Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem has been “resolved” in the sense that the companies and government don’t have to deal with it anymore. That’s the goal.
I'll pay you $1B to shut up
I take it. Should I send you my bank details?
Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
41–50 of 83 posts
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they denied in a press release Friday. How can they stop something they never did
I don't understand that statement. It seems to be an outright lie, or quoted out of context; not sure which, and both are plausible. https://www.dupont.com/position-statements/pfoa.html says "While we no longer make PFOA..."
Three possibilities (other than just inconsistent statements).
The "we no longer" could be referring to "the US" as "we", since they talk about the FDA outlawing it. So DuPont never made PFOA.
"Manufacture" might be used in the chemical industry only refer to creating products. And DuPont was earlier in the supply chain.
Or, even more upstream, DuPont may have made precursor chemicals that other people mixed into the final PFOA.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can think of plenty of ways that sentence might be weaselly. Maybe they "synthesized" them, not "manufactured" Maybe they bought them from some other company (which they might happen to own) Maybe they manufactured PFAs in general, but not the specific chemicals PFOA or PFOS (it's an awfully specific statement, after all)
I think it will likely be this - I'm already seeing all sorts of companies pivot to marketing "PFOA" free teflon alternatives (Starflon was the one that popped up last). I suspect that just like the whole BPA in plastic thing - the "___ free" alternatives will not be any better. They will just be sidestepping the very precise legal definition of the chemical that got them in trouble.
Either that or it will be like gluten-free, and you'll start seeing it slathered all over stuff that never had it in the first place. Like, no duh non-flavored sparkling water is gluten free! (Actual example I saw in the grocery store today)
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#44Isn't $1B a trivial amount for environmental damage?
This is only to cover damage to the drinking water (and excludes any drinking water supplied by state or federal governments). More lawsuits or settlements can concern themselves with damage to the environment.
As for if that is a trivial amount for what they are paying for, I don't know.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Justice served would be jail time for execs or a corporate death penalty. Levying a fine means it's just a cost of doing business. And a billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket for these massive multinational corporations that have been in business for decades.
> a corporate death penalty So, no more Kevlar for police protection? The problem with the idea of a corporate death penalty is that it would shutter the corporation, shock the supply chain for critical materials, terminate the employment of thousands of people, and devastate their communities (e.g. because employees have families and those families consume food and stuff from the local economy which, in turn, suppor…
Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow corporations to continue operating. They just hose the investors.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a corporate death penalty So, no more Kevlar for police protection? The problem with the idea of a corporate death penalty is that it would shutter the corporation, shock the supply chain for critical materials, terminate the employment of thousands of people, and devastate their communities (e.g. because employees have families and those families consume food and stuff from the local economy which, in turn, suppor…
Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow corporations to continue operating. They just hose the investors.
The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. I think that I want the operating unit to be halted and dismantled. Not the shareholders, management, or other units. So, I don't think Chapter 11 is the right solution.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they denied in a press release Friday. How can they stop something they never did
I don't understand that statement. It seems to be an outright lie, or quoted out of context; not sure which, and both are plausible. https://www.dupont.com/position-statements/pfoa.html says "While we no longer make PFOA..."
DuPont has a complicated corporate history. Chemours, one of the other companies in the settlement, is the division that made Teflon. Corteva was also part of DuPont (and Dow). It may be technically true that none of the business units currently in DuPont made anything bad.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#48They made more than $1B and caused more than $1B in damages. This is a slap on the wrist.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it will likely be this - I'm already seeing all sorts of companies pivot to marketing "PFOA" free teflon alternatives (Starflon was the one that popped up last). I suspect that just like the whole BPA in plastic thing - the "___ free" alternatives will not be any better. They will just be sidestepping the very precise legal definition of the chemical that got them in trouble.
Either that or it will be like gluten-free, and you'll start seeing it slathered all over stuff that never had it in the first place. Like, no duh non-flavored sparkling water is gluten free! (Actual example I saw in the grocery store today)
Well something like Soy Sauce often has gluten in it and I'd say judging by the name it doesn't.
So something that seems like it'd trivially not contain X may actually have X.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#50The cost for anything like this should always be the cost of cleaning up the entire mess it created and compensating the humans harmed by it and covering their lifetime medical bills. $1billion sounds a tad low for doing any of that given the world wide impact. Its a bad deal.
Back when I was 19 and an anarchist, I was always critical of LLC laws. I probably still am. I believe the judicial system does do the fine as you mentioned, but the prosecutors have to be realistic and settle out of court at the risk a skeptical judge/jury. Without LLC laws, you could go after personal ownership too. Privately owned company means there is a few billionaires to have their wealth confiscated. Publicly…
I'm not sure that the LLC laws are exactly the problem.
I think it's the fact that you can get a company incorporated to do pretty much a vague _anything_ is the problem. There should be an ounce of thought by the State as to if what the person wants a company for is actually useful for society before granting them immunity.
The second major issue is that the State is never willing to dissolve a company once it reaches some size no matter how much wrong doing it does. Like Walls Fargo willfully creating fake accounts to charge consumers money should've just be an instant disqualification for a banking license.