Well they have no stated way to pay for it, and keep saying that "it doesn't matter how we pay for it because it's important and will create wealth" without any justification thereof. Except for through Fed-backed inflation, again, which is a dangerous idea.
They also want to do incredibly dumb things such as:
1.) Get rid of nuclear energy in a decade. The most stupid thing so-called environmentalists continue to advocate for that only makes it harder to be energy efficient. It might be possible, but at the rate of progress of energy it seems incredibly unlikely that it would be wise to get rid of it in that short of a time period.
2.) Cap and trade or carbon tax, justifying it because "it's a small part of the deal" while ignoring any adverse impacts.
3.) Guarantee everyone a unionized government job and job training. No idea what those jobs could possibly be and they don't even attempt to provide any examples besides that they'll be Green New Deal jobs, which doesn't mean anything. Maybe they'll pay some people to dig holes and some people to fill in holes. Besides that snark, guaranteed jobs programs don't work long-term.
4.) Continuing and increasing subsidization of whatever clean energy program the government likes. This perverts market incentives and allows for failing projects to continue existing for no real reason.
I've got other issues with the GND but that's the core of it.
Basically, they want to spend a fuckton of money on their pet projects while continually dismissing anyone who questions how they might pay for it with our already incredibly overbloated government budget.
The FAQ is back up here, by the way: https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/greennewdeal.pdf
So, I'll start this off by saying I'm not even necessarily for gnd. I do think that we should be investing more in renewables for two reasons.
1. We need to counteract global warming yesterday
2. We need to create an industry which can bring in new jobs. This can do that.
Regarding the GND, I don't get why they want to move away from nuclear. I also get that there are cobra effects to carbon taxes, but I do think it's the right way to go at least for the time being (was this part of the GND?).
The reason why I asked my questions about if you (not you specifically) are against what the GND is trying to accomplish or how they plan to pay for it is because the GND, as I understand it, is not supposed to provide the how it gets done, it's supposed to provide the what are we trying to accomplish and why we are trying to accomplish it.
The government cant, and shouldn't move to the why until they have agreement that things need to change. Case in point, Trump has brought coal to the global clean energy summit as a solution to climate change and has been laughed at each time by the world.
In my eyes the GND at least gives a starting point for discussion. Which I think is needed.