that we can accurately estimate the likely outcomes and end results of the paths we take. We then apply unwavering statistics to estimate, as best we can, the probabilities of the events we are interested in estimating (for example a loss-of-coolant accident in a nuclear power plant).

We apply these probabilities to imagined events and tell ourselves that the likelihood of a never before seen incident is something small. Why? Because we are good at estimating the probabilities of the things we have seen. Things we haven’t seen not only give us reasons to reflect and worry, but also give us a sense of false hope. Even though we stop to worry over those events we have not seen, at the same time we take comfort in the notion “if we haven’t seen it, it must be highly unlikely”. And if an event is truly improbable, then we must not dwell on the outcomes of the never before seen event. So, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake would be something for which we would not design a nuclear plant (or any other type of energy plant) around. Is it realistic to construct all facilities to accommodate all very low probability outcomes for all events we haven’t seen before?

This logic, while correct, brings us to a stopping point. If we cannot estimate probable outcomes with some robustness, why bother at all to try and understand the results of Mother Nature’s random and unexpected events? But just as she has done in the past, Mother Nature will surely give us more ideas to scour over and more unanticipated but real twists to our fate.

The question we are then left with is: Would we rather scour over these ideas and twists of fate with the lights on, or in the dark?

Before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, industry insisted that offshore drilling technology had become so advanced that a blowout was unlikely, if not impossible. Regulators accepted those assurances, and citizens had few tools with which to verify them. As a result, safety officials could not do what was necessary to prevent a catastrophic oil spill, and the Gulf of Mexico and its communities will suffer for decades.

In hundreds of less dramatic and less publicized accidents—like last summer’s pipeline spill that dumped 850,000 gallons of crude oil into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River—the lessons are the same. They tell us over and over again that we need to have strong safety standards, diligent oversight and tested response plans.

Before this country even thinks of expanding drilling in the remote and fragile Arctic Ocean, for example, reforms must ensure that oil companies can respond to significant spills in ice, hurricane-force winds, stormy seas and long periods of fog and darkness.

The United States should aspire to be the world’s leader in safe drilling standards, prevention and response. Despite some good first steps by the Obama administration, we’re not there yet. And sadly, as we approach the one-year anniversary of Deepwater Horizon, Congress still hasn’t passed major legislative reforms to prevent another offshore catastrophe.

It takes only one accident to cause untold human, economic and environmental damage—as we’ve seen, in one incident after another. Oversight agencies need the tools, the financial resources and the political support to regulate these complex industries and ensure that complacency does not set in.

Marilyn Heiman is the director of the Pew Environment Group’s offshore energy reform efforts and its U.S. Arctic Program. www.PewEnvironment.org

Car wrecks, house fires, illness, industrial calamities, bicycle accidents---all part of the risks of life. As with life, there are risks inherent in the development of energy. The gulf oil spill, Japan’s nuclear crisis, and the recent coal mining tragedies bring these risks squarely to the fore.

We elect our leaders in part based on how well we think they can navigate risks. The President and Congress should not dismiss risks associated with energy production, but neither should they exploit them. Instead we must approach all issues, not only our energy future, with the scientific reality of the risk, leaving politics out of this debate.

America’s ability to harness energy and generate power during the industrial revolution catapulted America into being an economic super power, a distinction we’ve maintained, but is quickly being challenged by countries with comprehensive energy plans. America needs to start taking advantage of the abundant source of energy we have in natural gas.

Natural gas may not be a panacea for our energy challenges; however, natural gas is a versatile fuel that has applications ranging from fueling 18-wheelers to electricity generation and it is ready to go today, thanks to Advanced Recovery Techniques (ART), also called hydraulic fracturing.

ART is a proven and safe technique for removing natural gas from underground shale deposits. ART does not affect our drinking water, as often fear mongers masquerading under the “environmentalist” banner want people to believe. ART occurs at thousands of feet below earth’s surface, and the water used is drawn from a few hundred feet below the surface, at least, therefore it does not affect the drinking water.

The only risk to drinking water is from the same sources that have always exited with the development of energy sources, and is not increased through ART. Furthermore, no scientific study has ever illustrated any harm to plants or animals from the use of ART in natural gas recovery.

We need all energy sources, and fossil fuels will be an important part of that portfolio for at least the next 50 years. Natural gas is an especially important part of that portfolio because it can help significantly reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources and we have enough natural gas to last us nearly 100 years.

Using domestic energy supplies will also aid in energy security, financial stability, and national security. On top of all of this, natural gas burns up to 40 percent cleaner than most other energy sources, so it is good for the environment as well.

