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

141–150 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#141

Post by jjmarr »

dotancohen wrote: post #39
thousand_nights wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol. yeah there is but instead of "farther from the population centers" it is "farther from YOUR population centers"

Yes, exactly. That's fine - live and let live. If somebody else values their health less - let them have pollution in their own back yard. If enough communities worldwide care about their health, then polluters will have to clean up their processes. But it's not for the residents of California to decide what happens in other jurisdictions.

The reason those countries take the "burden" on is because the USA became a global superpower by developing more industrial capacity than literally every other country in the decades prior to the World Wars.

They want to duplicate this success and displace the West, similar to how the USA displaced Europe during and after World War 2.

Re: Banned in California

#142

Post by mjamil »

rbliss wrote: post #125
mparkms wrote: post #48

The creator of the website is the CEO of a battery-powered induction cooktop company. ( https://x.com/sdamico ) He clearly has an agenda against what he perceives as onerous environmental regulations: https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026536815902208479 https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026552845294792994

I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not. His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues. The electric induction cooktop he and his tea…

I'm not sure I agree.

Unless you believe there needs to be a plan for CA to secede in the future and thus it needs to be self-sufficient, why does manufacturing need to be in CA? As you stated, the Impulse stove makes heavy use of outsourced manufacturing to other parties; as long as those parties are within the US (which I'm not claiming they are, but there are states like TX that are far less concerned about environmental impact than CA is and thus could pick up any such slack), why is there a security concern here?

As for the economic concern, it seems like this is backwards: I'd argue it's the HCOL that drives industry with the need for low-wage labor away to non-CA locations. There's nothing stopping non-polluting corporations from working and hiring large numbers of people in CA.

Re: Banned in California

#143

Post by mint5 »

renjimen wrote: post #20
raziel2701 wrote: post #14

Are other states building all this manufacturing/semiconductor capacity? I think it's an overall USA thing, we just don't do manufacturing anymore because it's cheaper to do it in another country. Not sure what the point of the website is. To me it looks like a bad faith argument. The secular trend in the US has been to increase margins by moving manufacturing to other countries. The tariffs are certainly not making…

> Not sure what the point of the website is I think it's just informative. I found it interesting at least. I formed my own conclusions from it.

Really? Since it’s lacking any comparison to other states and because many of these complaints single out metropolitan areas comparison to nationwide census of metro areas, what actual conclusions are you drawing that are valid?

Context matters a lot. We haven’t built a lot of mercury based hat felting shops lately in California. What conclusion do you draw from that?

Re: Banned in California

#144

Post by iamnothere »

dotancohen wrote: post #116
iamnothere wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not think it’s possible that there are many places where people do care about their health, but they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation? Do you think the ship breakers in Bangladesh do it for fun? This outsourcing of misery is the absolute worst feature of Western neoliberalism. You get a two for one, dumping misery on other countries because it’s…

> they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation If these people decide that pollution is preferable to starvation, why shouldn't we let them make that decision? Why should we force them into starvation?

The answer is to spread out all forms of production globally, so nations don’t lose their smaller local industries that may be less efficient than foreign alternatives. Foreign trade should fill gaps in local production, not kill local industry.

The mechanisms by which this can be accomplished are antitrust and careful application of trade barriers. The obsession with “free trade” has done damage to countries all across the world in order to benefit a small class connected to multinational industry. The short lived benefits came at a huge cost and countries are only just now seeing this.

Free trade/open borders libertarians have lost influence to nationalists because the former position is antithetical to maintaining a functional society. It’s possible to build “libertarianism in one country,” and the sooner that people wake up to that, the better. The alternative is some form of left or right despotism.

Re: Banned in California

#145

Post by _2d30 »

burkaman wrote: post #94
richwater wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has an agenda Everyone has an agenda. Is anything on this site false? Is it incorrect information?

Really difficult to say because it doesn't make many concrete claims. It doesn't mention any regulations or say what chemicals or processes are actually banned. These are not easy things to look up. I can tell you that at least the semiconductor fabrication stuff is false, there are many fabs in California and here's a new one as of a few days ago: https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/19/san-jose-tech-nokia-i... . I r…

I can tell you that your two articles that intended to refute the semiconductor fabrication stuff fail to do so. Both sites were existing facilities and would therefore fall under the granfathered in point in the site.

