Abundance vs. Austerity II: Nuclear Power and the Battle for America’s Future

Abundance, Nuclear Power, and the Industrial Revival Needed by the U.S. and the World

Introduction

America stands at a critical turning point, confronting intertwined crises across its cultural, political, and economic landscapes—each intensified by the existential threat posed by Trump 2.0, a presidency that endangers democracy, human rights, economic stability, and climate survival. The gravity of this moment underscores a stark choice the Democratic Party must urgently confront—a choice between two distinct and fundamentally divergent visions for America's future.

The first path available to Democrats embraces a politics of hope, prosperity, and revitalized opportunity—rooted in an abundance-driven vision of bold industrial renewal powered primarily by nuclear energy.

Crucially, nuclear power is the only clean, reliable, and scalable energy source capable of fully replacing fossil fuels fast enough for humanity to survive the climate crisis. Though it may seem like too much to ask of any one technology, nuclear is uniquely powerful—so abundant and energy-dense that it not only makes survival possible, but also offers a path to clean, safe economic revival both in the United States and globally: US and global abundance.

While renewable energy sources like solar and wind are clean and valuable supplements to nuclear power—and are highly effective in specific contexts, such as my own rooftop solar panels that keep my house cool and power the non-Tesla EV in my garage—renewables simply cannot meet the full scope of America's energy demands on their own.

As demonstrated in the authoritative 2018 MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World, deep decarbonization becomes not only significantly more expensive but also far less achievable without a major role for nuclear energy. The report makes clear that excluding nuclear from the energy mix severely undermines the feasibility of reaching climate goals at all.

This MIT report makes clear that renewables-only scenarios demand massive investments in energy storage and redundant capacity—costly measures that still fall short of the reliability required for deep decarbonization. In contrast, nuclear fission uniquely offers the dispatchable power, system stability, and environmental integrity necessary for a comprehensive industrial and ecological transformation. And while critics continue to recycle long-debunked myths, the safety and waste management records of countries like the United States and France reveal a different truth: nuclear power has consistently proven to be safe, manageable, and cost-effective—precisely the opposite of what legacy environmental groups, and the fossil fuel interests that quietly funded them, have claimed for over half a century.

As the authoritative 2018 MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World, makes clear, there is no viable path to climate survival without nuclear power. The report shows that excluding nuclear energy from the decarbonization equation not only makes emissions targets drastically more expensive—it renders them effectively unattainable. Without the dispatchable, low-carbon power that only nuclear can reliably provide, the world cannot achieve deep decarbonization at the scale and speed required to avert climate catastrophe.

Like the MIT report, Klein and Thompson’s Abundance underscores the centrality of nuclear to any serious abundance agenda. On pages 14 and 15, they write unequivocally that abundance is only possible with energy that is clean, scalable, and reliable—and that “means nuclear.” Without nuclear, abundance becomes an illusion. With it, Democrats can anchor a compelling program of industrial revival, labor empowerment, and ecological restoration rooted in energy realism rather than magical thinking.

This abundance agenda empowers Democrats to reconnect authentically with working-class and middle-class voters, rebuild trust in government, and reclaim political power by delivering tangible, transformative outcomes: high-quality union jobs, affordable housing, modern infrastructure, and a sustainable clean-energy economy. As Jonathan Chait compellingly argues in his essay, "The Coming Democratic Civil War: A seemingly wonky debate about the 'abundance agenda' is really about power," the abundance agenda transcends mere policy detail; it represents a decisive reshaping of power dynamics, positioning the Democratic Party as the champion of growth, innovation, labor strength, and broad-based economic prosperity.

The alternative is to remain trapped in the politics of austerity, scarcity, and ideological rigidity—an outdated worldview that alienates voters by prioritizing procedural hurdles, bureaucratic inefficiency, and regulatory paralysis. Such scarcity politics surrender the narrative of progress to authoritarian populism, leaving working-class voters vulnerable to Trump’s misleading claims that only a strongman can overcome governmental dysfunction. As emphasized by the Roosevelt Institute’s analysis, "Abundance That Works for Workers—and American Democracy," policies built on scarcity and austerity not only damage economic opportunity but actively undermine democracy by fueling populist resentment.

