Lloyd, I 100% agree with you that we need to conserve resources rather than building more crap McMansions and destructive car infrastructure. But I think the underlying idea behind boosting “abundance” has very little to do with our persistent creation of extraneous shit.
I take it to mean that Earth has abundant resources, but they are inequitably claimed and incoherently destroyed by the rich and are therefore unavailable to the poor, who must live in a world of strategically imposed scarcity.
We absolutely DO need more homes! Millions, possibly billions, of people have what you might (euphemistically) call “insufficient” housing. Most people on Earth would love the chance to have “sufficient” resources. So I guess where I depart from you is in the definition of “we.”
If “we” means rich and middle-class humans who have too much already, then we should absolutely be focused on sufficiency. But if “we” means most of humanity, we do not have enough food, clean water, transportation, decent work, or (yes) housing. Most of our species is scrambling for meager crumbs left by the sickeningly wasteful lifestyles that are common here in the Global North—though millions of us, even here, are food and housing insecure too.
My sufficiency is another person’s abundance.
How we begin as humans to offer sufficient resources to everyone is an important conversation, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept that there’s plenty to go around (abundance). What’s wrong is that the abundant resources get hogged and compromised by the rich. If we can all learn to share, though, everyone can have enough (sufficiency). Sufficiency and abundance are not really at odds.
Good morning. :Lloyd. I am a faithful reader and often use the ideas you present to spark articles of my own for CleanTechnica. I did so yesterday and found the comments revealing, as many demonstrated differences of opinion about where the line between sufficiency and abundance should be.
I read Abundance earlier this year and found its explanation of how progressive policies inhibit many of the ideas progressive's champion thought provoking. Thank you for continuing to express yourself clearly and forcefully.
Here is a link to my article, should you care to see what my readers have had to say about the ongoing tension between abundance and sufficiency. Personally, I tend more toward the sufficiency side of things.
Great article Lloyd and hopefully gaining some thought traction.
I'm recalling the classic book: 'How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built' by Stewart Brand. While it may not address the specific idea of "abundance" and associated largess it does speak to flexibility and adaptation over time to purpose and performance. In essence designing & building solutions (buildings & infrastructure) capable of adapting to change over time. Kind-of continuous adaptation to requirements. Repurposing is - usually - a great environmental consideration.
great summary- here's an EU initiative that has the Lloyd Alter theme: The European initiative HouseEurope! wants to preserve homes and communities, create a fairer and more local building industry, save energy and resources and preserve the history and memories of our building culture. Renovation and conversion should be the norm, as the potential of existing buildings is enormous.https://koozarch.com/whats-on/european-citizens-initiative-calls-for-new-eu-laws
Great article. I often question how some of the ideas on regenerative design are implemented, also linked to the idea of abundance. Some of my architecture students propose demolishing existing buildings and building new regenerative buildings that (in theory) give more than they take. But I keep thinking that all forms of construction, including timber construction, still generate many environmental impacts. The first step should always be to reuse what we have and creatively adapt our existing built environment. I’m working on some research exploring scenarios to adapt and subdivide existing homes to address the housing crisis while building less.
I like to imagine the idea of abundance coming from sharing resources. For example, instead of telling people to own less tools, giving them access to a tool library where they can share an abundance of them. An abundance that comes from sharing and less ownership :)
When I was young my parents bought a fairly large (20 squares on the old money) old Edwardian house in Melbourne. It was big enough that part of it could be closed off from the rest to create a nice separate apartment. They let it for a few years (had to pay the mortgage) first to tenants, then to my big sister and her husband...later to me and my partner. Though they ended up separating and selling the house, it could have worked almost indefinitely for many generations, with the smaller bit being available for adult children who might ultimately swap with their parents when they had kids of their own and needed the larger space, while the older, retired generation would be fine in the smaller section.
Granny flats in the back yard can work just the same.
