Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC)'s Green New Deal has recently come under fire from fiscal (and social) conservatives. Being more fiscally conservative myself, I'm just going to be honest that what snippets I have heard raised some red flags for me, such as giving benefits to those who are unwilling to work. However, I do understand that some people are capable of fabricating screenshots and that I might have seen something that was indeed fabricated, so I found an overview on the Green Party website for commentary.
The Green New Deal promises 100% renewable energy by 2030, a halt to any investments in fossil fuels, and the creation of 20 million jobs (related to renewable energy). It will take half of the "bloated, dangerous" US military budget to enact these changes and thus reduce the incidence of asthma, heart attacks, strokes, and illnesses that may be related to the use of fossil fuels. Part of this Green New Deal means investing in sustainable businesses and guaranteeing those who are able and willing to work a job that provides a living wage.
It promises cleaner manufacturing and reinvestment of the profits into public services such as care for children and seniors as well as education. It will operate on similar principles to the Rural Electrification Act and hopefully slow the process of climate change. Climate change has the potential to lead to conflicts over the most basic of resources such as food, land, and water. Prof. Mark Jacobson's research will be drawn on to implement these changes. It will take $700 billion-$1 trillion revenue annually, some of which will come from diverting investments into older energy methods and imposing a carbon tax during the transition to green energy.
This appears to be an issue of guns and butter. For those of you who didn't pay attention during history class, spending on guns means spending on the military while spending butter means spending on things like healthcare. Part of me wants to comment on vestiges of the red scare that cause people to look for socialism where it might not necessarily be, but I understand that every country everywhere has had to manage guns and butter issues. I'm more of a guns that shoot butter or a butter in the shape of guns type (i.e. striking a mutually beneficial balance between the two issues rather than going all one way or the other), but I do understand that some people are more partial to one or the other.
Due to the nature of politics today, I do see why people would go to guns or go to butter. I don't know my stance on the Green New Deal just yet, but part of me hopes for the day I'll be able to choose butter guns.