3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

Post by woodruffw » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

TrickyRick wrote: post #285

woodruffw wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you per se, but I do think these “EV-lite” type analyses are too broad: environmentally conscious people may be more likely to have children who are environmentally conscious, work on climate engineering, &c. That’s not to say that we should encourage them specifically to have children either; just that children represent potential in a way that the number of bunker-fuel cargo ships…

Even the most environmentally conscious person in an industrialized nation will emit massive amounts of CO2 in their lifetime, provided of course that nobody invents a "quick fix" for CO2 emissions in their lifetime. Of course in theory the child could be that person to invent that quick fix, but the expected value is still that the child will contribute to a lot of CO2 emissions.

Post by triceratops » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 4:28 PM UTC

bwi4 wrote: post #68

eyelidlessness wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The humans making the cost/benefit analysis are largely the ones whose cost is actually external. I certainly wouldn’t do the same math, but I’m not casually enriching myself by making people sick. The people who buy their products are largely their victims, not their accomplices. Nearly everyone does NOT own the means of production, and the few who do know exactly what’s wrong and keep on doing it to everyone but th…

Technically, Blackrock and Vanguard own the means of production. We gave them the capital to do so through our pensions and 401(k)s. My 401(k) menu doesn't include ESG funds, but those that exist have higher expenses and lower performance than an indiscriminate index fund. If the regulators have been captured by lobbying and revolving doors to industry, the only option left is to vote with your wallet, but that's eas…

Post by andrepd » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

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.

Post by unethical_ban » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

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.

Post by nrclark » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 4:57 PM UTC

cj wrote: post #252

elevaet wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's in the range of 10x the CO2 an average human will produce in their lifetime. If you could find a way to get 20 people to cut their emissions in half, or 200 people to reduce it by 5%, or 1000 people by 1%, you could balance out your CO2 ledger :) Or, if you still work in the industry and can find a way to make the shipping routes more efficient, or prevent future mistakes like that, you could make it into the…

(Controversial comment warning) one way to save more than your lifetime’s worth of CO2 is to not have children. By not having children, you’re not just saving the CO2 output of the child itself, but the entire lineage that could have resulted from that single child. Obviously this advice is not good advice for anyone who wants to have children :)