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 the same issue as housing. Endless rules and regulations, many of which make no attempt at doing anything but block, cause the wealth of socirty to be siphoned away. An apartment project in LA with permits complete is worth twice as much as one without. How do we see this and expect our economy to do anything except drown in bureaucracy?
My advice is dont ever manufacturing anything in CA. They will try and kill your business for simply existing no matter how perfect you 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 "trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, trichlorofluoroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethylene, in soils on the site and in ground water on and off the site."
- a 5-acre drum recycling plant that contaminated wells within 3 miles with trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. Affecting the drinking water of 250k residents.
- about 10-15 other sites I'm not gonna cover in detail but the contaminants include asbestos-laden dust, PCBs, dichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, chloroform, vinyl chloride, xylene, and many many more
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).
I picked Hunter's Point because I used to live near it. The problems from decommissioning radioactive ships are bad, but they're far from the only pollution that was there. Lots of VOCs, solvents, oils, radiation from other stuff (eg, glow-in-the-dark equipment made with radium), heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs, and what have you.
But sure, there are other shipyards they cleaned up in less than three decades.
That's the first thing that came to mind when I saw this website. The Bay Area is famous for its numerous superfund sites (among many other things, thankfully).
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.
There is a lot of manufacturing in California. There are a lot of new factories in California. California manufactures almost as much as most of the Southeast combined. (Note that CA manufacturing is spread across dozens of industries.)
The difference is that successful businesses in California just do. They don't whine about problems caused by their own incompetence.
> 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.
This didn't occur in a vacuum. Business interests and their aligned politicians fought successfully for a century for their freedom to destroy human health and life in pursuit of profit. Many died, many were injured and countless more had their lifespans cut short. There's obviously legitimate concerns about over-regulation, but concerns about corporate abuse of power are just as legitimate if not more so based on the history. And it's not unopposed either, but most of the backlash in California has centered on housing construction and occupational licensing - not the rights of investors to build new industrial facilities in a post-industrial state.
Now the regulatory industry is fighting to destroy productive society in the pursuit of profit. The value-added is fairly stagnant, but the costs have been growing dramatically.
Ebb and flow. Would you prefer only ebb, when that ebb was decimating the health of millions of working people? Maybe some flow is justified and necessary.
That might be true, but this article does not show how, nor does your own comment. Without citations the only proper way to respond to this article is to presume it's 100% false and ignore it.
Neither defend nor refute, and by "presume false" I don't actually mean to come way actively and newly believing the opposite of the claims, but just disregard entirely.
Argue over some other article that actually backs it's assertions with citations and reasoning.
The rest of the paragraph doesn’t say anything useful either. It’s the inane ramblings of someone who’s describing an imaginary scenario because they haven’t a clue what they’re actually talking about other than the woes of businesses that weren’t allowed to profit by destroying the local ecosystem.
I obviously mean that you can filter out and properly dispose of and neutralize what would be emissions, so that they are not emitted. I cant see your comment as anything but bad faith, why are you responding like this?
Can you give us a couple of examples of a company that was stopped by the state of California because they weren't producing any harmful emissions whatsoever and/or were disposing their waste in ways that were not harmful? It would be interesting to see exactly what they were doing in violation of the regulations, what regulations they ran into, and where those rules came from.
I have no idea what you obviously meant because what you’re describing doesn’t actually exist for anything on that page. I’m not privvy to whichever science fiction you’ve applied here, so it all sounds like rambling to me.
But you’ll incur heavy taxes, huge COB increases, tightening regulatory scrutiny and all for nothing compared to being just one or two states over. It’s has been one economically and morally disadvantageous to do manufacturing in California due to hypernanny regulation. What’s worse is that generational and heritage firms that have lived in California for 50+ years are effectively put out of business because of these policies… and that’s just at the national level. No one has even mentioned how CA based businesses can’t compete with China.
I get what you’re protective over though. We all like clean air and streams. No one is voting for more superfund sites. We can agree on that.
Your response seems to either woefully uninformed or bad faith. I’m assuming the former.
Plating operations are a huge headache. They have corrosive plating baths. They have to do some chemical processing on site to neutralize the corrosive chemicals and get them down to a neutral pH.
Some years ago, a plating company in San Jose dumped a plating bath into the sewer system. This was so toxic that it killed the bacteria that reduce organic sludge at the sewerage plant. This knocked the whole plant offline, releasing untreated sewerage into the bay. The lower bay was toxic for a week. It's normally swimmable. San Jose was fined by the EPA. The plating company was heavily fined by San Jose.
It's a good sewerage plant. The output is drinkable, and if you take the tour, you're offered some to drink. Some of the output is used for irrigation. In a severe drought emergency, water could be fed back into the water system. They've never had to do that, but in a big drought a few years ago, things got close to that point.
