this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
285 points (96.4% liked)

News

23361 readers
3289 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] darq@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very all-or-nothing response.

Of course. But if we want to reduce CO2 emissions then buses will still need electrification - and therefore require PFAS.

Okay. But again. My comment was that if elimination isn't possible, reduction should be pursued.

So saying "we still require this" is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, public transportation will not be able replace all private vehicles.

Nowhere has anyone even hinted that replacing all private vehicles is the goal.

Once again. Reduction is the goal.

So saying "we can't replace all" is completely irrelevant.

Or at least, it cannot replace them all quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. By the time the necessary infrastructure was built, it would be too late.

Buses require almost exactly the same infrastructure as private cars.

Basically, we are at a late enough stage of CO2 emission that the only realistic hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change requires mass production and adoption of EVs.

No. What the hell. Why would that be true?

Public transport is a better option for basically every major population centre. And for those centres, we should not be encouraging private vehicle ownership, but rather replacing that as much as possible with public transport. Hell, even if that public transport is on-demand low-occupancy shuttles and ride sharing, that's still better.

Electric private vehicles are better than internal combustion, but they are still awful.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So saying "we can't replace all" is completely irrelevant.

I think it's relevant to the person you were replying to as well as the original point of the article.

PFAS are critical to some modern technologies. In some cases, they cannot be replaced. Any time we replace cars with buses, we will need PFAS to electrify the buses. And likely we will need more PFAS in the future than we are using today.

[–] darq@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to

I was the top comment. So no.

as well as the original point of the article

Which is why I was talking about reduction in cases where elimination isn't feasible.

Bloody hell man.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You're right, you were quoting the article not another person.

Regardless, you asked for a critical look at the necessity of PFAS and whether it is possible to reduce usage. My original answer is the same, namely:

One of the main uses for PFAS is electric vehicle batteries. So if "modern day life" means reducing CO2 emissions, then it will inevitably mean increased use of PFAS.