Category: Environment

While science and philosophy are about determining the nature of reality, politics is about creating perceptions alleged to be reality. This is one of many reasons why it is wiser to accept claims supported by science and reason over claims “supported” by ideology and interest.

Climate change is a matter of both science and politics. Ideally, the facts of climate change would be left to science and sorting out how to address it via policy would fall, in part, to the politicians using the facts. Unfortunately, politicians and other non-scientists make claims about climate science, usually in the form of unsupported talking points.

On the conservative side, there was a gradual shift in their talking points. In the beginning of climate change denial, they simply asserted that there was no climate change and the scientists were wrong. It was alleged that scientists were motivated by ideology to lie. In contrast, those whose profits could be impacted if climate change were real were presented as trustworthy sources.

In the face of mounting evidence and shifting public opinion, there was a shift to the claim that while climate change is occurring, it is not caused by humans. This shifted to the claim that climate change is caused by humans, but there is nothing we can (or should) do now. After Trump’s return to the White House, there has been a return to ignoring and denying climate change.  Those who are willing to concede that climate change is occurring while also wanting to do nothing about it often repeat some talking points.

One talking point is that scientists are exaggerating the impact of climate change and it will not be as bad as they claim. To be fair, this can be based on a reasonable concern about the accuracy of any prediction. In the case of a scientific prediction based on data and models, a reasonable inquiry would focus on the accuracy of the data and the quality of the models.

To rationally dispute the predictions would require showing problems with either the data or the models (or both). Simply saying they are wrong would not suffice—what is needed is clear evidence that the data or models (or both) are defective in ways that would show the predictions are excessive in terms of the predicted impact.

One indirect way to do this would be to find evidence that scientists are intentionally exaggerating. However, if they are exaggerating, this could be proven by examining the data and using it an accurate model. That is, if the scientists were exaggerating, the scientific method would show they were wrong. Shockingly enough, climate change deniers do not run better models with better data to disprove climate change.  

In some cases, it is claimed climate scientists are exaggerating from nefarious motives—a liberal agenda, a hatred of oil companies, communist tendencies, a desire for fame or some other wickedness. However, even if it could be shown that scientists have wicked motives, it does not follow that their predictions are wrong. To dismiss a claim because of an alleged defect in the person making the claim is an ad homimen fallacy. Being suspicious because of a possible nefarious motive can be reasonable, and such motives can undercut a person’s credibility. So, for example, the fact that fossil fuel companies have a financial stake does not prove that their claims about climate change are wrong. But the fact that they have an incentive to deny such claims makes it reasonable to be suspicious of their objectivity and credibility.  Naturally, if one suspects there is a global conspiracy of scientists driven by their interests, then one should be willing to consider that fossil fuel companies might be influenced by their financial interests.

One could, of course, hold that the scientists are exaggerating from a noble motive–so people will act. To use an analogy, parents sometimes exaggerate harms to try to persuade their children not to try it. While this is kinder than attributing nefarious motives to scientists, it is also no evidence against their claims. And even if scientists are exaggerating, there is still the question about how bad things really would be—they might still be very bad.

Naturally, if an objective and properly conducted study overturned the established science using the scientific method, I would have to accept that study. But no such study exists, for obvious reasons. If the climate change deniers had the truth on their side, they would be embracing rather than fighting science.

The second talking point is to claim that proposed solutions, such as laws, will not solve the problems. Interestingly, this talking point concedes that climate change is a problem. This point does have a reasonable foundation in that it would be unreasonable to take actions that are ineffective.

While crafting laws is politics, sorting out whether such laws would be effective falls in the domain of science. For example, if a law proposes cutting carbon emissions, there is a legitimate question as to whether it would have a meaningful impact on climate change. Showing this would require having data, models and so on—merely saying that the laws will not work is obviously not enough.

Now, if the laws and other proposals would not work, then the people who confidently make that claim should be equally confident in providing adequate evidence for their claim. It is reasonable to expect such evidence, although it is rarely forthcoming. One interesting exception is when scientists are critical of “mad science” proposals which would either not work or make things worse.

The third talking point is that the proposals to address climate change will hurt the American economy. As with the other points, this does have a rational basis, and it is sensible to consider the impact on the economy.

One approach is utilitarian: we can accept so much environmental harm (such as coastal flooding) in return for economic gain (such as jobs and profits generated by fossil fuels). Assuming that one is a utilitarian and that one accepts this value calculation, then one can accept that enduring such gains could be worth the harm. As usual, the costs will fall heavily on those who are not profiting. For example, fossil fuel executives do not have to endure the harms of climate change.

