Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#101

Post by arjie »

wewtyflakes wrote: post #3

So no new car paint shops or oil refineries? I'm okay with that.

Oil refineries in particular are interesting because the sources for the blend of gasoline California requires[0] are either in CA itself or are few and far away. This means that gasoline prices are susceptible to greater supply shocks and so on. Many US regulations follow from California exercising its large market to induce companies to change their policies (electronic one-click cancel, CCPA, No Surprises in healthcare billing) but this one hasn't quite had the same effect.

One can hope that most Californians switch to BEVs from ICE vehicles before this becomes more of a constraint.

Gasoline usage externalities are poorly priced-in so the resulting increase in cost of gasoline here is probably overall a good thing. If we had appropriate carbon/sulphur/etc pricing on the outputs, I think it would be less justifiable since then the externalities would be priced in.

0: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65184

Re: Banned in California

#102

Post by ryanobjc »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #78
bmelton wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they only banned in the cities, or are they banned in the state, which -- even in California, should have rural areas far enough away from cities to be tenable? It's an interesting conundrum though, because in many cases, the cities could not exist without the things that are being banned in the cities. It's a curious goal of populations to centralize, then ostracize all the things that enabled that centralizatio…

They're probably "not banned" only in the "basically lying" sense that they per rule won't approve you in certain cities and if you do happen to be rural the process is hostile and expensive enough that it's not worth it for the value such a facility would generate. That's how that sort of stuff is in my state.

That's the thing, often when people say stuff like "its banned" what they really mean is:

- the cost of mitigating the human health risk is too high - competitors in low-environmental regulation places don't pay for those costs - ongoing verification is expensive

I mean, let's face it, "self-regulation" of industries isn't really working that great. And for things that are health hazards that are basically borne by someone else, why should a local government make it easy to cheat and lie about this stuff?

The people arguing against this seem to assume that their right to have a business, make a profit, whatever, is a self-evident Good Thing, and rarely provide any additional arguments beyond "but the jobs". If they were at the VERY LEAST saying "we can make X safe" then maybe it'd be interesting. But as it is, the argument is basically asking us to mortgage the health and safety.

Re: Banned in California

#103

Post by cmxch »

bitwize wrote: post #56

Got a new one. In California—the only place that matters in tech—all operating systems must implement age verification by Jan 1, 2027. Which means this is coming to a computer near you, worldwide.

Not in the free states they won’t.

Re: Banned in California

#104

Post by becurious »

yardie wrote: post #58

Interesting website. "Semiconductor Fabrication (7nm/5nm) The main processor requires ultra-clean rooms, toxic gases (arsine, phosphine), and chemical etching. No new fabs have been built in CA in over a decade. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung all build elsewhere." Phosphine is pretty nasty stuff. California was full of EPA Superfund sites when the government got stuck with cleaning up all the toxic waste. Politicians and v…

And there’s still mercury contamination from the gold rush in San Jose.

Re: Banned in California

#105

Post by ixtli »

Take8435 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

Ya a lot of people on this site are ideologically positioned in a way that required demonizing CA. I don’t have any skin in that game but it seems pretty clearly A Thing to me from the other side of the country.

Re: Banned in California

#106

Post by no-dr-onboard »

burkaman wrote: post #63

The Grandfatherd-in section is incredibly misleading. Look at the Semiconductor Fabrication section, for example. The implication is that these are the only fabs in the state, they wouldn't be able to get new permits today, and the red dots indicate that it would be "effectively impossible" to open any other ones. In fact (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat... ) there are at lea…

A lot of these are actually grandfathered in. Vulcanization, electrolysis, auto painting, etc. I think the emphasis is that CA has effectively made it difficult to get regulatory authorities to agree to issue new permits. That was the part that stood out to me.

Re: Banned in California

#107

Post by thephyber »

encoderer wrote: post #76
WD-42 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texans seem more than happy to host these industries. Let them, they have no public land left to protect anyway. The environment is arguably California’s most valuable asset. May as well preserve it so people continue to want to actually live here.

This is a self fulfilling profecy. For a long time, it was jobs and the promise of a better future for your family. By killing that all we have is weather.

You act as though California is no longer one of the largest populations or one of the largest economies.

The “snowball fallacy” is a fallacy because there is no reason California s can’t swing the regulatory pendulum back the other direction if there is too much economy / freedom impacted.

Re: Banned in California

#108

Post by parl_match »

A lot of these are stretches or remove nuance. I get the point they are trying to make, but it's a lot weaker than they think and undermined by their own "hero" example: painting cars in California

> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.

Ah yes, the Bay Area, famously "all of California". And on top of that, the restrictions are mostly in highly populated areas.

Re: Banned in California

#109

Post by Take8435 »

georgemcbay wrote: post #85
Take8435 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

> This has 70 upvotes within 30 minutes. This feels like an astroturf. Not really surprising given the audience, HN has an awful lot of neo-Technolibertarian types. The kind who used to complain about government regulation of free speech, and now complain about anything that gets in the way of amassing massive amounts of capital at any social/environmental/political cost.

It's unfortunate that folks who complain incessantly about "facts not feelings" don't appear to be using their critical thinking skills here. But I guess it's not too surprising.

Re: Banned in California

#110

Post by burkaman »

ch4s3 wrote: post #93
burkaman wrote: post #63

The Grandfatherd-in section is incredibly misleading. Look at the Semiconductor Fabrication section, for example. The implication is that these are the only fabs in the state, they wouldn't be able to get new permits today, and the red dots indicate that it would be "effectively impossible" to open any other ones. In fact (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat... ) there are at lea…

> why would anyone expect that to be the case? Why would you expect it to be impossible?

I wouldn't expect it to be impossible, and it isn't, but I would expect the permits to be different than they were 60 years ago. You can still build a house today, but that doesn't mean you can build one using the same permits you received in 1965. This is true for everything.
Post reply on HN