My sources are simple human observation, there is no need from propaganda and so verbose reports to be simply unreadable AND unread by essentially any humans who generally prefer trusting some executive summary written by some PR instead...

I observed a significant climate change during my life WITHOUT a significant changes of similar entity in human emissions, the simplest conclusion here is that the antropic part of responsibility is not "for current emissions" but for at least a century of emissions and even if we rush now we equally see results in a century. Gaming about "mean temperature" etc is simply a meaningless game sold as science. Not only: Green New Deal proposals completely miss the industry part, all concentrated in pushing modern homes and EVs without saying how we can produce them from renewables how we can recycle them. Try all McKinsey propaganda (sold as "study" in general) and you'll see ONLY "results" return values of functions without their source code.

Where did you see infos on how we can source "green lithium"? Where you see how we can produce solar panels or recycle them with energy from solar, wind and hydro? Where you you see how we can produce inverters? There is exactly NOTHING public. Only pictures of "smart cities", EVs etc in a rendered landscape, how to arrive there is opaque at best. Just for instance try see the Toyota advertisement for it's own PRIVATE smart-city they are actually built on mount Fiji: https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/34827717.html and https://youtu.be/p-9X8Z2kJt8 now try to see an actual implementation like https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-ex... did you stop an instance to reason about how can be such cities built? What you imaging? A plan to create a New New York aside the original one? A plan to destroy and rebuilt, since that's technically needed, tall buildings of existing cities to rebuild them with modern concepts? If so: where and how you source raw materials for such immense task? With what energy and tech? Not only: how many decades will likely be needed for such IMMENSE rebuild? Once hypothetically done how old is the original design at that point? Also what we can do to apply such monster change to countries like India, Indonesia etc?

If you think we can get for 2030 such McKinsey scenarios: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... you are just swallow dreams and propaganda without thinking on scale. We might be able to build such vehicles, probably, how many? To serve then how many people? 1% of actual western population? The 99% of the rest and all the rest of the world?

There is no grass-green in the Green new deal, the green color is the stereotypical color of chemical wastes going out of rusty abandoned barrels and dollar-green for some.

- IF it can be realized it demand few orders of magnitude today's emissions for few decades in the most optimistic scenario, IF of course we have such tremendous amount of natural resources;

- IF we try to apply such scenarios on scale NO ONE of them can ever work for more than few thousand people in the entire planet.

So, or the green new deal is a desperate gamble to save the human spice, planning a HYPER-big genocide mr. adolf from Austria-Germany would be scared of since it's something he can't even imaging in his most crazy dreams or nightmares, with anyway very little chances to be realized simply because the big mass of humans planned for extermination will not agree with that plan and in any case once realized we simply can't sustain it or it's just an excuse to push social changes thanks to emergency excuses.

Said that, ships and planes can go anywhere on water or air to a certain range. So if today we need to move let's say grains from black see to middle-east we can move them with the same ship that few months after can move other grains from Brazil to China, we need harbors and local infra of course ships does not born out of the see, like the green new deal above, but they are flexible. Similar thing is for planes. Let's take the arctic as an example: with global heating is now a frontier, unfortunately the land part of the region is melting permafrost, witch means we can't build more than small buildings, no roads, no rails etc. Airplanes and ships however can go there almost issueless, and they actually do so also now. Did you see recent images of Yellowstone flood with a demolished road in many place? Well. To rebuild this road they will need at least one year and seen the actual flood and likeliness of another one various part of it should be moved with enormous efforts. How can you go there now? Well, just take a chopper and there you go. That's why in a climate changing world no one know exactly how and when things changes to significant enough extents we simply can't relay on fixed infra on large scale. That's why we can't even in ecological terms start to build massive new roads and rails network with the immense amount of resources they demand.

Cities can't adapt simply because there is no room to evolve them. Did you ever tried to compute how many raw material you need to build let's say 100 individual homes, nowadays typically wood frame + glass wool + some implants and equipment vs a 100 apartments building? Try to compute.

Individual homes demand far more land, so land owners are not happy: they can sell a handkerchief of land for big money to build a skyscraper, they can't do the same for few single-family homes but a single-family home on the ground does not destroy soil humus, it's relatively recyclable and can be upgraded and rebuilt once in a while. So far NO PLANS exists essentially for any tall building for when their concrete became simply too old to stay up. An individual home can easily add a small geothermal heat pump, solar, ... it's a small job easy enough. A tall building can't. Beside that why build such big stuff? For what purpose? A hospital certainly need space, a factory idem, but homes? Did you just try to compute how much resources a metro demand? How it must be inefficient because to serve people you need good coverage but in most cases trains will go nearly empty?

Instead of reading executive summaries and recommendation try the math yourself.