4 ms·

Not trying to be the troll, but this debate is missing the obvious retort. > Why aren't we forcing the polluters to pay for the cleanup Because then the manuf

by AlanSE 3y ago

Not trying to be the troll, but this debate is missing the obvious retort. > Why aren't we forcing the polluters to pay for the cleanup Because then the manufacturing goes to China. It doesn't get cleaner, it might actually get worse. The pollution goes somewhere else. Economic anxiety (which is politically explosive, see 2016 election) goes up domestically. What we need is effective regulation, not bureaucratic us-versus-them regulation. We need more engineering spending and less legal spending. And as a consequence, yes, we need fewer choices in consumer products and higher prices, and we need consumer safety laws that prevent offshoring from undermining all of that.

mc32 3y ago
Also, what are viable alternatives? It seems like a game of whack a mole. Ban one chemical, use a new one, years later new one is worse. We could go back to pre plastics, enjoy less sterile things along with more disease, etc. someone’s gotta make the calculus.
- Spivak 3y ago
  The answer is to have an allowlist but that's a political nonstarter. If we cut plastic use to just medical devices and food storage that would be a massive win.
- logifail 3y ago
  > We could go back to pre plastics, enjoy less sterile things along with more disease Hint: it's actually about money, not sterility. A foodstuff packed in a glass jar with a metal screw-top isn't going to spoil any faster than the same thing in a plastic container, but the glass weighs more, and costs more, so if all other things are equal the retailer will of course opt for the supplier with the cheaper and lighter packaging.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > A foodstuff packed in a glass jar with a metal screw-top isn't going to spoil any faster than the same thing in a plastic container, In fact glass is easier to sterilize; it isn't porous and holds up to high heat and chemical disinfectants like bleach. This makes it superior to plastic for food preservation.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      But that doesn't matter because everything nowadays is designed as "single use"
  - mc32 3y ago
    What do we do about frozen foods? (If not plastic, they have plastic linings or coatings). What about the butchers, are we back to newspaper with newspaper inks? And wat do you do about food delivery, lunch service, fast-food, single serve, sauce packets, airport food, vending machines, etc...
- AlanSE 3y ago
  I have been, personally, figuring that I should wear mostly cotton clothing and glass / ceramic (as opposed to plastic) dishware. Limiting material choices for household items would be politically impossible, but I would like it to become a popularized "trend", which retailers will then cater to. Companies should market based on using "traditional" non-toxic materials (still modern and industrial, just not absurd), and consumers can respond by giving their business.
- swifthesitation 3y ago
  Interesting, I like the idea of pre-plastic. Some hypothetical "solutions" (i.e. brain farts) I'll toss out into the ether: Ban all levels of plastic for the _packaging_ of food and goods. Incentivize multiple-use and/or highly recyclable materials metal(aluminum), silicone and glass containers for food, rather than "convenience" and single-use. Single-use plastics can be regulated and limited to medical/hospital use only. This could also have a benefit of promoting smaller supply lines for things that spoil. Increasing small town economies, farms, mom & pop shops. Plastics selling point is convenience and cost-reduction for consumers and businesses. We could place regulation on the distillation ranges for the barrel oil. As for the forever chemicals... We (U.S.) can approach the problem similar to the E.U. - Prove first, the safety of the chemical by outside labs (disallow testing by the company who benefits from the use of said chemical) before hitting the market. Whereas the current U.S. model is - I get to use whatever chemical I see fit, unless you prove to me wrong.
malfist 3y ago
Sorry, but this attitude is too defeatist to accomplish anything. We can try something, even if it doesn't work, we can still try it. Ban those chemicals. If they want to move manufacturing to china to use illegal pollutants, let them. That's a huge cost to them and no guarantee china will let them keep doing it. "It's not illegal in another country" isn't a reason for us to keep it legal. We can lead the way.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >We can try something, even if it doesn't work, we can still try it. At a national policy level, trying something that doesn't work can have terrible and long-lasting consequences.
  - akaru 3y ago
    Reminds me of something else that is terrible and long-lasting.
  - malfist 3y ago
    Then lets not try anything. That's the alternative right? If you see trying and failing is seen as a worse alternative to doing nothing and poisoning the environment we all live in then you need to take a step back, be less critical, and be okay with partial or incomplete solutions. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      >Then lets not try anything. That's the alternative right No, considered action is the alternative. If PFAS use is banned, what's the likely outcome? Would it be expected to significantly reduce the global PFAS emissions much or mostly move them somewhere that cares less and even increase other pollution that those places also care less about? Are there important uses of PFAS for which we have no viable alternative? What would losing those mean? Would it be expected that replacements used locally are actually better for the environment? What's the risk that they're actually worse? Would taxing PFAS use instead of banning it have similar outcome but be easier to roll back if needed? How much would it cost to implement a ban, including ongoing costs of ensuring compliance? Are there other environmental efforts that would have better expected ROI and/or less risk? >Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Don't let "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" be the enemy of effective policy. Not acting has a cost and delay has a cost, but so does acting rashly.
bob-09 3y ago
> What we need is effective regulation, not bureaucratic us-versus-them regulation. That's easy to say and everyone would agree we need "effective" regulation, but I think the profit-driven corporations that continue to pollute and use a portion of their profits to pay lobbyists and influence public discourse in order to discourage regulation will always take a "us-versus-them" approach.
- AlanSE 3y ago
  It needs to be more expensive to hire lawyers (and lobbyists) than to hire engineers to solve the problem. Some companies will fail to adapt and continue to fight legally in lieu of adding filters and complying, and those companies should get shut down.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Corporate lawyers need to be held accountable too. If an executive knows the company's product is dangerous but keeps that secret because he's representing the board/shareholders, nobody thinks he shouldn't be punished for keeping this secret. But if the corporate lawyer knows the product is dangerous and keeps this secret because he's representing the company, this is somehow okay? If lawyers could be held liable for what they knew and concealed, they'd either turn tail and run or would demand far more money to compensate for the risk. Either way, companies would be dissuaded from relying on lawyers instead of fixing their products. Attorney-client privilege should be severely curtailed if not abolished outright when the client is a corporation.
rngname22 3y ago
What are you talking about? You can ban the sale of products containing PFAS, not just their local manufacture. If you wanted, you could levy fines like 5-10% of gross annual revenue for any company or marketplace or retailer found distributing product containing PFAS. You don't have to agree it's feasible or worth it, but it's possible.
- AlanSE 3y ago
  Maybe get rid of them in clothes and personal care products at least?
- logifail 3y ago
  > You can ban the sale of products containing PFAS [...] "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large, complex group of synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products around the world since about the 1950s. They are ingredients in various everyday products. For example, PFAS are used to keep food from sticking to packaging or cookware, make clothes and carpets resistant to stains, and create firefighting foam that is more effective."[0] Should we ban those uses, outright? Q: What do you suggest we use instead? [0] https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    Yes ban them. The cookware usage is unnecessary and hard to purchase without. Clothes get replaced so often that stains are not and issue worth dying over. Carpets usage is down. Firefighting foam that is more effective sounds good until the other choice is poisoning firefighters for slightly more effectiveness.
    - logifail 3y ago
      > The cookware usage is unnecessary and hard to purchase without Q: If the first part of that statement is true then why is the second part of that statement true? I would suggest that nonstick cookware is popular because consumers like it ... because "it works". If there were an alternative that was as good then it would be readily available and frequently sold.
BartjeD 3y ago
This isn't a new problem. The standard legal remedy is distributor liability, for importing unsafe products. This has been part of EU regulation for more than 30 years