Utilitarian decisions about climate change should involve openly considering the costs and benefits as well as who will be hurt and who will benefit. Vague claims about damaging the economy do not allow us to make a proper moral and practical assessment of whether an approach will be correct. It might turn out that staying the course is the better option—but this needs to be determined with an open and honest assessment. However, this is unlikely to happen—especially during the Trump regime. To be fair and balanced, the mainstream Democrats will not save us.

It is also worth considering that addressing climate change could be good for the economy. After all, preparing coastal towns and cities for therising waters could be a huge and profitable industry creating many jobs. Developing alternative energy sources could also be profitable as could developing new crops able to handle the new conditions. There could be a whole new economy created, perhaps one that might rival more traditional economic sectors and newer ones, such as the internet economy. If companies with well-funded armies of lobbyists got into the climate change countering business, I suspect that a different tune would be playing. But I do worry that these solutions will create new problems; but that is how we operate as a species: solving problems by creating more problems until we become extinct.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

Some years ago, my running friend Nancy arranged a trash pickup after the Palace Saloon 5K. This involved spending about an hour and a half picking up trash in the hot Florida sun.  We runners created a pile of overstuffed trash bags full of a diversity of discarded debris.

On my training runs, I routinely pick up litter in San Luis Park. This ranges from the expected (discarded cans) to the unusual (a stereo system). These adventures in litter caused me to think about issues related to litter and especially the cost of litter.

One obvious cost of litter is the aesthetic damage. Litter is ugly and makes an area look, well, trashy. One of the many reasons I pick up litter is that I prefer not to run through trashy places.

Another obvious cost of litter is the environmental damage. Some of this is obvious, such as oil or paint leaking from discarded cans. Other damage is less obvious, such as erosion and flooding that can be caused by litter clogging storm drains.  There is also the harm done to animals directly, such as sea life killed when their stomachs fill with plastic debris. As with the aesthetic damage, the cost of the litter is largely paid by those who did not litter—such as the turtles and seabirds harmed by discarded items.

A less obvious cost is that paid by people who pick up the litter. For example, I take a few minutes out of almost every run to dispose of trash discarded by others. There are also walkers in my neighborhood who pick up trash during their entire walk—I will see them carrying full bags of cans, bottles and other debris that have been thrown onto the streets, sidewalks and lawns. Unlike my home state of Maine, Florida does not have a deposit on bottle and cans so there is no financial incentive to pick them up.

Those of us who clean up after the litterbugs pay with our time and effort. This is doubly annoying because the effort we need to expend to pick up the debris and dispose of it properly is more than the litterbug would spend to dispose of it. Litter is often scattered about, in pieces or tossed into the woods—thus making it a chore to pick up and carry. Also, carrying trash while running is more inconvenient than transporting it in a vehicle—and much of the trash beside the road is hurled from vehicles.

Some states, such as my home state of Maine, do shift some of the cost of litter to the litterer. To be specific, these states have a deposit on bottles and cans. When someone discards a can or bottle, they are throwing away the deposit—thus incurring a small cost for littering. When someone picks up the bottle or can, they can redeem it for the deposit—thus offsetting the cost of their effort. While this approach does not cover all forms of litter, it impacts the litter problem by providing people with an incentive to not litter or to pick up the litter thrown away by others.

This model of imposing a cost on littering and providing a reward for cleaning up litter is ethical. In terms of fairness, it seems right that the person littering should pay a price for the damage done and the cost imposed on others. It is also right that people who make the effort to clean up messes caused by others should receive compensation. The obvious challenge is making the model work on a broader scale beyond bottles and cans. I do, of course, think this should extend beyond mere personal littering, which is trivial when compared to the massive, organized littering of businesses.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

The March 2014 issue of National Geographic featured Kenneth Brower’s article on Bluefin tuna. Back then, it led me to consider the issues raised by the tuna harvest. Now, in 2026, I am revisiting tuna from a philosophical perspective. As a full disclosure, I’ve eaten a lot of tuna and hence probably have an impressive mercury content. Which might explain my becoming a philosopher. That fish is brain food, of course.

Like many species, tuna is generally in decline. This is due to human activity, primarily overfishing and environmental degradation. Like most industries, the tuna industry has a regulatory organization, the International Commission for the Conservation of Tuna (ICCAT). Given the name, one might suspect it aims at conserving tuna. However, critics claim that ICCAT stands for “International Conspiracy to Catch All Tuna.” While this might not be completely accurate, ICCAT seems to ignore scientific data and in favor of keeping the catch limits high.

