Non-US Media Reports Toxic Chemicals Cost Society $17.5 Trillion a Year

Andrew Anglin May 13, 2023

Frankly, I’m not sure how you come up with a number like this.

However, I am glad that the Guardian takes the time to report on PFAS. The US media doesn’t report on this issue at all, and instead says that the only possible threat to the environment relates to the use of electricity.

The closest that the US media ever comes to addressing the chemical poisoning of the planet and our bodies is telling people they are going to have to use paper straws, which really seems to simply be a way to harass the goyim.

If you are going to start to phase out plastic in a serious way, the first thing you would hit is plastic water/drink bottles. This could easily be done through tax incentives to use glass bottles. In the third world, soda pop still comes is glass bottles that are returned for a reimbursement, sent back to the factory and refilled.

I’m also not categorically opposed to the “big blue” 5-gallon water jugs that are made of a hard plastic that does not leech chemicals in the way the soft “single use” plastic does, and which are refillable. Much of the world has delivery services for these bottles, where you return the empty bottle for a new one.

There are easy solutions to the real environmental problems. If you believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, there is no real solution other than shutting down civilization.

The Guardian:

The societal cost of using toxic PFAS or “forever chemicals” across the global economy totals about $17.5tn annually, a new analysis of the use of the dangerous compounds has found.

Meanwhile, the chemicals yield comparatively paltry profits for the world’s largest PFAS manufacturers – about $4bn annually.

The report, compiled by ChemSec, a Sweden-based NGO that works with industry and policymakers to limit the use of toxic chemicals, partially aims to highlight how the “astronomical” cost of using PFAS is shouldered by governments typically forced to fund the cleanup of pollution and individuals who suffer from health consequences.

“If you compare the profits that they make and the cost to society – it’s ridiculous,” said Peter Pierrou, ChemSec’s communications director.

PFAS are a class of about 15,000 chemicals often used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. The chemicals are ubiquitous, and linked at low levels of exposure to cancer, thyroid disease, kidney dysfunction, birth defects, autoimmune disease and other serious health problems.

They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally degrade.

The chemicals are thought to be contaminating drinking water for at least 200 million Americans, while watchdogs have identified thousands of industrial polluters. Similar widespread contamination persists throughout Europe.

Related: Study Shows 100% of All Umbilical Cord Blood Samples Around the World Have PFAS in Them

ChemSec found 12 companies account for most of the world’s PFAS production and pollution. Among them are 3M, Chemours, Solvay, Daiki, Honeywell, BASF, Merk and Bayer, though 3M this year announced it would discontinue making PFAS in part because of regulatory pressure and litigation.

The report grew out of ChemSec’s work with investment firms to pressure companies to eliminate PFAS, Pierrou said. A letter on the issue circulated late last year and now signed by largely European Union investment firms holding $11tn in assets cites recent litigation brought against PFAS manufacturers, ever-increasing regulation that imposes strict limits on the chemicals’ use and the compounds’ public health threat.

…

The analysis broke down societal costs into four categories. Soil and water remediation are the most expensive, followed by healthcare costs and bio-monitoring of PFAS pollution.

Again, who knows how you would actually calculate these numbers. But we’ve already proved these chemicals are everywhere, that they are destroying everything (including us), and the government does not talk about it, instead sending out retarded girls to yell about carbon (which is not a pollutant and is not dangerous to humans or the natural world).

Related: Toxic Chemicals from Food Packaging End Up in Food, Shocking Study Reveals

Regardless of the veracity of the calculation, I do like the idea of putting a “cost to society” price tag on these chemicals, because the only reason they are used is that they are profitable to corporations.

What you see very often in the modern “liberal democracy” system is that corporations are able to push their costs off onto society, while keeping all the money, and the use of these chemicals is a prime example of that.

Another example is the coronavirus vaccine push, where people were coerced into taking this vaccine, but the companies were given total immunity from civil lawsuits, meaning that if the vax caused the victim health problems, the costs were on the victim. Pfizer made hundreds of billions of dollars on the vax, and paid zero dollars for the healthcare of the people harmed by the vax, or for the funerals of the people who “died suddenly.”

I seem to recall that “old left” types have a word for corporations transferring indirect costs to be public in insidious ways that go beyond simply lobbying for subsidies (which is called or related to the term “regulatory capture”). I have a pretty good memory, but sometimes have trouble recalling jargon.

Anyway: the issue of PFAS and plastics and various other chemicals in our environment are a very real and very serious issue, and the way this is dismissed while a retarded girl demands we build stupid, useless, ugly windmills everywhere is a situation that in the microcosm represents the entire structure of our society. Real issues, which can be documented and proved, are covered up with abject nonsense that can be trivially disproved.

This is why you need people who are both intelligent and good-intentioned running society. The actual system of government is more or less irrelevant, frankly, or rather, it is only relevant insofar as you are able to install intelligent, good-intentioned (in Western countries, I would just say “Christian”) people in positions of power. The problem I have with the current version of Republicanism, which is universal suffrage democracy, is that all over the world, it has proved to result in people who are stupid or criminals or both seizing all positions of power in society.

© Copyright Daily Stormer 2023, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.