“Abundance agenda” apostle Matt Yglesias’ affinity for Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s deregulatory plans makes clear that this agenda is, at its heart, a neoliberal-approved version of Trumpian plunder.
Along with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, co-authors of a forthcoming book titled Abundance, Matt Yglesias is one of the leading disciples of the so-called abundance agenda. Characterized as “neoliberalism rebranded” by my colleague Dylan Gyauch-Lewis, the abundance agenda misleadingly blames regulatory “red tape” and mechanisms of democratic accountability—rather than concentrated corporate power—for a whole host of issues, from affordable housing shortages to the lagging clean energy transition. According to this cleverly marketed form of market gospel, weakening existing regulations will “unleash” a bunch of good stuff.
Sound familiar? Since President Donald Trump was inaugurated and sicced Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on the federal state apparatus—already weakened by several decades of bipartisan neoliberalism—it’s been impossible not to notice the overlap between Yglesias’ advocacy for deregulation and the terrifying deregulatory binge being carried out by the chainsaw-wielding Musk and members of the Trump administration. Yglesias is not alone; but he is an effective stand-in for the abundance crew writ large.
To be fair, Yglesias has expressed disapproval of the Trump-Musk effort to gut Medicaid, food stamps, and other social programs. Still, Yglesias has also had plenty of nice things to say about Musk and DOGE, embracing the project’s stated goal of greater “efficiency” while downplaying its real objective of wholesale privatization and upward redistribution.
That’s consistent with a key pattern of Yglesias-thought: Accept right-wing premises (e.g., government is inefficient, federal employees are coddled, workers in poor regions deserve less protection, immigrants are abusing birthright citizenship, etc.) and operate as if they are legitimate points rather than ideological justifications for inequality.
Opposition to environmental review and support for fracking may be the area in which Yglesias’ alignment with the Trump administration is strongest. Notably, Yglesias has praised Trump’s interior secretary and energy czar, Doug Burgum, calling him “a totally solid pick who’ll do good things.” Why would Yglesias be fond of Burgum?
To understand that, one must understand how much Yglesias and his co-thinkers loathe the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is a law requiring federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed actions—from approving permit applications to constructing public infrastructure—before final land-use decisions are made. It is anathema to the abundance crowd, which has long pushed for so-called permitting reform, removing procedural checks on developers of energy infrastructure. In Burgum, they see a willing executioner.
As a champion of “permitting reform,” Yglesias has been a frequent participant in the contentious debate between the anti-NEPA camp and pro-NEPA advocates like ourselves, for whom environmental justice is a paramount concern. To hear Yglesias tell it, federal regulations like NEPA are almost solely responsible for hampering the buildout of clean energy infrastructure.
Yglesias and other neoliberals claim that the current environmental review process is one of the main reasons—if not the primary reason—why the green transition is not happening at a faster pace; they blame bureaucrats for preventing the U.S. from achieving maximal energy abundance, a condition they assume will aid renewables most of all. It’s a climate corollary of the trickle-down economy lie that Reaganites and Clintonites have repeated for decades to justify cutting taxes on the rich.
NEPA defenders rightly point out the weaknesses of this argument. If they looked around, the supply-side liberals who stress the need to build more energy infrastructure while failing to simultaneously emphasize the need to restrict fossil fuel production might notice that they’re running interference for Big Oil.
It should give Yglesias, Klein, Thompson et al. pause that their leading allies in the fight to sideline regulators and “unleash” U.S. energy are Republican officials. Vocal support from the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Partnership to Address Global Emissions, and other fossil fuel front groups is a tell-tale sign that the dirty energy industry—not the budding clean power sector—stands to benefit most from any effort to “streamline” permitting rules.
In what follows, I focus on four flawed arguments that Yglesias, one of the most influential exponents of the abundance agenda, has made about permitting. In each post, the emphasis (bold text) is mine.
Click on each link for a summary of Yglesias’ argument and our rebuttal.
Bad Argument #1: NEPA Is Hurting the Green Transition
Bad Argument #2: Permitting Reform Would Help Renewables More Than Fossil Fuels
Bad Argument #3: Expanding Clean Energy Is More Important Than Curtailing Dirty Energy
Bad Argument #4: Blocking Pipelines Is Bad Because LNG Exports Are Good for the Climate