For example, in tracking catch volume ICCAT has divided the North Atlantic into western and eastern zones. The problem is that the management data is not accurate—the fish are treated as two distinct stocks that do not mix, but they do. So, fish caught in the western zone could be from the eastern zone and vice versa. As another example, the ICCAT models also fail to consider illegally caught fish, although this might be significant.

Like many regulatory entities, the ICCAT often ignores its own scientific advisors. In the case of ICCAT, catch limits have been set higher than the recommended levels for sustainability and it seems to ignore actual catch levels. Scientists have recommended that the catch limits be reduced and fishing be suspended during most of the spawning time for the fish.

While some might claim that these recommendations arise from a liberal agenda to destroy the fishing industry and from a hatred of all that is good and holy in capitalism, they were aimed at sustainable fishing. That is, the recommendation is aimed at preserving the industry rather than destroying it.

It might be contended that fishing companies would not engage in behavior that would destroy their industry. However, history shows that this is unlikely to be true. One reason is that there is a “strip mining” mentality towards resources. The aim is to get as much short-term profit as fast as possible and not worry too much about long term consequences. This approach is also fueled by the human tendency to discount the future and focus on the short term at the expense of the long term. For example, people often buy things they want (but do not need) on credit and end up suffering financially later. This also applies to handling resources such as tuna. Or, as some might prefer, living creatures like tuna.

This also ties into the “move on” attitude which is the view that once something has been stripped of its value, the thing to do is move on to another area in which to achieve fast and maximum profit. That these attitudes are prevalent is clearly shown by the way that other resources are often managed, such as fossil fuels, forests, and humans.

As such, it is reasonable to believe that fishing companies and their regulators would engage in the seemingly irrational activity of destroying their own industry by overfishing. One reason for this is that it has been done before. At one time Monterey Bay had a thriving sardine industry but in the 1950s this industry crashed in part due to overfishing. What has already occurred can occur again, only this time with a different species. While the big corporations can easily move on to new profits, there is always a terrible price paid by all the people who depended on the resources for their livelihood and find them exhausted.

It might be contended that it is possible to keep moving on—that is, to shift to a new species once one species is eliminated. This is, of course, possible—but there a finite limit to how often this can be done. It is also worth pointing out that human activity often impacts many species at once, which will also reduce the ability to switch species. We do not, after all, have a tuna 2.0 swimming the seas, waiting to replace the tuna.

It might be contended that a solution will be found that does not require sustainable fishing—people like to point to past forecasts of doom that did not come true because of some innovation or invention. While human ingenuity is impressive, to assume we will be able to solve the problem would be wishful thinking.  Naturally, if there is a plausible solution being proposed, that would be another matter.

In addition to ignoring scientific data, there is also the tactic of “massaging” science.  A common method is to appeal to uncertainty. The idea is that uncertainty in the data warrants sticking with the status quo.  In the case of tuna, it has been claimed there is uncertainty about the stock assessments in terms of numbers and the impact of human activity. This uncertainty is then exploited to warrant expanding or at least maintaining quotas. The reasoning seems to be this: since the exact numbers and effects are not known with certainty, the new limits suggested by scientists are not warranted—so keep the old ones or set them higher. This same approach is taken with the environment in general, as has been the case with climate change. A general pattern is also to deny that humans are the cause and attributing it to other causes—and claiming that there is nothing we can do other than staying the course.

In an interesting parallel with fossil fuels, biologists who are funded by the tuna industry have claimed there might be as-of-yet undiscovered tuna spawning grounds so the fishing can continue at the current rate (or increase).  While this is possible, there seems to be no evidence for undiscovered spawning grounds that can compensate for overfishing known spawning grounds. However, this sort of wishful thinking allows business to operate on false hope unsupported by facts.

Given the world population, effective management of resources is critical not only for the profits of the few, but the survival of the many. As such, we should do more to ensure a sustainable harvest of tuna. After all, future generations will need that brain food and mercury to produce more philosophers.

 

While casting Democrats as wanting to impose big government, Republicans profess a love for small government and local control. However, as J.S. Mill noted, people rarely follow consistently applied principles about what the state should do. It is not surprising that Republicans are for local control, unless the locals are not doing what they want. Then they use the power of the state against local government. For example, laws that forbid local governments from passing laws to restrict fracking.

Even in oil industry friendly states such as Oklahoma, local governments have tried to impose restrictions on fracking. As might be imagined, having a fracking operation next door is disruptive because of the lights, noise, heavy truck traffic and contamination. In Oklahoma there is also the added concern of earthquakes linked to disposal wells. Since places that did not have earthquakes before fracking do not have earthquake resistant structures, these new quakes pose threats to property and public safety.

