Jill Stein probably won't be president of the United States. The Green Party candidate is polling at about 3% nationally, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls. She won't take part in the first presidential debate and is unlikely to make the cut for the subsequent two. Nearly half of Americans say they've never heard of her.

But the improbability of a President Stein allows her to have a highly progressive platform that, if enacted, would overhaul the workings of the United States economy.

"You probably have to look at this platform on the basis of it's designed recognizing that she probably won't be elected, and so instead, it's trying to move the policy debate," said Robert Godby, director for the Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy at the University of Wyoming.

So, here's a question: What if Stein were able to move the policy debate in her direction? What would the U.S. economy look like under policies she supports?

Stein's "Our Power to the People Plan," as it is dubbed on her website, sets out a fairly radical, if not incredibly detailed, vision for America. It calls for the transition to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, a "Medicare for All" single-payer public health program and tuition-free public education from preschool through college. It promises a $15 per hour minimum wage, a new slew of publicly-owned banks and the creation of 20 million green jobs.

"How does this change the economy? I guess the short answer is, 'dramatically,'" said Godby.

100% Renewable Energy by 2030

"This is an election where we're not just deciding what kind of a world we will be but whether we will have a world or not, going forward," Stein toldPolitico's Glenn Thrush in a recent interview.

As president, she would put the environment front and center by enacting what she calls the Green New Deal. The emergency plan would seek to turn the tide on climate change by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030 -- a goal the experts say would be extremely difficult to achieve.

"We haven't the know-how right now to do that. The fundamental problem is, aside from the lack of infrastructure, the lack of capacity and the roots of energy production, the intermittency issues would just be killer," said Chuck Mason, professor of petroleum and natural gas economics at the University of Wyoming.

The storage capacities needed to harness solar and wind energy have not yet been developed enough to support a completely-renewable system. The reason we have been able to deploy wind and solar right now is that there are other viable sources of energy, particularly natural gas power, that can be ramped up and down when needed -- as in, when the sun is down or when the wind isn't blowing.

A National Renewable Energy Laboratory study concluded that reaching 80% renewable energy in the U.S. by 2050, a goal less lofty than Stein's but nonetheless aggressive, could be possible using currently available technologies in combination with a more flexible electric system. But it would require major alterations and be costly.

"If you want to get to 80% by 2050, you have to completely redesign how our electricity system works. You have to think about the transmission system, the way we make sure we have enough capacity to provide electricity to meet demand, about managing demand -- basically, rebuild the system from the ground up," said Scott Holladay, assistant professor of economics at the University of Tennessee.

A big reduction in emissions, in the ballpark of 80% renewables by 2050, would lead to increases in electricity prices in 2030 of $9-to-$26 per MWh in 2030 and $41-to-$53 per MWh by 2050, according to estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. It's currently at about $10-to-$15 per MWh. In other words, in transferring to renewable energy systems, which are less efficient than fossil fuel systems, costs would rise, which would likely be passed on to the consumer.

Stein's plan would also force a major change in consumer behavior.

"To hit 100% would just cost us an incredible amount of money, and it may require us to change our lifestyles, which is probably the bigger cost at the end of the day," said Godby.

The current oil-fueled fleet of cars and trucks on the road would have to be replaced entirely by electric vehicles. The government would need to create incentives, such as implementing prohibitively high gas taxes, to push consumers to change their habits.

"It would be an imposition on a lot of people who, quite frankly, here in the U.S. seem to like their low gasoline prices today," said Jason Shogren, professor of natural resource conservation and management at the University of Wyoming.

Stein's camp did not respond to request for comment on her platform, which does not specify exactly how she would lead the U.S. to reach 100% renewable by 2030.

"Obviously, the implementation of that part of the platform is going to require wholesale restructuring of everything we know about the electricity market, and it's going to have to happen really, really quickly," said Holladay.

Jobs and Infrastructure

Stein says that she will create 20 million jobs by reaching her clean energy goals as well as investing in other planet-friendly developments, including public transit, sustainable agriculture, conservation and the restoration of critical infrastructure, including ecosystems. What is not clear is whether those jobs would lead to higher employment rates or just replace jobs lost due to a new structure under a Stein presidency.

"Creating jobs is always tricky. Are you creating jobs, or are you just transferring people from old jobs to new jobs?" said Shogren.

The candidate says she would repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, which bans secretary strikes and allows state to enact right-to-work laws freeing employees from being compelled to join labor unions. Such a proposal would strengthen labor unions, but larger impact on the economy might not be significant.

"Strengthening unions would help, in a small way, reduce inequality, but the emphasis is on the word small," said Robert Kaestner, director of graduate studies at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Stein's proposal to set the federal minimum wage at $15 per hour would also give a boost to unions by establishing a wage floor to help labor organize. By putting more money in consumers' pockets, it would increase spending power as well, but it could also lead to the loss of some jobs and render some companies less competitive internationally. Some question whether it is effective as an anti-poverty program.

"Both of these kinds of issues are symbolic that she represents the working class," said Kaestner. "That's really why she has this constellation of policies."

The Rest

Parts of Stein's platform echo proposals from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, such as transition programs to support displaced workers. Others, like guaranteed health care and education, emulate Bernie Sanders. And others, like her anti-trade stance, are not so different from what is being proposed by Donald Trump. Her platform also includes government-provided work, the nationalization of Federal Reserve banks and a moratorium on GMOs until they are proven safe.

"I don't think it's been designed to be a workable program, I think it's just been designed to be a statement of principles," said Godby.

For example, Stein says she would phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies, even though the way many experts envision getting rid of carbon fuel as a process that includes the use of nuclear power.

A push towards electric cars would put a greater burden on middle and working-class Americans who depend on automotives to get to work. "To give more subsidies to companies like Tesla (TSLA) - Get Report so people can spend $120,000 to get a $7,000 brake doesn't seem like a very working-class type of policy," said Kaestner.

He added that putting so much emphasis on the government's role in the economy, as Stein appears to be proposing, may not be the best path towards growth.

"Driving investment where it's needed, where most jobs will be created -- the government is not very good at that. The private sector is much better," he said.

The wide breadth of changes Stein lists as part of her proposals, combined with her lack of specifics on how she would achieve such goals, renders it difficult to predict the exact overall impact on items like GDP, employment and debt.

Still, many say her plans are a step in the right direction for progressives.

"She's just ahead of her time," said Mason.