 One reason to be unhappy with the view that token causes and effects are events is that it appears that absences or omissions can be involved in causal relations. For instance, Anna’s failure to water her plant may cause it to die. Here, we have an absence as a token cause. Likewise, Anna’s vacation may have caused her to not water the plant. Here, we have an absence as a token effect. But it does not seem that absences or omissions are events. They are nothings, non-occurrences, and are hence not identical to any occurrent events. This motivates taking token causes and effects to be facts, rather than events. Even if there is no event which is Anna’s failing to water her plant, it is nonetheless a fact that Anna didn’t water her plant.