Live data from Hacker News

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

231–240 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#231
post #193
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

This is a non-argument, and it does not even in the slightest counter anything claimed on the site.

It isn't claiming to be an argument. It's context.

Re: Banned in California

#232
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It proves it's pointlessness. CA doesn't want manufacturing like that in their state. Period. They're saying you are not welcome to destroy our environment, go to Texas, they love that shit. States Rights, right?

You don’t have to destroy the state to produce these things. With aligned talent you can make the process neutral. I’m assuming lots of ‘eco conscious’ engineers would love to implement better practices and get paid for it.

> With aligned talent you can make the process neutral. I’m assuming lots of ‘eco conscious’ engineers would love to implement better practices and get paid for it.

I think to be eco neutral, you would be cost prohibitive. Which would be an issue in car manufacturing and phone manufacturing.

Also, the website lumps adjacent tech together and says they're all banned, but they are not. Lumping sheet metal stamping in with gigs casting is plain wrong, and you could make the argument that that's an agenda driven aspect of this website. They're casting a wider net than exists.

Point stands, though. California's policy is "go fuck up some other states environment". This policy might not work forever, but that's their stance.

Re: Banned in California

#233
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?

Yes. They lump in sheet metal stamping with giga casting. They are completely different techs with different energy footprints. Banning aluminum casting does not implicitly ban stamping.

Re: Banned in California

#234
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw complaints that amounted to “it’s more expensive to build out large industrial facilities in bay area than in Reno” okay what’s different in Reno hmmm I could be like the website and try to imply it’s only environmental regulations… or I could acknowledge that land price and availability is drastically different and also labor costs…. But then that wouldn’t help my contrived argument that it’s all the pesky reg…

It's providing a single geographic data point to you, for free. You're welcome to do your own research if you want a complete picture.

I like that your vague response to the question is either “this provides no value without context” or “the value it provides without context is a secret that only I know” but phrased in a silly way

Re: Banned in California

#235
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?

It isn't even information – it's noise.

I'm actually quite surprised by the number of people who have fallen for this. There aren't even any concrete claims here – just the vague assertion that some things are "impossible".

Re: Banned in California

#236
post #172

Listen y’all, it’s not just that we aren't letting companies spew chemicals into the air. The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible. Instead you have to ship things from out of state and other countries, which generates emissions and pollution itself that might actually be more than local production. Its…

Here's a map of superfund sites in the US. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::superfund-national-prio... Using this I see that within 10 miles of me are - a microprocessor testing facility that contaminated soil and groundwater with 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, Freon 113, 1,1-dichloroethane, and tetrachloroethane which affects 300k nearby residents - a semiconductor manufacturer that led to "trichloroe…

Non sequitur. Superfund sites come from poor industrial process byproduct controls. They can still happen from highly regulated industries that are approved.

Posting a list of them as a justification for red tape that blocks industries does not make sense.

Re: Banned in California

#237
post #88

Oh I didn’t realize pineapple farms were banned in California and Alaska. I thought they hadn’t been built for other reasons over the last decade. But according to this, not being built means banned. TIL! Started reading this site but the massive gaps in logic and reasoning are like nails on a chalkboard. No new fabs being built in CA means fabs are banned?! Okay well fabs are banned in pretty much the whole country…

Your comment was better without that edit.

It’s an appeal to absurdity that falls flat because nuclear plants and oil refineries have been built near population centers in the US (including in California) without problem.

California had had more issues from under investment in industry (see it’s ancient electrical infra that lit the state on fire) than from collocation of industry and people.

Both of the largest ports are right in SoCal and that’s going pretty well. Building another one would never make it past the permitting stage in today’s California.

Re: Banned in California

#238
I claim BS: labs can operate with these and more dangerous chemicals.

Top of the list is "sulfuric acid baths". The correct disposal of sulfuric acid is "dilute with water", or if about metal dissolved in it, yeah treat as waste to be cleaned up or compacted and stored into eternity at a cost. So even after skimming, this seems agenda driven, not a fact sheet.

This seems like a "we cannot do it cost efficiently, so we claim it is impossible since China underbids us"

Re: Banned in California

#239
post #189
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…

It makes no sense to say "oh, we need to manufacturer this stuff... just not here." That's basically NIMBYism for electronics. You either make it doable or you don't.

But is that really California's stance? Or is it more "if you do it here, do it the right way" and then everyone uses the more polluting production methods in a state that doesn't care

The outcome is the same as long as only California does it, but the ethics of it and the outcome if every state acted like that is vastly different

Re: Banned in California

#240
post #172

Listen y’all, it’s not just that we aren't letting companies spew chemicals into the air. The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible. Instead you have to ship things from out of state and other countries, which generates emissions and pollution itself that might actually be more than local production. Its…

Here's a map of superfund sites in the US. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::superfund-national-prio... Using this I see that within 10 miles of me are - a microprocessor testing facility that contaminated soil and groundwater with 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, Freon 113, 1,1-dichloroethane, and tetrachloroethane which affects 300k nearby residents - a semiconductor manufacturer that led to "trichloroe…

Yeah. It's especially relevant for the author's focus on shipbuilding. The old shipyard at Hunter's Point in San Francisco is horribly polluted, and they've been working to decontaminate it for more than three decades in order to reclaim the land for other uses (in particular, housing). Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island also have a lot of pollution from the former naval base there. There is a cost to overregulation, and there is a cost to underregulation.

And OK, sure, there's a lot of industry that ought to happen somewhere. Someone has to build ships and electronics and whatever, and if California's code is too strict then it just becomes NIMBYism. But if some company moves their gigafactory to Reno for easier permitting, I don't whether (or more likely by how much) CA is too strict, or NV is too lax. And I know that CA has NIMBYish and overregulatory tendencies, but given the clear bullshit on this website, I'm not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt either.

I'm especially doubtful when it says "THE classic example of what you can't do in CA" is auto paint shops ("Impossible"!) ... but then the detail it gives is that they're "effectively impossible" to permit in the Bay Area AQMD, that being only one of the state's 35 AQMDs (albeit one of the larger ones).

Post reply on HN