5 ms·
A few tens of billions really isn't a big deal... It's kind of funny that you are like an enthusonaut when it comes to businesses and other private entities do
by maxerickson 2y ago
A few tens of billions really isn't a big deal...
It's kind of funny that you are like an enthusonaut when it comes to businesses and other private entities doing things and then can't imagine that pretty much the only thing government needs to do whatever is the political will.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoI can be optimistic about things that don’t matter, but pessimistic when it comes to basic human needs and the historical pattern of people being poisoned by companies without recourse or government not holding polluters accountable. Will it get cleaned up eventually? Maybe. Will it be expensive? Absolutely. Will people be harmed and die in the meantime from PFAS contaminated water. Also true. The Inflation Reduction Act demonstrates your point about political will, but it still requires will, and once done, the policy and fiat takes time to have outcomes come out of the machine. Nuance!
- maxerickson 2y agoPfas levels in the US are far below where they were in 2000. We are making solid progress.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoI would not disagree we are making progress, but people will still be harmed and die from drinking water PFAS until remediated. Do we agree on that point? > EPA Administrator Michael Regan last month made one of his agency's strongest statements to date about the danger of "forever chemicals." New restrictions on those pollutants in drinking water would "prevent thousands of deaths and prevent tens of thousands of serious PFAS-related illnesses," Regan said. https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions-address-pfas https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions-address-pfas https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-st... https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-024-01074-2 https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-... https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP10393 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP10393
- maxerickson 2y agoI don't know what your intent with those links is? Are you arguing that my characterization is wrong? That nothing matters but 0? Please note that I wrote my comment before you edited in text. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.html https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population....
- maxerickson 2y agoDo we agree on that point? So why are you balking at committing resources towards doing what is needed? Back and forth and back again.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> pessimistic when it comes to basic human needs and the historical pattern of people being poisoned by companies without recourse or government bit holding polluters accountable The damage and solution are both local. That reduces the minimum scale of action, which makes organising easier. It also makes benefits personal: you aren't paying $1.60 a month so someone across the world breathes easier or isn't flooded, you're paying so your family doesn't drink PFAS. And you get that benefit if your town or county agree they don't want to be poisoned; you don't need to worry about what Arizona or West Virginia are doing.
- llamaimperative 2y agoNo, drinking water is only one source of PFAS poisoning. Other sources include food packaging, cosmetics, cookware, paints, cooking oils, and more.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoStill local and locally controllable. Totally different coordination problem from e.g. emissions reduction.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]