The authors are trying to foster progress into their (frankly anti-progress) ideology, rather than asking what ideas and political frameworks support progress.
That is exactly right. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common trend among many Progress Studies writers (and readers). They only want to believe in promoting material progress as long as the policy proposals do not conflict with their pre-existing ideological views.
Putting pre-existing ideological views ahead of a desire to promote material progress leads to creating intellectual sand castles in the sky. Not a solid foundation!
Thanks for this write up. I was excited when I first heard this book announced by relative thought-leaders for college-educated democrats, and I’m still glad it’s become a large topic of conversation even with its problems.
The frequency with which I have to explain that Blackrock is not why housing is expensive to well-educated democrats is frustrating. Any shift in democratic politics toward building is very welcome in my book.
I agree, although your interactions with those who think that Blackrock is the problem suggests that it will not be an easy transition for the Democrats. The Democrats and the Left in general have so many preconceived notions to overcome before they can fully embrace Abundance.
The fundamental tenets of the progressive Democratic Party in 2025 are at odds with any sort economic liberalization. The days of Clinton are over. Most left thinkers now, since the days of Obama, are whining about the excesses of “neoliberalism” caused by Ronald Reagan, and this is a feature not a bug of the modern left.
There are parts of progress that could be married with a green agenda. E.g. I’ve just seen an advert for a 5kw solar system plus battery in Pakistan installed for 600k pkr (under £2k). Same capacity system in the uk would be £17k. Now, it’s a slightly unsightly pre-fabbed array on a pillar but that’s kinda the point, deregulate and you might still go green. See Texas for e.g.
Thanks for the comment. I guess it comes down to how loosely you interpret "parts of progress" and "might go green."
If "green" is just about increasing solar and wind usage where it is cost-effective, then yes, but Greens (and the authors) want to go far beyond that. The energy systems of both Texas and Pakistan, for example, are dominated by fossil fuels and likely will be for the next few generations. And this is likely true for the rest of the world as well.
A key component of Abundance is abundant, affordable, and secure energy 24/7/365.
If the Abundance people said we should build solar and wind where it is cost-effective to do so without subsidies and mandates, I would have no problem with it. In fact, I would support it. Unfortunately, that is not what they say.
In some geographies and at some times of day, solar and wind are cost-effective sources of electricity (which is only a portion of the energy system).
But the Greens promote getting to global Netzero by 2050 with a government-subsidized and mandated wind, solar, EV, batteries, etc to avert climate change. That level of commitment is diametrically opposed to Abundance.
Unfortunately, the Abundance people claim that we can have both. I do not believe that is possible, so we must choose.
Well, thank you for what is definitely the clearest ever response to a comment I’ve had and have enjoyed reading the links you provided.
I was originally going off the rather unscientific simple experience of seeing a huge explosion in the number of panels since I was last here and a very competitive price, so a quick google seems to show that the capacity looks to have trebled from 23 to 24 and is on track to install double 24s capacity in 25. Albeit from a relatively low start.
Now, this is only electricity - and only really light commercial, agricultural and domestic at that. The local brick kiln I visited yesterday was powered by coal/charcoal and refuse and that is clearly not changing this generation.
But other technologies where the price hit the right point and do not require too much infrastructure whilst providing benefits people will pay for (think mobile internet) can be rolled out astonishingly fast once things get going. 5 years ago you could just about get phone signal if you climbed the nearest hill, now you can get 4g and reply to people on Substack for 90% of a 5hr drive here!
I guess I’m mostly agreeing with you, but perhaps more optimistic on the rollout of solar in developing countries in particular, but not for heavy industry (which hasn’t even got much incentive to electrify let alone go renewable). A main driver here is that solar+battery makes it possible to run AC overnight in one room (otherwise it’s too expensive and also unreliable)
No defence of the abundance conflation of green and progress without explanation. You can make an argument that green is worth losing some progress for but you can’t assume that it is.
I’m also unsure that unless you are totally inflexible on one side or the other that there isn’t some room to try to widen the window where green is cost effective, even if you accept that this would cost. Ensuring that you do so for the least lost opportunity would be crucial though.
Democratic Party burned their own bridges and continue to do so. And abundance is not the issue imo. Resiliency is and honoring Constitutional principles and rights.
The authors are trying to foster progress into their (frankly anti-progress) ideology, rather than asking what ideas and political frameworks support progress.
