3M to end 'forever chemicals' output • Hacker News Board

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#61

Post by missedthecue » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:03 AM UTC

Centigonal wrote: post #15

missedthecue wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

...which is a good thing! we should stop taking $20 teflon pans, nonstick fast food containers, and $40 raincoats with negative externalities for granted. We did fine without PFAS, we'll be okay with expensive PFAS (where externalities are internalized and built into the cost) too.

What will happen is that the PFAS pan becomes $26 instead of $20. PFAS is not the most expensive part of the pan, only a minor component. A doubling or tripling of PFAS prices is unlikely to price anyone out of getting that pan or raincoat. It's just going to make middle and lower class people cumulatively billions of dollars poorer.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#62

Post by jahnu » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:03 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #47

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.

It's a difficult balance to strike though. Forcing companies to consider all possible externalities is very difficult / expensive to get right. And if you don't get it exactly right, you very quickly increase your surface area for issues like regulatory capture, etc. Just another in the long list of coordination problems where it is hard to arrive at the pareto-optimal solution given human selfishness and our lack of…

These companies often know quite well there is a huge cost they are offloading on others. Evidence for this is seen in the huge sums spent on lobbying and politics in general.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#63

Post by missedthecue » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:06 AM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #24

missedthecue wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like in 10 years we will be reading panicky articles asking why the important production of PFAS and other synthetic organofluorines was offshored to an increasingly belligerent China.

Products can be banned in countries so even if China creates them they can't sell them outside China. I don't get your argument, it's like "someone is going to do bad things therefore it's ok for me"?

No my argument is that just like America decided that rare earths mining was gross and messy, therefore offshoring all of these strategic material production to their geopolitical foe, the same thing is liable to happen to other components and chemicals. Note that PFAS has a lot of military applications.

Out of sight, out of mind right? Until you really need it.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#64

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:09 AM UTC

Could such chemicals be subjected to a special type of regulation where they can still be made, but only for very specialised uses that seem worth the risk somehow? Is there a precedent for that?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#65

Post by missedthecue » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:10 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #23

missedthecue wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

> 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 is, but it's obviously not a completely discretionary item.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#66

Post by jraby3 » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:11 AM UTC

runnerup wrote: post #46

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.

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 thought to conserving them.

All this to say that tragedy of the commons is an extremely hard problem to solve, even when you know about it and care.

I constantly repeat to myself “no single drop of rain thinks it’s responsible for the flood” and try not to think of that Vegas hotel.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#67

Post by 101010101010101 » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:11 AM UTC

No post body was provided.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#68

Post by bwi4 » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:12 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #59

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.

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 easier said than done.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#69

Post by haswell » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:14 AM UTC

cityofdelusion wrote: post #39

p1necone wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

A high quality, well seasoned cast iron pan will allow you to fry an egg while said egg slides around the pan as if nonstick.

Not every pan is capable of this, and meticulous care is required to keep it in shape, but I became a believer in non stick cast iron when I first met a pan that could do it. I had used plenty of "stickier" cast iron pans before and my perspective shifted a bit.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#70

Post by silisili » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 7:15 AM UTC

runnerup wrote: post #46

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.

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.

It's hard to solve in our system, which implicitly encourages it to happen.

In a non capitalistic, small enough community it isn't a worry.

The real problem I think is how to scale that thinking to a world population.