How movements can make the abundance agenda work for everyone

This article How movements can make the abundance agenda work for everyone was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Images

There’s an easy way to tell when the idea of what is politically possible — sometimes called the Overton Window — is changing. It’s happening when you see politicians and thinkers on both the left and the right starting to agree on something. Right now, there is new agreement about making it easier to build projects. 



Whether it’s Ezra Klein’s “abundance agenda” or tech-fueled ideas like DOGE and its northern copycat, the Build Canada project, there is growing alignment around the need to remove regulations and so-called “red tape” from our governments. And those in power are starting to listen — just take a look at the past few months in Canada.

Since the start of 2025, government from across the political spectrum have passed legislation following this emerging alignment. In Ontario, the right-wing Progressive Conservative Party passed the Protect Ontario By Unleashing Our Economy Act. In addition to gutting regulation, it lets the government create “special economic zones” where it can decide which laws apply and which don’t. On the other side of the country (and the political spectrum) British Columbia’s New Democrats implemented something called the Infrastructure Act meant to speed up approvals for major projects. Nationally, the centrist Liberal Party, under new leader and former central banker Mark Carney, passed the One Canadian Economy Act, which allows them to fast-track projects deemed to be in the service of nation building.

Although slightly different in scope and scale, each bill follows the two-part question at the core of “Abundance,” Klein’s new bestseller: “What do we need more of, and what is stopping us from getting it?”

Unfortunately for people and the planet, too many Canadian politicians believe the answer to the first equation is more mines and pipelines. To the question about what’s stopping us from getting them, their answer is: communities, Indigenous peoples and environmental regulations meant to protect clean air, clean water and endangered species.

And yet, despite the extractive ideals driving this spate of legislation, these politicians aren’t necessarily wrong about our need to build things fast. When it comes to desperately needed infrastructure like affordable housing, public transit and clean energy, we are moving way too slow. That’s the very idea behind the Green New Deal and a “wartime” climate mobilization: We need more and we need it fast. Right now, politicians and the public are opening the door to just that, the question is: Can movements barge through and take over?

Problem or opportunity?

So far, in Canada, movements have responded to the new legislation by calling for it to be stopped or scrapped. It’s an instinct I understand, and were we still at the place where these were proposed pieces of legislation, I might agree. However, since these bills were rushed through without Indigenous consultation or public input, there is good reason for both skepticism and resistance.



Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak used phrases like “troubling threat” and “risk to the honor of the Crown” to describe these bills. She excoriated the government for leaving out language around free, prior and informed consent in the federal bill, while also leaving the door open for conversation on what kinds of projects might make sense. In an interview with Liberal party strategist turned pollster and media personality David Herle, she specifically pointed to the AFN’s 2024 Closing the Infrastructure Gap report for a list of projects she thought the new legislation could address — projects that would deliver affordable housing, clean water and increased connectivity.

Perhaps Nepinak saw the same polling I did, showing that these pieces of legislation are wildly popular. Polling from the Angus Reid Institute found that nearly three-quarters of Canadians support fast-tracking major projects. A poll from Demand Progress in the United States found that 43 percent of voters would be more likely to support a candidate pushing to end regulations that “bottleneck” major projects. Movements can either view that as a problem or an opportunity.

On the one hand, the most talked about major project is still another massive tar sands pipeline to connect Alberta to tidewater. It makes sense for movements to view that as a problem. On the other hand, it’s also true that movements haven’t come to the table to propose any big projects of their own.

What if, instead of pipelines, this new momentum to build was marshaled behind public transit, clean energy infrastructure, affordable housing and clean water projects? All of these are easier and faster to build than a pipeline. They’re also much more likely to earn public support, especially when you dig deeper into the polling. Nearly half of Canadians, 49 percent, oppose or strongly oppose the idea of “condensing or bypassing environmental reviews” for projects, including ones deemed to be in the national interest. That number is likely to grow for things like mines and pipelines, projects that threaten clean water, air, communities and the climate.

A further 59 percent support requiring consultation from Indigenous communities, even on projects “declared in the national interest.” It is worth noting that the pollsters were careful to include “not offering a full veto” in the question, so it remains somewhat unclear where the public lies on the idea of respecting the concept of free prior and informed consent.

