For those in this list who've tweeted, checking the "Lists they're on" (on Twitter) might turn up some user-maintained lists of yet more people who might participate in this budding movement.
3. For anyone choosing to take this on, there's likely a ton of wisdom to be gleaned from those who've tackled *specific* types of restrictions: both in relaxing or overturning those, and in coming away with generally applicable patterns.
For instance, companies running into restrictions that restrict or unduly delay the building of liquid fuel pipelines, geothermal energy plants, or mass transit routes would be able to provide case studies about their particular experiences.
4. AIUI, three key impediments to building, beyond formal laws and regulations, have been a) public official, citizen, and interest group concerns around deleterious environmental impacts; b) neighbors, who might not take kindly to having some particular activities near them; and c) competitors, who might not want something built because it competes with their own business models.
That suggests that approaches capable of identifying those holding such concerns, respecting their viewpoints, and adeptly bringing them into the fold, either as participants or at least non-opponents, could be valuable? Naively, that might take the form of building relationships, offering incentives, making compromises, finding genuine mitigations or workarounds, and/or approaching people in their circles who they trust, and thus can help influence them, among others. Again, this might be an area where identifying patterns for being effective within this "messy, people-related" arena could be productive.
I think we need a community space for Abundance. A Slack channel perhaps? Right now it is an idea, but a connected network/community would be helpful.
For instance, I would be happy to donate to an organization advocating for Abundance, but right now there is no where to. If I want to know which political candidates are Abundance advocates, I have to do all of that research myself.
I understand there are trade-offs between a decentralized idea and a centralized organization, but when it comes to politics I think the latter is more productive.
I wonder if YIMBY-Georgist synthesis fits within the broad "Unblocking/Abundance" umbrella framework that you've laid out here? Traditionally focused on land use policy, but taken to its natural conclusions seems aligned -- avoid imposing deadweight loss and restricted supply, attack rent-seeking at its root, and redirect capital away from rent-seeking and towards productive sectors so that we can make more good stuff by freeing up non-produced factors of production from speculators and gatekeepers.
This article and podcast represent a clearer articulation of what I mean by the above
Thanks, Sarah!
The readily actionable, two-step approach you've outlined – "what's blocking" and most importantly, "who can change that" – is valuable.
Some notes:
1. It might be worth mentioning Thompson and Klein's upcoming book?
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1571940856176971776
(My apologies if you already did, here or elsewhere, and I just missed that.)
2. From a quick scan of my bookmarks, yet more people who appear to be on board with the "abundance" agenda:
Bloomberg's editorial board: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-21/want-green-energy-cut-red-tape (see https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/editorial-board)
Jonathan Chait: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/09/why-are-environmental-activists-trying-to-stop-green-energy.html (green energy)
Alan M. Cole: https://twitter.com/AlanMCole/status/1559921036778512385 (offshore wind energy)
Klaus Kinski: https://klaussimplifies.substack.com/p/do-we-need-more-software (re investments in software crowding out the building of physical things)
Tim Latimer: https://twitter.com/TimMLatimer/status/1517244510698455041 (geothermal energy)
Andrew S. Potts: https://twitter.com/AndrewSPotts/status/1525943519818424322 (importance of rehabilitation/refurbishing in the "building agenda," not just new construction)
Scott Santens: https://twitter.com/scottsantens/status/1416876183770308609 (from the perspective of a major UBI advocate)
Elan Sykes: https://twitter.com/Elan_Sykes/status/1527289147265667074 (metals needed for green energy)
James Temple: https://twitter.com/jtemple/status/1574932732328611840 (energy generation and transmission projects)
Alex Trembath: https://www.city-journal.org/cost-disease-environmentalism (restrictions that have made building project labor more expensive)
Matthew Yglesias: https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1567911625331441666 (RT'ing Cole, above)
For those in this list who've tweeted, checking the "Lists they're on" (on Twitter) might turn up some user-maintained lists of yet more people who might participate in this budding movement.
3. For anyone choosing to take this on, there's likely a ton of wisdom to be gleaned from those who've tackled *specific* types of restrictions: both in relaxing or overturning those, and in coming away with generally applicable patterns.
For instance, companies running into restrictions that restrict or unduly delay the building of liquid fuel pipelines, geothermal energy plants, or mass transit routes would be able to provide case studies about their particular experiences.
4. AIUI, three key impediments to building, beyond formal laws and regulations, have been a) public official, citizen, and interest group concerns around deleterious environmental impacts; b) neighbors, who might not take kindly to having some particular activities near them; and c) competitors, who might not want something built because it competes with their own business models.
That suggests that approaches capable of identifying those holding such concerns, respecting their viewpoints, and adeptly bringing them into the fold, either as participants or at least non-opponents, could be valuable? Naively, that might take the form of building relationships, offering incentives, making compromises, finding genuine mitigations or workarounds, and/or approaching people in their circles who they trust, and thus can help influence them, among others. Again, this might be an area where identifying patterns for being effective within this "messy, people-related" arena could be productive.
Excellent post.
Yes, I think policy efforts like this have to have a minimum 10-year time horizon. YIMBY movement has been building for about that long: https://www.slowboring.com/p/ten-years-of-yimbyism-have-accomplished
Many other examples. Silent Spring → NEPA was about 10 years. Mont Pelerin → deregulation of the '70s was more like 25 years.
PS, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is an org that does draft model legislation, and they are sympathetic to the abundance agenda.
ALEC is not sympathetic to the abundance agenda
I think we need a community space for Abundance. A Slack channel perhaps? Right now it is an idea, but a connected network/community would be helpful.
For instance, I would be happy to donate to an organization advocating for Abundance, but right now there is no where to. If I want to know which political candidates are Abundance advocates, I have to do all of that research myself.
I understand there are trade-offs between a decentralized idea and a centralized organization, but when it comes to politics I think the latter is more productive.
I wonder if YIMBY-Georgist synthesis fits within the broad "Unblocking/Abundance" umbrella framework that you've laid out here? Traditionally focused on land use policy, but taken to its natural conclusions seems aligned -- avoid imposing deadweight loss and restricted supply, attack rent-seeking at its root, and redirect capital away from rent-seeking and towards productive sectors so that we can make more good stuff by freeing up non-produced factors of production from speculators and gatekeepers.
This article and podcast represent a clearer articulation of what I mean by the above
https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/land-and-the-liberty-to-build-on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I9G843MbbQ