In general, local governments acted because the locals believed that state government was not doing enough to protect their well-being. State legislatures tend to be very friendly with the oil and gas industry. This makes sense, because of their economic importance in these states. While lobbying is not cheap, it is a small price to pay to ensure that state legislatures pass laws forbidding local governments from acting contrary to the interests of the oil and gas industry. Otherwise, the industry would need to influence (or purchase) all the local governments and this would be both costly and time consuming. It makes more sense to pay the state government to make the local governments comply to the will of the industry.

Since I favor individual autonomy, it is hardly surprising that I also favor local autonomy. As such, I see such laws as wrong.

The most obvious type of arguments to use against such laws are all the general arguments Republicans advance in favor of local control when the locals are doing what Republicans want them to do. After all, if these arguments show local control is good and desirable, then these arguments should apply to this situation as well. But, as noted above, the “principle” most people follow is that others should do what they want and not do what they do not want them to do. Consistency is rare and almost nonexistent in politics.

One argument in favor of having the state impose on the local governments is based on the fact that having a patchwork of laws can be cause problems. The flip side of this is, obviously, that having a consistent set of laws across the state (and presumably the entire country) is generally a good thing. Assuming that the laws are good, of course.

In the case of regulating the oil and gas industry, the argument rests on the claim that having all these different local laws would be confusing and costly. It is better to have laws for the industry that cover the entire state (and, to follow the logic, the entire country or world). Interestingly, in the Before Time when the EPA advanced a similar argument for regulating water, Republicans rushed to attack because of their inconsistent love for local rule. Once again, this is hardly a shock: the patchwork argument is not applied consistently, just when a party wants to prevent local control.

Applied consistently, the patchwork argument has its appeal. After all, it is true that having laws vary with each locality can be confusing and have some negative consequences. For example, if the color of traffic lights was set by localities and some decided to go with different colors, then there would be problems. As another example, if some local governments refused to recognize same sex-marriage when it is legal in the state, this could lead to various legal problems (such as inheritance issues or hospital visitation rights). As such, there are be good reasons to have a unified set of laws rather than a patchwork.

That said, it can be argued that the difficulties of the patchwork can be outweighed by other factors and one can always apply a utilitarian argument. If it can be shown that allowing local autonomy on a matter creates more good than the harm created by having a patchwork of laws, then that would be an argument in favor of local autonomy in that matter. In the case of local control of the gas and oil industry, this would be a matter of weighing the harm and the benefit to all those involved (and not just the oil and gas industry). I am inclined to think that allowing local control would create more good than harm, but I could be wrong. Perhaps the benefits to the state as a whole outweigh the damage done locally. That is, the few must sacrifice for the many (albeit against their will). But perhaps the many are suffering for the few stockholders, which would seem to be wrong.

Another moral argument can be built on property rights. In the case of fracking, the oil and gas companies do own the mineral rights. As such, they do have legal property rights to the resources. However, the people who own the property above the minerals also have rights. These presumably include a right to safety from environmental contamination, a right to not have their property values degraded, a right to a certain quality of life in regard to noise and light, and so on for other rights. The moral challenge is, obviously enough, balancing these rights against each other. Working this out is, in the practical sense, a matter of politics. But this often means that money makes right.

Since local governments tend to be more responsive to locals than the state government, it could be argued that they would be biased against the oil and gas industry and hence this matter should be settled by the state to avoid an unfair resolution. However, it can be argued that state governments are often influenced (or owned) by the oil and gas industry. This would seem to point towards the need for federal regulation of the matter (assuming that the federal government is more objective) which is something that Republicans tend to oppose, despite it being the logical conclusion of their argument against local control. Interesting, arguments advanced to claim that the federal government should not impose on the local control of the states would seem to apply to the local government. That is, if the federal government should not be imposing on the states, then the states should not be imposing on the local governments. But it must also be noted that the Republicans favor federal imposition on the states, if they like what is being inflicted on the states.

A Philosopher’s Blog 2025 brings together a year of sharp, accessible, and often provocative reflections on the moral, political, cultural, and technological challenges of contemporary life. Written by philosopher Michael LaBossiere, these essays move fluidly from the ethics of AI to the culture wars, from conspiracy theories to Dungeons & Dragons, from public policy to personal agency — always with clarity, humor, and a commitment to critical thinking.

