Banned in California
271–280 of 749 posts
Re: Banned in California
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Housing and medicine is largely a political decision with little relation to environmental concerns. The political party that favours deregulation is the same one that wants to keep private health care. Food is slightly different, judging by the rates of obesity people can afford more than they need.
The political party that wants socialized medicine is the one stacked with NIMBYs and blocking construction of housing.
Current democratic party is currently a pro-corporate pro-deregulation party, basically Reaganites from 80s.
Re: Banned in California
#273Re: Banned in California
#274There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…
Wasn't there some magical thinking about how by outsourcing industries to those poor countries will bring them money and raise their standard of living to a point where they care just as much about their environment as us and it will all eventually equalize. Didn't quite pan out like that, did it.
Americans seem to love to count their past successes and then declare the game is over and they won.
History doesn't end though.
Re: Banned in California
#275There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…
Wasn't there some magical thinking about how by outsourcing industries to those poor countries will bring them money and raise their standard of living to a point where they care just as much about their environment as us and it will all eventually equalize. Didn't quite pan out like that, did it.
Re: Banned in California
#276There was an EPA superfund site across the street (this all was adjacent to the beach).
The company also had a co-generator that they used to produce their own power (using natural gas) and sold excess power to the local electrical utility.
It's still in operation, though it changed owners ~4 times while he was there.
Re: Banned in California
#277Re: Banned in California
#278[flagged]
Quality of facilities, low wait times, quality of staff interactions, organization, etc.
She even freaks out about how we have free parking at our doctors and hospitals here!
We’re on corporate insurance.
Re: Banned in California
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is too strong of a statement. There are perfectly sensible reasons to NIMBY certain activities. For instance, burning wood is probably ok in general, but a horrible idea in heavily populated cities. Obviously, California is not composed exclusively of heavily populated cities. But it does contain a lot of them! So it is not completely insane that the regulation is skewed in favour of this. Of course, for things…
CO2 might be a long term problem, but it isn't the core health concern of living near combustion facilities - moving those away from residential areas isn't passing the buck, it's just good sense.
Re: Banned in California
#280The 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