The threat posed by Trump 2.0 is profound and multidimensional: it attacks democratic institutions, escalates authoritarian practices, deliberately reverses climate progress, destabilizes economic security, and directly undermines labor rights and social cohesion. Democrats cannot afford complacency or half-measures. Embracing abundance, anchored by nuclear energy’s unique capacity for industrial and climate resilience, represents not merely sound policy—it is a moral imperative and political necessity to defeat Trumpism, revitalize the middle class, and safeguard America’s democratic and ecological future.

The Democratic Party must decisively choose abundance, clearly communicating to voters that the path forward is one of economic renewal, environmental sustainability, democratic resilience, and labor revival. Abundance versus austerity is not simply policy wonkery—it is the ideological heart of a broader battle for America’s future.

One path leads toward climate resilience, economic renewal, and industrial revitalization—powered by abundant, clean energy. It is a path marked by opportunity, innovation, and prosperity, where the United States regains its industrial leadership while safeguarding the environment and human health.

The other path is paved with outdated, harmful ideologies that worship scarcity and sacrifice as virtues. It promotes restrictive myths about climate solutions—myths that have already caused severe environmental damage and unnecessary human suffering. Adherents to this dogma mistakenly view austerity as morally superior, equating deprivation with virtue and falsely claiming that protecting humanity requires sacrificing modernity and prosperity.

This stark divide is most visible in the debate over nuclear power. Nuclear energy represents America’s single most powerful tool to achieve rapid decarbonization and economic revival. Yet for decades, this crucial technology has been deliberately sidelined by a destructive coalition: cynical fossil-fuel actors—such as Big Oil and petro-states (including the U.S., Norway, Saudi Arabia, and Russia)—and their unwitting allies in legacy environmental groups. These self-styled protectors of the environment have effectively become the fossil fuel industry's accomplices, spreading misinformation to undermine nuclear power while cultivating an undeserved image of moral purity.

It is time to recognize that the future of climate survival, industrial renewal, and a prosperous working class all depend on rejecting this flawed narrative. Instead, America must embrace abundant clean energy—especially nuclear power—not as an act of defiance, but as an affirmation of progress, abundance, and human well-being. The fossil-fuel industry’s real success has been disguising self-interest as environmental virtue; dismantling their false narrative means reclaiming climate policy from those who benefit from our continued dependence on fossil fuels.

Abundance as a Climate Solution, Not a Dirty Word. In recent years, some policy thinkers have championed an “abundance agenda” as the antidote to stagnation and pessimism. The idea is simple: America needs to build again—build infrastructure, build housing, build clean energy—so that prosperity is broadly shared. Abundance means rejecting the notion that solving problems requires making do with less. Instead, it insists that through innovation and investment we can produce more than enough for everyone. When it comes to climate change, an abundance mindset views decarbonization as an opportunity for transformation and progress—electrifying and expanding our economy with clean technologies—rather than as a painful exercise in limiting growth. This optimism contrasts sharply with the austerity-driven narrative influential in some environmental circles, which frames human activity and economic growth as inherently suspect. In that austerity view, cutting emissions becomes synonymous with restraint and renunciation, a kind of puritanical “less is more” philosophy that treats energy abundance as an indulgence to be avoided. The result is a strand of green thought that can feel almost medieval in its outlook: human development is cast as an original sin, and using powerful technology is seen as hubris. This mindset isn’t the mainstream of the climate movement, but it has had an outsized influence—especially in its absolutist stance against nuclear power.