Energy development yields huge rewards for the risks it assumes. Closing out winter and approaching spring and summer, heat and air conditioning depend on reliable sources of energy, as does agricultural development, scientific research, and nearly every other element of a modern culture.

Using scare tactics is neither good science nor good politics. We need to make sound policy decisions regarding our energy matters, and use the science and facts available to us to dictate our energy future, not political agendas crafted for short-term gain.

The potential environmental impacts of energy production have become reality on several recent occasions – notably the partial meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility in Japan and the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Regulators around the world will no doubt look deeply into these incidents to improve safety and prevent similar accidents in the future.

But compare this hindsight with the U.S. EPA’s approach to the potential environmental impacts of biofuels. While the agency affirms that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) will help the United States reduce greenhouse gas emissions, its recent draft report to Congress, “Biofuels and the Environment,” focuses primarily on the potential negative impacts of increased biofuel production.

Most of these possible negative impacts are projected to occur through market-mediated effects. But the models used to project these effects make broad assumptions about increased land use and higher prices as a response to increased demand for agriculture. The reality is that U.S. farmers have responded to increased demand by increasing productivity. Biofuels have created a new, growing market for agriculture, which in turn has stabilized the decline of U.S. farmland and provided economic returns to farmers.

Increased use of biofuels is consistent with important national objectives, including reduced dependence on imported petroleum. Potential environmental impacts from production of biofuels can be avoided by good practices within the industry and the agricultural community as well as diversification of the raw materials used to produce advanced biofuels.

Last August, Secretary Salazar toured the Front Runner, a state of the art deepwater oil rig with a sterling safety record. While there, he asked workers if they could categorically “guarantee” him that a large-scale accident on the rig was impossible. Such assurance, it seemed, was necessary from rigs like theirs before he would lift the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Of course, requesting such a guarantee is absurd. There is no industry on earth that could guarantee a zero percent chance of accident. What those rig workers could do, however, and what they had done since the rig first started operations in 2004, is take proper steps to make sure that accidents are highly unlikely. Thanks to those diligent workers, the rig had zero major incidents in its five years of energy development.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, the Front Runner’s safety record is typical of the energy development industry, not the exception. In 2009, the rate of accidents associated with oil and gas extraction was lower than grocery wholesalers, the performing arts industry, and pet supply stores.

In addition to its incredibly low rate of major accidents, domestic production of oil and gas yields unparalleled benefits: abundant, affordable, reliable energy to lift billions of people out of poverty and 9.2 million well-paying jobs in America alone.

Also, the responsible development of America’s resources is environmentally sound. Unfortunately, anti-energy advocates have resorted to outright lies to smear traditional fuel sources on this subject in an attempt to gain market share. For example, the claim that hydraulic fracturing contaminates drinking water is just plain false. Multiple government sources, in addition to a 2004 EPA study, have confirmed that there has never been a proven instance of groundwater contamination due to fracking. Despite what enviro lawyers and lobbyists and their allies in Hollywood are spreading, the responsible development of oil and gas is safer than ever for the communities surrounding production sites.

Now, let’s look at the ‘green’ energy industry. Can these companies categorically guarantee that the enormous oil-fueled tankers that transport wind turbine parts from China will arrive in America without any incident? Can solar energy companies guarantee that the mining of rare earth minerals they need, 97 percent of which are in China, will proceed without any accidents?

And then there’s land and water use – while oil, gas, and coal production leave relatively small physical footprints on the environment, wind and solar need tens of thousands of acres to produce an equivalent amount of energy. Can these companies guarantee without reservation that the natural habitat in those areas will go undisturbed while they tear up endless amounts of land to erect windmills and sun catchers? What about the large quantities of water needed to maintain solar panels in the dessert?

Just as with oil, gas, and coal production, the ‘green’ energy industry cannot guarantee against accidents. But the difference is in the pay off. Fossil fuels deliver affordable energy to billions of people and power the world economy. Wind and solar, on the other hand, deliver less than one percent of America’s energy while sucking up billions of taxpayer dollars at the same time.

It is unrealistic to expect large-scale energy production to occur without any major incidents. Any industry held to that standard would be forced to shut their doors. Policymakers should weigh the threat of risks against the potential benefits of production when considering how to shape America’s energy policies. Instead of propping up inefficient and intermittent sources of energy with massive taxpayer subsidies, the government should be encouraging American ingenuity to further increase the safety of producing the most efficient forms of energy.

