Category: Politics

 

Back when the Prius and other hybrids went on the market, some anti-environmentalists expressed their opinion by rolling coal (humorously dubbed “Prius repellent”).  The animosity against hybrids seemed to fade somewhat but the arrival of commercially viable electronic vehicles has sparked a new current of anger.  

I first noticed this on Facebook in the form of cartoons and memes posted about EVs. The cartoon usually showed an EV with an extension cord connected to a smoke-belching powerplant and the memes made a similar point. This struck me as odd since I knew the people doing the posting were generally pro-fossil fuel, anti-renewable energy, and skeptical about climate change. Given their professed views, if electric vehicles ran on electricity generated by dirty fossil fuels, that should either be a matter of no concern or even a plus.

While I have seen people posting in a similar manner against renewable energy, after Trump (a noted hater of wind turbines), I noticed posts attacking wind power on the grounds that it kills birds. When posted by people who never showed any other concern for the environment, this also seemed odd.

Most recently, I have seen posts critical of electric cars and electric stoves that reference the sorry state of the American electrical system. This also seemed odd, since improving the electrical grid never seemed to concern these folks in the past.

Given that these posts on social media were consistent in their posting points and they occurred at roughly the same time, I decided to determine what was behind this. I also wanted to investigate the facts of the matter. This led me away from cartoons and memes to in depth and often thoughtful writing.  I’ll start by looking at EVs.

The cartoons showing EVs linked to smoking powerplants do draw attention to a real concern and there are at least two other major concerns about these vehicles. Tilak Doshi, who “worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks” wrote an informative essay for Forbes about the dirty secrets of EVs. While you should read the article for the details, he raises three main concerns about EVs.

The first is that the manufacture of an EV will typically result in significantly more environmental harm than the manufacture of a comparable fossil fuel burning vehicle. This disparity arises largely from the batteries used in the EV. As the media outlets who got the memo have hammered home, the batteries in EV are their dirty secret. Getting back to the cartoons I mentioned, Doshi also points out that if an EV gets its electricity from a dirty power source, like a coal-fired power plant, then it can be meaningfully more polluting than a conventional vehicle. Third, Doshi points out a problem that has been well known in the broader technology context for a long time: the mining of lithium is linked to significant harms to people beyond the environmental damage.

While I am not an expert on any of this, these claims are supported by reputable sources across the political spectrum. As such, I agree that the manufacture of these EVs is currently more polluting than manufacturing conventional vehicles, although this is clearly something that can be addressed. I also agree that powering EVs (or anything else) from dirty fossil fuel sources is a harmful way to generate electricity. And, of course, the human cost behind the manufacturing of these batteries is high and needs to be addressed. Now, let us move on to wind turbines and solar.

Trump, who hates wind turbines, consistently makes the true claim that windmills kill birds. Studies from 2013 and 2014 estimated that they killed 140,000 to 679,000 birds. The number killed is presumably higher now, due to an increase in wind turbines. As noted above, many people who oppose renewable power use the death of birds as a premise in their argument against it. They also refer to, correctly, that solar and wind power come with manufacturing and disposal issues that cause environmental harm.  

While not an expert on wind turbines and solar power, these claims are well supported and I have no reason to doubt that wind turbines kill birds or that renewable energy creates an environmental impact—after all, these turbines and panels need to be manufactured and eventually disposed of.

While some people might be tempted to reject claims from Trump and others who oppose renewable energy because they do not like these people, that would be a mere ad hominem. Also, to reject what people connected to the fossil fuel industry say about EVs and renewables because they have a stake in the matter would be another mere ad hominem. One should, of course, be wary of bias but this is not proof that someone is wrong. Likewise, if someone profits from EVs or renewable energy or is associated with them, it does not follow that they are wrong in their claims. That said, this approach taken to criticize EVs and renewables has made me both suspicious and curious. After all, these seem to be what are usually liberal arguments grounded on what appears to be professed concern about the environment, climate change, human rights, and worker exploitation. Why would, for example, a person known to be pro-fossil fuel, anti-renewable energy, and skeptical about climate change post a cartoon that seems to be criticizing EVs on the grounds that they contribute to fossil fuel pollution? Why would people with links to the fossil fuel industry make such arguments against EVs and renewable energy? Why would people who normally seem to lack concern about energy generation killing birds be so concerned about bird deaths?  While one can never know for sure what is in another’s mind, there are certainly reasonable claims that can be made.