The “Renewables-Only” Cult and its False Promises. Over the past half-century, much of the U.S. environmental establishment has made opposition to nuclear energy a moral litmus test. Nuclear power, they argue, is a “false solution” to climate change; only wind, solar, and maybe a bit of hydro or geothermal are acceptable in their vision of a green future. Any deviation from this renewables-only dogma is treated as heresy. This ideology has become almost cultish in its absolutism. It is allergic to technological pluralism, rejecting nuclear (and sometimes other innovations) on an almost emotional basis. Decarbonization is not embraced as a chance to supercharge human progress; instead it’s portrayed as a time to scale down ambitions and leave much of the modern world’s infrastructure untouched. In effect, this is “austerity draped in green”—a philosophy of climate penance that fears the very power we need to actually stop climate change.

The clearest test of this divide between abundance and austerity is attitudes toward nuclear energy. On paper, nuclear power should be every climate advocate’s dream. It remains the most scalable, land-efficient, and reliable source of zero-carbon electricity ever developed. It’s the only energy technology that has already decarbonized a major industrial economy at national scale: in the 1970s and 80s, France’s socialist-led government built dozens of nuclear plants, rapidly replacing fossil fuels and creating one of the world’s cleanest, cheapest electricity grids. That was an abundance approach in action—state-led, technologically ambitious, and socially egalitarian, ensuring affordable power for all. Today’s renewables-only advocates often hold up countries like Germany as a model, but Germany’s experiment of phasing out nuclear while scaling up wind and solar has yielded mixed results at best. In reality, Germany ended up burning more fossil gas to keep the lights on after shuttering its reactors; between 2000 and 2020, as nuclear plants went offline, Germany’s gas-fired electricity generation nearly doubled (from about 50 TWh to 95 TWh). Carbon emissions in Germany plateaued for years, and the country became more dependent on imported gas—hardly a sustainable, climate-friendly outcome. By contrast, France—which kept its nuclear fleet—has for decades enjoyed per capita electricity emissions among the lowest in the developed world, alongside relatively low consumer prices. The lesson is clear: an all-renewables strategy without nuclear may work on paper or in isolated cases, but at large scale it often leads to energy scarcity or continued fossil fuel reliance. Wind and solar are fantastic technologies and must be expanded, but they have inherent limits: their output is intermittent, and storing energy at grid scale remains costly and technologically challenging. Without a firm power backbone like nuclear, a renewables-based grid tends to require massive overbuild (covering vast landscapes with turbines and panels) or continued use of coal, oil, and gas to fill the gaps. That’s not a strategy—it’s wishful thinking, a form of green theology that ignores physical and economic realities.

Meanwhile, nuclear’s supposed “problems” are largely solved or greatly exaggerated. Take carbon emissions: anti-nuclear activists often concede that nuclear is “low-carbon” but imply it’s on a similar footing to renewables. In fact, nuclear is an ultra-low-carbon energy source – according to the IPCC, nuclear energy’s full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour are lower than those of wind or solar. No other energy source (except perhaps some niche renewables) produces as little CO₂ per unit of power. Or consider nuclear waste: for years the public has been told that nuclear waste is an unsolvable, apocalyptic hazard. The reality is that nuclear waste is compact, well-contained, and has been safely managed for decades in countries like France, which stores and even recycles spent fuel without incident. By contrast, the waste from “clean” renewables—heavy metals in millions of discarded solar panels, giant fiberglass turbine blades headed to landfills, toxic mining byproducts for battery materials—receives little fanfare, despite posing long-term environmental challenges of their own. And on the paramount issue of safety, nuclear power is among the safest forms of energy ever invented. Per unit of electricity, nuclear has the lowest mortality rate of any major energy source. Yes, the very lowest – far below coal (which kills hundreds of thousands annually via air pollution), below oil and gas, and even below commonly touted renewables like biomass or hydro. This fact would surprise the average person, inundated as we are with imagery of nuclear meltdowns and radiation fears. But the data is unequivocal: the danger of nuclear energy pales in comparison to the deadly impacts of fossil fuels, or even the accidents and pollution associated with other energy sources. The anti-nuclear movement has succeeded in burying these truths under a narrative of fear. In doing so, it has undercut the very climate goals it claims to champion, dissuading governments from using a proven tool that could prevent immense harm.

