I have elsewhere offered a criticism of the Green New Deal, and have yet to receive any response to my criticism. My point is that the Green New Deal is not a plank or even a policy platform; it’s a philosophical goulash of unrelated components. I agree that the two primary threats to our society are, first, climate change, and second, inequality. But the Green New Deal is, for the moment, a vague collection of aspirations, not a policy proposal that we can rationally discuss. As such, it runs a big risk of disillusionment among its supporters when we get to the point of making policy.
For example, a revenue-neutral escalating carbon tax is a policy proposal more likely to accomplish a big reduction in carbon emissions. Yet any bill for such a policy could well be opposed by those who perceive the Green New Deal as primarily a means to reduce inequality. Indeed, they will likely want to make it not revenue-neutral but redistributionist — making the bill an increase in net taxes, which will surely trigger the ire of the millions of staunch anti-tax crusaders. A carbon tax that is revenue-neutral rather than redistributionist would not bring all those warriors out of the woodwork.
Thus, the two primary goals of the Green New Deal are at cross-purposes, with the likely result that nothing will be accomplished. The perfect is the enemy of the good.