In the preface of their acclaimed book Abundance, authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson declare that the work is “dedicated to a straightforward concept: to create the future we desire, we must construct and innovate more of what we require. That’s all there is to it. That’s the central argument. It seems, even to us, overly simplistic.”
Klein and Thompson are correct on both counts.
They rightly point out that tackling the obstacles posed by the climate crisis, the lack of affordable housing, exorbitant healthcare costs, and stalled scientific progress—all key themes in the book—will demand heightened creativity, collaboration, funding, and planning. However, they also correctly note that their proposed solution to this need is, at the very least, overly simplistic.
The book emphasizes the appropriate extent of government regulation, arguing that in many scenarios, government should simply step aside. Yet, the pervasive and stifling influence of corporate money and authority remains unacknowledged, lurking within every page like a specter that Klein and Thompson refuse to confront.
While it’s true that scarcity is a choice, as the authors claim, it is not the result of overly zealous regulators or litigators. Scarcity is a decision made by those who benefit from its imposition on the general population. The primary issue is not merely a regulatory impasse—it’s a stranglehold on progress, competition, and innovation, as well as the struggles of millions of Americans fighting to make ends meet, enforced by those who profit from maintaining the status quo. Abundance is a comprehensive indictment of the wrong perpetrator, which ultimately serves the interests of the genuine culprits.
A book that strikes a chord
Abundance has attracted considerable attention within political and policy discussions, remaining on the New York Times bestseller list for over six months, and for good reason. Klein and Thompson are skilled writers, and the book comprises earnest, sharp observations.
In an era when progressives face persistent criticism for ineffective communication, Abundance offers a lifeline, presenting an appealing vision for a progressive future while attributing past liberal missteps as obstacles to its realization. In this narrative, it is within the power of liberals to achieve the future “we all desire.” Regrettably, this seemingly inviting vision is a perilous mirage.
Through tinted lenses
The foundational flaw in Abundance is a careless nostalgia. The book is based on a rose-tinted recollection of a time when the United States “constructed things.”
Undoubtedly, the U.S. has experienced periods of explosive growth in sectors like manufacturing, housing, and infrastructure—partly due to factors like lower population density, world wars, untapped resources, and undeveloped lands. While it is true that the Hoover Dam was erected in about five years, it is equally true that countless workers lost their lives during its construction.
The “golden ages” of U.S. development came at a cost—lives, neighborhoods, air and water quality, biodiversity, and public health—costs primarily paid by marginalized communities, including the poor and Indigenous peoples.
Klein and Thompson identify as liberals and recognize the necessity for regulations that safeguard public health and the environment, yet reconciling this with their longing for the “good old days” poses a challenge.
A fair critique of the existing regulatory framework must begin with a straightforward evaluation of the harmful, unsustainable, and unjust impacts inflicted on individuals and the environment by oil companies, developers, mining corporations, and highway constructors prior to the introduction of regulations. Abundance fails to undertake this evaluation.
The elephant in the room
Beyond overlooking the realities of corporate influence and power, the authors also write in a vacuum, disconnected from current political landscapes.
No bill or Executive Order could pass through this Congress, nor be signed by the current President, to “eliminate red tape” in a responsible manner. While Klein and Thompson sincerely advocate for expedited permitting processes, the Trump Administration and the present Congress have already begun to adopt their talking points for the most nefarious purposes. Large corporations from sectors like Big Oil, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Development wield tremendous influence over the political agenda in Washington, and they eagerly latch onto abundance rhetoric to preserve highly profitable scarcities.
This is exemplified by the repeal of significant portions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), in addition to the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Although neither law was flawless, the IIJA allocated billions for new infrastructure projects, while the IRA offered funding and tax incentives for clean energy initiatives, sustainable buildings, and environmental justice. In effect, Congress had started to implement much of the abundance agenda.
Yet, backed by millions from industry, the Trump Administration and the new Congress repealed almost all of it—including provisions that were clearly beneficial to conservative states—replacing it with a budget bill designed to hinder new industries. The “red tape” did not merely emerge to obstruct a new era of abundance; wealthy special interests orchestrated it, and any permitting “reform” enacted now will serve to benefit the same established power brokers.
To focus on an ideal future where the primary obstacle to “the world we all desire” is an inefficient regulatory process, while neglecting the overwhelming grip that capital interests have on American advancement, is to fail to address the moment’s challenges.
The details are crucial
Klein and Thompson clarify that their work does not provide specific policy recommendations; rather, they present a “lens” through which to analyze these issues. This feels insufficient. The topic of permitting reform is not novel. Numerous legislative proposals already exist, and the authors should engage with them.
As it turns out, whenever legislators advocating for permitting reform draft legislation, the outcome is typically the same: a mix of provisions that reduce public participation, restrict judicial oversight, and further favor fossil fuel projects. Frequently, proponents of development are already receiving benefits from a system that bypasses public scrutiny and effective legal recourse, seeking simply to codify those shortcuts.
A recent example occurred last month when the Louisiana Public Service Commission chose to “eliminate red tape” and approve three new gas plants by Entergy to supply power for a data center owned by Meta. The proceeding, from the outset, was marked by a lack of transparency and circumvented vital state-mandated measures designed to save costs for ratepayers. The typical review by an Administrative Law Judge of the final agreement was rushed so that the Commissioners could conduct a final vote before the judge could issue a recommendation.
A more relaxed process would have permitted the judge to provide input regarding whether the proposal truly served the “public interest” and permitted Commissioners to impose minimal safeguards for ratepayers as conditions for approval. Instead, regulators hastily acceded to the demands of Entergy and Meta.
This is not “the future we all want.” This represents abundance for Entergy and Meta’s shareholders at the detriment of millions of Louisianans and the environment. If the “lens” introduced in Abundance can justify such irresponsible permitting processes, it is not a fresh perspective; rather, it is merely a new tool for the old guard.
Corporate entities that flourish when these proposals are enacted previously argued that such legislation was essential for “job creation.” The narrative evolved over time, transitioning to “energy independence” and then “energy dominance.” More recently, “national security” and the urgency to “outpace China” have purportedly justified such measures. Now, these same vested interests assert that barring public access to the courts and shutting the public out of permitting decisions is necessary to achieve abundance.
The future we all envision
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonpartisan science advocacy organization. We champion robust science, accountability for fossil fuel corporations, Environmental Justice, democratic ideals, clean energy, healthy and sustainably produced food, clean transportation, and a safer world. Each step of the way, we encounter powerful, entrenched special interests that benefit from stagnation in these areas.
Our experience indicates that diminishing regulators’ capacity to enforce even the most basic limitations on the appetites of these special interests will not catalyze a new progressive era; it will merely contribute to increasing wealth disparities.