Across hundreds of entries, LaBossiere examines the issues shaping our world:

  • AI, technology, and the future of humanity — from mind‑uploading to exoskeletons, deepfakes, and the fate of higher education
  • Politics, power, and public life — including voting rights, inequality, propaganda, and the shifting landscape of American democracy
  • Ethics in everyday life — guns, healthcare, charity, masculinity, inheritance, and the moral puzzles hidden in ordinary choices
  • Culture, identity, and conflict — racism, gender, religion, free speech, and the strange logic of modern outrage
  • Philosophy in unexpected places — video games, D&D, superheroes, time travel, and the metaphysics of fictional worlds

Whether he is dissecting the rhetoric of conspiracy theories, exploring the ethics of space mining, or reflecting on the death of a beloved dog, LaBossiere invites readers into a conversation that is rigorous without being rigid, principled without being preachy, and always grounded in the belief that philosophy is for everyone.

This collection is for readers who want more than hot takes — who want to understand how arguments work, why beliefs matter, and how to think more clearly in a world that rewards confusion.

Thoughtful, wide‑ranging, and often darkly funny, A Philosopher’s Blog 2025 is a companion for anyone trying to make sense of the twenty‑first century.

 

Available for $2.99 on Amazon

 

 

 

While weather disasters have always plagued humanity, there has been a clear recent uptick in such events. The increased severity of these disasters is due partially to the human population being larger than ever and occupying more land, especially in areas prone to such events. That said, events such as the floods in Texas and the steady inundation of the sea in many places (such as Miami) are indications of a real change.

Nearly every climate scientist accepts that climate change is occurring, and human activity has been a factor. Given the historic record, it would be irrational to deny that climate changes and few make this claim. The battle is over the cause of climate change. Unfortunately for addressing the impact of climate change, it was changed from a scientific issue into a political one. Making it into a partisan issue had the usual impact on group psychology: it became a matter of political identity, with people developing a profound emotional commitment to climate change denial. When denying climate change became a matter of group identity, it became almost impossible for reason to change minds. In the face of overwhelming evidence, people double down, deny evidence, and craft narratives about how scientists are biased and environmentalists hate capitalism.

To be fair, some of those who accept climate change are not moved by the science, but by their group identity. They just happen to be right, albeit for the wrong reason.

Not being an expert on climate change, I follow the rational approach to any issue that requires expertise I lack: I go with the majority view of the qualified experts. As such, I accept that climate change is real, and humans play a role. If the majority shifted, I would accept that view. After all, the history of science includes numerous shifts.

If this matter were a purely abstract debate like those about metaphysical universals, then there would be no reason to be worried However, the impact of the changing climate is doing considerable harm, and it will continue to get worse unless steps are taken to address it. Unfortunately, as noted above, climate is a political issue with deeply entrenched interest groups and strong emotional commitments. In some places, such as Florida, there is political pressure to not even use the words “climate change.” The problem is, of course, that not using the words does not make the problems go away. Miami will slowly vanish into the ocean, even if people refuse to say that its destruction is being caused by “climate change.”

As a philosopher, I do believe in reason. However, I know that reason is the weakest form of persuasion. Because of the entrenchment over climate change, trying to use reason and evidence to change minds would be a fool’s errand. As such, I suggest a purely pragmatic solution: stop using the C words (“climate change”) when trying to influence public policy, at least in cases in which there is strong ideological resistance. Using those words will simply evoke an emotional response and create strong resistance to whatever might be proposed, however reasonable.

As an alternative, the approach should be to focus on the specific threats and these should be cast in terms of risks to the economy and, perhaps, the lives and well-being of voters and consumers. There should be no mention of man-made climate change and no proposals to change behavior to counter man-made climate change. In short, the proposals must focus solely on mitigating the damage of weather events, with due care taken to present the notion that these events “just happen” and are “natural” with no connection to human activity.

It might be objected that this would be analogous to trying to combat the Zika virus by dealing only with the effects while refusing to say “virus” and not proposing any efforts to address the cause. This is a reasonable point. However, if there was a powerful political movement that refused to accept the existence of viruses and citizens emotionally devoted to virus denial, then trying to persuade them to deal with the virus would be a daunting task. If they did accept the existence of the effects, then they could be enlisted to assist in addressing them. While this approach would hardly be optimal, it would be better to have their cooperation in mitigating the consequences rather than facing their opposition.

It might also be objected that I am deluded by my own ideological views and have been misled by the conspiracy of scientists and liberals who are in the pocket of Big Environment and eager to destroy capitalism. Since I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, I admit that it could be the case that the noble fossil fuel companies and their minions are right about climate change and the scientists are either villains or dupes. If so, then not talking about climate change would be the correct approach, just as not talking about climate demons is the correct approach (because there are no such things). But since the weather events are really occurring, then addressing them would still be reasonable. So, regardless of whether climate change is real or not, my approach seems to be a sound one: avoid the resistance of climate change deniers by not using the C words; but enlist them into addressing those “perfectly natural “severe weather events that will just happen to be occurring with increasing regularity.

