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

351–360 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#351

Post by anankaie »

wewtyflakes wrote: post #184
akoboldfrying wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point wasn't about fairness towards oil refinery companies, it was that supporting a ban on refineries in your local area while still benefiting from the downstream outputs of oil refineries is hypocritical nimbyism. If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere, and if they're bad everywhere, we ought to stop using them altogether, which will make for some unwelcome lifestyle changes.

I'm fine if other states want to ban them too. I'm also fine if ultimately running oil refineries is uneconomical. I do not care if this is nimbyism; other communities are free to set their own rules.

Much of the pharmaceutical industry depends on petroleum byproducts.

Re: Banned in California

#352

Post by indoordin0saur »

morkalork wrote: post #257
Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There 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.

China

Re: Banned in California

#353

Post by cogman10 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #345
cogman10 wrote: post #340

The article is just factually incorrect. It says, for example, that it's impossible to manufacture batteries in California and cites Tesla moving to Texas as the example. But Telsa still makes batteries in California in Fremont. They last did expansions on their battery manufacturing plants in 2023. It cites all the dangerous chemicals used in manufacturing, but those aren't banned in California. CA has safety requir…

That isn’t what it says. Read again.

> Tesla's Fremont factory was the former NUMMI plant (GM/Toyota, operating since 1962). It was grandfathered in. When Tesla needed to expand battery production, they built the Gigafactory in Reno, Nevada — not California — because the permitting for battery cell manufacturing was effectively impossible. The Cybertruck factory went to Austin, Texas.

What part am I misreading? How is it that tesla expanded their cell manufacturing in 2023 in California when it was "effectively impossible"?

Re: Banned in California

#354

Post by PaulHoule »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #318
kardianos wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…

The trade-off to safety and caring about people and the environment is very often cost. Caring about the environment is not a binary concept, it is a matter of where your break-even point is between caring about the environment and absorbing higher costs.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment

Re: Banned in California

#355

Post by biztos »

Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There 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…

> Reducing the pollution costs a lot of money, and can make your product non-competitive.

Make it non-competitive with what?

With products made via "poison outsourcing" so other people can suffer what we refuse to suffer ourselves?

Seems like if an economy like the US or the EU actually wanted to, they could pretty easily say it's the clean way or no way at all, and voila, these things would magically be competitive again.

Re: Banned in California

#356

Post by kelvinjps10 »

palmotea wrote: post #311
danesparza wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you are replying to mentioned their personal experience. Have you seen this work in person? It might help to talk about those facts. Also: I suggest rethinking your opening line. It's not very endearing.

> The person you are replying to mentioned their personal experience. Have you seen this work in person? It might help to talk about those facts. The meat of their comment wasn't the personal anecdote, it was actually on government policy: >>> You can sum this up with: Producing stuff without polluting the environment in most cases is impossible. Reducing the pollution costs a lot of money, and can make your product…

Another thing is that the us and European countries build their wealth where they had los standards now other countries want to do the same but would be limited by us and European countries. It's very tricky

Re: Banned in California

#357

Post by mc32 »

cogman10 wrote: post #350
tptacek wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be right, but the site is explicit about the Fremont plant being exempted, and opens with the claim that there are facilities grandfathered in.

> Tesla's Fremont factory was the former NUMMI plant (GM/Toyota, operating since 1962). It was grandfathered in. When Tesla needed to expand battery production, they built the Gigafactory in Reno, Nevada — not California — because the permitting for battery cell manufacturing was effectively impossible. The Cybertruck factory went to Austin, Texas. His point was that they were grandfathered in for making cars in gene…

I didn't read the text but if you’re referring to the quoted text, it’s not clear from the text that the implication was they were building batteries in _Fremont_ and then wanted to expand or that they were building them elsewhere and wanted to expand and chose Nevada as the expansion site. The sentence is not written with clarity. It’s written as people would speak.

Re: Banned in California

#358

Post by giantrobot »

protimewaster wrote: post #165
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 as…

What's so bad about negative externalities? Instead of thinking about that think of the profits (for me)!

/s

Re: Banned in California

#359

Post by analog31 »

I work in manufacturing. I don't think regulations are the only barrier. The other one is attracting investment. Manufacturing is simply second class compared to IT, the finance industry, healthcare, etc.
Post reply on HN