One hypothesis is that these people do have concerns about the environment (and human rights) but the scope of their concern is extremely narrow. That is, they are only concerned about the environmental (and human) harm caused by EVs and renewable energy.

The fact that wind generated energy kills 0.269 birds per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced, compared to 5.18 birds killed per gigawatt-hour of electricity from fossil fuel projects does not concern them. We do not, for example, see Trump lamenting the birds killed by fossil fuel projects.

The fact that expanding public transportation and redesigning cities would reduce the need for both EVs and conventional cars does not seem to concern them, for they seem laser focused on the pollution created by EVs. Also, those posting the power plant cartoons do not post cartoons showing these EVs connected to renewable energy—something that would seem to address their criticism of EVs running on dirty power. Those rightly pointing out that the awful US power grid and the wiring of many houses will not be able to handle an increase in EVs and electric stoves do not mention that this challenge can be addressed with renewable energy and a meaningful investment in public infrastructure.

It is certainly possible that these people are making a good faith criticism of EVs and renewable energy based on their very focused and limited concern about the harm done by EVs and renewable energy. But this seems like a rather odd view; like only being concerned about deaths caused by colon cancer and having no concerns about all other cancers (and worse, being a proponent of some other types of cancer). After all, if the harm caused by EVs and renewable energy are bad, these same harms produced by conventional vehicles and fossil fuels would also be bad. But perhaps these folks do not have a narrow scope of concern; perhaps this is a rhetorical tactic being used against people who are more broadly concerned about the environment and harm to humans. This tactic can be called a “false concern argument.”

A false concern argument involves using as a premise or premises (which might be unstated) a concern that the person making the argument does not have and doing this in bad faith. While it is reasonable to craft an argument that will appeal to the concerns (and values) of your target audience, the problem with the false concern argument is the bad faith aspect: the person making the argument does not share the concern that they are intentionally exploiting in the argument.

Going back to the EV cartoons and other criticisms of EVs, the implicit argument seems to be as follows:  Because EVs are recharged from electricity generated by dirty fossil fuel plants, they are not good for the environment. Since you (the target of the cartoon) care about the environment, you should not buy an EV (or you should oppose them). Likewise for arguments involving the harms stemming from their manufacture.

In the case of wind and solar, the argument is built around the idea that because of the harm to birds (wind) and the environment (both), people concerned about birds and the environment should oppose solar and wind.

If we consider only the arguments in isolation, the reasoning can be good, and the premises can be plausible. As noted above, there are real concerns about EVs and renewable energy that give a person who cares about the environment (and people) reasons to be concerned about both. That said, someone who is concerned about the environment (and people) would also consider ways in which these real harms could be mitigated (such as recycling batteries) and would also compare these harms to those generated by the alternatives (such as fossil fuel energy). We can and should have good faith discussions about the harms of EVs and renewable energy. But bad faith cartoons, essays and arguments do not help.

As also noted above, rejecting these criticisms because of who makes them or because they are believed to be acting in bad faith would be to fall into fallacious reasoning. But what, then, is my criticism of these bad faith arguments and what is the problem with false concern arguments?

