Expertise, moral subversion, and climate deregulation
Abstract
AbstractThe weaponizing of scientific expertise to oppose regulation has been extensively studied. However, the relevant studies, belonging to the emerging discipline of agnotology, remain focused on the analysis of empirical corruption: of misinformation, doubt mongering, and other practices that cynically deploy expertise to render audiences ignorant of empirical facts. This paper explores the wrongful deployment of expertise beyond empirical corruption. To do so, I develop a broader framework of morally subversive expertise, building on recent work in political philosophy (Howard, 2016). Expertise is subversive if it sets up its audience to fail morally, either intentionally or negligently. I distinguish three modes of subversive expertise: empirical subversion (the focus of agnotology), normative subversion and motivational subversion. Drawing on these distinctions, I offer a revisionary account of the Trump Administration’s regulatory science as a case study. I show that the Trump Administration’s use of expertise to dismantle climate regulation, contra the standard charge, cannot be explained using the resources of agnotology alone: the Administration produced highly reliable climate assessments, detailing the risks of climate change, candidly admitting the harms of its proposed policies, and still successfully deployed these findings to justify massive climate deregulation. The lesson of the analysis is that dismissing the expertise that underpins climate deregulation as empirically corrupt ‘anti-science’ both obscures its actual role in the politics of climate change and understates its wrongfulness: it misses the breadth of the assault on moral agency that sustains climate injustice.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference87 articles.
1. Anderson, E. (2011). Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay assessments of scientific testimony. Episteme, 8(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2011.0013 2. Barnosky, C., Sadler, J., Yates, R., & Zimmerman, Z. (2021). Reversing Trump Environmental Rollbacks: A 100 Day Analysis on the Biden Administration’s Reversals. Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment, UC Berkeley. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/first-100-days/ 3. Becker, R. (2019, August 31). California’s fight over tailpipe emissions, explained. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-auto-emissions-standards-fight-with-donald-trump-explained/ 4. Bento, A. M., Gillingham, K., Jacobsen, M. R., Knittel, C. R., Leard, B., Linn, J., McConnell, V., Rapson, D., Sallee, J. M., van Benthem, A. A., & Whitefoot, K. S. (2018). Flawed analyses of U.S. auto fuel economy standards. Science, 362(6419), 1119–1121. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav1458 5. Biddle, J., Kidd, I. J., & Leuschner, A. (2017). Epistemic corruption and manufactured doubt: The case of climate science. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31(3), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/44732791
|
|