Making A 'Green New Deal' Hard To Resist

What We Want; How We Proceed
......................
As a rule, the easier way is usually the one we'll take; the path of least resistance.  For the Green New Deal, recently popularized by Climate Change activists, the easiest path is not necessarily the best.  If we fail to stop global warming, we lose.  But if we're too ambitious, and we lose politically we also fail.

So, here's a 3-point plan (easily understood), that'd be fairly easy to pass (politically winnable), that also has within it the seed for limiting warming to a maximum 1.5 degrees (necessary):

     1.  Return To The Obama 'Normal'.  This means that by 2021, with the election of a new president, the policy framework Obama had in place is reinstated.  Most voters will understand and be behind this.

     2.  Generate Funds.  Instead of raising taxes (very hard), or running a larger deficit (still hard), or asking the Federal Reserve to invest (hard-ish), we commit to cutting 1% of military spending, and instead spend it on a Green New Deal.  Then, we increase that to 2% the next year if we have buy-in from our military antagonists.  If so, we increase our cut exponentially, redirecting 4, 8, 16%, until we have the funds to tackle our ten-year goal of merely surviving Climate Change.  If our military competitors are also redirecting funds, nobody feels threatened by this, and the world succeeds.

     3.  Hasten An Accelerated Carbon Drawdown.  Put in place a) communication; b) jobs; c) policy.
         Communication: give US savings bonds, randomly, to people who participate, online, in understanding and forming public policy (this educates, plugs in, and means agency for voters).
         Jobs: provide jobs and other assistance that would actually work.  Green policy itself will also create jobs.
         Policy: make as much progress as possible--given our political bottleneck: the US senate (good luck).  Assume that an acceleration will occur, but until our political initiative can succeed, highlight alternative paths, rather than just one.

How does this all fit together?
   * Without the need for taxes, there's no easy target for opposition
   * With jobs on the line (for all states), it's easier to enthuse get-out-the-vote efforts
   * With voters plugged in, reactionary and special interest messages lose part of their audience

As for "Communication", I've proposed online voting (based on voters --> informing representatives of their opinions) that's fair to all (because sampling is involved) and doable (as opposed to online secret balloting, which is not).  Participants would be randomly rewarded with Savings Bonds, so as to have a relatively representative sample for polling firms to start with.  This, for the House of Representatives (here's the link).