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.
Four words: Investing in public transportation.
Public transportation depends on buses, and buses require either fossil fuels or batteries.
Orders of magnitude less than mass private vehicle usage.
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.
Very all-or-nothing response.
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.
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.
Buses require almost exactly the same infrastructure as private cars.
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.
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.
I was the top comment. So no.
Which is why I was talking about reduction in cases where elimination isn’t feasible.
Bloody hell man.
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.