As well as being a great way to keep existing buildings in active use, it's also a great way to house people that could avoid the need for expensive mortgages over time. It also means family is nearby for support.
It also means that a larger house and/or a larger block can deliver optimal return on energy and carbon already invested.
I'm as guilty as anyone in over housing clients. One in particular project still haunts me: a couple with no kids in their 50's with a two car garage 250m2 bungalow with a walk-out finished basement "needed" to add over 100m2 of space PLUS a 2nd two+ car garage. This "need" was due to 3 very large vehicles & accumulated STUFF from both their departed parents. These difficult clients NEEDED 2 more WC's (5 in total!). Being on a septic system the municipality required more oversight & that was seen as "government overreach". While the reno did reduce the heating bill the dwelling required a 3rd furnace & a 2nd AC as existing HVAC was under sized for the existing house. An estate sale would have saved this couple hundreds of thousands.
I find Ezra Klein's position wholly loathesome. Call me an inveterate, unreconstructed Mc Governite, but I don't think he's that much different from the Brie and chablis neo liberalism of Tsongas, Clinton, Al Gore etc
I have identfied particular areas where Klein fudges the facts, obscures the truth and rewrites history.
And what are your views on agriculture? That seems to be a big ommission considering the harm it does. The number of livestock dwarfs the wild animal population. Huge resources are needed to unnecessarily provide other people with meat. Fortunately, I'm not one of them.
I very much enjoyed your Zoom webinar! I would very much like to organize a similar in person event here in Guelph Ontario, perhaps in the fall. Please DM me if you'd be interested.
It’s increasingly difficult when it comes to questions of perspective when so much is counterintuitive and paradoxical.
We certainly live in a world of natural abundance, though within limits to growth, but sufficiency really needs to be taken much more seriously by those who have the most potential.
A good example of a finite/infinite resource is potable water. The hydrological cycle essentially provides us with an unlimited supply of renewable fresh water. We could use renewables as a metric to measure the benefits of our energy and materials uses and thereby improve our focus on circular over linear economies
Gabriel's Horn is often referred to as the "painter's paradox" and it raises the question of how it's possible to fill a finite volume with paint and yet not have enough paint to cover the infinite surface area.
The paradox highlights the limitations of our intuitive understanding of infinity.
Sorry to get hung up on details, but I’m curious about the math on 300 e-bikes for one Rivian truck. An e-bike is about 50lbs, so 300 of them would be 15,000lbs. Does a Rivian really weigh 15k lbs? Seems more like 100 e-bikes or maybe 300 batteries for e-bikes? Either way proves the point. We focus on efficiency for all the wrong things.
Sufficiency, by your definition, demands "only enough". My first observation: "Is having two homes enough? Does that fit the definition for sufficiency or too much?". That's "Fine for me but not for thee" territory.
And as always, you never define WHO or WHAT defines what is "enough" for everyone. How is "enough" arrived at?
Why is that? You postulate all kinds of models for future living but never wish to broach the process and who is in charge of that process, to accomplish your goal. Why is that? One would think that you'd be perfectly open about it; that you're not perhaps means there is something that shouldn't be disclosed beforehand? I know of other groups that have followed that same track; being completely opaque is a recipe for disaster as history has bluntly shown us the results of such behaviors.
Or is it because setting up that process, especially in a constitutional/democratic model govt, is MUCH harder? Is it easier to talk about these things in SIGs than to make known to the hoi polloi the how and what you are about to do to their lives and the lives of their families - without their buy-in?
Interesting times, indeed, that might get rather spicy rather quickly. Such a color revolution might turn out to be rather dismal.
Lloyd, I 100% agree with you that we need to conserve resources rather than building more crap McMansions and destructive car infrastructure. But I think the underlying idea behind boosting “abundance” has very little to do with our persistent creation of extraneous shit.
I take it to mean that Earth has abundant resources, but they are inequitably claimed and incoherently destroyed by the rich and are therefore unavailable to the poor, who must live in a world of strategically imposed scarcity.