When it comes to pollution, people respond with a cry of NIMBY and let loose the dogs of influence. This shows that everyone gets what is obviously true: pollution is unsightly, unpleasant, and unhealthy. Air pollution alone is deadly, killing millions of us each year. It is also obviously true that our civilizations flood our home with pollution, and we must decide where this pollution goes.

As one would expect, the cost of pollution is regularly shifted onto those with less influence. The wealthy and politically influential use this power to ensure that pollution is concentrated in places where the poor and uninfluential live. To illustrate, we do not see incinerators or coal burning power plants constructed near the residences of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Cruz, Bill Gates, or Oprah.

In the United States (and elsewhere) race is also a factor: pollution is concentrated along racial lines, even accounting for disparities of income. To illustrate, highways tend to run through minority neighborhoods and industrial plants tend to be located near minority residences. While some might rush to point out that white Americans are also subject to horrific levels of pollution, this is hardly the devasting riposte that one might think it is. After all, pollution is distributed disproportionally to wealth and there are many poor white people in America. Also, pointing out that white people are also heavily exposed to pollution only shows how widespread the problem is. As with most harms in America, pollution hurts the poor, the children, and minorities the most.

In some cases, sources of pollution are intentionally inflicted on the poor and minorities.  In other cases, the same result arises without conscious intention. To illustrate, if a company proposed to build a refinery near a wealthy white neighborhood, the residents would use their influence to block it. The company would keep trying to find a location and would, of course, end up somewhere where the inhabitants lacked the power to prevent it from being built in their backyard. This would be a poorer area that is also likely also to have a minority population. It can be argued that the wealthy white folks have no desire to inflict pollution on these poor people, it just happens because of the disparity in power. After all, that refinery must go somewhere, just not in their backyard. While the folks who make the decisions probably care little about ethical theory, it can and should be applied to this decision making, be it direct or indirect.

One obvious approach to such large-scale moral decision making is to use a form of utilitarianism: the pollution should be located where it does the least harm to those who matter morally. Deciding who (and what) matters and how much they matter involves sorting out the scope of morality. There is also the problem of sorting out the calculation of value: what is the measure of the good and the evil? There are many ways to address matters of scope and value, which can lead to good faith moral debate. Interestingly, a solid argument can be made for the common practice of dumping the most pollution on those with the least power.

As John Kenneth Galbraith said, “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” Utilitarianism provides an easy way to do just that by adjusting the scope of morality. As noted above, determining the scope of morality is a matter of determining who has moral worth and to what degree they have it. One extreme example is ethical egoism. On this consequentialist view,  each person limits the scope of morality to themselves. Ayn Rand is a good example of an ethical egoist. On her view, everyone should be selfish and do what maximizes their self-interest. In terms of the scope of morality, the ethical egoist sees themself as the only one with moral worth. The opposing view is altruism. This is the view that at least some other people count morally.

An ethical egoist can easily provide a moral justification for shifting the cost of pollution onto others: only they count, so the right thing to do is to ensure that someone else is exposed to pollution. Obviously enough, this view entails that everyone will be selfishly striving to push the pollution onto someone else and they are all morally right to do so. The matter would, from a practical standpoint, be settled by strength: the strong will do as they wish, the weaker will suffer as they must. This is likely to strike some as being fundamentally unethical or even an absence of ethics. But one can expand the scope of morality while still pushing pollution onto others.

One obvious approach is to argue that the people in the upper classes have more moral worth than those in the lower classes. How the scope is set can vary greatly. One might, for example, claim that only the elites have any moral worth at all. One could be more “generous” and grant all classes moral status, but have the moral status correspond to the class status. On this sort of view, the poor would have some moral worth, but they would matter far less morally than the elites. This seems to be a commonly held view: only the most heartless would claim that the poor have no value, but our civilizations treat the lower classes as having far less moral worth. They are generally less honest about this these days; but it is evident upon even a cursory examination of countries like the United States and China.

One can also bring race in as a factor in setting the scope of morality. The United States provides a clear example of this: while many racists would accept that people outside of their group have some moral worth, a racist regards their group as having greater moral worth than others. This allows an easy “justification” of shifting the harms of pollution onto minorities: for the racist, these people have less worth and thus it makes moral sense to have them suffer the harms.  There are utilitarians, such as J.S. Mill, who have a broader scope of morality, taking all humans and even much of “sentient creation” to count morally.

For those who consider all people to have moral worth, then shifting pollution onto the poor and onto minorities becomes more morally difficult. One could still make a case for doing so, but it would be harder than simply adjusting the scope of morality to devalue the poor and minorities.