Who Benefits from Nuclear Phobia? To understand how we got here, one must identify the true villains of this story: the fossil fuel industry. For over half a century, oil, gas, and coal interests have perceived nuclear power as a mortal threat to their profits, and they have acted accordingly. Big Oil and King Coal learned early on that stoking public fear about nuclear energy would slow its adoption and leave more market share for themselves. Historical evidence of this fossil fuel campaign is abundant. As far back as the 1950s, petroleum executives were funding anti-nuclear propaganda and lobbying against nuclear expansion. In more recent years, gas companies have craftily repositioned fossil gas as the “perfect partner” to intermittent renewables—a narrative that conveniently requires sidelining nuclear, their zero-carbon competitor. We now know that major environmental organizations have, at times, received substantial funding from fossil fuel and related interests that stood to gain from nuclear plant closures. (For example, documents have shown groups like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and others taking in large donations tied to natural gas or renewable investors who directly benefit when nuclear plants shut down.) To be clear, the motives of these green groups were usually sincere; they truly believed they were fighting “dirty energy.” But fossil fuel barons quietly understood that every nuclear plant halted or shut down meant more demand for coal, oil, and gas. They were more than happy to encourage and fund anti-nuclear fervor, even as they publicly claimed to care about the climate. It’s a classic case of divide and conquer: get your potential opponents to fight the wrong enemy. In this “climate war,” fossil fuel executives cast themselves as bystanders or even partners, while pointing environmentalists toward a false villain in nuclear power. The result has been a tragic own-goal for the climate movement. Well-meaning activists became, in effect, “useful idiots” (to use a harsh term) for fossil fuel interests—unwittingly doing the dirty work of undermining the biggest clean-energy threat to oil and coal. As one pro-nuclear advocate put it bluntly, legacy environmental groups that spent decades demonizing nuclear energy have been fossil fuel’s most effective allies, even if they never intended to be. The consequences of this misdirection have been devastating. Climate progress was delayed by decades. Global emissions continued to skyrocket when a nuclear-inclusive strategy could have bent the curve much sooner. Millions of lives were adversely affected: air pollution from burning coal and oil kills an estimated 6.5 million people worldwide each year, a toll that could have been significantly reduced had nuclear displaced more of those fossil fuels. One peer-reviewed study found that from 1971 to 2009, existing nuclear plants already prevented 1.84 million premature deaths by avoiding fossil fuel burning. In other words, nuclear energy quietly saved nearly two million lives—and that was with nuclear providing only a small share of world power. How many more lives were lost because nuclear’s growth was stunted? The same study projected that hundreds of thousands to millions more deaths could be prevented by mid-century if nuclear is aggressively expanded, whereas a continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels (even with modest mitigation via natural gas) will exact a far higher body count. These are not just statistics; they represent real workers, families, and communities that suffer when dirty fuels fill the gap left by anti-nuclear policies.

The Human Cost of Austerity Politics. The damage isn’t only measured in emissions and mortality. The sidelining of nuclear power is entwined with a broader economic and political fallout that has harmed working-class Americans—the very people environmentalists and progressives aim to protect. Nuclear energy, and the abundance agenda it represents, is fundamentally pro-labor when implemented correctly. It’s about massive public and private investment in building things: power plants, supply chains, advanced reactors, electrical grids, infrastructure. That means high-quality jobs—often union jobs—on a large scale. In the U.S. energy sector, jobs at nuclear plants are among the best paid and most secure. According to federal employment data, nuclear energy workers have a median wage of about $39 per hour, considerably higher than the $25/hour median in the wind and solar industries. The reason is straightforward: nuclear plants are part of the utilities sector and heavy industry, which tend to be unionized and offer long-term skilled positions, whereas many renewable energy jobs (while important) are shorter-term construction roles or lower-paid maintenance gigs. Put simply, a nuclear-centered clean energy buildout means an army of well-paid engineers, construction workers, pipefitters, electricians, operators, and technicians—the backbone of a revived middle class. It also means a more stable energy system that can support energy-intensive industries like manufacturing of steel, fertilizer, microchips, and electric vehicles right here in America. Abundant cheap energy has always been a driver of industrial strength: it lowers production costs, attracts investment, and boosts competitiveness. In the mid-20th century, the U.S. enjoyed cheap electricity (thanks in part to New Deal hydropower and plentiful fossil fuels) and that powered the post-war industrial boom which lifted millions into prosperity. We can do the same in the 21st century with zero-carbon nuclear power providing the baseload foundation for a new era of growth. Crucially, that growth would directly empower labor. When industries expand, labor’s leverage increases—there are more jobs chasing workers, rather than desperate workers competing for scarce jobs. Strong demand for skilled labor in nuclear construction and operations can bolster union membership and give workers bargaining power to secure better conditions.