Bingo!
That is exactly right. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common trend among many Progress Studies writers (and readers). They only want to believe in promoting material progress as long as the policy proposals do not conflict with their pre-existing ideological views.
Putting pre-existing ideological views ahead of a desire to promote material progress leads to creating intellectual sand castles in the sky. Not a solid foundation!
Thanks for this write up. I was excited when I first heard this book announced by relative thought-leaders for college-educated democrats, and I’m still glad it’s become a large topic of conversation even with its problems.
The frequency with which I have to explain that Blackrock is not why housing is expensive to well-educated democrats is frustrating. Any shift in democratic politics toward building is very welcome in my book.
I agree, although your interactions with those who think that Blackrock is the problem suggests that it will not be an easy transition for the Democrats. The Democrats and the Left in general have so many preconceived notions to overcome before they can fully embrace Abundance.
The fundamental tenets of the progressive Democratic Party in 2025 are at odds with any sort economic liberalization. The days of Clinton are over. Most left thinkers now, since the days of Obama, are whining about the excesses of “neoliberalism” caused by Ronald Reagan, and this is a feature not a bug of the modern left.
Problem with Socialists is they want the Government to do everything for them.
There are parts of progress that could be married with a green agenda. E.g. I’ve just seen an advert for a 5kw solar system plus battery in Pakistan installed for 600k pkr (under £2k). Same capacity system in the uk would be £17k. Now, it’s a slightly unsightly pre-fabbed array on a pillar but that’s kinda the point, deregulate and you might still go green. See Texas for e.g.
Thanks for the comment. I guess it comes down to how loosely you interpret "parts of progress" and "might go green."
If "green" is just about increasing solar and wind usage where it is cost-effective, then yes, but Greens (and the authors) want to go far beyond that. The energy systems of both Texas and Pakistan, for example, are dominated by fossil fuels and likely will be for the next few generations. And this is likely true for the rest of the world as well.
A key component of Abundance is abundant, affordable, and secure energy 24/7/365.
If the Abundance people said we should build solar and wind where it is cost-effective to do so without subsidies and mandates, I would have no problem with it. In fact, I would support it. Unfortunately, that is not what they say.
In some geographies and at some times of day, solar and wind are cost-effective sources of electricity (which is only a portion of the energy system).
But the Greens promote getting to global Netzero by 2050 with a government-subsidized and mandated wind, solar, EV, batteries, etc to avert climate change. That level of commitment is diametrically opposed to Abundance.
Unfortunately, the Abundance people claim that we can have both. I do not believe that is possible, so we must choose.
I choose Abundance.
I write more here:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-solar-cannot-displace-fossil
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-wind-cannot-displace-global-fossil
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-the-green-energy-transition-is
Well, thank you for what is definitely the clearest ever response to a comment I’ve had and have enjoyed reading the links you provided.
I was originally going off the rather unscientific simple experience of seeing a huge explosion in the number of panels since I was last here and a very competitive price, so a quick google seems to show that the capacity looks to have trebled from 23 to 24 and is on track to install double 24s capacity in 25. Albeit from a relatively low start.
Now, this is only electricity - and only really light commercial, agricultural and domestic at that. The local brick kiln I visited yesterday was powered by coal/charcoal and refuse and that is clearly not changing this generation.
But other technologies where the price hit the right point and do not require too much infrastructure whilst providing benefits people will pay for (think mobile internet) can be rolled out astonishingly fast once things get going. 5 years ago you could just about get phone signal if you climbed the nearest hill, now you can get 4g and reply to people on Substack for 90% of a 5hr drive here!
I guess I’m mostly agreeing with you, but perhaps more optimistic on the rollout of solar in developing countries in particular, but not for heavy industry (which hasn’t even got much incentive to electrify let alone go renewable). A main driver here is that solar+battery makes it possible to run AC overnight in one room (otherwise it’s too expensive and also unreliable)
No defence of the abundance conflation of green and progress without explanation. You can make an argument that green is worth losing some progress for but you can’t assume that it is.
I’m also unsure that unless you are totally inflexible on one side or the other that there isn’t some room to try to widen the window where green is cost effective, even if you accept that this would cost. Ensuring that you do so for the least lost opportunity would be crucial though.
Democratic Party burned their own bridges and continue to do so. And abundance is not the issue imo. Resiliency is and honoring Constitutional principles and rights.