by AlanSE 3y ago

mc32 3y ago

Also, what are viable alternatives? It seems like a game of whack a mole. Ban one chemical, use a new one, years later new one is worse. We could go back to pre plastics, enjoy less sterile things along with more disease, etc. someone’s gotta make the calculus.

Spivak 3y ago
The answer is to have an allowlist but that's a political nonstarter. If we cut plastic use to just medical devices and food storage that would be a massive win.
logifail 3y ago
> We could go back to pre plastics, enjoy less sterile things along with more disease Hint: it's actually about money, not sterility. A foodstuff packed in a glass jar with a metal screw-top isn't going to spoil any faster than the same thing in a plastic container, but the glass weighs more, and costs more, so if all other things are equal the retailer will of course opt for the supplier with the cheaper and lighter packaging.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > A foodstuff packed in a glass jar with a metal screw-top isn't going to spoil any faster than the same thing in a plastic container, In fact glass is easier to sterilize; it isn't porous and holds up to high heat and chemical disinfectants like bleach. This makes it superior to plastic for food preservation.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    But that doesn't matter because everything nowadays is designed as "single use"
- mc32 3y ago
  What do we do about frozen foods? (If not plastic, they have plastic linings or coatings). What about the butchers, are we back to newspaper with newspaper inks? And wat do you do about food delivery, lunch service, fast-food, single serve, sauce packets, airport food, vending machines, etc...
AlanSE 3y ago
I have been, personally, figuring that I should wear mostly cotton clothing and glass / ceramic (as opposed to plastic) dishware. Limiting material choices for household items would be politically impossible, but I would like it to become a popularized "trend", which retailers will then cater to. Companies should market based on using "traditional" non-toxic materials (still modern and industrial, just not absurd), and consumers can respond by giving their business.
swifthesitation 3y ago
Interesting, I like the idea of pre-plastic. Some hypothetical "solutions" (i.e. brain farts) I'll toss out into the ether: Ban all levels of plastic for the _packaging_ of food and goods. Incentivize multiple-use and/or highly recyclable materials metal(aluminum), silicone and glass containers for food, rather than "convenience" and single-use. Single-use plastics can be regulated and limited to medical/hospital use only. This could also have a benefit of promoting smaller supply lines for things that spoil. Increasing small town economies, farms, mom & pop shops. Plastics selling point is convenience and cost-reduction for consumers and businesses. We could place regulation on the distillation ranges for the barrel oil. As for the forever chemicals... We (U.S.) can approach the problem similar to the E.U. - Prove first, the safety of the chemical by outside labs (disallow testing by the company who benefits from the use of said chemical) before hitting the market. Whereas the current U.S. model is - I get to use whatever chemical I see fit, unless you prove to me wrong.

