"or to find funds to mitigate damage and build a world for the future that is habitable and more protective of the ecological basis of our lives?"

One cannot frame a question in a lie or misunderstanding and expect a proper answer. The lie here is that the federal government, as the sovereign issuer of US dollars ever needs to "find" money to spend. As long as the question revolves around the money, which Congress creates at will without revenue restraint, Manchin and conservatives win from the start.

The only relevant questions to be asked here are :

1) Does the nation need and desire a solution to the effects of climate change and the social issues it is confronted with?

2) Do the required "real" resources and labor exist (or potentially exist) to accomplish the goals the nation needs and desires?

If the answers to these are yes, then the money should be created without consideration of "revenue", as both debt and revenue have entirely different meanings to a currency-issuing government than they do for a state, city, or household. We can't continue to frame critical spending issues in the language of the opposition that is representing the status quo if we have any hope of meeting the challenges facing us.

Our problems largely exist because we see economics as a study of money when it is really about the allocation of resources and labor to meet the needs of our society. The money is just a tool government can use to deploy those resources and labor as it intends, not the all-inclusive definition of the economy.