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

351–360 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#351

Post by int0x2e »

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…

Please, please, please stay hidrated! As a person on their 3rd round of kidney stones - please drink more water!

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#352

Post by itishappy »

dylan604 wrote: post #329

Why are they waiting until 2025? "We know this stuff is bad, but just give us a couple more years to realize a full ROI before we stop" vs "Holy crap this stuff is bad, we're pulling the plug now" I mean, it's not a ship at sea running at flank speed where the ship keeps moving once power has been cut. Just stop making them. Now.

It kinda is. Not a literal ship, of course, but industry still has immense momentum behind it. If you catch your prop on a rock, the rest of your ship is going to strain to absorb the impact.

According to the article, PFAS are used in semiconductor manufacturing process. These are insanely sensitive processes, and replacements will need to be found and qualified. That takes time. (Note: I'd hope they've seen the writing on the wall and have already started this process.)

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#353

Post by int0x2e »

jraby3 wrote: post #121
wjnc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dehydration is more of a risk to you than the environmental risks you marginally save on others. Still I applaud the effort since the economists view is too restricted. Get a stainless steel container and hydrate for a lifetime.

The risks of dehydration are way overstated imo. And I live in a warm weather country. Whole being thirsty isn’t optimal the actual risk of something serious happening is negligible. Especially since I monitor my urine color and other signs. It’s more convenience and the habit of convenience we’re all so used to these days.

Most people are constantly dehydrated. The fact lots of people drink sugary drinks makes it even worse. As someone dealing with a 3rd round of kidney stones - please stay hydrated! You don't want this pain, trust me...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#354

Post by simondotau »

triceratops wrote: post #312
olau wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not great advice for humanity. Better to have a CO2 high future than no future at all.

They might be the same future though.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think any (serious) high CO2 predictions involve the extinction of our species, but rather extensive displacement as a changing climate changes zones of habitability on our planet.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#355

Post by simondotau »

int0x2e wrote: post #347
devnullbrain wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Murder is even more effective.

Quoted post unavailable.

I would hope and assume that the community rules of HN don’t look kindly upon advocating the murder of any specific individuals.

That aside, I think it’s naive to assume that your proposed action would have a relevant outcome. Any successor is going to need to travel between facilities just as much — if not moreso — as they are brought up to speed and need to have ongoing meetings with executives and managers across a dozen locations.

Not to mention the travel involved in post-death matters of funerals, media coverage, high profile criminal investigations, and so on. And of course the wealth of one person then gets inherited by perhaps a dozen people, any of whom might live a more lavish (i.e. carbon intensive) lifestyle when they inherit even a small fraction of such enormous wealth.

Quite frankly I don’t see how your proposal has any chance of being remotely carbon positive.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#356

Post by dtgriscom »

dublin wrote: post #256
dmd wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 20 years ago, I made a mistake at work which I later calculated put an extra 8500 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. (It had to do with the delay/routing of a cargo ship.) There is literally nothing I could possibly do that could come even close to making up for that...

Fortunately, this planet has abundant land and sea life that will absorb and fix that carbon dioxide for you, liberating highly reactive oxygen in the process. No problem - the amount of carbon used is proportional to the amount of carbon available. All available evidence shows that CO2 lags global temperature rises, rather than leading it. Science IS real, and it says carbon is NOT a pollutant. You should have no gu…

Oh, wouldn't it be nice if that were true...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#357

Post by dtgriscom »

latexr wrote: post #269
jraby3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I try really hard not to use single use plastic. Especially plastic bags People treat plastic bags as single use, but you can reuse them for years. I’m not saying you should seek them out, but don’t just throw them away after one use when you find yourself with some.

I love thin grocery store plastic bags, and reuse each one dozens of times. But my local government (small Massachusetts city) banned them, so now grocery stores have to use paper (much less reusable) or extra-thick bags (more bulky, less flexible, don't last significantly longer).

It takes real amounts of thought to reduce your footprint; the visible/obvious solution often isn't the right one.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#358

Post by dtgriscom »

Reason077 wrote: post #146
concordDance wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why try and minimise single use plastic? That's oil going straight back into the ground (landfill) rather than being refined into petrol and burnt! Single use plastic is way better than recycled plastic at slowing global warming.

A lot of it doesn’t just go into the ground. It ends up getting washed (or dumped) into the ocean where it pollutes beaches, and gets ground down into micro-plastic particles which poison sea life. Still more gets incinerated, creating local air pollution and contributing to carbon emissions.

> It ends up getting washed (or dumped) into the ocean

Not where I live (northeastern USA), where the vast majority of discarded plastic ends up in landfills. Virtually none gets "washed (or dumped) into the ocean"; the minor exception is trash dropped by thoughtless people.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#359

Post by kennywinker »

refurb wrote: post #165
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We get it, but we don't care because capitalism / free market / small government / money / competition. Competition goes beyond just companies too, countries compete with each other, to the point of starting wars over e.g. natural resources, territory, and access to infrastructure. And one future scenario is wars over more basic resources like food and water, as climate change will cause droughts and famines. At the…

I doubt it’s capitalism when communist countries were some of the worst polluters to date.

Who are you referring to? You use the past tense, which means you're probably not pointing a finger at china - which is hardly communist, making huge strides in cleaning up their emissions, and their emissions are largely the result of making stuff for the rest of the world. Which means you're probably talking about now-defunct communist countries, i.e. the soviet union?

So your argument against capitalism driving pollution in the hundreds of countries around the world where it appears to be driving pollution is a single example? A country that did most of it's polluting during a rapid industrialization with the stated goal of "catching up with the west". Meanwhile during that same soviet period not one but *two* rivers caught on fire in a single year in the USA.

Which is all to say that I'm unconvinced. It really seems like the driver of most of the pollution in the world has been capitalism. Perhaps communism is worse, but that doesn't let capitalism off the hook - it's not a two-choice binary system here.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#360

Post by burntwater »

starkd wrote: post #267
cj wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 :)

yes, take away the single greatest potential joy people can have in their lives. Great plan for humanity, chief.

Children are a potential source of great joy. Saying they are the single greatest source is hyperbolic and frankly offensive in some ways.
Post reply on HN