Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlanSE | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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

We should absolutely ban the use of PFAS in applications where it isn't strictly necessary, like the (relatively recent) explosion of fast-food containers that are marginally more waterproof and/or cheaper because of it. This isn't even an interesting question.

Use of PFAS in (airport) firefighting foam is a more complicated question, but that mostly illustrates that the question isn't well-formed.

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.

> 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.

There once was a miracle material that came from an abundant resource, was extremely cheap to manufacture in a variety of forms, was extremely light, and had incredible properties that made it perfect for both industrial and consumer uses. It had one small issue though, which was that it was hard to dispose of.

It was so good, for its purpose it was pretty much the only material you could buy to do its job for a long time.

That material is called asbestos. It turned out to be so hard to work with that it gave millions of people cancer, even though it's pretty much the perfect insulator when left alone.

---

Non-stick cookware is not nearly as bad as asbestos, but it's cheap and easy to use because it doesn't require maintenance like stainless steel, copper, or cast iron. It's not surprising that it's popular and the cheapest to make at scale since you don't need the surface of the material to be very good at all, if it's getting coated with teflon. There's the small problem that you've made a disposable product that probably won't get recycled and everyone who uses it will be eating small amounts of plastic everyday, but they'll thank you for the privilege.

> doesn't require maintenance like stainless steel

stainless steel cookware requires the least maintenance of all types imho and is near impossible to ruin/damage. The issue is its not non-stick and requires a bit more skill to cook with. Most people are too used to coated non-stick and how easy it makes cooking.

Well maintenance including cleaning, and if you burn something on your stainless it's going to be kind of a pain compared to the nonstick.

I will say though that cast iron and stainless are the only things I want in my kitchen because I like metal whisks, forks, and spoons in my cookware.

> There once was a miracle material

"Was"? Here on HN we do sometimes forget about "the rest of the world" don't we?

Asbestos is still mined in Russia, Kazakhstan, Brazil and China[0] and is still widely used in India[1], which imports more than any other country.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/264923/world-mine-produc... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/dec/19/w...

> alternative that was as good then it would be readily available

there is cast iron & carbon steel, its just harder to use needing more actual skill and requires more care where coated non stick panes just work.

however that coating will wear off and then you need a new pan, kill birds if overheated, where the stainless/carbon steel will last the rest of your life.

Because it is either more expensive or require retooling. Greed, profit, the same reasons as always.

it also comes with an expiry date and will need to be replaced once the coating wears off. stainless steel cookware (or cast iron if taken care of) will last forever

Yes, I never touch products like Teflon. Why these are not illegal is beyond me.

Maybe get rid of them in clothes and personal care products at least?

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

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.

> Ban those chemicals. If they want to move manufacturing to china to use illegal pollutants, let them.

Apart from the minor issue that they won't be illegal in China, so production will continue.

As an aside, "Net Zero" isn't going to happen in China, either[0].

[0] https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

No it won't without buyers. Importing is just as easy to make illegal, likely easier. EU does this for a lot of products and so does the US.

> No it won't without buyers

Q: Why would the rest of the world stop making/selling/buying these products just because the US/Canada/EU/UK were to ban them?

We only need to look at the regions that are expanding use of coal .. and even still mining and using asbestos!

It likely won't stop but the market is going to become much smaller for anyone doing business with those nations. The manufacturer would either have to change their process, go bankrupt, or at least see profits cut by a huge margin.

>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.

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.

>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.

Reminds me of something else that is terrible and long-lasting.

You could say the same thing about doing nothing. As evidence I submit the study referred to in the article.

Yes, which is why it is important to try to do the right thing rather than just doing the first thing that comes to mind without regard for whether it's expected to work.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

But that doesn't matter because everything nowadays is designed as "single use"

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...

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com