Yet, for years many on the left have treated “abundance” as if it’s a dirty word, conflating it with corporate greed or anti-worker policies. We see this in arguments from some progressive outlets that an “abundance agenda” is inherently anti-labor. A recent example comes from Common Dreams, where an opinion piece characterized the abundance movement as a neoliberal scheme bankrolled by crypto and oil billionaires, accusing it of treating unions as obstacles to efficiency. It is true that some self-described “abundance” advocates (often on the libertarian or center-right side) have been dismissive of labor rights—viewing any regulations, including those won by unions, as “red tape” to slash. But that is a distortion of what abundance must mean. The abundance that America needs is not about empowering billionaires; it’s about empowering millions of workers by building big and building fair. In fact, the only way an abundance agenda can succeed politically and practically is by actively partnering with labor to accomplish ambitious projects. Our vision of abundance isn’t one that sidelines unions—it requires unions, New-Deal style, to mobilize the workforce and ensure the gains are broadly shared. If anything, it’s the current austerity approach to climate that has been anti-labor in effect. Think about it: the “100% renewables/no nuclear” orthodoxy has often translated into relatively fewer permanent jobs, lower wages, and lost industrial capability. It has alienated skilled trade workers who see in it no place for them—except perhaps installing solar panels for less pay than their old refinery or power plant jobs. It has, at times, pitted environmental activists against construction trade unions (for example, when fighting pipeline or power plant projects), fraying the natural alliance between environmental sustainability and worker rights. And on a broader political level, a climate narrative centered on scarcity and sacrifice has proven to be a losing message for reaching working-class voters. People do want a cleaner planet for their children, but if the pitch is “you’ll have to pay more for energy, accept job losses in your town, and trust in a future of green austerity,” it should be no surprise that many workers tune it out. They will be more inclined to listen to those who promise to bring back tangible jobs and cheap gas, even if those promises are false or short-sighted.

We ignore this political reality at our peril. Indeed, the failure to offer a compelling pro-labor climate vision contributed to a disaster in 2024: Democrats found themselves out of power, having lost working-class votes in key states to a faux-populist Republican message. That election was lost, shockingly, to a man widely viewed as a corrupt, anti-democratic figure—a twice-impeached, criminally indicted, adjudicated sexual abuser. How could this happen? There are many reasons, but it’s clear that alienating the working class was a part of the story. When a segment of the left conveyed contempt for industrial jobs (such as mining, drilling, or building large power projects) and preached a doctrine of limits and closures without offering equally substantial new opportunities, they left a vacuum that demagogues eagerly filled. The 2024 outcome should serve as a bitter wake-up call. A climate agenda divorced from labor’s interests is not only unjust, it’s a political loser. Conversely, a climate agenda that doubles as an industrial revival plan has the potential to rally a broad coalition – uniting environmentalists, union workers, and communities that have seen factories and power plants shuttered. There is no more potent political message than saying: we will create good jobs and a livable planet for your children at the same time. That is exactly what a pro-nuclear, pro-abundance climate strategy offers.

