The purity test or nirvana fallacy

TL;DR

Explanation

A classic tactic of those seeking to delay climate change action is to point out real or perceived flaws in new technology or solutions and expect them to be perfect. They use these flaws without balance or looking at the entire picture. Some examples include: there’s toxic chemicals in solar panels, electric vehicles consume tyres more rapidly than conventional vehicles, wind turbines need to be disposed of eventually.

That’s not to say that these flaws don’t exist, there is often a fair amount of truth, but when looked holistically at the alternative the flaws are acceptable or manageable. There’s never an even comparison to the technology that is being replaced, for example coal fired power stations. These currently kill people each year through air pollution, somehow that is acceptable because it just crept up on us - let alone the climate change impact.

Another example is wind turbines and birds - yes they can kill birds, but when sites are chosen they take this into account to minimise impact. A far greater number of birds are killed each year by buildings. You don’t hear the anti-wind turbine + pro bird health crowd arguing we should also get rid of buildings. That’s how you know it’s a bad faith argument.

For the most part if you come across these arguments just be mindful it’s mostly a trap to waste your time refuting it. You’re unlikely to change the mind of the person putting the argument forward, they’re very likely to be doing it in bad faith anyway. Move on and focus on the middle-ground of people who believe in climate change action but need to be prodded into action.

Further reading

The nirvana fallacy: An imperfect solution is often better than no solution 20 June 2016

Climate Hypocrisy and Imperfect Activism May 2023