by Andrew Christie, Conservation Committee
Cornucopians, Britannica.com informs us, “believe that technology and the free market can solve environmental problems, or that these problems don't really exist. They reject the idea that Earth's resources are finite, arguing that technology can regenerate or replace any resource under pressure [and] see no need for legal controls to protect the environment or limit its exploitation, as they are confident that technology will meet the demands of individuals and society.”
While acolytes can still be found, Cornucopianism peaked in the mid-20th century, before rivers started catching on fire and fisheries started collapsing from overfishing. Mostly, the modern-day heirs of environmentally oblivious Cornucopianism have toned it down, shed the rustic name, and turned it into the Abundance movement -- currently all the rage in certain political circles, promising clean energy, affordable housing, and a great big beautiful tomorrow once we eliminate (some/many/most) environmental regulations.
Mike Scutari of Inside Philanthropy observed last year that “conceptually speaking, practically everyone can get behind some degree of technological progress, especially if it lowers the cost of living — but one funder’s maze of superfluous red tape is another’s bulwark against environmental degradation, unrestrained AI and unsafe clinical trials.”
Many have noted that the new Abundance agenda looks a lot like the old alliance of corporations and political power brokers determined to extract maximum profits and never count the cost, reframed by pundits as the way forward to a clean, bright future via “a liberalism that builds.” The Revolving Door Project notes that “behind the catchy phrase lies a policy agenda that discourages the public sector from regulating the private sector for the sake of encouraging growth…but the Abundance agenda’s success poses a danger to all of us who truly believe in addressing corporate power in the fight for a democratic and egalitarian society.”
Revolving Door’s Deputy Research Director Hannah Story Brown points out, “With the Trump administration, the Republican-led Congress, and right-wing Supreme Court advancing their attacks on bedrock environmental law, Abundance proponents are sounding more like their echo than their opposition.”
They both point out that much of the Abundance movement does in fact consist of Silicon Valley billionaires, crypto bros, and right-wing think tanks. Liberal Democratic elected officials who have signed on may want to rethink their support in light of what Abundance advocates and a lot of corporate funding have not been able to do: Persuade California’s public.
On May 19, Politico reported the results of a survey of 5,000 adults in Los Angeles and five surrounding counties to find out what people other than policy wonks, political consultants and right-wing billionaires think of the Abundance agenda and its solution to the housing crisis and crumbling infrastructure. The result: “Poor government management, special interest lobbying and other political forces were named by 75 percent of respondents as the largest barriers to building, compared to 31 percent who pointed to overly strict environmental and other regulations.” And “Southern Californians polled opposed by a more than two-to-one margin relaxing CEQA [the California Environmental Quality Act] and other environmental and regulatory standards even if it meant homes and infrastructure were built more slowly.”
Faced with this result, the pollsters concluded that the problem is a “low-trust environment” and that “the survey showed that the state needed wholesale changes to its community engagement systems.” In other words, once enough money is pumped into a p.r. campaign to change public opinion, the Abundance agenda will become more attractive, and people will trust public officials to strip away environmental and community protections in a non-harmful way.
The pollsters did not appear to ponder an alternative interpretation of their survey results: that 75% of Californians have a firm grasp of reality and understand that “poor government management, special interest lobbying and other political forces” are indeed the largest barriers to building, and pretending environmental regulations are the problem is the problem.
Exhibit A supporting that firm grasp of reality: Senate Bill 131, rushed through the legislature and signed into law on June 30, 2025, three days after its language was published. It consisted of two significant rollbacks of environmental protections: first, it eliminated the transparency requirements, pollution safeguards, and public health protections provided under CEQA as applied to a broadly defined class of industrial facilities known as “advanced manufacturing.” Second, it eliminated protections for the habitat of endangered species under several new CEQA exemptions.
The bill was not subject to the standard policy development process—instead, it was written as a “budget trailer bill,” meaning the state budget could only be approved if the trailer bill also passed, with minimal public disclosure.
When he signed the bill into law, Governor Newsom exulted “We’re urgently embracing an Abundance agenda.”
Ever since that bill passed, environmental groups have been working with legislators on new legislation to try to clean up the mess caused by the broad exemptions and restore basic protections for habitat for sensitive species, limit air pollution from exempted projects, and narrow the range of facilities eligible for the vague “advanced manufacturing” exemption to a clearly-defined set of projects that are unlikely to generate significant environmental impacts.
For more evidence of the wisdom of not trusting promises of abundance at the expense of the environment, check your November ballot for Proposition 45, a measure that "Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects." This is the California Chamber of Commerce seizing the moment with a sweeping rollback of foundational environmental protections that, if passed into law, would harm communities, burden public agencies, and empower developers at the expense of the public interest.
The measure would fundamentally reorient California's environmental review framework from one that prioritizes public welfare and environmental protection to one that prioritizes developer interests, strips agencies of tools to protect communities and the environment, and creates a new right for developers to sue public agencies if their projects are denied while sharply curtailing legal remedies for inadequate environmental review of projects. It privileges developer interests over public participation and shifts the cost of mitigating environmental impacts from developers onto taxpayers. It is the Abundance agenda in the form of a ballot measure.
More than 200 public health, environmental, and environmental justice organizations are opposed. When you receive your ballot, be sure to have this fact sheet handy for a summary of the reasons why.
“A more equal and prosperous society doesn’t happen when corporations set the rules,” said Brian Callaci, Chief Economist of the Open Markets Institute and co-author of Debunking the Abundance Agenda. “It happens when the public sector uses its power to protect communities, ensure fair competition, and ensure that prosperity is shared.”