In terms of why these posts and arguments are in bad faith, there is the fact that they are generally made by people who are generally pro-fossil fuel, anti-renewable energy, and skeptical about climate change. They also usually do not seem overly concerned about birds in other contexts. Also, many criticisms of EVs and renewables comes from people in the fossil fuel industry and those who are paid to protect it. Again, this does not mean that their arguments are wrong, it is just that they are unlikely to be making these arguments from an anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, climate-change accepting world view. That is, they are most likely not concerned about fossil fuel pollution, climate change, etc. If they were, they would post and make criticisms about fossil fuel-based pollution and not limit their concern to EVs and renewable energy. This is to say, they do not have the concerns that their cartoons and arguments rest upon—they do not believe their own key premise(s). The person who posts the cartoon of the EV is most likely not opposed to the fossil fuel plant in their cartoon—they do not, for example, post critical cartoons of conventional cars driving past oil refineries and oil leaks from ships, wells, trains, and pipelines. What, then, are they doing?

A somewhat lazy explanation is that the cartoon posters and others are trying to “own the libs” by shoving in their faces the fact that EVs are a source of pollution. Liberals are supposed to love EVs and renewables, so this is a way to mock them. This does have some appeal as an explanation in some cases, but does not explain well written attacks on EVs that lay out evidence and maintain a reasonable tone.

While this is speculation, they seem to be well-crafted bad faith arguments intended to persuade pro-EV and pro-renewable energy people to change their minds in favor of conventional vehicles and fossil-fuel. Or at least raise doubts. I say they are (probably) bad faith because they make their case by writing as if environmental harm is bad (when caused by an EV or renewables), but do not extend this principle to fossil fuels and conventional vehicles.  For example, Tilak Doshi offers an in depth criticism of EVs, but if you look at his other essays he does not offer such harsh criticism on the same principles of conventional vehicles (or fossil fuels). In this case, the problem with their bad faith argument is, once again, that they do not seem to believe what they are arguing.

Fairness does require that I consider an alternative: they are not basing their arguments on a professed or implied false concern but are trying to prove to supporters of EVs and renewable energy that these are bad like conventional cars and fossil fuels. That is, they all do harm to the environment and people.

But this also leads to an obvious question: if they believe that EVs and renewable energy are bad like conventional vehicles and fossil fuels, why would they oppose them, given that they are not seem concerned with these harms? After all, if a coal-fired plant does not bother a person, then an EV powered by that plant should not bother them either. If fossil fuel plants killing more birds than wind power does not bother them, why should wind turbines killing fewer birds bother them? If the harm to people from the fossil fuel industry does not concern them, why should this harm concern them when it comes to EVs and renewable energy? As such, the harm arguments they make would seem to be in bad faith—they do not seem to care about the harms. Given this, a reasonable explanation is that one motivating factor behind these criticisms (and the cartoons arising from them) is that it is an attempt by the fossil fuel industry to harm a competing industry through a propaganda campaign. This campaign does seem to be having some effect, if only in the proliferation of attacks on EVs and renewable energy on social media.

 

 

In a recent episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart called “BS on Trump and the GOP’s Performative Patriotism.”  In the usual Daily Show style, he made his case using an argument by example. His first set of video examples provided evidence that members of the GOP purport to love the Constitution. The second set of video examples show Trump explicitly rejecting Constitutional rights (such as the First Amendment) and accepted American principles. As Stewart provides the videos in context and there is an abundance of additional evidence available (one can simply go to Fox New’s website), his claims are well supported. In doing this, Stewart stands firmly with the ranks of liberals who claim Republicans don’t believe in the Constitution. It is also common for liberal critics to claim that the GOP does not have any principles beyond doing whatever it takes to claim and hold power. But are these fair claims?

One obvious epistemic problem with answering these questions is that I do not know what really goes on in the minds of Republicans (or anyone). Laying aside the philosophical problem of other minds, there is the practical problem of sorting out what a person believes based on what they say and do. Such an interpretation can always be wrong, especially when one is excessively biased. While I do have a negative view of Trump and his supporters, I will endeavor to follow the principle of charity and try to present them in the best possible light. But I am also constrained by the principle of plausibility: I will limit myself to what can be reasonably claimed.

As Stewart and others (such as Trump himself) have made an indisputable case, I must accept that 1) Trump and the GOP purport to love and follow the Constitution while 2) seeming to endorse principles and actions that violate the Constitution. The challenge is reconciling this apparent inconsistency in the most charitable and reasonable way possible.

