As lawmakers around the world weigh bans of 'forever chemicals,” many manufacturers are pushing back, saying there often is no substitute.

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You always hear about how innovative the US is but the moment there is any talk about requiring industry to find an alternative to something youd think this place was as economically crippled as north korea. An economy so flimsy and industry so devoid of flexibility that it will collapse if required to find an alternative to x y and z but simultaneously supposedly the strongest and most resilient economy in the world.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s all a ruse to maximise profits and minimise expenses. They’ll do anything to protect the status quo — they’ve used the tragedy of the commons to manufacture dangerous chemicals on an industrial scale for decades, and banning them now would impact entire industries and product segments; probably to the tune of tens or hundreds of billions.

      No multinational corporation is ever going to voluntarily support a change that will kill its profits.

    • Knightfox@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problem is that the industry has already made replacements and the replacements were bad too. Gen X was a replacement for PFOS and PFOA, all 3 are PFAS compounds. Either we have to completely abstain, greatly limit usage, find a magic way to treat it, or replace it. Odds are whatever wonder replacement we invent will be found to be the next super bad thing in 20 years.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sooo, as a counterpoint lets say we needed to replace “water” with something else for human consumption.

      What do you imagine the cost and probability of success for that would look like?

      I’m not saying it’s the same here - but people seem to think that “scientists” can just magic-up new chemicals for everything.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        We can exist without forever chemicals and have, we cannot exist and have not ever existed without water.

        Lemme pose another extreme then. If water killed people after drinking it for 20 years would you just say we can’t replace it and accept that reality? Or would you at least make a strong effort to replace it?

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Forever chemicals” arent water. We have survived without it. It is currently just really inconvenient to do so again given what these substances are used for. I am a chemist. We have replaced things before and were almost certainly going to do it again. Companies just have to give a shit enough to make use of our inginuity to do so. But unfortunately they dont care unless they have a legal gun to their head so here we are

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Forever chemicals” arent water. We have survived without it

          Uh. Yeah. Way to avoid my point completely. But sure - we don’t consume “forever chemicals” out of necessity. Guess that chemistry degree is really paying off.

          • xkforce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My degree is directly relevant to the topic at hand. I am qualified to have an informed opinion on the feasibility of replacing forever chemicals. You on the other hand, are not.

              • xkforce@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                There are replacements but none as cheap and easy to manufacture (yet… which is the whole point of R and D) which is why companies use them. There is very little pressure forcing companies to switch to alternatives and as long as that is the case, they will still use them rather than do the work needed to phase them out. This is not a problem because we cannot phase them out but because there is no economic driving force to use alternatives.

                Making things dirt cheap IS NOT an acceptable excuse to fuck up the environment. We have one planet to live on. This is like pissing in the same office water cooler you drink out of because it costs 50 cents to use the bathroom.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In almost every case I can think of there is an older solution, it was better, but its less profitable. They’re pushing cheap junk out. PFAS chemicals are not the best solution to much. Lightweight waterproofing, maybe?

      • HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not saying it’s the same here

        “I’m not saying the example I just used in this situation is an example that should ever be used in this situation.”

        And if scientists can’t “magic” new chemicals, I wonder how they came up with the ones addressed in this article? Besides, isn’t capitalism supposed to “drive innovation” and all that? Amazing how that suddenly goes right out the window the minute anyone questions the status quo or, god forbid, the profit that comes from destroying the earth and the people on it.