malfist 3y ago

Sorry, but this attitude is too defeatist to accomplish anything. We can try something, even if it doesn't work, we can still try it. Ban those chemicals. If they want to move manufacturing to china to use illegal pollutants, let them. That's a huge cost to them and no guarantee china will let them keep doing it. "It's not illegal in another country" isn't a reason for us to keep it legal. We can lead the way.

thfuran 3y ago
>We can try something, even if it doesn't work, we can still try it. At a national policy level, trying something that doesn't work can have terrible and long-lasting consequences.
- akaru 3y ago
  Reminds me of something else that is terrible and long-lasting.
- malfist 3y ago
  Then lets not try anything. That's the alternative right? If you see trying and failing is seen as a worse alternative to doing nothing and poisoning the environment we all live in then you need to take a step back, be less critical, and be okay with partial or incomplete solutions. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >Then lets not try anything. That's the alternative right No, considered action is the alternative. If PFAS use is banned, what's the likely outcome? Would it be expected to significantly reduce the global PFAS emissions much or mostly move them somewhere that cares less and even increase other pollution that those places also care less about? Are there important uses of PFAS for which we have no viable alternative? What would losing those mean? Would it be expected that replacements used locally are actually better for the environment? What's the risk that they're actually worse? Would taxing PFAS use instead of banning it have similar outcome but be easier to roll back if needed? How much would it cost to implement a ban, including ongoing costs of ensuring compliance? Are there other environmental efforts that would have better expected ROI and/or less risk? >Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Don't let "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" be the enemy of effective policy. Not acting has a cost and delay has a cost, but so does acting rashly.

bob-09 3y ago

> What we need is effective regulation, not bureaucratic us-versus-them regulation. That's easy to say and everyone would agree we need "effective" regulation, but I think the profit-driven corporations that continue to pollute and use a portion of their profits to pay lobbyists and influence public discourse in order to discourage regulation will always take a "us-versus-them" approach.

AlanSE 3y ago
It needs to be more expensive to hire lawyers (and lobbyists) than to hire engineers to solve the problem. Some companies will fail to adapt and continue to fight legally in lieu of adding filters and complying, and those companies should get shut down.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Corporate lawyers need to be held accountable too. If an executive knows the company's product is dangerous but keeps that secret because he's representing the board/shareholders, nobody thinks he shouldn't be punished for keeping this secret. But if the corporate lawyer knows the product is dangerous and keeps this secret because he's representing the company, this is somehow okay? If lawyers could be held liable for what they knew and concealed, they'd either turn tail and run or would demand far more money to compensate for the risk. Either way, companies would be dissuaded from relying on lawyers instead of fixing their products. Attorney-client privilege should be severely curtailed if not abolished outright when the client is a corporation.

rngname22 3y ago

What are you talking about? You can ban the sale of products containing PFAS, not just their local manufacture. If you wanted, you could levy fines like 5-10% of gross annual revenue for any company or marketplace or retailer found distributing product containing PFAS. You don't have to agree it's feasible or worth it, but it's possible.

AlanSE 3y ago
Maybe get rid of them in clothes and personal care products at least?
logifail 3y ago
> You can ban the sale of products containing PFAS [...] "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large, complex group of synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products around the world since about the 1950s. They are ingredients in various everyday products. For example, PFAS are used to keep food from sticking to packaging or cookware, make clothes and carpets resistant to stains, and create firefighting foam that is more effective."[0] Should we ban those uses, outright? Q: What do you suggest we use instead? [0] https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Yes ban them. The cookware usage is unnecessary and hard to purchase without. Clothes get replaced so often that stains are not and issue worth dying over. Carpets usage is down. Firefighting foam that is more effective sounds good until the other choice is poisoning firefighters for slightly more effectiveness.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > The cookware usage is unnecessary and hard to purchase without Q: If the first part of that statement is true then why is the second part of that statement true? I would suggest that nonstick cookware is popular because consumers like it ... because "it works". If there were an alternative that was as good then it would be readily available and frequently sold.

BartjeD 3y ago

This isn't a new problem. The standard legal remedy is distributor liability, for importing unsafe products. This has been part of EU regulation for more than 30 years