San Jose, which is more of an industrial city than most people realize, still has plating companies. Here's an inspection report for one of them.[1] This one was releasing too much chromium.
a plating company in San Jose dumped a plating bath into the sewer system. This was so toxic that it killed the bacteria that reduce organic sludge at the sewerage plant. This knocked the whole plant offline, releasing untreated sewerage into the bay. The lower bay was toxic for a week
toxic because of chemicals and toxic because of the release of untreated sewage (bacteria) are sufficiently different that I thought I'd point out that you kind of mix them here. Also, toxic because of high concentrations (e.g. pH) that will dilute vs toxic cumulative forever chemicals are different orders of magnitude altogether.
This incident you describe seems like a one-off and fairly benign compared to long term patterns that lead to superfund sites. Till this company dumped that batch, they weren't dumping batches, i.e. the system was working.
I'm not up on the latest, not a civil engineer or public health authority, but it is generally recommended in many seaside places not to swim at the beach after rainstorms. the influx of large volumes of water into the sewage treatment systems means that they overflow and raw sewage is released. These systems are being improved all the time, but it's a known problem and civilization hasn't collapsed. Some natural creatures like sewage outflow. When Boston moved their outflow pipe from the inner harbor to deeper water in Cape Cod bay, the lobster population collapsed. Maybe we should have called it the lobster poopulation.
> it's a known problem and civilization hasn't collapsed.
Waiting for civilizational collapse to justify regulation seems like an unhelpful standard TBH. In fact, I would argue that it's one of the main problems we are having right now: that we know our current trajectory will lead to civilizational collapse, but aren't willing to change course.
Nuclear power plants have secondary and tertiary overflow reservoirs, intended to capture any uncontrolled dangerous outflow if things go wrong.
I wonder if chemical plants have something similar, a way to contain an uncontrolled outflow of toxic stuff if the normal flow of neutralization fails.
BTW this likely means quite a bit of land used up by such a reservoir which is ideally never needed, but must be present.
Yes. In Silicon Valley, if you go to Bedwell Bayfront Park, which is behind Meta/Facebook HQ, there is, on the bay side, a small sewerage treatment plant. There's a fenced concrete-lined pond, usually empty. That is a sewerage overflow containment pond. It's next to a hiking trail, so it's easily visible to the public. That whole park, by the way, is a recycled garbage dump. So is the bay side park behind Google HQ.
Wastewater plants have other ponds and tanks which are part of the process, and they're usually full, with liquid moving in and out, accompanied by stirring, air, and chemical injection. A big empty one is a backup system.
Well, the concrete pond is usually empty. But yeah, the site kinda smells like methane. Hard to say if it's from the dump (which of course has vents), or from the sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant is always burning.. something. Maybe methane escaping from the dump? Maybe from the wastewater? I'm not sure.
Anyway, it's not bad-- I run around there all the time. It's just when the wind blows a certain way. I live a half mile from it and you absolutely do not ever smell it outside of the park.
I worked at a plant and the answer is yes. The EPA requires it.
It can range from overflow tanks to capture spills to concrete “pools” around the entire operation that capture any catastrophic leaks and direct it to underground holding tanks.
There are a ton of highly toxic industrial processes. Properly designed plants and safety infrastructure means it’s never an issue.
Yes. It's a miserable business. Look at the pictures from the inspection of a plating plant. Everything near the process is corroded and covered with crud. Such plants have to be regulated and inspected, to prevent them from becoming a hazard both to the neighborhood and downstream.
Plants which do chemistry on an industrial scale tend to need their own waste processing, which gets the waste products down to a reasonably neutral form.
Regulation is needed to prevent dumping it unprocessed. That's what the EPA really does.
When I was a kid growing up in Texas, our ocean visits were to the Gulf of Mexico, off the Texas coast, and you would grab little alcohol wipes for when you got out of the ocean, to wipe the oil off.
Years later, swimming in Hawaii, I found myself looking for wipes. I mentioned it to a snorkel-outfit operator, and she looked at me like I was insane. They didn't even put damaging sunscreen in the water, and there was no expectation of little 1-2 inch sticky spots of oil.
The good old days, in the 80's, where we swam in oceans filled with slow-motion natural disasters. I wonder how much of it was place (Hawaiians seem to have a stronger relationship with the land and nature surrounding them) and how much of it was the time (20 years later).
Crude oil floating in the ocean used to be a big nuisance in parts of California. It is a natural phenomenon, created by oil deposits on the ocean floor leaking into the environment. Santa Barbara was particularly famous for it.
Extraction of that oil via commercial wells greatly reduced the natural seepage, which is why there is so little crude oil floating in that ocean water today. Oil drilling actually made the water cleaner.
Per NOAA and USGS, ~20 million liters of crude oil naturally seeps into that part of the California ocean each year. That is more crude oil each year than the worst oil spill in California history[0].
