Then lets not try anything. That's the alternative right?
If you see trying and failing is seen as a worse alternative to doing nothing and poisoning the environment we all live in then you need to take a step back, be less critical, and be okay with partial or incomplete solutions.
>Then lets not try anything. That's the alternative right
No, considered action is the alternative. If PFAS use is banned, what's the likely outcome? Would it be expected to significantly reduce the global PFAS emissions much or mostly move them somewhere that cares less and even increase other pollution that those places also care less about? Are there important uses of PFAS for which we have no viable alternative? What would losing those mean? Would it be expected that replacements used locally are actually better for the environment? What's the risk that they're actually worse? Would taxing PFAS use instead of banning it have similar outcome but be easier to roll back if needed? How much would it cost to implement a ban, including ongoing costs of ensuring compliance? Are there other environmental efforts that would have better expected ROI and/or less risk?
>Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Don't let "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" be the enemy of effective policy. Not acting has a cost and delay has a cost, but so does acting rashly.
Yes, which is why it is important to try to do the right thing rather than just doing the first thing that comes to mind without regard for whether it's expected to work.
At a national policy level, trying something that doesn't work can have terrible and long-lasting consequences.