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

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

  • darq@kbin.social
    2·
    1 year ago

    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.worldEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      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
        1·
        1 year ago

        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.worldEnglish
          11·
          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.