Live data from Hacker News

3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

reuters.com

31–40 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#31
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You establish agreements over a large enough market that it actually makes a different so that competitors doing the right thing aren’t penalized or aren’t penalized enough that they’re disincentivized.

Sometimes that market is the US and you only need a local bill to do that. Sometimes you do a bilateral or multilateral treaty. But these things happen all the time even today. Eg if not for trump there would probably have been a new pacific trade agreement and Biden has managed to rally multilateral cooperation around security issues around Russia (eg see new applications to NATO as one example as well as related economic agreements and sanctions) and climate change.

The main challenge is that Trump’s behavior of cancelling deals that were on the finish line as well as backing out of existing agreements (Paris accords + Iran) means that partners are now more wary of entering into agreements in the first place.

This has less to do with globalization and more to do with USA’s increasing instability as a reliable partner that can execute on agreed-upon commitments across political transitions. So now countries are less reliant on commitments from the USA. From one perspective, that’s good - local autonomy is a powerful tool. From a different perspective, the USA frequently (not always and maybe not even a majority of the time) lead the way and set a global direction through unilateral action (ie even without treaties). Again, that’s gone less because of globalization I think and more that the world has grown tired of USA’s political weight throwing and realpolitik behavior rather than sticking to common principles (democracy, rule of law, not torturing enemies no matter what they’ve done, human rights, raising up scientists and facts even when politically inconvenient or leaders applying pressure to move their voter base instead of playing tail wag the dog, having principles about who we count as our allies etc). One set of behaviors engenders trust while the other degrades it and leads to whatsboutisim politics. Agreements in low trust environments are rarer and harder to maintain. Agreements in high trust environments are much cheaper.

So, while I agree that the “governments around the world coordinating” is harder I disagree that it’s impossible or that it was caused by globalization Val multi-generational realpolitik weight throwing and underhanded behavior that killed a lot of the good will brought about as the “saviors of WWII” propaganda that was wide spread + “golden city” aura post WWII and during the Cold War + technological and economically outpacing Russia. We’ve been leveraging that good will more than our finances because the former is completely invisible and impossible to quantify and measure.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#32

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.

Good. People buy less of them then.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#33

There are nine thousand known PFAS. They are essential to many products and processes. Many don't have a clear alternative. Other countries will continue to produce them. But 3M is going to ban them all without any discernment. Am I missing something?

A few years back, 3M entered a near-$1 billion settlement with Minnesota for PFAS groundwater contamination. I suspect they have been working on a replacement since 2010 or not long after (when the legal action first started up) and, given the two year timeline to phase them out, I'm thinking they've got the replacement already and just need to get it to market.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#34

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.

A few years back, 3M entered a near-$1 billion settlement with Minnesota for PFAS groundwater contamination. I suspect they have been working on a replacement since 2010 or not long after (when the legal action first started up) and, given the two year timeline to phase them out, I'm thinking they've got the replacement already and just need to get it to market.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#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.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#37
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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, and you will have a large incentive to produce stuff that they want instead. This doesn't necessarily even take legislation as the relevant governments have a variety of ways they can apply tariffs, disincentives etc. to stuff they don't like.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#38
post #17

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 deat…

The benefit Is true of all investments. The payoffs are down the road.

In this case, the environment and health will reap the benefits once 3M brings alternatives to market that can compete with the current “bad” options.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better solution ? Let's take one example. Teflon coated cookware. As an alternative there are cooking sprays, butter, oils, or stiring the contents of the pan more frequently. In this case it's not a nessacity but a convenience. Why don't we start by restricting the use of PFAS to those products in which there are no alternatives and are a nessacity.

In my experience non stick pans are pretty awful, basically anything else is a better alternative. You can't get them hot enough to sear a steak properly without damaging the non stick coating, and the non stick coating is oleophobic which means that oil pools rather than spreading out so you can't get proper browning on anything even if you do cook it at an appropriate temp. Seasoned cast iron and carbon steel will…

I love my cast iron, stainless, and carbon steel pans, but calling them nonstick is a stretch. In fact, their stickiness is pretty much their valuable property in getting good browning on food.

You can definitely cook delicate fish and scrambled eggs on say, cast iron, but you will either be scraping hard during clean up or using an absurd amount of oil to cook. I don't mind it myself, but its clear why nonstick is popular.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#40

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...

Post reply on HN