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

401–410 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#401

Post by HardCodedBias »

temp8830 wrote: post #290
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…

USA is already effectively priced out of manufacturing due to high labor costs. Doing things with the "correct choices" simply makes the impossible even more so.

You sure it is about labor prices? These are highly capital intensive businesses.

You may want to ask your LLM to do very detailed research.

Re: Banned in California

#402

Post by rob74 »

rswail wrote: post #248

This is whining from someone that doesn't want to be responsible for the externality of pollution that these manufacturing facilities generate. The regulations are to stop the pollution, if you can manufacture without polluting, then you'll comply and be able to manufacture. The problem is that there are other regulatory environments where the people aren't protected from pollution. What would fix that is enforcing t…

Thanks for confirming my suspicion! When I read phrases like "Battery cells require electrode coating with toxic solvents (NMP), electrolyte handling, and formation cycling. This is exactly why Tesla's Gigafactory went to Reno." I (as someone not very familiar with the subject) thought it's strange that California should regulate what kind of chemicals can be used in an industrial process. Of course, they don't - but they regulate that industry can't release toxic chemicals into the environment. But because Elon thinks it's too expensive to make sure that no NMP gets out of his factory, he goes to his Republican pals in Texas or Nevada who don't worry about pollution...

Re: Banned in California

#403

Post by betaby »

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…

> What would be your choice?

Stop promoting overpopulation. The USA adds ~1.8 million of people every year. That's one more Phoenix city, every year.

Re: Banned in California

#404

Post by tzs »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #174
wewtyflakes wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not care to try to make things ethically fair for oil refineries. Call me a hypocrite, I do not care, as these companies similarly do not care. "Ya got me!", yup, moving on, I am still glad oil refineries are effectively banned.

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.

> If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere

That doesn't follow. It only follows that they are bad everywhere with circumstances similar to California. A place differing in distribution of population, distribution of agricultural land, weather patterns, and/or water flows might be able to have refineries without causing the harms that makes them difficult to place in California.

Re: Banned in California

#405

Post by lokar »

hunterpayne wrote: post #136
jasongill wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just searched "new hospital opened in CA" on Google and see that there were two new hospitals opened in Irvine in December, half of a new hospital complex in Santa Clara opened in October, more being built and slated to open this year or next...

Now look up when those projects were started...I will wait.

Hospitals always take long time, both are non-profit and had to raise ton of money. They are both large multi-building complexes. And I think the UCI one is a trauma center (even more complexity) to deal with the fact that the previous (UCI) trauma center no longer meets earthquake standards.

Re: Banned in California

#406

Post by lokar »

crawshaw wrote: post #30

Lot of things could be added to this list. Good luck getting permission to start a hospital, or permission to mine/refine anything with a slightly messy process (e.g. rare earth metals). You can't build a new port. The California Coastal Commission won't let you open a new hotel anywhere on the water. You can't even keep a bar open late in San Francisco.

A new 22 floor hotel is on the way in less than a mile from the ocean in Newport Beach.

Re: Banned in California

#407

Post by PurpleRamen »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #347
PurpleRamen wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Build a pool. How does this work without water?

The Earth has a functionally infinite amount of water. If it's dirty, clean it.

That's not how it works. Transporting water from a different location will be an extra cost. Cleaning will be an extra cost. And cleaning is also not perfect. Those who will need water, are usually not those who can afford all this. So at the end you are just moving the problems to someone else, out of greed and ignorance.

Re: Banned in California

#408

Post by PurpleRamen »

lokar wrote: post #386
PurpleRamen wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Build a pool. How does this work without water?

California has droughts, but never water shortages.

Depends on the usage. According to news, there were water shortages in the past in California. Though, we are not talking just about California here.

Re: Banned in California

#409

Post by xrd »

giantrobot wrote: post #382
xrd wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk and Colossus have generated 3000 jobs in Memphis, according to Tesla propaganda (I mean "propaganda" in the original neutral term, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda ). But, locals don't love that because of the environmental concerns. https://mashable.com/article/naacp-data-centers I, for one, would not want to live within 100 miles of these data centers. But, people that live there alread…

I find it disingenuous to talk about construction jobs as being "generated". Construction jobs are contracts. Building a datacenter might put 3000 people under contract temporarily but it doesn't "generate" jobs. Once the contract is complete those contractors they're no longer paid by the builder. The word "generated" is used to make it sound like the project opened up 3000 new permanent jobs for people. Those contr…

I agree 100%.

Re: Banned in California

#410

Post by harrall »

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…

What we actually need to get to is a world where countries have somewhat equal quality of life. This would allow a country to invest in processes that reduce pollution without fundamentally making them uncompetitive.

Of course a world where everyone has an equal quality of life is almost a dream but I’d say humanity has been very slowly, very slowly getting there.

What we do now is that “1st world countries” focus on high value manufacturing and growing countries unfortunately take up the dangerous and polluting manufacturing — but bear in mind, the US and other industrial countries also had the same phase.

What fucks up this is when trust breaks down between countries. Now suddenly you need to bring lower value manufacturing in house for national security even if it doesn’t make economic sense. It’s inefficient, puts the world back at square one, causes everyone to fight for survival instead of progress, and frankly leads us away from that “Star Trek” future.

This is also why we’re having to worry about asking these questions now when we didn’t so much have to 20 years ago. We’re living in a mildly cooked part of humanity’s timeline where trust seems to be fleeting.

Post reply on HN