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

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Public transportation depends on buses, and buses require either fossil fuels or batteries.

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

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

          Furthermore, public transportation will not be able replace all private vehicles. 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. Therefore, electrification of private vehicles will be necessary, which will also require PFAS.

          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.

          • darq@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                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.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  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.