You are projecting your biases. There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative. I was recounting an interesting fact about the environment there.
Many of these seeps are under considerable pressure as there is substantial natural gas mixed in. The seepage rate of each has been mapped and studied for many decades. It has long been observed that the introduction of drilling appears to substantially reduced the seepage rate at many of these underwater sites. Drilling wells significantly reduces natural pressure in these reservoirs, likely leading to the observed reductions in seepage.
For it to be a "narrative", there would need to be an additional claim that this specific case and context, which is factual, generalizes to most unrelated cases. That is not in evidence. Thinking that this was an attempt to create a narrative is a failure of reading comprehension.
This insistence that acknowledgement of facts has an ideological narrative is a pernicious strain of anti-science thinking.
To be clear, I have no skin in the game here. I thought the point you made sounded plausible and as I have zero experience or expertise, I wouldn't argue against it.
I just thought it's ridiculous - and kind of funny - to deny making the claim you literally made. I'm not sure you have a lot of legs to stand on, accusing others of "anti-science thinking" and a "failure of reading comprehension" when asking us to ignore the clear, textual evidence of that contradiction.
> For it to be a "narrative", there would need to be an additional claim that this specific case and context, which is factual, generalizes to most unrelated cases.
Says who? That seems a very narrow and unusual definition of what makes a "narrative", bent to your purpose. It seems to me, a "narrative" in common parlance just means "telling a story" or "relaying a sequence of events". I honestly have never seen someone use the word to imply generalization (doesn't mean no one ever did, of course).
In any case, given that you responded to a comment talking about the two examples of Texas and Hawaii with an example about California and an "actually", it seems pretty fair to me to say, that you even fulfilled this artificially narrowed definition.
I mean, come on, you have got to admit that you have at least been unclear, if you didn't intend to make this argument. Instead of just defensively flinging insults.
"This insistence that acknowledgement of facts has an ideological narrative is a pernicious strain of anti-science thinking."
That is very well put. This should be added to the general list of fallacies in argument, and like the other ones (the slippery slope, hasty generalization, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc.) more general awareness should exist about these.
The current wave of anti-science, anti-logic, rejection of objective data, etc. is like nothing I've experienced in my lifetime. This is a subjective observation, maybe it has always been this way and I never paid attention because I was caught up in whatever I used to be caught up in.
To this day if you walk on the beach your soles or the soles of your shoes will get sticky tar spots. You need baby oil wipes to clean them up before entering your home.
And some of it, if not most of it is not natural seepage but early environmental catastrophes in the 50s and 60s, particularly around Summerland.
For what it's worth you still need the alcohol wipes (mineral oil works well too) when swimming off the coast of Santa Barbara. It's naturally occurring oil that gets all over your feet in little annoying sticky spots.
yeah same for the Gulf Coast, oil just seeps right out of the ground at some beaches or at some times. There's plenty of man-made pollution to go around though.
Half-ish (don't get hung up on being exact, they are at least of similar orders of magnitude) of the oil that makes its way into the ocean is natural. That is, leaking out of the ground into the water not at all as a result of human activity. Obviously enormous anthropogenic oil spills make this a very spiky statistic one way or the other.
Oil production and natural oil seepage happen in the gulf of mexico because there's oil there, there's not much oil around Hawaii.
So there's likely both a human and non-human reason for this in Texas.
Growing up on the Atlantic coast of Florida, we kept a can or Renuzit solvent in the garage to wipe tar spots off our feet after coming home from the beach. I'm sure that stuff was toxic. The tar was everywhere for a few weeks, then gone for a while.
Hawaii has other problems. When I lived there, I went through a lot of Neosporin because every scrape you get from a reef pushes in bacteria that got into the ocean from the leaking sewer pipes.
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...
That's certainly one interpretation. Most of the workers there keep doing what they do to protect the environment though, so it's entirely plausible that they are taking precautions to save the environment, but find the method in which the regulations are implemented to be slow or arcane. If it's anything like cybersecurity in the government, the laborious process of filling out irrelevant paperwork is orthogonal to actually accomplishing the initial goals.
If there's anything I have learned with age it's that regulations have bizarre unintended consequences. The incentives are too numerous and too precariously balanced to muck with without tipping someone's seesaw right into a volcano.
NMP in particular readily biodegrades in aerobic environments, both in water treatment plants and just in water. Bacteria seem to crack it quickly. It's also not volatile. You have to protect yourself while working with it, but it's not comparable to really nasty stuff, like heavy metals.
I'm not aware of many (non-manmade) barren wastelands on Terra. Even the Empty Quarter has wildlife. About the only place I can think of would be something like the Dead Sea.
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.
