17 ms·

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 rea

• irjustin 4y ago
  > companies will buy their toxins elsewhere This is where legislation needs to come in.
• xvilka 4y ago
  As a chemist I am not sure it's even possible to create matching alternatives. The stronger links inside molecules and outside, the more they are "alien" to life and environment. While reducing their usage is a good strategy, an outright ban strips technology of useful materials.
  • glasss 4y ago
    I have no experience or advanced education in chemistry or material sciences. Do you think it's possible that a ban would spur innovation? I imagine our modern world has use cases that can't just disappear or settle for something not as effective.
    • thereisnospork 4y ago
      Unfortunately probably not much - the relevant properties come from the element itself (fluorine) where there literally doesn't exist an alternative. It is possible that some alternatives will come to light, but there is a limited design space and it's not as if people haven't been looking for cheaper[0] and better solutions. I'm curious as to the scope of this, and what end products are effected. A lot of the best-in-class greases (krytox) and orings (FFKM aka kalrez) rely heavily on fluoro-components. FFKM orings in particular are head and shoulders above everything else by ~100C worth of working temperature range. FKM 'Viton' orings are also incredibly popular and are widely used in automotive applications for temperature and oil resistance in addition to having major industrial uses. [0]Fluorine is a real PITA to produce and make derivatives from - environmental issues aside functionally equivalent non-fluorine compounds would almost always be cheaper.
      • erosenbe0 4y ago
        They can't be giving up on all organofluorines. They will find substitute polymers with shorter half-lifes
      • eternityforest 4y ago
        For consumers goods there are already many alternatives though. Ceramic nonstick and nanotech based water repellents come to mind. They are good enough for average people who aren't avid hikers or foodies. I wouldn't be surprised if they started using other plastics in frying pans one day, meant to be used with some fancy temperature control induction system. Lots of stuff is slippery enough for food applications, you just need one that's safe at the temperature oil gets to. I doubt my life would be affected much at all without any fluoropolymers in goods I directly own.
    • yannis 4y ago
      A ban does stimulate innovation, as the banning of CFs shows (See Montreal protocol), It spurs innovation for alternatives as there is good money in it and it also spurs innovation by end-users. It is a long and slow process though.
  • Jolter 4y ago
    Can you name one essential application where PFAS is really necessary? Something where society would actually be substantially worse without it. I’m not talking about ski wax here.
    • mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Orthogonal solvent used for making computer chips. I.e. nothing past the 100 nm node
    • DoingIsLearning 4y ago
      Only reasonable example is AFFF fire fighting foam. But realistically the amount of liquid fuel fires that you have to fight in this world probably pale in comparison with the production volumes of unnecessary anti-stick cookware and gore-tex fabrics.
      • Jolter 4y ago
        Right, I suspected that one ... There seems to be some products on the market already: https://firestopperus.com/pfas-free-firefighting-foams/ https://firestopperus.com/pfas-free-firefighting-foams/ Hopefully they don't contain something even more toxic than PFAS?
      • themerone 4y ago
        Firefighting foam is much more likely to contaminate groundwater, so relative production volume is not a good metric for environmental impact. Gore-tex isn't going to hurt anyone unless there is dumping or leakage in manufacturing.
    • adrianN 4y ago
      They are great in lubricants.
      • erosenbe0 4y ago
        Yeah, imagine catheters before ptfe
  • titzer 4y ago
    It's a question of priorities. Do you put human (and non-human) lifeforms' health and safety above technology, or not? If all you value is money and efficiency, then you end viewing things through the lens of what technology needs or wants, which is really just an extension of the economic policy of growth, growth, growth. Before Teflon, people had pans, and they cleaned them. After teflon, people will have pans, and they will clean them.
    • eternityforest 4y ago
      It's not even a case like lithium batteries where my lifestyle would be significantly impacted if I had to go without. To some degree prioritizing tech makes sense, if the tech is replacing some other thing that harms living beings more. I doubt an LED factory is environmentally perfect, but the alternative would probably be people using oil lamps in many places. And some things are just too convenient to give up for 1 in a million possible risks, like WiFi. But things that only benefit a small enthusiast community in nonessential ways with large costs to everyone else are just too much.
• vouaobrasil 4y ago
  This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will continue to support companies with sustainable environmental practises even if the cost is higher, and I encourage everyone to do the same. For, that increased cost is like a payment for that piece (however small) of the environment that I otherwise would not have, and I think that's worth it.
  • minism 4y ago
    Right.. this is a perfect example of why government legislation/intervention in the market is needed to some degree.
