Kevin,
Others have already made good comments. You're not talking about $billions, it's $trillions and 10's/100's of trillions. And it would affect people's lives. If people had to go out & buy an electric car & $40k in a solar setup, they would need to downsize their house from a comfortable 3 bed/2bath house to a high-end one-room shed. That's not an exaggeration.
And what do you know about biodiesel? I've made a thousand or two gallons of it myself in my small-scale reactor. Have you made 1 gallon of it? And yes, it was a sacrifice to make it. When gas prices came down, I happily set aside my reactor & just buy at the pump now.
Also, consider this. It now costs Saudi Arabia more to pump a barrel of oil than it costs to pump fracking oil in the USA. OPEC is in dire straights. They can't work in an open market. If they do, crude oil prices would drop below their cost of production. That won't last long. And they can't make the US restrict production. So the USA is the #1 oil producer in the world today, followed by Russia then Saudi Arabia. R & SA are both cutting their production outputs to keep oil prices higher. So they are effectively maximizing the profit for US producers completely at their own detriment. That is fantastic news! Heck, I saw yesterday that in 2019-2020, 7 new pipelines from West Texas will be completed going to the coast (Galveston/Houston) with a 8-10 million barrels per day capacity. I say keep it up! Oil is helping to fight terrorism/socialism. When solar is logical on a large-scale, only then should it be implemented.
In addition to being a paramedic with HAZMAT training, I have an undergrad degree in organic chemistry (although it was years ago, and I freely admit that my knowledge is out of date).
As for government money used for clean, renewable energy . . . I was only speculating that instead of 70,000 nukes (at the height of the Cold War, but this isn't the case now) in our arsenal, then maybe 50,000 nukes would have been enough to ensure the utter destruction of anything we want . . . and the extra resources from creating and maintaining those 20,000 nukes could have been funneled into more beneficial persuits.
As for the argument that converting to clean, renewable energy isn't practical because of the sacrifices involved . . . then consider the space program.
In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, a senator named William Proxmire (I believe he was from Wisconsin, but I'm not sure) was steadfastly against anything having to do with outer space.
"Why spend all that money going up there when we have all of these problems down here?" he would say over and over in one form or another. He was--by his own admission--interested in practicality, since we have so many horrible issues hurting us in the here and now.
Even though I'm sympathetic to his ideas and priorities (I wouldn't be concerned with the benefits of higher education if I was stranded on a desert island and starving to death, even though an education is beneficial), he was wrong.
Dead wrong.
Weather sattelites give plenty of advance warning for hurricanes, typhoons, and other storms that used to cost billions of dollars and thousands--if not millions--of lives. I would argue that the space program has even saved civilization, as spy sattelites by the USSR and the USA are able to keep a discreet eye on each other to verify that treaties are, indeed, being honored.
Space probes to Jupiter and Saturn were able to provide insights that let meteorologists design better ways of predicting weather and climate. The space program also gave us practical pacemakers.
All in all, space exploration turned out to be extremely profitable for all concerned.
I see it being the same process when switching over to renewable energy. It may not seem immediately practical to many people, but I think it's a long term investment that will pay truly huge dividends in the future.
