A red herring argument is the introduction of an irrelevant topic or other distraction during a discussion or debate on a contentious topic in order to divert attention away from the original issue. It differs from a straw man argument, which is a distortion of an opponent's position into a weaker position to make it easier to attack or refute.
Both types of arguments are commonly used by industries with vested interests and others who are opposed to taking action with regard to environmental problems. Understanding them and their differences can help in identifying and avoiding logical fallacies, thereby facilitating getting to the core of the issues.
An example of a red herring argument is the statement that global warming is natural and has been occurring for thousands of years. While true, this argument ignores the facts that the current rate of warming is far more rapid than that before the Industrial Revolution and that there is a strong consensus among scientists that this difference is mainly a result of human activity, primarily the massive and ever-increasing burning of fossil fuels and also widespread deforestation.
Another common example is the statement that an increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial because it facilitates plant growth. Although it is true that carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth, current levels far exceed what plants can absorb, leading to acceleration of climate change. Moreover, the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide has been reduced by deforestation.
Likewise, it is often stated that implementing policies to reduce climate change would be too costly. This red herring argument shifts the focus away from the urgent need to address climate change and to short-term financial or economic concerns without considering that the costs of inaction could eventually greatly exceed those of policies aimed at slowing climate change.