[malfist]

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.

[logifail]

> 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-...

[Dah00n]

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.

[logifail]

> 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!

[Dah00n]

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.

[thfuran]

>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.

[malfist]

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.

[thfuran]

>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.

[akaru]

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

[TurningCanadian]

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

[thfuran]

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.