 

The received wisdom is that when Americans buy vehicles, they consider gas mileage when gas prices are high and mostly ignore it when gas prices are low. As this is being written, gas prices are relatively low and gas mileage concerns are probably low on the list for most buyers. As such, it is not surprising that the Trump administration has decided to lower the fuel efficiency standards of the Biden administration. This is consistent with the Trump administration’s approach of trying to undo what Biden did, primarily because it was done by Biden. He had a similar approach to the Obama administration.

When the Trump administration did the same thing in his first term, they said the standards were “wrong” and were set as a matter of politics. One plausible economic reason to oppose fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks is that more efficient vehicles also cost more. This economic argument can be retooled into a moral argument: saving consumers money is the right thing to do. But there is also an economic argument in favor of greater fuel efficiency.

While gas prices can vary greatly, increased fuel efficiency will offset increased vehicle costs and result in the consumer saving money. As such, the long-term economic argument favors fuel efficiency. As before, this can be retooled into a moral argument that saving Americans money is a good thing. But consumers saving money would seem to mean lower profits for the fossil fuel industry.

If, for example, an efficient vehicle saves me $4,000 in fuel costs over its life, then that is $4,000 less for the fossil fuel industry. While few would shed tears over lost profits for the industry executives, the broader impact must also be considered. While the executives reap the most benefits, the fossil fuel industry also includes the people working at gas stations and in the production and distribution of the fuel. If the harm done to these people outweighs the good done for the consumers, then increased fuel efficiency would, on utilitarian grounds, seem to be wrong. But it seems unlikely that the savings to consumers would cause more harm than good. After all, if we compare the benefit of the average American saving money to the  harm of a microscopic loss of profit for fossil fuel CEOs, then efficiency seems to be the right choice. In addition to the economic concerns and the associated ethical worries, there are also concerns about health.

While the Trump administration does not seem to care about the harms of pollution, about 50,000 deaths each year result from the air pollution caused by traffic. There are also many non-lethal health impacts of this pollution, such as asthma.  Increased fuel efficiency means vehicles burn less fuel, thus reducing the air pollution they produce per mile. Because of this, increasing fuel efficiency will reduce deaths and illnesses caused by air pollution. This health argument can be retooled easily into a moral argument: increasing fuel efficiency reduces pollution deaths and illness, and, on utilitarian grounds, this would be morally good. But this argument only works with those who care about the lives and health of others. That is, it should work with people who profess to be pro-life. But it will not, for the usual and obvious reasons.

It is reasonable to ask about how significant the reduction in deaths and illness might be. Arguments can also be made to try to show that the reduction in pollution would not be significant enough to justify increasing fuel efficiency on these grounds. It also should be noted that we, as a people, tolerate roughly 40,000 vehicle deaths per year. As such, continuing to tolerate deaths from air pollution is also an option. Tolerating deaths and illness for convenience and economic reasons is as American as apple pie.

For those not swayed by health concerns, there are national security and economic arguments that have been advanced for increasing fuel efficiency and they can still be applied today. One argument is that increased fuel efficiency will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make us safer. This security argument can also be presented as a moral argument based on the good consequences of increased security.

Another argument is based on the claim that buying foreign oil increases our trade deficit and this is economically harmful to the United States. Because of the negative consequences, this argument can also be refit as a moral argument in favor of increasing fuel efficiency. Given the Trump administration’s professed obsession with national security and trade deficits, these arguments should be appealing to them. But it is not.

Given the above arguments, there are excellent reasons to maintain the goal of increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks. While there are some reasons not to do so, such as helping the fuel industry increase profits, this would be the wrong choice.

 

While most of the earth’s surface is covered in water, there are ever increasing water shortages. One cause is obvious: the human population is increasing and the same amount of water is being spread among an increasing number of people. So, there is less water per person as our population increases.

Water is also being used in more ways than before, and industrializing countries have increased their water use. To illustrate, AI, manufacturing and agriculture use massive amounts of water, often in places that are ill-suited to such activity. In some cases, water can be reclaimed and re-used, but not always.  

It is not just the amount of water that matters, but what it can be safely used for. As we contaminate water, we decrease the usable water supply.  In some cases, we transform it from a resource to a waste that must be sealed away. Industrial chemicals, fertilizers, and even radioactivity are examples of water contaminants. Fracking, for example, contaminates water—even when it is done properly. While contaminated water can sometimes be re-used, it is usually unfit for human consumption. While it can be argued that contamination is limited and the amount of water vast (“the solution to pollution is dilution”), the earth’s water is obviously still finite. That means that as water is contaminated, the amount of usable water is reduced. If this goes on long enough and the water is not decontaminated, the effects will be significant. While worldwide contamination is of concern, what matters to  most people is not the total available water, but what is available to them. In addition to contamination, there is also the impact of climate.

