Ten years from now people will wonder how it could be that all our leaders could be so complacent and how so many commentators could puff out their chests showing how realistic they are by making the necessary statement that "we just can't do that."
But even if money were not an issue, I don't think that it would be possible in that time frame because it's such a huge undertaking, the little bit of infrastructure that does exist is in a horrible condition and it requires cooperation from third parties like car manufacturers. (And plane travel will never ever become unnecessary and even less so in a world that is becoming more globalized).
But just because it's not achievable in ten years doesn't mean that the candidates should not support it and see it as the ultimate goal and do everything they can to get there.
In ten years, a certain number of power plants can be replaced, a certain numbers of cars can become electrical, a certain amount of train tracks can be replaced etc. That's not saying we can't do it, that's saying this is what we can do now. I just find it more helpful to have a candidate who is aware of all the obstacles and goes in with both eyes wide open rather than just the ideology on his mind. If they are aware it's likely they have a plan for how to work around the obstacles.
I'm not. I think that the Green New Deal will happen as long as we elect a Democrat as president. The push for it is going to come from below.
I also think that a Democratic President is not enough. You either need a Democratic House and Senate as well or you need someone who can work with Republicans. It'll cost a lot of money and as soon as a Democrat is President, Republicans will become the party of "fiscal responsibility" again and it'll hurt the fossil fuel industry, Republican voters.
(And I can think for myself. I don't need the MSM to tell me what to think).