There are certainly actual Republicans who match the caricature of the unprincipled opportunist who only cares about power and sees professing love of the Constitution as a useful rhetorical device. After all, Americans are conditioned to see the Constitution as good, and professing a love for it is easy rhetorical gain, which is analogous to how professing to believe in God is a useful persuasive technique. But it would be unfair to simply assume that all Republicans match this caricature. How, then, could someone both love the Constitution and support actions and principles that seem to violate it?

An easy and obvious answer is that all people can accept logically inconsistent claims as being true at the same time. For example, someone could sincerely believe in freedom of speech while also believing that speech they dislike should be silenced.  People can also believe claims while failing to act in ways consistent with those claims. For example, everyone seems to believe that exercise and a good diet are beneficial, but many people do not act on this professed belief. There is no reason to think that these general traits would not apply to beliefs about the Constitution—people sincerely praise what they think is good while also failing to act in ways that are consistent with this professed belief. While this is an appealing explanation and surely applies in many cases, it might seem a bit oversimplified. A more specific account, it might be said, is desirable.

One plausible explanation is that Republicans do love parts of the Constitution while rejecting others. Trump has made it clear what parts he dislikes—those that would interfere with what he wants to do. But he and other Republicans can honestly profess love for the parts that are advantageous. The Republicans profess to love their interpretation of the Second Amendment; this is so well known that it requires no explanation.

 This also ties into the matter of why Republicans tend to insist that America is a Constitutional Republic. They are obviously not wrong, but there is also more to it than just the obvious fact that the United States has a constitution and, at some levels, follows the republican model. While this view can be disputed, the Constitution contains key elements that intentionally allow for minority rule. While it can be debated, Trump has made it clear that he believes that “Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote.” The Republicans have also noticed that George Bush was the last Republican president to win the popular vote (in 2004). Since then, the Republicans have lost the popular vote in every presidential election. Trump’s victory, which was a legitimate election, rested on the electoral college—something in the Constitution that the Republicans currently have cause to love. If the country abandoned the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, then the Republicans would almost certainly lose presidential elections in the foreseeable future. This is not because most Americans really like the Democrats. It is that they dislike the Republicans and their policies. The electoral college, perhaps more as a matter of luck than brilliant strategy, favors the Republicans’ minority rule—hence, they have a good reason to love that part of the Constitution. If it favored the Democrats, one assumes they would be railing against it.

While the House of Representatives is linked to the size of the population it represents, the US Senate has two senators from each state. While there are various arguments in its favor, it provides disproportional political power. My home state of Maine has as many senators as the vastly more populous states of California, Texas, and Florida. In the past, this generally provided no special advantage for either party, but it has come to provide an advantage to the Republican party in that they can (at times) hold a majority in the Senate while representing a numerical minority of the population. This is one practical reason that the GOP has fought hard against D.C. and Puerto Rico becoming states: if these American citizens were granted representation to match their taxation, then they would probably elect Democrats to the House and Senate, and the Republicans would have a more challenging time maintaining minority rule. While it could be more of a matter of accident than brilliant political strategy, the current system provides an advantage to the Republicans. Hence, they have a good reason to love that part of the Constitution.

The part of the Constitution that created the Supreme Court is currently something Republicans have cause to love. Republicans now control the court, and its decisions have consistently moved outside of public opinion. Not surprisingly, these decisions and various revelations about corruption have caused public opinion of the court to reach an all time low. While some would argue that the court should operate beyond publican opinion, it does provide a powerful tool for minority rule, as shown by the recent ruling impacting abortion. At lower levels, there is an ongoing political struggle over appointing judges as they hold incredible power. For example, a ruling on gerrymandering and election maps can effectively determine the outcome of an election. As it stands, the Republicans hold the Supreme Court and this provides them with a huge advantage in maintaining their minority rule and ensuring that their minority views are used to interpret laws.

