Hacker News Reader

Comment by revscat | Hacker News Reader

> It is important to stop the introduction of these chemicals and microplastics into our environment.

This is an unreasonable, although noble, goal. The petrochemical industry is simply too embedded to be meaningfully regulated in the ways that it should be. They have had de facto nation state powers for decades, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia/Aramco, are state actors themselves.

View on HN

There’s already a long list of petrochemical byproducts that are regulated.

Sure, it’s not perfect, but nothing is.

The name "forever chemicals" kind of suggests that these things being in essentially every body of water on earth means we still could use a way to deal with filtration even if we never pollute again.

regulated by who though? the GP was making the argument that the government is captured by the oil industry. regulation by a captured government is not legitimate regulation.

That kind of black and white cynicism is incorrect and the opposite of a solution. It impedes people who actually want to fix problems, and who occasionally succeed.

I’ve found my own pockets of cynicism is motivated fundamentally by laziness. If it’s impossible to succeed, you don’t need to try, don’t need to risk failure. But it is possible.

What successes have you seen here / been involved in?

Saying there's an ubiquitous failure of a certain approach to a problem doesn't mean "give up". I think it means you should step back, question your assumptions, think more broadly. A nice example of people doing that: https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Markets-Uprooting-Capitalism-... (not to endorse their specific policy proposals, necessarily).

Got it. That’s not cynicism, but saying “all progress must stop until my favorite solution is implemented.”

Centralized authorities are even less accountable to private interests.

Most of the “bad” microplastic pollution comes from clothes and disposable bags and utensils. Bags are clearly on their way out, being replaced by cardboard bags.

Clothes are trickier. Polyester is extremely versatile and durable. But newer formulations of nylon (which is biodegradable) or PTFE (aka "teflon") treated fabrics are comparable.

> Bags are clearly on their way out, being replaced by cardboard bags.

In your city, maybe. Absolutely not globally

Disposable bags in the west contaminating the water? I would be immensely surprised if that's even 1% of clothes and shampoos/beauty products. We don't normally put plastic backs in running water for ages.

Yes. Thin disposable bags are easily degraded mechanically, resulting in lots of microparticles.

For clothes it's even worse, they produce microparticles at all times, especially during laundry.

Thin plastic bags in the west have a very short lifecycle that goes mostly shop->home->bin->landfill (segregated from water table). There is almost no opportunity for it to actually contaminate the water.

Your argument could be used against doing anything about climate change as well.

Moreover the tradeoffs that would come with an actual meaningful reduction in, say, microplastics, are drastic QOL downgrades that many people would not accept, forever chemicals be damned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com