Opposition to international climate agreements often invokes economic competitiveness, claiming the United States must exceed emissions limits to keep pace economically with other nations. Though framed as pragmatic, this rationale reflects a logical fallacy: justifying harmful behavior by pointing to similar actions elsewhere. The same logic would be rejected if used to defend practices such as child or slave labor. This study introduces consistent logic priming , a novel approach that tests whether exposing this fallacy in a different moral context subsequently reduces its persuasiveness in climate discourse. Across two between-subjects experiments with U.S. participants, this research tests whether framing the competitiveness argument in the context of a morally unacceptable practice weakens its effect when later applied to climate policy. In both studies, participants exposed to the primer expressed significantly less agreement with the climate argument. These findings show how logical consistency can shape reasoning by challenging selective justifications for inaction.
Magnini et al. (2026) studied this question.