The production of oil, gas, and coal is cleaner, more efficient, and more technologically advanced than ever. If policymakers intend for America to remain the greatest country in the world, they should recognize the increasingly outstanding safety records of American energy companies, large and small, and encourage production of our vast fossil fuel resources.

I must disagree with the premise of the question as it pertains to wind energy.

You write that "[P]roduction [of renewable energy] is not yet at a scale where it could displace any traditional energy source." This is an odd choice of phrase, since the central point of the question is "how to move forward on an energy policy." Presumably, an energy policy is designed not for today or next week, but for the future, and wind energy is clearly capable of displacing traditional energy sources in the not-too-distant future.

Consider:

- In the past four years, wind energy accounted for 35% of all new generating capacity installed in the U.S., more than coal and nuclear combined.

- In 2011, U.S. wind farms will produce nearly as much electricity as 10 nuclear power plants.

- In the past three years, the new wind capacity installed is enough to generate as much electricity as five nuclear power plants.

- To generate as much electricity as U.S. wind turbines will generate this year, more than half a million barrels of oil a day would be required (210 million barrels all told, or nearly 9 billion gallons).

- To generate as much electricity as U.S. wind turbines will generate this year, a coal train more than 6,000 miles long (more than the distance from Los Angeles to Tokyo) would be required.

- During the Bush Administration, the U.S. Department of Energy found that wind energy could supply 20% of U.S. electricity (roughly what nuclear supplies today) by 2030. To do that, wind would have to generate as much electricity as 75 nuclear plants.

- The U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates total U.S. wind resources at 14 MILLION MW--enough to generate roughly 10 times all of the electricity our nation uses.

Wind's costs have dropped in recent years. The Department of Energy reports that in 2009, the price of electricity from new wind power plants ranged from 4 to 9 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is competitive with other new power plants. In addition, wind offers the certainty of a long-term stable price-- it is not subject to fuel price spikes, or environmental regulations on pollutants, water use, etc.

Wind energy is clean, affordable, homegrown and abundant. An intelligent energy policy should include provisions aimed at ensuring its rapid development and diversifying our nation's energy supply.

Every energy resource, including wind, solar, oil and natural gas has trade-offs. That’s perhaps why a simple Google search can produce multiple news reports detailing activities of opposition groups to all sorts of energy projects. We all know there are no magic bullets so we have to stop acting like there might be. We also all know that we need all forms of US energy to meet our ever-growing needs. The truth remains that the vast majority of our current energy needs are met by oil and natural gas. And despite great (and much needed) progress in the development of alternative forms of energy, they will not make a significant impact on meeting a meaningful percentage of our energy demands in the next 50 to 60 years.

So, instead of talking about trade-offs, political leaders need to start the discussion by recognizing how our energy needs are being met today and honestly communicating that to the American people. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t continue to invest in promising alternative energy projects and fully diversify our energy portfolio, and actually plan for future energy needs. We certainly should recognize risk, constantly strive to improve safety, implement technological advances and create a framework for industry and government to have regulatory predictability and consistency. But in doing so, we must be careful to maximize our domestic ability to meet our current energy needs by thoughtful, safe and effective production of oil and gas – spurring job creation, economic growth and improving US competitiveness. Until we get honest about our own needs and resources, we certainly shouldn’t be telling Brazil that we will spend US dollars to help them develop their O&G resources, while we continue to lock up US O&G assets and thwart US development. This is a trade off we cannot afford to make.

With no safety, environment and economic tradeoffs, greater use of combined heat & power (CHP) and waste heat recovery (WHR) is a major solution. Just as natural gas has been considered a bridge fuel – CHP/WHR is the “bridge” electric generation alternative. There is ample capacity potential to increase its use from about 9 percent of the grid supply to 20 percent. An Oak Ridge National Laboratory report confirms the potential.

It is time for Congress and States to remove regulatory barriers to provide a level playing field and increase utilization of industrial CHP and WHR. Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, new projects have virtually come to a complete stop – and what a tragedy. Greater use of CHP/WHR is not only timely given the concerns of base load nuclear facilities - greater use lowers energy costs for manufacturers thereby increasing competitiveness, jobs and exports.

CHP recycles waste heat from manufacturing processes to produce steam and power at energy efficiency rates of up 70 percent versus electric utility base load facilities at about 32 percent. Many manufacturers operate “continuous process” plants that operate 24/7 and would provide a reliable supply of power. As a commercially available technology, CHP can use natural gas, biomass or coal as a fuel. WHR projects recover hot stack gases that convert them to power generation and are the equivalent of renewable energy because it does not use any additional fossil fuel to produce the power. Distributive generation like CHP and WHR increases reliability of the grid and reduces the need to build new expensive transmission and distribution lines.