We absolutely DO need more homes! Millions, possibly billions, of people have what you might (euphemistically) call “insufficient” housing. Most people on Earth would love the chance to have “sufficient” resources. So I guess where I depart from you is in the definition of “we.”
If “we” means rich and middle-class humans who have too much already, then we should absolutely be focused on sufficiency. But if “we” means most of humanity, we do not have enough food, clean water, transportation, decent work, or (yes) housing. Most of our species is scrambling for meager crumbs left by the sickeningly wasteful lifestyles that are common here in the Global North—though millions of us, even here, are food and housing insecure too.
My sufficiency is another person’s abundance.
How we begin as humans to offer sufficient resources to everyone is an important conversation, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept that there’s plenty to go around (abundance). What’s wrong is that the abundant resources get hogged and compromised by the rich. If we can all learn to share, though, everyone can have enough (sufficiency). Sufficiency and abundance are not really at odds.
I think Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics covers this quite well - at least at a broad brush level.
Good morning. :Lloyd. I am a faithful reader and often use the ideas you present to spark articles of my own for CleanTechnica. I did so yesterday and found the comments revealing, as many demonstrated differences of opinion about where the line between sufficiency and abundance should be.
I read Abundance earlier this year and found its explanation of how progressive policies inhibit many of the ideas progressive's champion thought provoking. Thank you for continuing to express yourself clearly and forcefully.
Here is a link to my article, should you care to see what my readers have had to say about the ongoing tension between abundance and sufficiency. Personally, I tend more toward the sufficiency side of things.
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/02/abundance-or-sufficiency-charting-a-path-to-the-future/#comment-6715971471
“Lloyd Alter is a small-minded man.” I LOVE IT
Great article Lloyd and hopefully gaining some thought traction.
I'm recalling the classic book: 'How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built' by Stewart Brand. While it may not address the specific idea of "abundance" and associated largess it does speak to flexibility and adaptation over time to purpose and performance. In essence designing & building solutions (buildings & infrastructure) capable of adapting to change over time. Kind-of continuous adaptation to requirements. Repurposing is - usually - a great environmental consideration.
great summary- here's an EU initiative that has the Lloyd Alter theme: The European initiative HouseEurope! wants to preserve homes and communities, create a fairer and more local building industry, save energy and resources and preserve the history and memories of our building culture. Renovation and conversion should be the norm, as the potential of existing buildings is enormous.https://koozarch.com/whats-on/european-citizens-initiative-calls-for-new-eu-laws
Americans are not Europeans; a whole different mindset and culture.
You made your comment. please don't go after all my other commenters, it drives them away.
That we use more stuff than Europeans for comparable, at best, lives, is nothing to brag about.
Great article. I often question how some of the ideas on regenerative design are implemented, also linked to the idea of abundance. Some of my architecture students propose demolishing existing buildings and building new regenerative buildings that (in theory) give more than they take. But I keep thinking that all forms of construction, including timber construction, still generate many environmental impacts. The first step should always be to reuse what we have and creatively adapt our existing built environment. I’m working on some research exploring scenarios to adapt and subdivide existing homes to address the housing crisis while building less.
I like to imagine the idea of abundance coming from sharing resources. For example, instead of telling people to own less tools, giving them access to a tool library where they can share an abundance of them. An abundance that comes from sharing and less ownership :)
When I was young my parents bought a fairly large (20 squares on the old money) old Edwardian house in Melbourne. It was big enough that part of it could be closed off from the rest to create a nice separate apartment. They let it for a few years (had to pay the mortgage) first to tenants, then to my big sister and her husband...later to me and my partner. Though they ended up separating and selling the house, it could have worked almost indefinitely for many generations, with the smaller bit being available for adult children who might ultimately swap with their parents when they had kids of their own and needed the larger space, while the older, retired generation would be fine in the smaller section.
