Elizabeth Warren keeps boasting about how she supposedly “has a plan” to address every issue. Judging by the number of policy proposals the 2020 presidential candidate has put out, there’s some truth to this. But when will Warren come up with a plan that actually makes sense?

The latest example of a seemingly wonky but woefully insufficient policy from the Warren campaign is her plan to fight climate change , released Tuesday to much media fanfare. In a Medium article announcing the plan, Warren writes that “taking bold action to confront the climate crisis is as important — and as urgent — as anything else the next president will face. We cannot wait.” Warren goes on to endorse and expand upon Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate plan, the centerpiece of his now-abandoned presidential campaign.

Warren and Inslee are both right that man-made climate change is a serious, pressing issue, even if some of their predictions are alarmist or exaggerated. But this proposed solution is woefully inadequate and intellectually dishonest.

Warren seeks to leverage $3 trillion in spending, alongside the consumer and regulatory power of the federal government, to try and force our economy to make a near-complete transition to renewable energy sources in short order. She seeks to achieve “100% zero-carbon pollution for all new commercial and residential buildings” by 2028, “100% zero emissions for all new light-duty passenger vehicles, medium-duty trucks, and all buses” by 2030, and “100% carbon-neutral power by 2030.”

It’s an ambitious plan, but it’s ruined by three fatal flaws.

For one, the math doesn’t add up. Warren’s plan includes at least $3 trillion in federal expenditures, and she doesn’t adequately explain where that money’s going to come from. She suggests that part of her plan will be “paid for by reversing Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and giant corporations,” but this isn’t good enough. At best that might cover $1 trillion — $2 trillion more goes completely unaccounted for.

Why is Warren so coy about the finances? Well, she’s smart enough to know that the only way to pay for ambitious, Green New Deal-style environmental overhauls is with crushing taxes on the middle and working class. And she doesn’t want to admit it to voters.

Warren is asking taxpayers to take on this massive burden, even though she’s unable to guarantee any meaningful results at all. She insists that “as the world’s largest historical carbon polluter, the United States has a special responsibility to lead the way.”

This is all well and good, but her plan offers zero solutions or insight as to how a Warren administration would get international buy-in, or force India and China, the two most important drivers of world carbon emissions , to cut their emissions as well. Without global coordination, we’d be shooting ourselves in the foot while making no difference.

Warren’s proposal also suffers from a glaring omission: Nuclear power.

Nuclear power is one of the most efficient, emission-free power sources available, yet it is mentioned nowhere in her plan. Warren’s musings about “economic justice,” “environmental racism,” and proposed subsidies for renewable energy, in the absence of any mention of the most viable energy path to reducing emissions, reveal her plan as little more than a socialist takeover wearing a green disguise. Sound familiar ?

Warren’s plan just isn’t serious or well-supported, even if it’s grand in its ambitions. And this is what makes the liberal media branding of Warren as the “policy wonk” candidate so frustrating.