In case you missed it, a revolutionary new book on politics and future America was released in March. And no, it wasn’t the new Hunger Games book. It was Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. Arguably one of the most trend-setting policy books amongst political circles this year, Abundance is a critique of the Left by the Left (my favorite thing).
The book explores reasons behind the lack of progress in America towards ambitious projects like affordable housing, infrastructure, energy production, and climate change. The authors argue that despite well-intentioned policies, blue states and liberal-leaning cities have made it extremely difficult to build. The regulations in place not only choked housing developments but hurt much of the climate-friendly technology industry.
The authors illustrate this problem with California’s infamous long-delayed high-speed rail project: “the time California has spent failing to complete its 500-mile high-speed rail system, China has built more than 23,000 miles of high-speed rail” [1]. Despite blue states’ love for clean energy production and technology, another paradox is that four of the top five solar-producing and wind-powered states in 2023 were red states [2].
Housing is the same story. The Dallas-Fort Worth area, with 8.1 million residents, permitted almost equal numbers of homes in April 2023 as the entire state of California, with 39 million residents. This supply difference has pricing ripple effects. The median home price in Dallas goes for $459,000 as compared to over $900,000 in California [3].
Klein and Thompson recognized a real issue, in that while Democrats might support certain processes, they’re not bearing results that are sustainable for development, growth, and general quality of life. Klein, an opinion columnist at the New York Times, stated that the book has caused quite a stir among progressive organizations and politicians [4]. Abundance has also generated interest by politicians on both the left and the right concerned about growing pain issues.
For example, the Build America Caucus, launched in May of this year, is a bipartisan group of almost 30 politically diverse Representatives, ranging from Kansas Democrat Sharice Davids, an LGBTQ Native American and former MMA fighter, to Southern Utah’s very own Republican conservationist and lawyer, Celeste Maloy [5]. The new consensus is one of affordability, cleanliness, and security through America’s return to industrial capacity, and stimulated by streamlining environmental review processes.
Some Republicans have become extremely supportive of clean energy too, with several House lawmakers writing a letter to GOP leadership urging the IRA’s clean energy tax credits to be preserved in the One Big Beautiful Bill [6]. On the flipside, the regulatory and permitting reforms that Republicans have championed are starting to find allies among Democrats. The group has positioned themselves to be a bipartisan deal-maker as Congress looks to review the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and streamline permitting reforms [7].
The future of clean energy, and more broadly American energy independence, depends on bipartisanship moving controversial issues towards compromise. One of the most controversial problems is critical mineral extraction. Many clean energy technologies require rare earth and critical minerals such as lithium, copper, cobalt, and the like. However, many of these minerals are not mined here in the United States and are instead mined elsewhere due to regulations, labor costs, or competing incentives. China, for example, “controls about 55% of global rare earths mining capacity, and about 85% of rare earths refining” [8]. In short, we rely on a national security competitor to provide us with cheap, dirty minerals so we can pretend to have carbon-neutral technology. If we’re going to truly advance clean technologies efficiently, we need to rethink how we’re obtaining these critical minerals.
It would be remiss to have this conversation without acknowledging the current state of renewable energy in the political space. The Trump Administration, whether through poor advisors or a motivated, ideological base, has been pressured enough to rescind support for renewable projects across the country. This manifested in canceled wind and solar projects and a current effort to claw back $13 billion in green energy funds [9]. This is harmful to American consumers. If affordable, reliable, and secure energy is wanted, an all-of-the-above energy approach that calls for a diverse portfolio of energy sources that the Administration has previously called for is needed [10]. This means not only natural gas but also renewable, geothermal, and nuclear.
While President Trump has long cast himself as the modern Reagan, never has he been more like the former President than in his removal of renewable technology. When Reagan assumed office, he dismantled the White House solar panels installed by the Carter Administration, as well as allowed solar incentives to expire [11]. Yet it was also the Carter Administration that put the brakes on nuclear energy development [12]. Bipartisan problems call for bipartisan solutions, and while Reagan may not have been a clean energy champion, his penchant for regulatory reforms is what’s needed at this time to address the affordability and energy-demanding woes of the nation.
America’s environmental, affordability, and energy needs are in constant conflict with one another, and greater innovative thought and collaboration are needed to address these issues. I invite readers to learn more to be better prepared to make some of these difficult choices in the public sphere. Read Abundance, and decide for yourself if Democrats should reform their approach to growth. Check out UnleashUtah.org – a coalition of local leaders and lawmakers, including myself, that advocates for some of these same points I’ve discussed in this article. As young Americans, if we truly want an abundant future, we need to be the change we want to see [13].
