the GND is not just stupid but would in the unlikely event of it being imposed be actively harmful; and at best a pointless distraction.
I don’t know enough about the Green New Deal (GND) to have a good sense of whether or not it would be harmful, but I’m well aware that we can certainly implement pretty silly policies at times. My understanding, though, is that the GND is mostly aspirational, and I certainly don’t have any major problems with the intentions (healthcare, education, providing energy through zero-emission sources, etc).
However, I mostly think this is beside the point. The success of the GND (and extinction rebellion in UK, and climate strikes elsewhere) is that it’s got people talking and it’s led to climate change being very prominent in the mainstream media. This is despite the GND being defeated in the Senate. I think this is a positive outcome.
It also appears that the Overton window has shifted. It certainly seems as though some who might have disputed the need for climate action are starting to accept that something should be done. In the UK, Extinction Rebellion seems to have had a similar effect.
It might be nice if different sides could come together to decide how best to solve problems, but that isn’t how the world works. If things like the GND and Extinction Rebellion are causing others to talk about this, shifting the Overton window, and leading those who’ve been mostly dismissive to come up with – or, at least, discuss – their own plans, then that seems like a net positive.
I don’t particularly care who gets this started, as long as someone does. My optimistic view is that once we start to make serious inroads into emission reductions, we’ll find that it’s (somewhat) easier than we expected, and more and more people will come on-board. I don’t expect people to stop criticising the GND, and Extinction Rebellion, but as long as it leads to them thinking of their own ways forward, then I’ll take that as a step in the right direction.