While some deny climate change or the role of humans in the process, it is well-established historical fact that the climate does change and the ruins of ancient cities attest to this. In these cases, it is the location of water that matters and shifts in climate (whatever the cause) can create zones of shortage. This is happening today, just as it happened in the past. While the total water on the earth is not really impacted by climate change, the location and quality of the water is affected. For example, while drought in one area does not mean that the earth has less overall water, it does mean that the people living there have less water. Climate change can also cause contamination. For example, my adopted state of Florida is plagued by blooms of toxic algae which might be impacted by the changing climate. While some might taunt those concerned with this for being lake huggers, these outbreaks impact what matters most to the “practical folk”, namely money. Florida, after all, generates revenue from tourism and few want to travel to look at green slime. There is also the concern with the water supply as green slime is not safe to drink. While it is possible to continue the litany of water worries, the above should suffice to show that water shortages are a concern. This raises the question of how to deal with the problem.

Environmentalists have been arguing for years that the solution is to reduce pollution and address climate change. While a reduction of pollution has been a general trend in the United States (thanks in part to Richard Nixon creating the EPA), the current political environment favors an increase in pollution and a decrease in regulation. The moral value behind this view is that environmental costs should be shifted from those who profit from causing damage to those impacted by the damage. For example, rolling back regulations on what companies can dump into the water reduces their costs, but imposes health costs on those who drink contaminated water. The principle of fairness would seem to require that those who make the profit also pay the cost, but politicians are very selective in their concerns about fairness. Because of the current political climate, we should expect an increase in water contamination.

One controversial solution is to recycle waste water, especially sewage, so that it can be used as potable water. While recycling always involves some loss, this would allow cities to address water shortages by reusing their water. It would also have environmental benefits, if the waste was dealt with properly (and, interestingly, sewerage can provide valuable raw materials).

One major obstacle is the cost as recycling water for human consumption requires infrastructure. However, this cost can be worth it in the face of water shortages. It is, after all, probably cheaper and more convenient to recycle water than to transport water (and that water must obviously come from somewhere).

Another major obstacle is psychological. Many people find the idea of drinking water that was recycled from sewage  distasteful, even if the  recycled water is cleaner than the water they currently consume. To be fair, there are real concerns about ensuring the water is properly treated and improperly recycled sewage could contain harmful microbes or chemicals. But these are problems that can (and have) been addressed so that recycled sewage is no riskier than a conventional water supply (and perhaps less so in many places).

Even when people accept treated water as safe, the distaste problem remains because some think that drinking water that was recently sewage is gross, even though the water is pure and safe to drink. As such, simply proving it is safe will not solve this psychological problem.

This is analogous to proposals to use processed insects as a food source. Even if the food is indistinguishable from “normal” food, clean, healthy and nutritious, many people think this is gross. This includes people who regularly devour parts of animal corpses (better known as “meat”)

Since this is a problem of feeling rather than reason, the solution would need to focus on changing how people feel about recycled water so they can reason about it. One possible approach is by telling the story of water in general. With a little reflection, people understand that tap water has been recycled countless times. Any water you recently drank was most likely filtered through the kidneys of many creatures over the millennia and probably passed through many humans. It might have even passed through you at one point. As such, all the water we consume is recycled already and was almost certainly disgusting (vulture vomit, for example) at one point. However, the process of cleaning it, , cleans it: the water is then fine to drink. As such, if a person is willing to drink any water, then they should also be willing to drink properly recycled water. Water that was just recycled properly from sewage is no more disgusting than water that was once part of vulture vomit and is now in your coffee or bottled water.

People can still say that it is proximity that matters. Recycled water was just recently sewage, but their bottled water or coffee has (probably) not been vulture vomit for a long time. From a rational standpoint this difference should be irrelevant: clean water is clean water, regardless of how long it has been clean. Unless one believes in some sort of mystical or metaphysical contamination that is undetectable by empirical means, then the rejection of safe recycled water would be unfounded. However, unfounded and irrational beliefs drive much of politics and human decision making in general, so the practical challenge is to influence people to not be disgusted by recycled water. Some might be won over by other feelings, such as positive feelings about the environment or the survival instinct (recycled water is preferable to no water). Hard core campers and hikers, who have sucked up bog water through a filtration straw, might be the easiest people to win over.  But such psychological manipulation goes beyond the scope of philosophy, so I will leave this matter to the experts in that field.