Embracing the Nuclear Opportunity. To reclaim this narrative, we must openly call out fossil fuel actors as the villains of the climate crisis – and just as vocally reject the counsel of their “useful idiots” who insist that our only path forward is a punishing regime of energy scarcity. The truth is that surviving climate change while sustaining modern civilization will require abundant energy. Fossil fuel companies argue (disingenuously) that only oil and gas can provide that abundance. They are wrong. Nuclear fission is capable of producing enormous quantities of energy, around the clock, with zero carbon emissions. A single reactor plant can generate as much electricity as hundreds of square miles of solar panels or thousands of wind turbines, and do so 24/7 regardless of the weather. This is not to disparage renewables—it’s simply recognizing each technology’s strengths. We will need vast amounts of wind and solar too, plus geothermal, hydropower, battery storage, and more. But without nuclear, achieving a fully decarbonized, reliable grid will be much harder if not impossible. And without abundant clean electricity, we cannot electrify transportation, or produce green hydrogen (so-called “pink hydrogen” when made with nuclear power), or run electrolysis, steel mills, data centers, desalination plants and all the energy-hungry engines of a thriving economy. A serious climate plan that includes rebuilding American industry must therefore include a nuclear renaissance at its core.

What would such a renaissance look like? It would likely involve preserving the reactors we have (many of which are threatened by premature closure), building new large-scale reactors with today’s proven designs, and rapidly developing advanced reactors and small modular reactors that can be built in factories and deployed across the country. It would mean using nuclear plants not just for electricity, but also for high-temperature heat to make cleaner steel and concrete, and for producing hydrogen fuel to decarbonize sectors like trucking, aviation, and chemical production. This is already on the horizon: companies and national labs are working on reactors that could replace fossil furnaces in industry and generate hydrogen at scale. These innovations could make America a world leader in clean technology manufacturing—a huge economic boon. All of this will require a skilled workforce tens of thousands strong, offering a next-generation career path to boilermakers, welders, engineers, and scientists. It will also require tackling legitimate concerns with seriousness: ensuring the highest safety and non-proliferation standards, streamlining regulations without cutting corners, building permanent waste repositories and/or recycling programs, and providing robust public oversight to earn trust. In short, it’s a nation-building project as much as it is an energy project. And it should be pursued with the same spirit as past American triumphs like the Apollo program or the Interstate Highway System—only this time with full union participation and a focus on equitable benefits, so we do not repeat the mistakes of past booms that excluded segments of the population.

Critics will say this is an overly rosy scenario. There are certainly challenges: nuclear projects have been plagued by cost overruns in the past, and mistrust of the industry runs deep in some communities. But these are challenges to overcome, not reasons to give up. Other countries, from France to South Korea to Canada, have shown that nuclear can be built efficiently and run safely under the right frameworks. And here in the U.S., there are promising signs: bipartisan support for advanced nuclear development is growing, some labor unions (like those in building trades and plant operators) are championing nuclear new-builds, and even a few environmental groups are reconsidering their stance in light of the climate emergency. We should also acknowledge that abundance through nuclear and industrial revival is not about unchecked growth or pollution. It’s about cleaning up our energy system through growth. It’s the fossil-fueled, laissez-faire growth of the past that was unsustainable. Abundant clean energy, in contrast, can actually remedy environmental injustice—for instance, replacing coal plants (often located in poorer communities) with emission-free nuclear plants improves air quality and health for those residents. A society with abundant energy can afford to desalinate water during droughts, cool its cities during heat waves, and recycle resources that we now toss away. In short, abundance can be made sustainable, whereas scarcity in the face of climate change is a recipe for conflict and suffering.

Choosing the Right Side of History. The moment has come for the climate movement, and the American left in particular, to rethink its priorities and rhetoric. We must ask: Will we be the camp of “No, you can’t”, shunning nuclear power, economic growth, and big infrastructure—thereby driving away allies in the working class and inadvertently extending the fossil fuel era? Or will we be the camp of “Yes, we can”, harnessing every tool (from solar panels to nuclear reactors) to decarbonize and create shared prosperity? The latter is the only path that stands a chance against the true enemies of progress: the oil barons and petro-dictators and coal lobbyists who will fight tooth and nail to keep the world addicted to their products. Those interests absolutely love it when climate advocates bicker over renewables vs. nuclear, or when environmental purists insist on strategies that stall out or provoke backlash. Every year of delay is profit in the bank for them. We have to stop playing into their hands.