    • flockonus 4y ago
      Over our globalized economy I don't see how local government legislation can work (unfortunately). Long are gone the days governments around the world coordinated to banish CFCs, for instance.
      • vlovich123 4y ago
        You establish agreements over a large enough market that it actually makes a different so that competitors doing the right thing aren’t penalized or aren’t penalized enough that they’re disincentivized. Sometimes that market is the US and you only need a local bill to do that. Sometimes you do a bilateral or multilateral treaty. But these things happen all the time even today. Eg if not for trump there would probably have been a new pacific trade agreement and Biden has managed to rally multilateral cooperation around security issues around Russia (eg see new applications to NATO as one example as well as related economic agreements and sanctions) and climate change. The main challenge is that Trump’s behavior of cancelling deals that were on the finish line as well as backing out of existing agreements (Paris accords + Iran) means that partners are now more wary of entering into agreements in the first place. This has less to do with globalization and more to do with USA’s increasing instability as a reliable partner that can execute on agreed-upon commitments across political transitions. So now countries are less reliant on commitments from the USA. From one perspective, that’s good - local autonomy is a powerful tool. From a different perspective, the USA frequently (not always and maybe not even a majority of the time) lead the way and set a global direction through unilateral action (ie even without treaties). Again, that’s gone less because of globalization I think and more that the world has grown tired of USA’s political weight throwing and realpolitik behavior rather than sticking to common principles (democracy, rule of law, not torturing enemies no matter what they’ve done, human rights, raising up scientists and facts even when politically inconvenient or leaders applying pressure to move their voter base instead of playing tail wag the dog, having principles about who we count as our allies etc). One set of behaviors engenders trust while the other degrades it and leads to whatsboutisim politics. Agreements in low trust environments are rarer and harder to maintain. Agreements in high trust environments are much cheaper. So, while I agree that the “governments around the world coordinating” is harder I disagree that it’s impossible or that it was caused by globalization Val multi-generational realpolitik weight throwing and underhanded behavior that killed a lot of the good will brought about as the “saviors of WWII” propaganda that was wide spread + “golden city” aura post WWII and during the Cold War + technological and economically outpacing Russia. We’ve been leveraging that good will more than our finances because the former is completely invisible and impossible to quantify and measure.
• jmcgough 4y ago
  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.
  • Jolter 4y ago
    It’s right there in the article. 3M have already been sued over this.
• missedthecue 4y ago
  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.
  • themitigating 4y ago
    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"?
    • runnerup 4y ago
      And china can put them on products and send them to the USA anyways and mis-label them because almost nothing that is imported is actually checked for toxic chemicals/paints/etc.
    • missedthecue 4y ago
      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.
      • themitigating 4y ago
        "No my argument is that just like America decided that rare earths mining was gross and messy" By saying "just like that" you are implying the decision was sudden and without reason. That's false. You also are basically saying "I'll be sorry" because the military needs them but are there alternatives and is it essential? Finally you used "gross" and "messy" as a manipulation technique. Messy is also used to describe anything from clothes left on the floor to in toys left out. Similar with "gross". You are trying to lump pollution with other benign activities to imply it isn't important.
    • 4y ago
• rtpg 4y ago
  How does this argument not apply to everything? The counterfactual (where 3M continues to produce these) is ... obviously bad? Producing materials that are bad for the environment and human health! Now less is produced, at least in the short term. An example where your argument doesn't play out like you say: many chemicals manufacturers decided to no longer sell chemicals that would be used for administering the death penalty via lethal injection. So many did this that states _had to basically stop applying the death penalty_, and basically try and trick companies to sell them the materials. A win for those who pushed for that to happen (mitigated by the endless cruelty of the SC but..). Alternative companies didn't show up to "fill the gap". At one point doing things actually matters. Especially when we look at how large conglomerates own many parts of the value chain, at one point the end result is simply that these chemicals stop being used.
  • jmathai 4y ago
    The benefit Is true of all investments. The payoffs are down the road. In this case, the environment and health will reap the benefits once 3M brings alternatives to market that can compete with the current “bad” options.
    • Faark 4y ago
      The benefits could be way more immediate. Less supply might drive the price up, leading to less usage. 3M killing production and other signs of the product not having a future can drive away investments into competing suppliers.
    • mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Nature has no replacement for the electronegativity of the fluorine atom.
      • lyind 4y ago
        It seems like there are many usable substances which are hydrophobic (usable as a water repellent). Not so many alternatives which are oleophobic (oil repellent). I am sure proper research is being conducted to find replacements. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1904/1/012010/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1904/1/...
