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

161–170 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#161

Post by vampirical »

dangus wrote: post #155
mjamil wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am sure the 5th largest economy in the world is truly suffering under their draconian regulations. Everyone in California making the 5th highest median income in the country wishes they were working at a local oil refinery. To your last point, I am somewhat doubtful that this website is being honest about automotive paint shops being banned in California. Am I to believe that the 3,000 auto body shops in Southern C…

To me at least this appears to be a smoking gun for the creator not being able to function in good faith. Whether that's intentional or self delusion, who knows.

From the page itself, "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." This point is trotted out and reframed multiple times on the page but it's literally self contradictory. It's not something you can't do in California, it's something you can't do without approval in the Bay Area Air District.

It's not a good place to be doing such an activity, as the area already can't successfully keep the air healthy enough to stay within federal limits due to environmental factors that trap particulate low to the ground. If you're at all familiar with the area you know concerns about air quality are not overblown and. Go further away from people or meet strict VOC regulations if you absolutely need to be doing that kind of work in the area, seems completely reasonable to me.

Re: Banned in California

#162

Post by vampirical »

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #98
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?

Maybe reworded as “He has skin in the game” > so obviously his point can’t be true > so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting > so obviously I can dismiss this as teleologically false. Please don’t be so lazy you guys. There is something to be gained here.

Why do you think there's something to be gained here? There are a lot of cheap and easy checks this content fails that it represents a well formed argument based on reality.

Re: Banned in California

#163

Post by themaninthedark »

jjmarr wrote: post #132
thephyber wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When I took a machining course, the instructor sat in the corner and showed us YouTube videos in Mandarin with English subtitles to teach us the equipment. We are never going to catch up.

What a myopic attitude.

3 to 4 decades ago anything from China was poor quality and US manufacturing was tight tolerance.

When we outsourced, we did the training to get them where they are today and stopped investing in our skills at home.

There are still skilled people here who can train and the knowledge is not some sort of eldritch incantation.

The main issues with learning is lack of jobs and lack of opportunity to apply skills if you have them.

Re: Banned in California

#165

Post by protimewaster »

blintz wrote: post #53

They are playing a bit fast and loose with the word "banned". > Your smartphone contains materials processed through semiconductor fabrication, chemical etching, metal anodizing, glass tempering, and electroplating — none of which you could start a new facility for in California without years of litigation. I agree that we should make it easier to do things, specifically by decreasing the amount of litigation involve…

> But the risk of a bunch of litigation isn't a ban, right?

Funny enough, I've known some people over the years who have explicitly viewed litigation as a reasonable alternative to regulation. Their logic was that we should just let people and companies do whatever they want. Then, if it turns out a company is dumping mercury in the river or whatever, you litigate based on the damages. Better than regulation, they assured me.

Re: Banned in California

#166

Post by chrismcb »

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…

California, by density, is that highly populated. I didn't really like the idea is "hey we need to build something that uses a toxic process, by just don't build it here. Build it somewhere else." Unless that somewhere else is in outer space.

Re: Banned in California

#167

Post by zdp7 »

richwater wrote: post #64
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

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

I don't know. He didn't provide anything to backup his claims. Without data that site is worthless.

Re: Banned in California

#168

Post by thereisnospork »

A lot of people on this site clearly have never tried doing anything in California that involves more infrastructure than a laptop. Can easily be 18 months or more to get a permit to 'do things the right way'. If they'll even deign to give you one.

Re: Banned in California

#169

Post by culi »

Now compared that to this map of superfund sites and the pollutants they've left in our soils and groundwater. Statistically speaking, an average American lives within 10 miles of one of these sites

all sites: https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::epa-facility-registry-s...

npl sites: https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=...

Also funnily enough, the first place I checked from this site's list of facilities that have been grandfathered in led to this finding

> Lehigh Hanson's Permanente cement plant in Cupertino, CA, is permanently closing following thousands of environmental violations and over 80 years of operation. The plant was a major source of air pollution and discharged toxic selenium into Permanente Creek.

Not being able to build a destroyer in California seems like a small price to pay for an ecosystem not poisoned

Re: Banned in California

#170

Post by tolerance »

runjake wrote: post #37
reliabilityguy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere? Like where?

Like the places where people welcome deregulation and jobs? Not trying to sound like a jerk but there’s plenty of places in the US where people welcome stuff like coal mines and polluting factories. If the factories have to be somewhere and they consent, then why not there?

Can’t help but feel like you’re overestimating the competency of the average voter in these effected areas; a breath after yours—though not necessarily your own—may condemn these people for being undereducated, out of touch with culture or subject to corporate grifters.
Post reply on HN