First: we may have gone too far toward anti-pollution. China has more naval vessels than the US. Everything changes when peace isn't a foregone conclusion, as it has been for the past 30? 50? years.
Second: it's not the regulations per se, but the difficulty of dealing with the bureaucracy, particularly (a) long delays and (b) uncertainty.
I run an electrical contractor, so this is not the least bit theoretical to me. The hassle of dealing with local government and PG&E for what should be routine things adds tremendous cost to doing business. Recent concrete example: it cost over $1,000 and two months to process a minor change to an electrical permit set, in Alameda (City). The actual change was moving some panels outside, a small revision to a plan that had already been checked and permitted. This required $1,400 in engineering fees, plus a ~$200 application fee to the City, and then the actual plan check and review charge of $650-700. It was probably one hour of actual work. The worst part was that Alameda outsources its plan check to a third party and I'm pretty sure the plans sat for two weeks on someone's desk at the City, before I asked for status, and then, an hour later, by "complete coincidence", it was sent to the outsourced plan checker.
If we could put a precise price on pollution, it would be a different story. It's a collateral damage of all the (even well-intentioned, good) regulation that drives business away.
> It's a collateral damage of all the (even well-intentioned, good) regulation that drives business away.
I keep hearing this, but it never happens. Despite attempts to get jurisdictions to race to the bottom, businesses simply follow the money/markets: I can bet you a hefty sum that Alameda will never go without electrical contractors.
> I can bet you a hefty sum that Alameda will never go without electrical contractors.
You *really* don't understand the issue then because no one is saying that there will be 0 electrical contractors.
Electrical contractors will continue to exist because demand will continue to exist, but the wait time to get the work done will increase due to not enough electrical contractors.
Or the work will be left undone because the owner doesn't have enough money to pay the few electrical contractors that remain.
Or the work will occur but will avoid all regulations because the cost of complying relative to the odds of being caught don't justify paying it.
I understand why businesses would want to maximize work done in an area - I hope you're self-aware enough to realize this.
The tension you may be blind to, is that society wants to maximize safety in an area - and any work done should be in service to that goal, and not an end unto itself. We shouldn't blindly maximize for work done in an area, we have to make sure the result is safe: this introduces rules and regulations, and the time and monetary costs tag along.
No two people will agree where the balance is, but generally there's regional culture. Hell, Texas allows home-owners to do their own electrical work - does that "drive business away" since some people won't pay for small DIY fixes in TX? I can't say I've ever heard that argued, but I hear it deployed a lot in response to regulations.
Many states are littered with work environments criss-crossed by extension cords because if it plugs in it doesn't need a permit, forklifts moving IBC totes because that's cheaper than the permitting it would take to install real process equipment and be regulated differently. Rain and snow covered parking and work areas that should have structures over them but can't due to the realities of environmental calculations and permitting.
Every time someone trips on a cord and smashes their face, gets mashed by a forklift, slips and falls on ice and can't work for 6mo, you personally, along with everyone else who's fetish for bureaucracy has driven up the cost of "better solutions" that would've prevented that has a little bit of that blood on their hands.
I'm not saying to just let anyone do a 3ph 480v panel swap and connect that shit to the utility. But at this point that might be better than letting you people continue to run things your way.
It's like saying that a ball-and-chain thing is not going to entirely prevent you from walking, so you're not denied the ability to walk. While technically correct, this conclusion misses a few important related consequences.
Everyone just says F the permits and becomes a youtube academy engineer. Then you start seeing all the issues that the permit system was designed to fix.
Half my house was built less-than-safely by the previous owner because getting the permits for the structures would be too expensive, time-consuming, and maybe not even possible.
The increased costs (time and money) of permits really changes the risk-reward.
Yeah, everyone wants faster bureaucracy until they see the cost estimate for proper staffing, then just pretending there wasn't any harm to regulate in the first place becomes the preferred option.
Agreed that staffing the bureaucracy with good people costs a lot.
There is a large opportunity to simplify and rationalize the regulations. This would dramatically reduce the cost of both bureaucracy and compliance. In addition to massively reduced cost, it would enable people in CA to do more cool stuff faster!
But simplification, rationalization, and acceleration is not in the interest of the bureaucracy or the incumbents... so we are very unlikely to see change until there is an existential crisis.
Every bureaucracy I've ever experienced is constantly complaining about being under-staffed, but when they get more funding, the service level rarely improves. It seems like complaining about 'over-work' is just an easy excuse for doing a bad job, which makes sense given how many friends I have in government who are constantly complaining about their lazy and inept colleagues.
I think that one solution might be making it much easier to sue companies for their externalities and then loosen the regulation. IMHO, all that regulation is necessary primarily because methods of controlling the corpos and the rich have broken down.
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.
