Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#11

Post by minism »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #8
themerone wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

Right.. this is a perfect example of why government legislation/intervention in the market is needed to some degree.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#12

Post by missedthecue »

themerone wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.

I feel like in 10 years we will be reading panicky articles asking why the important production of PFAS and other synthetic organofluorines was offshored to an increasingly belligerent China.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#13

Post by missedthecue »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #8
themerone wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#14

Post by themitigating »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #8
themerone wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

Just to chime in about your use of the word "signaling" and when others use "virtue signaling".

I believe the traditional term is "setting a good example" and even if the motivation is selfish there's a positive outcome. "Virtue signaling" was invented to demonize this behavior by focusing on (the assumed) motive as selfish.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#15

Post by Centigonal »

missedthecue wrote: post #13
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

...which is a good thing! we should stop taking $20 teflon pans, nonstick fast food containers, and $40 raincoats with negative externalities for granted.

We did fine without PFAS, we'll be okay with expensive PFAS (where externalities are internalized and built into the cost) too.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#16

Post by flockonus »

minism wrote: post #11
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

Right.. this is a perfect example of why government legislation/intervention in the market is needed to some degree.

Over our globalized economy I don't see how local government legislation can work (unfortunately).

Long are gone the days governments around the world coordinated to banish CFCs, for instance.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#17

Post by rtpg »

themerone wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.

How does this argument not apply to everything? The counterfactual (where 3M continues to produce these) is ... obviously bad? Producing materials that are bad for the environment and human health! Now less is produced, at least in the short term.

An example where your argument doesn't play out like you say: many chemicals manufacturers decided to no longer sell chemicals that would be used for administering the death penalty via lethal injection. So many did this that states _had to basically stop applying the death penalty_, and basically try and trick companies to sell them the materials. A win for those who pushed for that to happen (mitigated by the endless cruelty of the SC but..). Alternative companies didn't show up to "fill the gap".

At one point doing things actually matters. Especially when we look at how large conglomerates own many parts of the value chain, at one point the end result is simply that these chemicals stop being used.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#18

Post by thereisnospork »

glasss wrote: post #10
xvilka wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a chemist I am not sure it's even possible to create matching alternatives. The stronger links inside molecules and outside, the more they are "alien" to life and environment. While reducing their usage is a good strategy, an outright ban strips technology of useful materials.

I have no experience or advanced education in chemistry or material sciences. Do you think it's possible that a ban would spur innovation? I imagine our modern world has use cases that can't just disappear or settle for something not as effective.

Unfortunately probably not much - the relevant properties come from the element itself (fluorine) where there literally doesn't exist an alternative. It is possible that some alternatives will come to light, but there is a limited design space and it's not as if people haven't been looking for cheaper[0] and better solutions.

I'm curious as to the scope of this, and what end products are effected. A lot of the best-in-class greases (krytox) and orings (FFKM aka kalrez) rely heavily on fluoro-components. FFKM orings in particular are head and shoulders above everything else by ~100C worth of working temperature range. FKM 'Viton' orings are also incredibly popular and are widely used in automotive applications for temperature and oil resistance in addition to having major industrial uses.

[0]Fluorine is a real PITA to produce and make derivatives from - environmental issues aside functionally equivalent non-fluorine compounds would almost always be cheaper.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#19

Post by [deleted] »

themitigating wrote: post #14
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

Just to chime in about your use of the word "signaling" and when others use "virtue signaling". I believe the traditional term is "setting a good example" and even if the motivation is selfish there's a positive outcome. "Virtue signaling" was invented to demonize this behavior by focusing on (the assumed) motive as selfish.

[deleted]

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#20

Post by yannis »

themerone wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.

It will need an international effort, like the Montreal Protocol for banning CFCs and HFCs. Legislation need to ban the end-use as well as the production of these chemicals. I was involved with a study in the late 80s early 90s about the economic impact of the Montreal protocol in southern Africa and there was huge resistance against it from major car manufacturers (the biggest consumption were car air conditioners at the time, more that the use of CFC-11 in foam packaging). Dealers stock piled stocks and rogue manufactures continued producing for many years. It takes 5-10 years for alternatives to be developed and 20-30 years for wide adoption before they disappear all together.
Post reply on HN