Yea, but we shouldn't just take what the scholar said without fair criticism. IMO it's more like a political statement than about economics. When the stagflation is imminent, the solution presented here is too far ahead of the problem and too general. It seems like "everything" can be solved with green energy, better infrastructure, education, and the healthcare system.
It's fair to criticize what the scholar said but it's the ideal route for the economy. How is it political? Isn't it just common sense with what could happen? You agree that stagflation is imminent but what do you think should be done in replacement to that? I'm no expert but I can't suggest anything because it's not in my domain though.
Green energy, especially, switching now will only add costs with no tangible benefit in the economic sense.
When should you think it should be done? When there's no pandemic anymore? Even before the pandemic, there were a lot of opportunities to convert or "add" the green energy system for use, but did it happen? I guess some but like what I said in the previous post, it's better to focus on the healthcare system first.