CHP/WHR is a win/win for energy security, safety, the environment and manufacturing jobs.

When considering a long term energy policy for the United States, the most critical risk the President must take into account is the threat that our dependence on foreign oil poses to both our national economy and economic security.

Every day that we fill our tanks with gasoline refined from foreign oil we are putting more and more money into the coffers of hostile regimes and strengthening the stranglehold that OPEC holds on our economy. In its 2010 Fuel Scorecard, the Truman National Security Project concludes that oil “clearly stands out as the most harmful for U.S. national security overall.” And last year’s Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a stark reminder of the risks associated with taking fossil fuels out from the earth in which they are sequestered.

Fortunately, we have an alternative: domestically-produced ethanol. As oil becomes dirtier, riskier and costlier to extract, the innovation and development of the ethanol industry makes this renewable fuel more clean, more affordable and more abundant every passing day. Ethanol is the safest form of transportation energy available, and it is also the cheapest form of motor fuel on the planet. It is biodegradable, and ethanol plants produce food – distillers grains fed to livestock as a highly nutritious and affordable feed – as well as fuel.

Increasing the production of domestic, renewable ethanol can reduce the power OPEC can exert over our economy. Every gallon of clean burning ethanol that we produce in this country decreases the demand for foreign oil and keeps U.S. money in the U.S. economy, where it can create U.S. jobs.

Ethanol is cleaner and more energy efficient to produce than gasoline refined from oil. And, according to a white paper by Ambassador C. Boyden Gray, ethanol “saves tens of thousands of lives annually” due to its high-octane value that reduces the need for carcinogenic aromatics – like benzene, toluene and xylene – that are added to gasoline.

Ethanol’s contributions to our nation are undeniable, but the industry’s potential is constrained because of regulatory barriers that cap our access to the market.

If the President wants to promote the commercialization of a clean, safe alternative to oil, he needs to remove the artificial barriers that prevent motorists from greater access to ethanol. Increasing the number of flex fuel pumps at gas stations and flex fuel vehicles on the road will give consumers choice at the pump that includes something other than dirty, costly oil.

We don’t have to choose between our safety, our environment or our economy; with ethanol we can have it all.

No form of energy is “safe” in the sense that it is completely risk free. Both risk and safety are relative terms. And all of our fuel options have certain tradeoffs.

Every fuel employs a different mechanism for providing power. In the case of fossil energy, our most dominant source, it must burn or combust. Wind and solar do not have that characteristic, but their production, installation, and operation are not risk free when looked at from a systems perspective, including the ecological impact of land use. Further, they are a long way from overcoming the limitations of intermittency, low power density, and lack of storage capacity.

Until those limitations are overcome, comparing them to conventional sources, including nuclear, is simply comparing apples and oranges.

In terms of transportation, the renewable lobby touts hybrids and totally electric vehicles as alternatives to gasoline and diesel. But those carry their own safety risks. Lithium batteries in electrics and hybrids have fire risks, and the smaller hybrids are less safe for their occupants than full size vehicles. Generating electricity for charging electrics is not risk free.

There is a trade-off between level of risk and cost of production and operation. Economist, Steven Horwitz, recently published a short piece in the Freeman titled “Staying Out of the Corner” which uses the production possibility curve concept to comment on the Fukushima disaster. If we attempt to make a facility like Fukushima or an operation like driving a car absolutely safe, resources diverted from other uses may lead to a greater total risk. In other words, safety is not free, nor are the benefits of energy use.

We must carefully weigh tradeoffs. The mobility that literally drives our economy also leads to over 30,000 fatalities each year<http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/09/nhtsa-traffic-deaths-at-lowest-level-since-1950-injuries-car-motorcycle-safety.html>. Relative to car trips, air travel is much safer. But even planes still occasionally crash.

Energy is a factor of production. We don’t value it for its own sake but for the benefits it provides in terms of the production of goods and services. Abundant and affordable energy allows society to use less labor and capital to produce national wealth.

If President Obama and Congress decide that they should consider relative risk in pursuing an energy policy, they should do so in the context of what is the least costly -- cost defined broadly -- means of producing the goods and services that Americans want and value.

Using the BP disaster or Fukushima as a frame of reference will lead to costly and inefficient policy choices. Living can be dangerous but unreasonable fear about technology and modern life can be more so.