• yannis 4y ago
  It will need an international effort, like the Montreal Protocol for banning CFCs and HFCs. Legislation need to ban the end-use as well as the production of these chemicals. I was involved with a study in the late 80s early 90s about the economic impact of the Montreal protocol in southern Africa and there was huge resistance against it from major car manufacturers (the biggest consumption were car air conditioners at the time, more that the use of CFC-11 in foam packaging). Dealers stock piled stocks and rogue manufactures continued producing for many years. It takes 5-10 years for alternatives to be developed and 20-30 years for wide adoption before they disappear all together.
• baxtr 4y ago
  This is often solved for by imposing import restrictions.
• zdragnar 4y ago
  A few years back, 3M entered a near-$1 billion settlement with Minnesota for PFAS groundwater contamination. I suspect they have been working on a replacement since 2010 or not long after (when the legal action first started up) and, given the two year timeline to phase them out, I'm thinking they've got the replacement already and just need to get it to market.
• Brian_K_White 4y ago
  some will continue to buy the old stuff elsewhere. some, however few and small, will choose to buy the new, more expensive, less convenient, less performant stuff for a variety of reasons, once it exists at all. And as time goes on, pressures and variables change. Nothing happens without starting somewhere, and the first step of ecery change that ever happened can always be characterized as impractical, ineffective, irrational. And yet, countless such changes have happened anyway despite those perfectly reasonable sounding arguments.
• upon_drumhead 4y ago
  Honestly, I try to buy 3M stuff more then existing alternatives, even with the higher price, largely cause 3M stuff tends to work a lot better and my time not dealing with crappy stuff is worth the cost. That won't change with the increased cost of safer alternatives. If anything, I'll buy more 3M products.
• lobochrome 4y ago
  This is just not true. For many of the products there are no quick and dirty replacements from China and even if they would field a product it’s not just a 1:1 replacement. Qualification is complicated.
• krab 4y ago
  They'll lobby for a ban of these chemicals, showing there's a safer alternative. That's a risk for the competitors and their customers.
• modo_mario 4y ago
  Hopefully Chinese people will push back against it and field an outrage just like we had in Belgium
• titzer 4y ago
  This is the "someone's gonna do bad in this world, better if the most righteous person around does--hey that's me" defense. Sigh, there is no iteration of that logic that doesn't devolve to vacuous self-justification for engaging in immoral acts.
  • themerone 4y ago
    I don't agree with your reasoning. Most bad things aren't driven by supply and demand. If you jail a rapist, you aren't creating incentive for someone else to commit more rapes. Also, performing a dirty industrial process in a country with strong environmental and workplace safety regulations is better than moving that process to a country with no protections.
• unethical_ban 4y ago
  We ban imports of Chinese PFAS, and the damage gets mostly localized to China.
• m463 4y ago
  I would like to know when I'm buying toxins. Overheating teflon pans will kill any pet birds in the house. It's also not great for humans (but details have been suppressed by large corporate campaigns) But try to find a pan without teflon? impossible to determine (almost) I remember finding that hexclad alledgedly doesn't use teflon... until I found out they do ... and they put it on the OUTSIDE of the pan too. ugh.
  • SyzygistSix 4y ago
    Cast iron works just fine. And I never saw a teflon pan in any professional kitchen.
    • m463 4y ago
      I've been to events/cafeterias with made-to-order omelettes and they all use small nonstick frying pans. (not refuting that most kitchens use stainless/etc, just a data point)
• meldyr 4y ago
  Your comment is overly defeatist. The market signal on that using PFAS is imposes serious liabilities on a company is crystal clear. Even a giant like 3M is in rough waters because it cannot bear the liabilities. It is common that large public companies deinvest some part of their business that cause bad PR. They usually sell a part of their business to a smaller/more anonymous/non-public company that is prepared to take the liabilities. In this case there is no indication of a possible sale of the 3M plants and a complete closure is the most likely scenario. A second aspect is that many 3m-customers will be forced to reevaluate the decision to use PFAS. A good example is the usage in firefighting foam. Any producer of firefighting-foam is now fully aware that selling foam which is guaranteed to be released into the environment is a major liability. There are even proposals to ban end-products that contain PFAS at the EU-level. Lobbying is not fully transparent, but I suspect 3M was one of the last strongholds that lobbied against such regulation. Today, in many emerging markets environment law is weak or the enforcement is absent today. However, we see that all emerging markets are catching-up. In 5 to 10 years PFAS-producers will face a similar regulatory risk in some emerging markets. The last element is that the market-share of 3M was huge. It is unlikely that competitors in emerging markets can fill that gap in 3 years. In the short term, we will see some PFAS-producing companies in emerging markets making record profits because of this decision. However, I think it is unlikely that growth in emerging markets will come even close to filling this gap.