Fossil fuel supporters foolishly try to cast the perfect as the enemy of good/better

Oil and fossil fuels are on their way out. But their ever diminishing number of supporters are getting desperate — and putting forward ever more stupid and weak arguments to try and prop them up.

blog logoIt’s hard to say what the most common logically fallacious and just plain bad and weak argument is that diminishing but also ever louder — because they are DESPERATE — pro-fossil fuel folks, also known as Fossil Fools, seek to put forward against electric vehicles and renewable energy.

They make all sorts of demonstratively false claims about EVs allegedly being equally polluting, about fossil fuels allegedly not being health destroying and environment destroying, about fossil fuels allegedly being “cheaper” than renewables — the list of fossil fool fallacies is a long one.

But one of the most common — and just plain stupid and also easy to deconstruct — arguments the fossil fools put forward against EVs and renewable energy goes like this ==>

EVs and renewable energy aren’t perfect — they have problems (yes, they do have some, I admit). THEREFORE, we should, really, must, stay with the filthy, health and environment destroying and self-destructive fossil fuel formula, even though, of course, it is much, much worse than switching to electric vehicles + renewable energy.

Is this not the MOST STUPID argument you’ve ever heard?!

Think about it: They’re arguing that we should keep something bad, REALLY bad, because that which would replace it is not perfect?!

Broadly, this is known as the “let the perfect be the enemy of the good or better” logical fallacy: Because we can’t ever achieve perfection, we should not try to do better but should — MUST?! — stick with the much worse because we cannot achieve perfection!

Say what?


OMG ­čÖä!

Craig Toepfer’s BMW i3 in front of the solar array he uses to fuel it in Michigan.

This is like arguing that because we can never reduce, entirely, the risk of various sorts of water pathogens getting into our water supply, we should not go with a system that eliminates 99.9% of them, and should just aim to reduce 20% of them.

It’s like arguing that because we can never achieve the perfect/ideal pizza, that we should all eat shitty pizza for the rest of our lives, or like arguing that because we can never achieve 100% safe vehicles, we should just stick with where we’re at now on safety, rather than trying to do better.

Bottom line: It’s like arguing — it IS arguing — that we should not try to do anything better, that we should not switch to something that is good and better, but not perfect, because we can never achieve perfection AND — and this where it gets really STUPID — because we can’t achieve perfection, we should ALSO stick with the shitty, lame, backward status quo, well, just because ­čÖä.

Say what?!

What a WEAK “argument”! WEAK! WEAK! WEAK!

Also, completely un-compelling and easy to see through. Why would you even bother advancing such a LAME argument?

I guess it must be because the fossil fools KNOW they are losing the battle and they are DESPERATE!

Good! That’s where we need them to be because it means the GOOD — and greener — guys ARE WINNING!

Goodbye, weak, illogical, idiotic Fossil Fools. We can see through your logically fallacious arguments! And that means your days are numbered!