With those things in mind, here's a more modest and (I mean this literally) Green New Deal: how about we plant and maintain a new rain forest or two in the largely unused swaths of land available in flyover country America. Indeed, why stop there? There are probably places in Europe that would be suitable for this as well, costing us a significant effort but one that would pale in comparison to AOC's Green New Deal. Artificial forests of other kinds (perhaps far from a rain forest but still forests in a sense) might also be maintainable in large parts of Greenland (at which point it would live up to its name?) and the maple-rich forests of Canada could be significantly expanded through artificial effort and maintenance. Australia and America's deserts might also be capable of sustaining "forests" made up of plants like cactus. When a large-scale effort is involved, even if these are only forests of cactus, those are still plants and they also absorb and process carbon. And we haven't even touched upon trying to genetically engineer or breed plants that absorb carbon from the atmosphere more quickly than a normal plant does; imagine how much carbon a "forest" of gigantic, genetically modified sansevieria (a plant which the internet tells me absorbs a ton of pollutants) could process.
In this way, instead of futilely trying to eliminate one lesser portion of the world's carbon-producing industries, we could use those industries and the associated economies to absorb carbon naturally, thereby reducing not only our own "carbon footprints" but also those of other countries whom have, thus far, turned up their noses at the issue of climate change. Instead of playing a zero-sum game where we try to get people to reduce their own economies, we can try to get people to grow their economies while reducing carbon emissions at the same time. Imagine the tourism, the products and services produced and the jobs created by such a wealth of new and diverse artificial forests.
Unfortunately, although I was an environmentalist at one point in my life, I have come to suspect that this issue is not really about "saving the earth" but that it is really about targeting certain industries, namely the fossil fuel industries, not because they pollute but because those industries are associated with western working class people. If I am wrong about that, why would maintaining an artificial rain forest be a worse choice economically than the apparently crazy things in the Green New Deal? The cost of maintaining some artificial forests would not only be less, it would also create many sustainable new jobs that are in touch with nature, exactly what environmentalists say that they want. It would solve both our own issues and those of other people. Instead of destroying our economies just so that the biggest polluters can pollute more, we could create new jobs while also reducing the harm that they are doing. I think this is way better than AOC's proposal.