Re: Banned in California

#146

Post by mjamil »

mjamil wrote: post #142
rbliss wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not. His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues. The electric induction cooktop he and his tea…

I'm not sure I agree. Unless you believe there needs to be a plan for CA to secede in the future and thus it needs to be self-sufficient, why does manufacturing need to be in CA? As you stated, the Impulse stove makes heavy use of outsourced manufacturing to other parties; as long as those parties are within the US (which I'm not claiming they are, but there are states like TX that are far less concerned about enviro…

And, yes, it's a really neat stove... for wealthy people. At an installed cost of ~$8k (more if you're having to replace a standalone oven/cooktop since you need the stand for it), it's competing with lower-end Viking gas ranges that include an oven, and those have an extensive service network that Impulse doesn't (yet) have.

Re: Banned in California

#147

Post by _2d30 »

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #129
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it makes a good case for itself. No automotive paint shops sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right?? But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic, makes me wonder how many of these banned industries I don't want in my state. I think if we want to build them in the US maybe don't build them…

> No automotive paint shops Wait, hold on - I watched all the seasons of "Rust To Riches" on Netflix, about a small shop that flips cars. They routinely painted cars. They'd paint in this sealed-up room/garage thingee, the guy would wear and industrial-grade mask, and the camera would slide past as he expertly painted the car. The 30 second montages looked awesome! That show took place in Temecula, California. So the…

The website is extremely clear about this being about _new_ automotive paint shops, so nothing you said here refutes the website.

Re: Banned in California

#148

Post by autoexec »

overfeed wrote: post #113
beachtaxidriver wrote: post #6

As a resident who likes to breathe clean air and drink clean water, none of that seems all that bad. I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though.

> I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though. Maybe Texas is far enough? The [l]one-star state has laissez-faire regulations, and may be more to author's speed.

It's always hilarious when a bunch of people in Texas who hate government and government regulations get screwed so hard by the corporations that move in that they start incorporating to form governments so that they can pass government regulation to stop those corporations. See for example Webberville or the efforts to create Mitchell Bend in Hood County. Some people have to learn the hard way. Some never do.

Texas got so sick of Texans trying to protect themselves by creating regulations that they created the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act. It took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves and instead protected the profits of some the state's biggest industry buddies.

Re: Banned in California

#149

Post by bsder »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #80
richwater wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has an agenda Everyone has an agenda. Is anything on this site false? Is it incorrect information?

I don't think it makes a good case for itself. No automotive paint shops sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right?? But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic, makes me wonder how many of these banned industries I don't want in my state. I think if we want to build them in the US maybe don't build them…

> I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right??

There are. They just cost more and take more time.

> But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic

People say this all the time, but semiconductor fabs simply aren't very toxic compared to just about every other industrial manufacturing process. Mostly this is because everything is sealed and sealed and sealed some more.

Yes, they handle stuff like arsenic gas (arsine AsH3), but they really try to reclaim it all. The semiconductor waste stream is often purer than most industrial inputs. Yeah, old plants would just dump crap into the environment. However, for modern semiconductor facilities, it is generally more economic to reprocess your waste than try to purify from primary sources.

Now, PCB manufacturing, on the other hand, is quite terrible or at least it used to be. I don't know if people have sealed and automated that yet.

Re: Banned in California

#150

Post by renjimen »

mint5 wrote: post #143
renjimen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure what the point of the website is I think it's just informative. I found it interesting at least. I formed my own conclusions from it.

Really? Since it’s lacking any comparison to other states and because many of these complaints single out metropolitan areas comparison to nationwide census of metro areas, what actual conclusions are you drawing that are valid? Context matters a lot. We haven’t built a lot of mercury based hat felting shops lately in California. What conclusion do you draw from that?

I assume you're being a little obtuse. The comparison to wherever manufacturers phones and EVs is implicit. They are manufactured somewhere with looser environmental regulation than California, where they are purchased en masse. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
Post reply on HN