As lawmakers around the world weigh bans of 'forever chemicals,” many manufacturers are pushing back, saying there often is no substitute.

  • spiderkle@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s just more expensive to make a new substitute and stop selling the toxic shit you still have in storage with no way of getting rid of it. So regulation has to lead the way…otherwise there is no incentive to stop. How about letting THEM come up with a way of removing the chemicals they already put into the environment first, before giving them the next free ticket to pollute.

    • Longpork_afficianado@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I support this approach. Any company manufacturing products which are not readily biodegradable must put in place a scheme to capture and render that product inert before they’re allowed to sell it.

      New type of plastic that can’t be recycled? Better figure out a recycling process and sort out the logistics of implementing that process wherever you intend to sell it.

      Chemicals in your cleaning agent that don’t break down harmlessly after a reasonable time frame? Either re-engineer your chemicals until they do, or develop a process to prevent them ending up in the waterways.

      Can’t do that? You arent manufacturing it.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steel is not biodegradable, so your plan means the end of nearly all manufacturing. I doubt it will be adopted.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Stainless steel, even with its anti-corrosion properties, will eventually break down over thousands of years from the effects of weathering. So it’s technically biodegradable, but not really on our timescale, I guess.

          Edit: Steel is not biodegradable, because it can’t be broken down by biological processes. I was confused on the word.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Biodegradable does not mean susceptible to weathering. It means susceptible to bacterial decomposition.

            • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Oh, okay and thanks for the correction. It makes sense now that i actually look at the word. I just always assumed it meant things that can be decomposed by the environment.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, there was a point in time where none were used. To say there isn’t an alternative is to say this isn’t true. They might not like it, but we don’t require whatever they’re producing with it.

      • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        There was a point in time we didn’t have smartphones either. Just because they weren’t used before doesn’t mean we don’t need them in modern society. Developing an alternative that works just as well just needs gut funding boost to get there.

          • Haywire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            PTFEs aren’t killing us and everything else either.

            Smartphones require PTFEs