It would be an explosion of debt

But what's trillions between cow farts and plane breath?

Even Obama's doubling of the deficit during his 8 years, would pale in comparison to what the Green New Deal would do. One estimate has it costing $9.3 trillion per year on top of what we already spend. The total budget today, with the deficit, is $4,7 Trillion this would bring it up to $15 Trillion. This does not include the damage to the economy that would be a result of the policies outlined.

"Her" plan, is like John Delorean's dream car. The final product looked little like he imagined and was not nearly as glorious. Plans need to pass 3 branches of government. 9.8 million people work in solar. 50,000 work in coal. There are merits to investing in this direction.

If you think Solar Power is more efficient than coal and nuclear, you're either ignorant or you're just trying to push an agenda.

Solar power is cheaper than coal and far cheaper than nuclear. The free market will drive solar as the market leader because it's the cheapest.

I agree with you that final products usually end up differently, and yes we should continue to develop new technologies.

However, the problems I have with the Green New Deal are fundamental.
In case you haven't read the entire resolution.

1. The plan calls for net-zero emissions in ten years. China and India have already stated in the Paris Accords that they will continue to increase their emissions at least through 2030 so they can build up their economies.
So the plan is asking the U.S. to take a tremendous hit to our economy, fundamentally change our way of life, increase government control exponentially, and increase the deficit by a factor of 200%. Meanwhile, India and China continue to increase their emissions and grow their economies unfettered.
Even if the U.S. could reach this goal, it would have none to minimal impact on global emissions since the major polluters are not reducing theirs. The U.S. is already the #1 country in reducing emissions.

2. The plan is being hailed as wonderful, progressive, and the greatest thing since sliced bread. Yet, it contains no specifics on how to achieve the stated goal, it relies on technologies that do not yet exist, and is generally pie in the sky and not at all realistic.
It states that it will create jobs, reduce costs, and help minorities. How? It doesn't say. Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has said it is ridiculous and could even cause death and famine.

3. The first four pages of the resolution speak to the environment but as I said with no specifics. The next 12 pages are purely intersectional virtue signaling, loaded with far-left socialist ideologies that have nothing to do with the environment. It includes healthcare for all, guaranteed earnings, open borders coupled with unlimited immigration, wage equity, elimination of profits, nationalizing industries, and free college.

Sorry, but I am opposed to the entire resolution as proposed. It is not well thought out or practical. It basically is nothing but the rantings of a childish socialist bartender who knows nothing about the real world.

Clowns...