Granny flats in the back yard can work just the same.
As well as being a great way to keep existing buildings in active use, it's also a great way to house people that could avoid the need for expensive mortgages over time. It also means family is nearby for support.
It also means that a larger house and/or a larger block can deliver optimal return on energy and carbon already invested.
I'm sure the idea is obvious enough...
I'm as guilty as anyone in over housing clients. One in particular project still haunts me: a couple with no kids in their 50's with a two car garage 250m2 bungalow with a walk-out finished basement "needed" to add over 100m2 of space PLUS a 2nd two+ car garage. This "need" was due to 3 very large vehicles & accumulated STUFF from both their departed parents. These difficult clients NEEDED 2 more WC's (5 in total!). Being on a septic system the municipality required more oversight & that was seen as "government overreach". While the reno did reduce the heating bill the dwelling required a 3rd furnace & a 2nd AC as existing HVAC was under sized for the existing house. An estate sale would have saved this couple hundreds of thousands.
As a pessimist on the subject (and a lifelong student of human nature) I’m hoping we’ll be able to have sufficiency.
I find Ezra Klein's position wholly loathesome. Call me an inveterate, unreconstructed Mc Governite, but I don't think he's that much different from the Brie and chablis neo liberalism of Tsongas, Clinton, Al Gore etc
I have identfied particular areas where Klein fudges the facts, obscures the truth and rewrites history.
And what are your views on agriculture? That seems to be a big ommission considering the harm it does. The number of livestock dwarfs the wild animal population. Huge resources are needed to unnecessarily provide other people with meat. Fortunately, I'm not one of them.
I very much enjoyed your Zoom webinar! I would very much like to organize a similar in person event here in Guelph Ontario, perhaps in the fall. Please DM me if you'd be interested.
It’s increasingly difficult when it comes to questions of perspective when so much is counterintuitive and paradoxical.
We certainly live in a world of natural abundance, though within limits to growth, but sufficiency really needs to be taken much more seriously by those who have the most potential.
A good example of a finite/infinite resource is potable water. The hydrological cycle essentially provides us with an unlimited supply of renewable fresh water. We could use renewables as a metric to measure the benefits of our energy and materials uses and thereby improve our focus on circular over linear economies
Gabriel's Horn is often referred to as the "painter's paradox" and it raises the question of how it's possible to fill a finite volume with paint and yet not have enough paint to cover the infinite surface area.
The paradox highlights the limitations of our intuitive understanding of infinity.
https://youtu.be/yZOi9HH5ueU?si=3kHlDHYnav89y-rs
Sorry to get hung up on details, but I’m curious about the math on 300 e-bikes for one Rivian truck. An e-bike is about 50lbs, so 300 of them would be 15,000lbs. Does a Rivian really weigh 15k lbs? Seems more like 100 e-bikes or maybe 300 batteries for e-bikes? Either way proves the point. We focus on efficiency for all the wrong things.
"Have less, do less, be less".
Sufficiency, by your definition, demands "only enough". My first observation: "Is having two homes enough? Does that fit the definition for sufficiency or too much?". That's "Fine for me but not for thee" territory.
And as always, you never define WHO or WHAT defines what is "enough" for everyone. How is "enough" arrived at?
Why is that? You postulate all kinds of models for future living but never wish to broach the process and who is in charge of that process, to accomplish your goal. Why is that? One would think that you'd be perfectly open about it; that you're not perhaps means there is something that shouldn't be disclosed beforehand? I know of other groups that have followed that same track; being completely opaque is a recipe for disaster as history has bluntly shown us the results of such behaviors.
Or is it because setting up that process, especially in a constitutional/democratic model govt, is MUCH harder? Is it easier to talk about these things in SIGs than to make known to the hoi polloi the how and what you are about to do to their lives and the lives of their families - without their buy-in?
Interesting times, indeed, that might get rather spicy rather quickly. Such a color revolution might turn out to be rather dismal.