It helps you can buy an electric car in China for 1/4th the price as California. They also massively invested in every sort of energy (not just solar) where it's cheap and affordable to develop industry. Everyone obsesses about labour costs but almost everything is easier and cheaper to build in China because they allow stuff to be built there. Including the workers far lower housing, utilities, fuel, and food prices which lower the cost of living.
The phones might not even be more expensive in the long term, if we’re just in an easier-to-discover local maximum in efficacy x cost x pollution space.
We've kicked the can down the road. Stuff used to cost more; now we make everything out of plastic overseas. Once all of those economies are wealthy enough to start caring about the environment (and I'm convinced we'll get there), pollution will have to be dealt with globally.
Maybe by then we'll have returned to building products which last (although I'm not holding my breath).
By “these people” do you mean the people who actually make things?
These banned industrial processes sum to making almost every physical object. The net effect is that it’s nearly illegal to make anything physical. Do you think that the state or country will do well in the long term if it’s basically illegal to actually make things?
Also funny that you Musk derangement people will never actually engage with the content of the quote’s message, preferring to dismiss it based on your political disagreement with the person who said it.
Why is disliking racists political. What do words even mean.
> These banned industrial processes sum to making almost every physical object
The processes are obviously not banned, only an idiot would think that. You just can't do the process and dump all the pollutants into the nearby river.
What’s funny is how much the chuds try to frame revulsion at white supremacy as “political disagreement” and “derangement.” As I was raised, this is actually just deadass “normal.”
I see no reason to engage in any way with the mental flatulations of this virulently racist Epstein fanboy. The quicker his empire can be dismantled and the sooner he gets utterly shunned from polite society, the better off we’ll all be. To a lesser degree, the same goes for his eager and willing co-conspirators.
As for California, as a resident, I’ll take environment over industry, thanks. Half my home neighborhood is already a Superfund site. Go fuck up Texas if you like.
Again, very little engagement on ideas, but full paragraphs of derangement about "white supremacy" and "racism". Nobody cares man, you spent the last 10 years calling everything you disagreed with racism and now those words mean nothing.
>Go fuck up Texas if you like.
Indeed, Texas is taking a net inflow of builders and entrepreneurs, California has a net outflow. The state is booming and the future is being built in Texas. The most advanced rocket in the world, something that puts governments to shame, is being built there. Massive semiconductor manufacturing plants, electric cars, financial companies, tons of new housing (look at Austin, 25% price reduction because of new supply in recent years), all happening there.
But I really do think that your train of thought is sort of misanthropic. Anti-progress, anti-science, and just generally being "anti-building" does not play out well in the long term. I supposed it's a lesson that generations have to re-learn.
Millions upon millions of people very clearly care. You don’t care. :)
And doubling down on puerile trigger words like “derangement” does absolutely nothing aside from reflecting poorly on the author. It’s a strange sentiment to preserve in the Internet amber, I must say.
Please tell me what "If I wanted to build a new car factory, I literally couldn't paint the cars." has to do with white supremacy?
Maybe the regulations for new car factories are good, maybe they are bad, maybe Musk was exaggerating or making things up whole cloth, but the veracity of these things is mostly unrelated to Musk's views on race.
I’m sure David Duke has said some interesting and intelligent things in his life, too. But once you’ve done enough shitty things, the taint of your shittiness eclipses the value of your ideas.
Which is to say: I’m not going to quote David Duke at someone if I’m engaged in intelligent discussion, even if he happens to have the perfect quote. Unless I want people to think I share his values.
> What would fix that is enforcing the regulations nation wide, then applying tariffs on imported products that don't enforce the same regulations.
This is the biggest lie we are told, and the most heinous. The only thing that will fix it is when people like you (and me!) stop purchasing things which were made in those regulatory environments. If you continue to purchase them under the premise that "I have no choice, I have to participate in this fallen world," so does the state of California. Banning these activities when there are alternative regulatory environments just pushes the problem to someone else.
A great example of this is the Obama-era fuel efficiency laws. No one actually wanted a more efficient truck, so to get around the laws, the manufacturers just made larger trucks, which caused more problems than they solved.
Outlawing something, then doing nothing to stop demand for that thing, that's just irresponsible.
I don't think that will work. There's simply no viable path towards that much coordination; especially when late stage capitalism ensures that most people are living too hand to mouth to be able to worry about stuff like the environment.
The Grandfatherd-in section is incredibly misleading. Look at the Semiconductor Fabrication section, for example. The implication is that these are the only fabs in the state, they wouldn't be able to get new permits today, and the red dots indicate that it would be "effectively impossible" to open any other ones. In fact (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat...) there are at least 18 fabs in California, and these are just two random examples of particularly old ones. Obviously they couldn't reopen under the same permits they got in the 60s, why would anyone expect that to be the case?
A lot of these are actually grandfathered in. Vulcanization, electrolysis, auto painting, etc. I think the emphasis is that CA has effectively made it difficult to get regulatory authorities to agree to issue new permits. That was the part that stood out to me.
