...which is a good thing! we should stop taking $20 teflon pans, nonstick fast food containers, and $40 raincoats with negative externalities for granted.
We did fine without PFAS, we'll be okay with expensive PFAS (where externalities are internalized and built into the cost) too.
Does paying for the pollution really help fix the problem? Will the government use that money to filter rivers for PFAS?
I think a lot of this need also comes from other supposedly environmental choices. My work banned plastic cups and now has paper cups with PFAS which are more toxic. I think the plastic ones were the better choice if recycled properly.
And raincoats were really really horrible before Gore-Tex.
Price elasticity is real: if PFAS is more expensive, people will buy (and businesses will produce) fewer PFAS-derived products. Raising the price is especially nice because it causes price-elastic use cases (think PFAS coated paper cups) to drop out, while price-inelastic use cases (think teflon joint implants) are not made illegal, just more expensive. If the government earmarks PFAS tax revenue for remediation, that'd be awesome, but that's just a side benefit - the price increase is the main benefit.
I do thing greenwashing and environmental whack-a-mole is a real problem (heck, we see it in the PFAS space with GenX replacing PFOA). I don't see that as a valid reason to do nothing.
Paying for pollution makes the customer consider the full cost of the product, reducing demand to cases when the benefits of using the chemical are actually bigger than the external costs.
It's not about using the money to solve the problems. It's about making the economy more efficient.
> And raincoats were really really horrible before Gore-Tex.
Nope, they were fine. A bit heavier but far longer-lasting, including the waxed versions which can be re-waxed if needed to keep up waterproofing. I'm still using my army-issued raincoats from when I served in 1992, one of them has been with me on a number of expeditions (months of paddling the Yukon from Whitehorse to the Bering Strait, climbing several mountains, etc) where it doubled as a tent bottom, it is still perfectly serviceable. The lighter version I still use when cycling, it is still waterproof and the seams - which usually are the weak spot - still hold. I'm also using a 20yo wax coat which I re-waxed a few times (still using the original tin of wax), that one hardly contains any synthetics. Anything made of Gore-Tex would have delaminated after a few months of this type of use.
Waxed fabrics do "breathe" more or less as much as much as Gore-Tex does and - important - keep on doing so as long as you keep them waxed enough but not too much. Don't make the coat look like a waxed cheese, you're using too much wax. Use enough to get the fabric to reject dripping or flowing water, no more. Gore-Tex was made to imitate this characteristic without the need for wax but once the membrane is damaged it can not be repaired, unlike waxed fabrics.
This isn't true. The Gore-Tex layer isn't damaged like this. You're referring to the DNW coating, and there's no reason this can't be a waxed layer like old-school rain jackets. In fact a lot of companies started offering wax based DNW coatings in the name of environmental responsibility.
The actual "Gore-Tex" layer, now no longer under patent and produced by many under names such as Dermizax, H2No, Sympatex and many others, is a thin, flexible, *fragile* PTFE membrane. This allows air through, and via a heat-pump-like mechanism drives water on its surfaces from the warm side to the cool side. There is no 'old school rainjacket' equivalent for this.
Usually when your Gore-Tex jacket stops working it is because the DNW layer is gone. If you used a wax replacement the actual Gore-Tex would still be fine and your rain jacket would still be miles better than anything available 100 years ago.
It might work fine for a weekend hike but the stuff does not hold up to repeated strain. Eventually it'll start to delaminate at the shoulders due to wear from backpack straps, cuffs and other exposed spots. This 'eventually' will depend on what you're doing while wearing the things, as said that weekend hike won't put as much strain on it as does walking the Appalachian trail or crossing the Hardangervidda, let along climbing a few mountains. I like to use material which keeps and can be repaired if needed so for me this is a no-go. My backpacks are between 30 and 50 years old, my raingear between 20 and 30 years, my tents and sleeping bags between 20 and 25 years, my cooking gear is more than 40 years old. It may not be fashionable - who cares about fashion when you're alone in the woods - and it may not be the lightest or most high-tech but I know I can depend on it.