While the above makes sense and shows that the Republicans are clever strategists, it might be objected that this simply assumes that their love is conditional: they love parts of the Constitution that happen to benefit them now. But surely, they love the Constitution in general, and the apparent inconsistencies can be dissolved.

Consider the First Amendment. Republicans profess to love it and refer to it when they attack cancel culture and argue in favor of free expression on campuses for right-wing speakers. However, these same people, such as Trump and DeSantis, speak out and act against the rights protected by this amendment. Trump is famously hostile to the press, and DeSantis has led the Florida Legislature in an impressive crusade against free expression. It is thus tempting to accuse them of being hypocrites by professing values they fail to follow. But I think this isn’t very accurate—they need not be hypocrites.

In accusing Trump and his fellows of being hypocrites, people usually assume that they are professing to endorse a principle of (in this example) free speech for everyone on all subjects. That is, the critics think that Trump and others are professing to accept the same principle of free speech that most critics (think they) accept. But this is a mistake—while they do accept a principle of free speech, it is a different principle than that one.

On their principles, free speech is a right only certain people expressing themselves on certain subjects should have. To illustrate, a right-wing speaker who wants to go to a college campus to speak about the threat they think transpeople pose is seen as having the right to express themselves. In contrast, a law regulating what content is allowed in the General Education courses in Florida and seeming to mandate compelled ideological expression by faculty is acceptable and not seen as restricting speech. But you might be thinking, isn’t this just hypocritical?

While it might seem that way, it need not be the case. This is because we all accept that there are (sticking to this example) limits on who has freedom of expression and what is allowed by this freedom. The youth are routinely denied such freedom with the approval of the left and right, and people always claim that we should not be free to do things like yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. While we disagree on who should have the freedom and what should be allowed, accepting restrictions need not make one a hypocrite. It is, however, fair to criticize people who are deceptive in professing a broad support of free expression while holding a very narrow principle. They can also be criticized for denying people the freedoms they should have.

A look at democracy might also help explain how a person can profess to love something while also loving a very limited version of that thing. While the United States is a democracy, the types of people allowed to vote have changed significantly. A white, male, slaveholder in the 1800s could tearfully and honestly profess a sincere love of democracy and argue at length about the right to vote and the consent of the governed. The idea that blacks, women, or people without property should be allowed to vote would be absurd to them. While they might be accused of being hypocrites, there is the obvious fact that we all think certain people should be excluded from voting. For example, we don’t think that citizens of Maine should vote in Florida’s elections. Most people also think that people under 18 should not be allowed to vote. While it can be reasonable to argue that democracy should be expanded, it does not follow that a person with a more limited conception of democracy does not love democracy or is a hypocrite. For example, if you think that 16-year-old people should not be allowed to vote, does this make you a hypocrite?

As such, some Republicans could love the Constitution while also thinking that the rights and protections should not be applied to everyone—this would put them well within American tradition. I would argue that they are wrong to do this; but this is different from arguing that they do not love the Constitution. They can love it while thinking it isn’t for everyone.

 

While transgender athletes have been competing for some time (the NCAA established its policy on transgender athletes in 2010), they have recently been dragged into the culture wars. In 2020, only Idaho had restrictions on transgender athletes. By 2023, 23 states had put restrictions in place.

When politicians and pundits argue in favor of such restrictions, they usually make an appeal to fairness rather than openly appealing to prejudice. In many cases, they seem to be arguing in bad faith—they only seem to be concerned about women and girls being treated fairly in this specific context. State legislatures could have, for example, ratified the Equal Rights Amendment during the same session they passed their restrictions on transgender athletes. As such, it is reasonable to infer that these laws are not about fairness. But can a good faith fairness argument be made for restricting transgender athletes?

