Actually the combination of nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal can easily take care of all our needs, at very low cost.
The gov’t built a nuclear powered car back in the 1950’s, today the technology is far more advanced. We could have nuclear powered cars that are as secure as the black box on an airplane. Those can crash from 50,ooo feet at speeds a car can’t approach, and still be fine.
Electric powered vehicles charged by renewable energy also make sense.
The problem is that what is in the best interest of the population is not always in the best interest of freedom. This is a difficult situation. Most people think it is good that we have traffic laws for example. I like to know that when I go through a green light that it is very unlikely that anyone is going to be ignoring the red light going in the perpendicular direction. Personally, I prefer freedom. I would rather leave most of the “laws” as guidelines for the courts. The guy in NH recently that drove on the highway at very high speeds at 2am? in the morning to get his wife, who was in labor, to the hospital on time, committed no crime in my opinion. To me the cop who ticketed him at the hospital when he finally stopped is the criminal.
In some cases the balance between safety and freedom is clearer than others. I prefer freedom. But that is all the more reason for me to argue on a post like this to put aside the ignorance of the true costs in safety, of a recklessly polluting pattern of greedy behavior, in favor of a cleaner safer world. Because I would rather not have the government mandate it, I would rather have you embrace smart Christian stewardship.
You haven't figured out yet that there is no such thing?