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

71–80 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#71

Post by flownoon »

jahnu wrote: post #62
fastball wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This essay suggests that the amounts spent on lobbying are not in fact huge sums: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#72

Post by CoastalCoder »

p1necone wrote: post #30
themitigating wrote: post #21

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 agree. I used nonstick pans for a long time. But once the coating starts to degrade, they're worse than decent-quality traditional cookware. Because food starts to stick, but you still can't use metal utensils to scrape it off.

Now I just use stainless-steel or (rarely) cast iron, and I'm much happier.

And it's even cheaper, long-term. A decent stainless-steel pan costs $50-$200 USD, but lasts approximately forever. Whereas a decent non-stick equivalent costs $30-$50, but needs replacement every few years even if I'm careful with it.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#73

Post by eyelidlessness »

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…

> the only option left is to vote with your wallet

I know it’s not popular here but I’ll say it: class analysis. You can vote with your fingers and bones. You can vote with your personal dignity. Your investment portfolios are just part of capitalism and it isn’t predestined.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#74

Post by pigsty »

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…

That example is one reason why legislation is necessary.

There will always be detractors saying we should just make people want to make the right choice, but all it takes is one person in a company to make a decision that outweighs the collective efforts of millions.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#75

Post by swarnie »

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…

I've got to a similar conclusion as you but with a very different outcome.

It makes absolutely no difference if i minimise my plastic or diligently sort them for recycling because a Vegas hotel will make all my efforts for naught.

Climate change is already here and there is nothing the individual can do about it. The optimum play now is to accept that the group is useless and make individual steps to mitigate the effects on you personally.

Sorry, never nice doing a pre-7am nihilism dump.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#76

Post by wjnc »

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…

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.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#77

Post by tintor »

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…

There are reusable metal water bottles. Don't be thirsty.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#78

Post by pigsty »

missedthecue wrote: post #61
Centigonal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

Iron pans are ridiculously cheap these days and they last forever if you bother to read the 3 line instructions included with them.

Teflon isn’t as great as people were deceived into believing. Even if you’re absolutely meticulous with care, it’ll have a noticeable lack in non-stick abilities within months and be noticeably sticky after 2 years, and rapidly degrading into useless territory. An iron pan starts out about as sticky as a slightly used Teflon pan and feels like brand new Teflon after a few uses and stays that way for as long as a human lifespan.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#79

Post by standardUser »

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…

Nothing government regulations with decent enforcement couldn't stop. We just need to elect governments that pass those regulations.

The thing is, the majority of voters in most societies don't want those regulations.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#80

Post by Jolter »

jmcgough wrote: post #9
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.

I'm curious - if companies knowingly continue to use PFAS for purely financial reasons, would they also risk liability? It's becoming increasingly clear from studies that PFAS are toxic to humans. There was that huge settlement by tobacco companies, despite the fact that tobacco is still legal, because they ignored clear science for years in order to make a profit.

It’s right there in the article. 3M have already been sued over this.
Post reply on HN