That’s the easy part. Much of the criticism of the Green New Deal (GND) has involved bleating about how will pay for it, often using ridiculous estimates. Well, we’ll pay for it the same way we pay for all of the other things we really want (which aren’t necessarily the same as the things we say we want): we will raise some taxes and issue some Treasuries. That seems to work for stupid wars and tax cuts for the rich anyway (see the aforementioned things we really want).

The hard part(s) of the GND, if we really want to make a dent in global warming will be the following:

1. Higher density housing.
2. More mass transit, especially near high density housing.
3. Fewer overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT), regardless if the vehicle has a gasoline or electric power source.
4. Less animal protein in our diets.

Considering we can’t even do #1 – #3 in many cities, it’s not clear how we’re going to expand that. Add to the above, what will we do about all of the places that simply can’t be made more dense, enable fewer VMT, and so on? Which is to say, much of U.S. suburbia. To make things even more difficult, with all of these changes (including and especially diet), how will they be distributed? If Mademoiselle Market is to be believed, we are already allocating high density housing and mass transit access poorly in the U.S. How do we embiggen this the right and just way?

Will HAMBERDERS! be the sole province of the wealthy? I can’t see that going over well. I kid (sort of), but market mechanisms will have to be reconsidered for things we typically leave to the market.

Compared to these issues, the funding is the easy part.