It’s time to be bold and unapologetic about a pro-nuclear, pro-abundance agenda. This means calling out the fossil fuel industry’s lies, which we now have documented evidence of: companies like Exxon knew the dangers of climate change decades ago and chose to spread misinformation and bankroll denial. It means holding accountable those who have profited from pollution at the expense of our planet’s future. And it also means extending an open hand to those environmentalists who opposed nuclear in the past, not to shame them, but to invite them to join a new coalition for climate truth and action. Many rank-and-file environmental activists genuinely want what’s best for the Earth; if we present clear evidence that nuclear energy is a lifeline for climate stability and a bridge to a better economy, we can win many of them over. In fact, numerous scientists and former anti-nuclear campaigners have already changed their minds in recent years upon seeing the data. The winds are shifting, albeit slowly.

In the narrative of climate change, abundance and nuclear power are not the villains – they are the heroes waiting in the wings, held back by misconception and misdirection. The real villains are those who would doom us to a future of dirty scarcity: the coal executive funding “green” anti-nuclear ads, the oil-backed think tank sowing fear of “radiation” while communities choke on smog, the politicians who find it easier to preach smallness and retreat rather than fight for growth that is sustainable. And yes, the “useful idiots” of these fossil interests must be named too: the legacy environmental groups and modern renewables-only zealots who, however well-intentioned, have helped blockade one of the most important solutions we have. We can acknowledge their contributions to other environmental causes while firmly rejecting their stance on this issue.

The stakes could not be higher. We are in a climate emergency; we are also in a crisis of economic inequality and political division. Bold action on energy offers a way to address all of these together: climate action through nation-building, decarbonization through shared prosperity. It’s a vision in which a rejuvenated American workforce—armed with advanced skills and united in purpose—builds the clean power plants, upgraded grids, and modern factories of a new era. It’s a vision in which no one is left behind: where a coal miner’s son can find work constructing a reactor that will run for 80 years, where a community that once depended on a polluting plant now hosts a clean energy hub and reaps the economic rewards, where blue-collar and white-collar, rural and urban, can all be part of the great project of saving our planet while growing our economy.

This is not a utopian fantasy. It’s exactly what abundance politics should be about. It’s what an alliance of environmentalists and labor unions could achieve if we unite against our common enemies instead of against each other. There is already $300k (and counting) in seed funding dedicated to initiatives pushing this vision, and we’ll need much more. But more than money, we need political will and a cultural shift. We need to proudly say that abundance is not the enemy of sustainability; it is the only realistic path to it. We must insist that working people deserve good jobs in building the new green America, not just lectures about what they must give up. And we must demand that our leaders be as serious about industrial revival as they are about emissions targets, because one without the other will fail.

In the end, abundance vs. austerity is not just an economic or environmental choice—it’s a moral one. Do we believe in a future where human ingenuity and solidarity can provide dignity for all while healing the Earth? Or will we retreat into a cramped vision that mistakes self-imposed limitations for virtue, while the real culprits of climate destruction laugh all the way to the bank? For those of us committed to social justice, to scientific truth, and to the empowerment of the many over the few, the answer is clear. We choose Abundance. And that means we choose nuclear power—alongside other clean innovations—as an essential pillar of our strategy.

Let’s reclaim the narrative from the fossil fuel villains and their ideological enablers. Let’s build an America powered by atoms and optimism, where climate action creates prosperity rather than punishing people. The technology is here, the resources are here, and the workers are ready. All that’s missing is the conviction to break with outdated dogmas. The hour is late, but not too late, to correct course. Abundance or austerity? The choice we make now will shape our civilization’s chances in the climate struggle, and the livelihoods of generations to come. For the sake of both our planet’s survival and our nation’s renewal, we must choose abundance – and get to work.