As an environmentalist I consider myself a prudent man.
According to Wikipedia, the prudent man rule is based on common law stemming from the 1830 Massachusetts court formulation, Harvard College v. Amory. It directs trustees to observe how men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence manage their own affairs.
For those like me, who accept the mandate given in Genesis 1, that we should care for creation, we need to ask ourselves what the prudent thing is, to do about our energy sources.
Here are my thoughts about the use of fossil fuel:
Burning fossil fuel has proven to injure and kill people.
Climate change is increasing the frequency of serious natural disasters.
Maintaining the sources of fossil fuels come with a high military price tag.
The cost of producing fossil fuel is low, but is grossly understated and definitely increasing at a rapid rate.
Conversely, these are my thoughts regarding renewable energy sources:
Renewable energy sources are perfectly safe.
Use of renewable energy will reduce the causes of climate change.
The use of renewable energy requires little of our military.
Costs associated with renewable energy are dropping rapidly.
Yet, given all of this, politicians, again and again, choose to phase out support for clean energy. Does this make sense?
By Bill Butler
Please Note: When adding your comment, you will be asked for a “Website.” This IS NOT a required field. If you have a website, a link is created, making it easier for readers to learn more.