You can get Gore-Tex patch kits for any punctures you encounter.
There are also a wide range of textiles available for the outer layers. Many have high Kevlar/aramid content and are much tougher in abrasion than waxed cotton.
I have a Ventile jacket which should be the pinnacle of cotton waterproof design, and it is much easier to damage than modern synthetic jacket, and on top of this it doesn't breath as well, or keep me as dry under continuous downpour conditions. It's also harder to repair due to the high density of the fibres.
That delamination doesn't happen for normal gore-tex where the membrane is one of the inner layers. It's only with the ultra-thin version used by cyclists that is hydrophobic on the outside. My gear usually starts ripping before the waterproofing is compromised.
But I replace my gear when needed anyway and recycle it. I do hike, but not very far from the civilized world. And previously I lived in a place where it rains every day in winter (western Ireland) so good breathing raingear is really a must have.
Why are people big on recycling plastic? In the West, non-recycled plastic goes to landfill and is LESS likely to end up in the oceans or whatever, as "recycling" is often sent overseas.
In fact, single use plastic means more oil being used for plastic and less burnt for fuel, leading to lower CO2 emissions.
>> I think a lot of this need also comes from other supposedly environmental choices. My work banned plastic cups and now has paper cups with PFAS which are more toxic. I think the plastic ones were the better choice if recycled properly.
Why do you need to choose between plastic or paper (PFAS)? Does your work not provide glasses? Ceramic mugs? Can you not bring your own reusable water bottle?
We should stop taking the pans, one-time use containers, etc, but a GoreTex jacket costs $400, not $40, and even the "cheap" GoreTex knockoffs cost $200...
What will happen is that the PFAS pan becomes $26 instead of $20. PFAS is not the most expensive part of the pan, only a minor component. A doubling or tripling of PFAS prices is unlikely to price anyone out of getting that pan or raincoat. It's just going to make middle and lower class people cumulatively billions of dollars poorer.
Iron pans are ridiculously cheap these days and they last forever if you bother to read the 3 line instructions included with them.
Teflon isn’t as great as people were deceived into believing. Even if you’re absolutely meticulous with care, it’ll have a noticeable lack in non-stick abilities within months and be noticeably sticky after 2 years, and rapidly degrading into useless territory. An iron pan starts out about as sticky as a slightly used Teflon pan and feels like brand new Teflon after a few uses and stays that way for as long as a human lifespan.
I mean pans are only one thing. PFAS are used in many products. Yes you can make inferior substitutions but again this reduces standard of living.
This is not to mention its widespread use in military applications. There is already concern about China's lock on the global supply of rare earths and other raw materials like silicon and magnesium (80%+ market share). What happens when the US can't make fighter jets because a belligerent China refuses to export PFAS?
There is no proof that PFAS is causing large scale poisoning. Industrial workers with insufficient PPE may get increased risks of health effects if they are subject to prolonged exposure to concentrated amounts. But so does exposure to fertilizer and aspartame. The research is not anywhere near saying PFAS are causing large scale poisoning.
It reminds me of the microplastics debate too. Lots of panic about it, little scientific evidence that it is causing large scale health problems.
I’m glad lawmakers, investors, businesses, and nearly everyone else are not waiting around for “proof”, since that is a nearly impossible standard. We know that these substances are everywhere, and there is evidence of it causing harm in animals and in humans
> With many health effects noted for a relatively few example compounds and hundreds of other PFAS in commerce lacking toxicity data… [1]
If we were to wait to run studies on all of those hundreds of substances, there will just be that much more pollutant in our environments and bodies that will be virtually impossible to clean up. The risk/reward tradeoff is pretty clear.
We did fine without PFAS, we'll be okay with expensive PFAS (where externalities are internalized and built into the cost) too.