The "stopping smoking cures cancer" fallacy
A common logical error I see in public discussions of climate change and other issues.
It is well established that smoking causes lung cancer. It is also well established that stopping smoking doesn’t cure lung cancer. Any doctor who suggested otherwise would be incompetent. If a doctor pointed out that you need cancer treatment to cure cancer, you wouldn’t accuse the doctor of denying or minimizing the link between smoking and cancer. This is all easy, basic stuff. Right?
Yet, I see people committing this type of logical error all the time when it comes to climate change and other contemporary sociopolitical issues. For example, Bill Nye (the Science Guy) appeared on CNN to discuss the recent flooding disaster in Texas. After describing the devastation, he said:
"So, 'What are we going to do about it?' is the ancient question. And it would be to stop burning fossil fuels. When you’re in a hole, stop digging, and so on."
What he is saying here is basically that climate change was a major cause of these floods, and so the solution is to stop burning fossil fuels. From there, he went on to lament the recent changes in climate policy under the Trump administration.
The role of climate change in these particular floods is actually being debated by experts (e.g., see here and here). But, for argument’s sake, let’s accept Nye’s argument that climate change made the type of flood we saw in Texas significantly more likely. Even under the most ambitious emissions-reduction scenarios considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (which most experts do not think are likely to be realized), we will not see a cooler climate than the one we have today until close to the end of the century, at best (see the figure below, from Hausfather and Moore, annotated).
This means that Texas will need to adapt itself to the flood risk we have today—and possibly somewhat greater flood risk—no matter what our climate policy is going forward. Roger Pielke Jr. has a great post on his Honest Broker Substack describing how this part of Texas has faced severe flood risk going back centuries, and how they can adapt to it (which they have made some progress on already) through infrastructure improvements and better forecasts and warning systems.
Think of climate policy as stopping smoking, and adapting to flood risk as treating cancer. Of course, unlike smoking—which is purely harmful—affordable abundant energy does an incredible amount of good for our society. So, while climate change is an important problem, there are many cost-effective ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and it is important that we eventually get to net zero emissions, it would not be good for society to stop burning all fossil fuels today.
The same logic applies to other natural threats affected by climate change, like wildfires, extreme heat, and some types of storms. The most important things we can do to lower the human and societal costs of these threats—on the timescale of the next few decades at least—is to adapt. This means improving infrastructure and warning systems, managing forests, allowing insurance markets to accurately price in risks, etc. Patrick Brown wrote a good article for The Breakthrough Institute last year laying this out on this in more detail.
I have focused on climate change here so far, because that’s what I study. But the “stopping smoking cures cancer” fallacy plagues public discussions of other issues, too.
For example, racial bias has undoubtedly played a role in creating the socioeconomic challenges facing America’s most disadvantaged majority-minority communities. But sending white people to anti-bias seminars is pretty low on the list of things that will improve these communities’ situations today. Instead, it’s often things like improving education and job training, public safety, public infrastructure and private investment, and family stability that translate into better conditions on the ground.
Tariffs and the decline of American manufacturing provide an example on the political right. Foreign competition undoubtedly played a role in the decline of manufacturing jobs in places like the rust belt (though other factors probably contributed, too). But economists, investors, and manufacturing leaders overwhelmingly expect the Trump administration’s tariff policies to hurt the U.S. economy, including the manufacturing sector, with some evidence of harm already showing in the data (see the links above). Business-friendly domestic and local policies are more likely to bring back jobs to these communities, as has happened in the sun-belt states, for example.
In sum, just because distal cause A affects societal problem B doesn’t mean that addressing distal cause A is always the best way to mitigate societal problem B. The next time someone tells you it is, you can tell them they’re committing the “stopping smoking cures cancer” fallacy.
Great article, except for the assertion that smoking is "purely harmful." Smoking is an extremely enjoyable behavior for many people, you just don't like it.
I understand that the point might seem pedantic but I think it's important. Dismissiving other people's priorities because they don't align with your own is actually a cornerstone of e.g. degrowth thinking.
We have to get out of this habit. You don't need to endorse smoking, but don't pretend there isn't real positive utility alongside the obvious personal and social costs.