The obvious place to begin in making such an argument is by pointing out that sports have well-established competition categories that are at least partially based on facilitating fair competition. For example, high school teams do not compete against college teams or professional teams. Such competition would be unfair. As another example, running has established age-based competition categories. This is because people generally decline in their athletic ability as they age, so the average 65-year-old runner will be slower than the average 20-year-old runner. As a final example, some sports have categories based on the size and weight of the athletes. It would generally be unfair if a 100-pound athlete had to wrestle or box a 220-pound opponent. While imperfect, such categories do seem to be morally justified in terms of their goal: they do make competition fairer. These categories are gender-neutral, but the concern about transgender athletes is obviously about gender.

In general, sports have two gender categories: male and female. While there are various reasons for these categories, it can be argued that fairness is an important one. In general, male athletes have an advantage over female athletes, and not having these categories would put female athletes at a disadvantage in terms of earning a place on a team or in competition. As would be suspected, few athletes are in favor of getting rid of these categories. But what about athletes being able to change their category?

Transgender athletes are athletes who do just that. Given that male athletes have an advantage over female athletes, there is a reasonable moral concern that a male athlete who transitions to being a female athlete will thus have an unfair advantage. Parents, seemingly in good faith, express the worry that their daughters will be unable to get on a sports team or will lose out on awards and scholarships because transgender athletes will take their place, their awards, and their scholarships.

On the face of it, this concern might not seem unreasonable, and most people who express it also claim they otherwise support the rights of trans people. One obvious practical question is about the likelihood that this will happen. While the exact percentage of people who are trans is unknown, it is likely to be very small. Given that most students are not competitive athletes, the number of trans athletes will presumably be tiny. There is also the fact that the trans athlete will need to be better than the parent’s daughter. Considering all these factors, the chances that a trans athlete will take a spot, award, or scholarship from a concerned parent’s daughter is vanishingly small. They are vastly more likely to lose that spot, award, or scholarship to an athlete who is not trans but is a better athlete.

While the parents who are concerned about trans athletes taking from their daughters would presumably be upset if their daughter lost out to a non-trans female athlete, they would generally not claim that this was unfair. While this seems reasonable, it also seems a bit inconsistent. After all, they believe that if a trans athlete is better than their daughter, then it would be unfair for them to compete against their daughter. But if a non-trans athlete is better than their daughter (even because of her superior anatomy and physiology), then this would be fair. As such, the parent must hold that it is not having an advantage in anatomy and physiology that is unfair but having that advantage for a specific reason—being a trans athlete.

Imagine, if you will, two athletes who are identical in their abilities, but one, Sally, is trans, and the other, Ann, is not. Imagine that Sally and Ann beat Jane, who is not trans. It would seem odd to claim that Ann beating Jane was fair but that Sally beating Jane was not, simply because Sally is trans. After all, she has the same abilities as Ann. One could reply that the source of the advantage does matter—that Sally got it from being born with certain advantages that began as belonging to a male and that Ann got the same exact advantages, but they arose from a person who was born female. The challenge is, of course, making a case for this. A second reply is to switch back to the general: that even though individual athletes will vary, in general, trans athletes who were male will have a significant advantage, and thus it would be unfair to allow them to compete because of the harm that would be done to non-trans female athletes.

In the case of the worry about being bumped from the team, there is an easy solution at the K-12 level: teams can be expanded to include everyone who wants to compete and who can meet the basic requirements of the sport. Many teams already work this way. The concern about awards and scholarships is a bit more challenging, but the NCAA already addressed these worries back in 2010 with their policies. These are designed to address concerns about the fairness of competition, and while they are imperfect, they do seem to ensure that the competition is as fair between trans athletes and non-trans athletes as it is between non-trans athletes and non-trans athletes. After all, some non-trans athletes have anatomical and physiological advantages over their non-trans fellow athletes, and this is accepted as fair. There are also policies in place at the Olympic and professional levels that address the concerns about fairness.

In closing, it is reasonable to be concerned about fairness in sports. But in the case of transgender athletes, this is a matter that was already addressed before politicians and pundits decided to make it into a new front in the culture wars. As such, while a person might make the fairness argument in ignorance, if they persist in the face of the facts then their concern is not about fairness.