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 manufacture in California. That doesn't appear to be factual. With no references, it's just a California bashing site based on easily disproven falsehoods.
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...
Good catch. One has to wonder how many private non-profit entities there are in the world that want to build a "pilot manufacturing and testing" plant, that
- Are able to put up $5m of their own money in order to receive $25m.
- Are not associated with a university.
- Are not a public non-profit electrical utility (heaven forbid!)
One, as it turns out. Who received $28m. According to the list of grants given under the program.
I wouldn't expect it to be impossible, and it isn't, but I would expect the permits to be different than they were 60 years ago. You can still build a house today, but that doesn't mean you can build one using the same permits you received in 1965. This is true for everything.
Of course. And the goal in part is to enrich prior entrants and also to create massive unearned gains for them by printing a license for something no one else can have. This explains a lot of the housing prices writ large -- boomers and others who own houses that are grandfathered in via various regulations that let them build for cheap but not you, and making a new one has to be done at much higher regulations, basically printing money for those grandfathered in without them having to do anything but add regulations that apply to everyone else but them.
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 then, so why call out California?
Just because something isn’t done doesn’t mean it’s banned. Neither is it necessarily bad. There’s a lot of reasons why not to build certain things certain areas - labor cost, earthquake risk, land is more desired leading to higher cost, blah blah blah
That doesn’t mean something is banned. Maybe we should look at making some things easier but this website is just a hit piece and has a clear motivation rather than being a trustworthy evaluation.
It’s like those cringy billboards on highway 5 about Gavin newsom and water.
Edit ——
Complaining that large factories can’t easily be built in dense population centers like the Bay Area means things are banned is weird - who in the right mind thinks a sprawling factory with emissions should go smack dab in the middle of population centers? Why can’t we build a new nuclear plant in Manhattan or maybe an oil refinery on wall street!? Waah waah so outrageous! None were built in the last decade so it’s the outrageous regulations fault! I want my lead battery smelter in downtown Portland but Oregon banned it! Waah waah!
Aside that, this site is mostly blaming California regulations for the nationwide manufacturing issues driven heavily by free trade
California is mismanaged and you don’t need to vote Red to fix it. We can do better as Blue State. Wake up. We’re losing to ourselves like an obese patient anemic to a diet.
You kind of do need to vote Red - or, more precisely, make Red competitive again. Because Californians don't vote Red often enough, most of the candidates in the Republican Party in California are completely unserious. This has allowed the more impractical progressive side of the Democratic Party to increasing set the direction of the Democratic Party in California, to the detriment of governance for everyone.
Personally I hope that the two Republican candidates in California both win the jungle primary - maybe that will lead to some soul searching on how bad the Democratic politicians have become in the state.
I think it could be better run for sure. We need to look at things other states seem to do well (Utah - homelessness, Texas - K12) and push to improve.
The problem for me is that when you go out in the rest of the country the dislike bordering on hate for California is really common. It is insane to me that you can send Marines to Los Angeles and almost no one cares. California is a such a huge chunk of the US economy, not just tech but agriculture, trade and yes even manufacturing.
The partisanship is poison for everyone and it holds back reform in California. We're all the same country.
Massachusetts consistently ranks in the top 10 in the world on PISA. An exam which removes all the political "BS"-ability from the results and comparisons. It's just your students taking the same test as all the other students in the world, and the resultant scores being ranked.
Texas K-12 is horrible. Lived there from Katrina to a few years past Harvey. Our PISA scores were consistently horrible when we were ranked internationally.
Though, curiously enough, we were not "horrible" if you only compared us to the same test results in other US states. We were nowhere near Massachusetts. But we weren't Alabama/Florida/Mississippi either. Which means education in general in the US is pretty bad outside maybe the top 3 to 5 states by performance on the PISA exams.
Massachusetts is unusually good though, probably because of the high concentration of elite universities in Boston, which is also the capital of the state, which means politicians there take education most seriously - and don't forget the demographic effect of the number of professors and other highly-educated professionals.
Texas, California, and Florida are all fairly similar, with California doing somewhat worse than Texas and Florida. Unfortunately, the dedication of California to effective education is going down over time, while even the Deep South, which has consistently been at the bottom, is going up.
>while even the Deep South, which has consistently been at the bottom, is going up
Well their PISA scores haven't been going up. In fact they've been going down. So if their education is getting better, it's not showing up in the ability of their students to answer questions that other students seem to be able to answer.
That's kind of what I meant by PISA removing "BS"-ability from the equation. For some reason, on American standardized tests, all our children do great. Then we take PISA with all the other kids in the world, and the truth comes out.