The Demand Progress poll is even more interesting. When they tested the idea of a candidate who presents ideas that combine elements of both the abundance agenda and a plan to take on corporate wealth and power, a whopping 72.2 percent of voters had a positive reaction.

A chance for proposition

For the last few years the climate movement has been struggling to find its footing in the face of economic anxiety, rising global tension and the threats posed by Donald Trump. This would give people something to rally behind. Instead of gearing up for another decade of pipeline fights, movements could use this moment to redefine what it means when governments say things like “major projects.” Instead of those being extractive by default, they could mean things that actually work for people.



There is a clear pathway to move these ideas from movements into politics. In the United States, the Democratic Party is searching for a pathway back from its crushing 2024 defeat by Trump. In Canada, the New Democratic Party — a formerly leftist party that has drifted towards the center in recent years — is stuck in a circular firing squad while it stumbles to figure out what to do after falling apart in Canada’s 2025 election. Both parties are desperate for good ideas, and their established orders have never been weaker. Strong movements that bring together a wide range of political actors behind a vision of building a new kind of infrastructure could easily step into these voids.

Imagine a connected movement of climate organizers, community groups and Indigenous peoples marching behind a clear set of shovel-ready projects that meaningfully improve people’s lives. In Canada you could even steal the Build Canada brand from the group of tech billionaires that created it. Lay out a clear list of five or 10 projects that build the kind of country you actually want to see. Invite the CEOs to sue over the name — better free publicity is hard to imagine.

A populism that builds

Klein’s argument in “Abundance” is that we need a “liberalism that builds.” The problem is that this approach, in a neoliberal order, will almost guarantee that both people and places are sacrificed. It happened the last time America had this kind of political alignment in the New Deal era.

The New Deal did a lot of great things. It built roads and railways. It put people to work and built a sense of social solidarity that conservatives spent decades tearing apart. But it also irreversibly damaged communities and ecosystems. The “redlining” of Black communities was just one example of this. Another is the hundreds of hulking slabs of concrete and steel that choked the rivers of America.

During the New Deal era, agencies like the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers dropped so many dams into U.S. rivers that, today, less than 1 percent of American waterways are still free flowing. These dams drowned communities, displaced people, destroyed Indigenous sacred sites and sent species and ecosystems onto the scrapheap of extinction. They provided power and jobs, but now many are considered to be such mistakes that they’re being ripped out. Just this year, a group of Indigenous youth made the first kayak descent of a free flowing Klamath River. The last dam was removed on Oct. 2, 2024. It was one of 108 dams removed that year, a trend that has been increasing as the social and ecological cost of these dams is being recognized.

If Indigenous peoples had been at the table during the New Deal era perhaps this could have been avoided. Today, movements have a chance to push for just that kind of collaboration. It’s crucial for the kinds of infrastructure we truly need, like renewable energy and electrified transit.

There is a massive push to expand mining projects for the so-called “critical minerals” needed for batteries and solar panels. If the mainstream political order holds the reins, these projects will no doubt devastate Indigenous communities, water and ecosystems. They’ll build carbon spewing mining projects that they’ll tell us we need to combat emissions.

Movement judo

Social movements will always be in fights against larger forces and entrenched power. It’s David versus Goliath. The Rebellion versus the Empire. Organized people versus organized money.

These fights are almost never won through direct conflict. Instead, successful movements borrow a concept from the martial art of judo. The core principle of judo is momentum. Instead of taking a larger opponent on with a vigorous attack, you position yourself, prepare and then, when the moment comes, use your opponent’s momentum against them.

Right now, social movements have a chance to do just that. There is energy behind the idea that our societies and governments need to get to work on building things. Fighting that is a recipe not just to lose campaigns, but to lose the public. If instead, movements build power and support behind infrastructure and ideas that truly work for people, huge victories could be possible.

What’s more, in winning these kinds of things, movements can deliver in way that truly makes people’s lives better. With smart strategy, organizing and action, movements can take the momentum that governments are currently leveraging to back big developers, corporate power and fossil fuels and make it work for the public.

This article How movements can make the abundance agenda work for everyone was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

People-powered news and analysis

Source: https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/07/how-movements-can-make-the-abundance-agenda-work-for-everyone/