We banned the use of asbestos in most situations, and therefore lost the benefit of an excellent building and insulation material. But we decided that was a worthwhile tradeoff considering the well-established health impacts.
We banned the use of asbestos in most situations, and therefore lost the benefit of an excellent building and insulation material. But we decided that was a worthwhile tradeoff considering the well-established health impacts.
Same holds for all extinct products, like leaded paints and leaded gasoline.
We can't really expect customers to make informed decisions about the large scale environmnetal and health impact of products, regulating them is exactly the job of the governing body.
That’s exactly the sort of thing that would be addressed in a cost-benefit analysis. If there’s good alternatives, the cost of the ban is lower. The issue isn’t whether expert agencies should be making these decisions, it’s that the expert agency here didn’t actually do the expert analysis the law requires.
The cost to humanity is enormous. The cost to a company is zero.
Since the outcome is unknown until after a huge amount of time and expense, how would you factor it in beforehand?
So in either case it makes no sense to try to factor in ‘market pressure’ beforehand.