That's also why I think we should all just take Massachusetts' education curriculum and implement it across the nation. Because you talk about demographics, but even when you control for income and race, kids in Massachusetts just flat out do better than our kids. Even just taking all kids at the bottom of the rankings in Massachusetts, they are still doing better than kids at the median of the rankings of many, many other states. (And think about the demographics of kids at the bottom in Boston, Brockton, or Springfield. Come on, admit it man. I'll try to stay politically correct here and just state that those very likely aren't professors' kids at the bottom of the rankings in Massachusetts.)
Massachusetts is so far ahead of all of us that I think I'd be comfortable just saying that they seem to have gotten it right, and we should simply copy it. Because right now, the gap is just getting wider and wider with every round of PISA testing.
Could you link where you're getting the PISA scores from? I've seen references that PISA was not conducted in all 50 states, at least recently. Also, I can't get a breakdown of "US States and Territories" for 2022 on the PISA website at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/idepisa/report.aspx
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.
I think a nuclear plant in Manhattan would cost far more than just building the plant in outer NY, and then running a big power line in to Manhattan. Sure, the power line would take up space, but so would the nuclear plant's cooling system.
So's a turbine. Sometimes people don't want heating, but you still need to cool down the plant. And while I'm sure the nuclear plant will have a great emergency stop button (the type where paying $1k per press is absolute peanuts), the systems used daily to turn the heat up/down will either need a buffer, or have a delay on taking the heat up/down. That'll take up space. Remind me why power lines aren't an option?
Manhattan is an island. It's surrounded by cooling fluid.
> Sometimes people don't want heating, but you still need to cool down the plant.
You can turn it down or off.
> Remind me why power lines aren't an option?
It's more economical not to waste half the plant's power output. 1 GW of heat comes out the reactor, 50% becomes electricity (with heat pumps you can make that 2x heating) and 50% is low-grade heat sufficient for space heating. You get 1/3 more heating for the same cost.
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 involved in doing stuff. But the risk of a bunch of litigation isn't a ban, right? I get that it's trying to be attention-grabbing, but calling it a ban when it's not just sort of confuses the issue.
Being unable to start a project without doing 5 years of legal wrangling once you put shovel to earth may not be a "ban", but it sure doesn't encourage development.
There are other states without the regulations that these businesses apparently find offensive. Why can't the manufacturing be spun up in those states?
> 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 assured me.
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.
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).
I think it is. It keeps listeners engaged because what they love most is telling you that you might be wrong and looking ways for it. A listener should make up their own mind anyway and double check -- if what you say is 99% right better they take that away than be 100% right and not be heard at all. I also just respect people more that can be bold with their points rather than hiding behind some chicken shit nuance that always covers them if what they really meant to postulate was wrong.
There's an important distinction here, between "banned" and "has far cheaper alternatives".
Things can appear banned even when they aren't merely because there is a new technology that's better and cheaper and it's a big investment so people go with the cheaper option.
Nobody is building new coal in the US because it's so expensive, not because there's an outright ban. Now, part of the reason it's more expensive than in the past is that using once-through water for cooling raises the cost of disposing of waste heat. And now, modern and much more efficient natural gas combined cycle plant is the obvious choice because not only is the fuel cheaper per kWh, but you also need to spend a lot less on waste heat disposal.
So is coal banned? No. Did some environmental regulations have an impact on just how bad of an idea coal is these days? Sure, but let's talk about the tradeoffs here, it's not a ban and framing it is a ban leads to bad solutions to real regulatory problems.
You can just look at examples in the article. For example "Lithium-Ion Cell Manufacturing"
> Cell manufacturing uses NMP solvent for electrode coating, handles flammable electrolytes, and requires formation cycling that generates heat and gases. Tesla chose Reno for the Gigafactory specifically because of California's permitting environment.
EPA tried to heavily restrict these outright in 2024 [1] and California has air/environmental rules that made it nearly impossible to develop large battery factories in California, which is why Tesla chose Reno in 2014. An alternative didn't exist at the time and now a decade later Tesla recently filed a patent this year for Dry electrode processing [2]
So basically California lost a decade of possible lithium factories
Given the labor challenges in California due to high housing costs, which selectively pushes out those willing to work for lower wages, I am always surprised when manufacturers choose the state at all. Throwing additional challenges doesn't make it any easier.
It's like the death sentence in CA. The minority who wanted to abolish it couldn't get enough votes, so the actual process was systemically altered until it became too cost-prohibitive.
*This is not a post in support of death penalty, just how CA politicians have figured out ways to legally get what they want even if it directly contradicts the will of the people.
if you own a factory and the legislators make your factory illegal, that's a ban. "well you can just upgrade" is no consolation. one day your factory is allowed, the next day it's not.
I was advocating specifically against mincing words so that appropriate remedies can be pursued. "Unbanning" coal isn't going to make coal appear again!
