It is also perfectly fair to point out the relative likelihood that international political problems around fossil fuels are far more likely to cost the US in blood and treasure than political problems around renewables. We don't go to war for wind and sunshine. Meanwhile, we spent hundreds of billions a year as a nation - not to mention a toll of American military and non-US civilian lives - in order to maintain our semblance of control over flow of oil.
You want to be honest? Sure, let's be honest.
Clearly, the climate apocalypse is what dominates the media narrative, so if you want to make money tomorrow (not yesterday), you're pushing renewables, not fossils.
To put it in perspective, the GDP of the US is currently about $19T, so they're saying the Green New Deal would cost 100% of the GDP for five straight years. This seems... exaggerated.
Not if you understand MMT and its proponents. AOC believes that every dollar spent by the government on infrastructure magically turns into five dollars of economic growth, so she's willing to go into deep debt to make it happen.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-e...
[2] I can't find the source for this one right now, but it was in a video interview regarding the green new deal, right around when it was announced.
But what AOC is talking about is not basic research, which has a multiplicative effect because it opens up new technologies, new products, and new industries. A New Deal is work for works sake, and economically substitutive... so the return is actually less than a dollar for every dollar spent.
It's also dishonest to point out that the fossil industry has a clear interest, while ignoring that the renewables industry also has such an interest. A lot of business is being made peddling non-solutions to a problem that might actually be unsolvable.