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

541–550 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#541

Post by danans »

terminalshort wrote: post #468
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…

China has reduced its pollution massively since the 90s while aggressively expanding its industrial output. And they have done it without excessive bureaucracy and delays in construction. In the US environmental laws are not about the environment at all. They are there to enrich lawyers who profit from multi year permitting processes and lawsuits.

> China has reduced its pollution massively since the 90s while aggressively expanding its industrial output. And they have done it without excessive bureaucracy

China's system is authoritarian state-capitalism. It is precisely the bureaucracy that steered it's industries toward this outcome.

Re: Banned in California

#542

Post by mrguyorama »

ecshafer wrote: post #288
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #256

Earlier 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.

Which political party is for a universal healthcare system? The largest political party with universal health care on their platform is the Green party. https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democr... This is the current DNC platform. There are zero mentions of a universal / single payer / socialized healthcare system. There are four mentions of "healthcare" it refers to maintaining the ACA (which is…

The democrat party wanted to push socialized healthcare 70 years ago and didn't succeed. They tried again during Obama's term but couldn't get the votes because at least one "Democrat" politician openly refused to vote for a socialized health care plan.

What do you want? If there were more Democrats in office in 2010 we would have already had socialized healthcare.

People keep getting pissed that the party without power can't do things. If you want a politician to change something, you have to vote for them first

Even the people who vote for Trump understand that, but so many people who think they are smart can't understand that about voting for democrats. They continue to get pissed that the democrats secure the presidency and nothing else and can get nothing done as is intentionally the design of the american system

FDR's New Deal was possible because the Democrat party held about 80% control of both houses of congress and the presidency. Their threat to pack the supreme court to bypass them worked because it was trivially doable for them. You want a New New Deal? You have to vote for more Democrats.

Re: Banned in California

#543

Post by palmotea »

kelvinjps10 wrote: post #356
palmotea wrote: post #311

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. 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

> 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

No, why would you say that? When America and Europe built their wealth, they were mainly (though not exclusively) producing and selling manufactured goods for themselves. This whole idea of a poor country developing by building polluting factories to make items for rich countries is a more recent and different thing.

Europe and America insisting on certain labor and environmental standards as a condition of trade wouldn't mean poor countries can't build factories for themselves. At worst, you just split the current one big market into two smaller markets: an expensive and clean one, and a dirty and cheap one.

Re: Banned in California

#544

Post by pessimizer »

This website has no content at all. It doesn't mention a single regulation or law. It's just something for politicians to cite from the floor or in reports when they're demanding deregulation or subsidy, and a url that sounds like a slogan.

If this were real instead of dogshit lobbyist slop, you'd see the details, and there's be clear arguments and action plans.

But the action is that they're going to pay politicians off, and the politicians are going to give speeches that start "I went to a website the other day, and it was called Banned in California - you might like electric cars, think they're good, but because of bad regulation, we could never make them here." And that's going to provide cover as they vote for something horrible. And buy a boat with the money they made for doing it.

Re: Banned in California

#545

Post by computerdork »

mothballed wrote: post #128
computerdork wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, words matter. There are a lot of smart people out there, and the writer of this site makes me skeptical when he/she exaggerates, omits or spins info. Tell us all the facts at least, so we can trust you.

[flagged]

True, keeping a reader is engaged is important, but at least for me, don't want spin on the actual facts. Want to know what the actual facts are and so I can make an informed decision. Otherwise, it's just the writer using salesmanship to sell their own personal beliefs.

And, for the writer perspective, spin is definitely a powerful technique (seems to be changing America to being more polarized), but for me personal, would like to think I try to see though it as much as possible (in any form, coming from the politically left or right).

Re: Banned in California

#546

Post by zdp7 »

coryrc wrote: post #492
zdp7 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site is wrong though. I believe it's more of a it's hard and I shouldn't have to do it. I found a company called statevolt (founded August 2021) that plans to build a lithium ion cell factory the Imperial Valley (Southern California). I did see a press release saying it is delayed, but the company maintains that it plans on building it. On the banned website, it's claimed lithium battery cells are impossible to m…

> I did see a press release saying it is delayed, but the company maintains that it plans on building it. They finding out it's basically impossible, aren't they?

Not likely since the state of California provided a grant with the purpose of manufacturing battery cells in the state. Search for GFO-24-304. You are just kidding yourself if you think California is anti manufacturing. If you can show why this is untrue, show the info. Still had a link to the grant info. https://www.grants.ca.gov/grants/gfo-24-304-california-batte...

Re: Banned in California

#547

Post by mrguyorama »

almosthere wrote: post #477
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…

It's not black and white - do things smarter. But make jobs - top priority. We need jobs otherwise wealth concentrates.

Wealth concentrates because of shitty tax policy and lack of enforcement of existing, on the books regulation to enforce a competitive market.

Famous Trust Buster Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive republican who openly stated he had no desire to harm or kill industry in the USA but was instead working to ensure there continued to be competitive pressure to make that industry work better.

Employment has never effectively redistributed wealth. Possibly it improved things a little bit after the black plague reduced the labor pool by about 25%.

The only peaceful and low death form of fixing obscene wealth inequality has always been government, through taxes.

Re: Banned in California

#548

Post by WhatsTheBigIdea »

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…

The regulatory bureaucracy is a real hurdle. Even if you want to comply with the regulations, navigating the regulatory bureaucracy is a killer. Super slow, super expensive, quite opaque, somewhat arbitrary, and highly punitive.

Even if the bureaucracy didn't exist and everyone voluntarily followed the regulations, you could not run a globally cost competitive business without some sort of subsidy when competing with places where rampant pollution is allowed.

It's a real problem without an obvious long term solution that I am aware of.

Re: Banned in California

#549

Post by toss1 »

bombcar wrote: post #426
Empact wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also use pigouvian taxation to make polluting expensive. Cost savings is generally the motivation for allowing negative externalities like pollution, so a natural way to reverse it in many cases while allowing flexibility when there is no practical alternative.

The problem is you can't enforce your taxation outside your borders without things like tariffs or subsidies.

>>without things like tariffs

Right, and if the US congress[0] properly cared about the environment, the regulation would require both A) requirements to keep the manufacturing clean if done here, and B) tariffs for goods produced with polluting processes over there, scaled so the costs are somewhat higher if produced dirty.

They can produce cleanly here or there without extra tariffs and without losing market share because some other competitor externalizes the pollution costs.

[0] Tariffs are proper the domain of Congress, not any other branch. OFC, because of this, it isn't really an option for California, since states cannot levy tariffs externally or vs other states.

Re: Banned in California

#550

Post by amrocha »

chaostheory wrote: post #483
amrocha wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that if europe had tripled its defence spending over the last century the US would have spent more or less?

Less, which is implied by my first comment

I disagree, the US clearly enjoys being the biggest spender in the world
Post reply on HN