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

101–110 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#101

Post by adrianN »

worldsayshi wrote: post #93
runnerup wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that if our universe is actually a simulation, it's one of countless simulations trying to determine a solution to the Tragedy of the Commons. I suspect it's one of the hardest problems to solve in any universe.

Calculate the hidden cost. Slap a proportional tax on the products that cause the cost. Then split the tax income evenly to the population. Is it really that hard or are we making it hard?

Calculate the hidden cost. Tell the companies that you'll either vote for a tax or accept a lucrative post in their board of directors after your term is over. Profit!

Calculate the hidden cost. Spend half of the cost on a marketing campaign to sway public opinion against a tax. Profit!

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#102

Post by wahnfrieden »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #40
DoreenMichele wrote: post #36

3M has been facing a raft of litigation that has prompted the move Generally speaking, toxic substances are only "cheap" due to externalizing many of the costs involved, like increased healthcare costs and lost productivity. If you do a thorough analysis of the costs of using such chemicals, they aren't cheap at all. Maybe someday humans will get that.

> 3M has been facing a raft of litigation that has prompted the move Seems like yet again corrupt and incompetent regulators and oversight fails, and real action only really happens when the courts are used to hold them to account for damages. EDIT: Maybe those libertarians do have a good idea now and again...

Rather than “ancaps” you might rather look toward actual anarchism

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#103

Post by wkat4242 »

the_third_wave wrote: post #54
wkat4242 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does paying for the pollution really help fix the problem? Will the government use that money to filter rivers for PFAS? I think a lot of this need also comes from other supposedly environmental choices. My work banned plastic cups and now has paper cups with PFAS which are more toxic. I think the plastic ones were the better choice if recycled properly. And raincoats were really really horrible before Gore-Tex.

> And raincoats were really really horrible before Gore-Tex. Nope, they were fine. A bit heavier but far longer-lasting, including the waxed versions which can be re-waxed if needed to keep up waterproofing. I'm still using my army-issued raincoats from when I served in 1992, one of them has been with me on a number of expeditions (months of paddling the Yukon from Whitehorse to the Bering Strait, climbing several mo…

But waxed fabrics don't breathe. That was the huge advantage of Gore-Tex.

Being able to be dry and yet not get soaked in your own sweat was a really amazing invention.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#104

Post by bwi4 »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #91
upon_drumhead wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's not 3M, American Scandal (Podcast) did a season on a coverup by DuPont that's totally worth listening to. https://wondery.com/shows/american-scandal/season/41/

I haven’t done my homework but I find it strange that I hear so much about 3M while DuPont seems as bad — or worse — but it could simply be that I’ve read more about DuPont and I’m missing some inexhaustible list of atrocities 3M has committed.

DuPont discovered PTFE while exploring for new refrigerants. It was used in the Manhattan Project because it could resist flourine used in the gaseous diffusion of uranium, then marketed as Teflon after WWII.

3M discovered PFOS while developing rubber that wouldn't degrade when exposed to jet fuel, then marketed it as Scotchgard.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#105

Post by DoingIsLearning »

Jolter wrote: post #81
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.

Can you name one essential application where PFAS is really necessary? Something where society would actually be substantially worse without it. I’m not talking about ski wax here.

Only reasonable example is AFFF fire fighting foam. But realistically the amount of liquid fuel fires that you have to fight in this world probably pale in comparison with the production volumes of unnecessary anti-stick cookware and gore-tex fabrics.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#106

Post by adrianN »

missedthecue wrote: post #65
p1necone wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers. Which is great. Higher prices = less usage. We don't have to eradicate them entirely before we see any benefit.

It depends on demand elasticity. Products with very little demand elasticity like energy or medicine just make everyone miserable and worse off when production is cut, because you can't live without them. Yes you can scrimp and save and stretch your dollar, but at the end of the day you have to pay up no matter the price. I'm not sure that anyone knows what the demand elasticity for an industrial chemical like PFAS i…

Energy has a lot of demand elasticity, it just takes a few years for demand to catch up with price changes. See for example how fuel efficiency changed during the oil crisis a few decades ago. Or how building insulation changes with rising energy prices.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#107

Post by messe »

safety1st wrote: post #37
flockonus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really only takes the EU and US agreeing that something is bad. Together they represent a huge chunk of the imports of nearly every sector of the global economy. In practice that is what globalization largely is - other countries producing stuff that the US and EU buy. If you manufacture a chemical and the US and EU both decide that chemical is banned and can't be imported, your business may very well be toast, an…

It doesn’t even take both agreeing necessarily. In many cases just either one of the EU or the US legislating something is sufficient financial incentive to follow the same rule globally.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#109

Post by worldsayshi »

adrianN wrote: post #101
worldsayshi wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calculate the hidden cost. Slap a proportional tax on the products that cause the cost. Then split the tax income evenly to the population. Is it really that hard or are we making it hard?

Calculate the hidden cost. Tell the companies that you'll either vote for a tax or accept a lucrative post in their board of directors after your term is over. Profit! Calculate the hidden cost. Spend half of the cost on a marketing campaign to sway public opinion against a tax. Profit!

Maybe one way to mitigate is to have a separate branch of the political system dedicated to calculating the costs. Then make the methods for calculating as publicly available as possible so that they can be reproduced by non-profits.

We have managed judicial systems. We can manage this too.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#110

Post by beezlewax »

jraby3 wrote: post #66
runnerup wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that if our universe is actually a simulation, it's one of countless simulations trying to determine a solution to the Tragedy of the Commons. I suspect it's one of the hardest problems to solve in any universe.

I try really hard not to use single use plastic. Especially plastic bags, plastic bottles, etc. This frequently means I’ll be extremely thirst throughout some days but will wait till I get home or to work to drink filtered water out of the tap. I went to Las Vegas about a year ago on a work trip and realized that the hotel I stayed at uses more plastic bottles in an hour than I would use in my lifetime with no though…

You can carry a water bottle in a small backpack or if you're in a city with fountains use them. Or buy water that comes in cartons though I'm not sure it's easy to find these or if they're actually plastic free.
Post reply on HN