If there's a specific regulation on one aspect of a factory, as you describe, then "unbanning" the factory isn't going to help either, one must specifically unban that which was banned.
Mincing words would be saying "Factories doing X are banned" when in fact an existing Factory doing X with negative externality Y had negative externality Y priced or regulated.
That's exactly what we shouldn't be mincing, if we want to address the problems and make better decisions.
Great, me too! Trying to play semantics rather than clearly stating reality, or trying to make a picture fuzzy so that inaccurate generalizations take priority over reality, is not a a good way to run a democracy.
It's a republic and a democracy, but every person I've heard say "it's a republic" erroneously believes that the US is not a democracy, and that republics can't be a democracy, because somebody told them that once and they liked the sound of it without ever checking it.
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 forbidden to swim in it, and if you did, you had weird oily chemicals on your skin that felt unhealthy (burn, itching etc).
Back then we had huge production industries upstream, employing thousands of people.
Today you can swim in the river without any problem at all. But the industry and the jobs have shrunken a lot, because not polluting the air and water simply is expensive.
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 non-competitive.
This is why you outsource to other countries and let them do it, because you simply do not care about them living in a polluted environment. Poison Outsourcing.
So, if the US wants production industry again, and want it to be competitive, than have a look on how the environment in the countries you will be competing with looks like, and then to an informed decision if you really want that.
I'd pick the clean air and water, and have people poisoned far away that I don't know and can ignore.
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 about the people and environment? Put high tariffs on dangerous process products, reduce regulation (permits, etc), increase standardization and final safety measurements. Then the products we use, we make, safely.
But people don't actually care about the environment. They care about looking like they care about the environment, and sending industrial processes somewhere else. There is a difference.
> The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer
We cannot. We are richer because we don't do it. We export it to areas so poor they view the environmental impact as a fair trade-off for being able to eat.
We can afford to do it right. It will cost more and we'll have to make more prudent, effective, efficient, etc... decisions about producing and allocating goods and services and would need to give up many of the net negative/zero economic activities we like.
We've also likely enriched ourselves by externalizing the negative externalities of some of our goods and services to other countries. That's our choice, and I don't think it's a great one.
Glad you said areas rather than countries. It is quite common to degrade the environment within rich countries as long as it isn't near where powerful people live.
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.
Central/Eastern European here. Our labor costs are comparable or even lower than China today. And the manufacturing is still struggling. So it's not only that.
That, and you have to ensure your energy costs (power) are low and you have a secure source of raw materials. I'm not an expert, but from what I've heard, the economic region over there has been doing a poor job on both those fronts. Furthermore, you have to talk about regulation vs safety. The EU has regulation. Maybe too much.
There are also network effects. Your plant that is energy intensive is closing? Now other manufactures must increase their cost as transportation is increased and local contracts harder to get. Your chemical plant, which has operated within good bounds for a decade can't get a permit to expand, or is protested? Your intake products now either go up in price or become unable to attain them at all.
There's also that large scale effort ongoing to make those energy costs higher and take those raw materials away.
And even still - there's a lot of manufacturing in Easter Europe. Go to IKEA or an appliance or auto store. You might be surprised to find where things are made these days. Often they'll say "made in EU" instead of the actual country name though.
In Central/Eastern Europe, the problem is increasingly one of demographics. You can sometimes find somewhat cheap labour due to shitty (geo)politics, stagnant economies and poorly trained workers, but big-picture-like, the age of labour abundance is over. These economies have nowhere to go but down, down, down, starved of talent due to the twin cancers of bad demographics and emigration. Some countries are better, some worse, but the overall trend is the same all over the region. Going gentle into that good night.
(China's predicament is not much better, with the added wrinkle that there's absolutely nothing whatsoever they can do about bad demographics due to their size, whereas Central/Eastern Europe can import people once we collectively get over ourselves and let go of uppity xenophobia).
The number of kids born in 2025 in Uzbekistan (population 38 million) is about the same as the number of kids born in 2025 in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland, *combined* (total population 131 million). The age of labour abundance IS OVER, we're witnessing its very last days in EE. Unemployment may remain due to terrible politics and economic mismanagement.
There's not going to be any point even having sweatshops or factories in this region soon. Why bother? If it's anything low or medium-skill and low or medium-capital intense, just open up shop in... Well, why not Uzbekistan? And if double-landlocked isn't your thing, there's dozens of other options.
This is false, patently incorrect. With a good manufacturing line workers are not priced out by "cheap labor" they are priced out by almost zero cost labor, Robots are basically a rounding error compared to human's wages.
Robots bring very different tradeoffs on the table. But they are not built and maintained autonomously by the all mighty benevolent skynet, all working 100% on renewable energies abundant at geological scale.
Plus scaling industrial production is one thing, but if proletarians are unable to afford them because wealth distribution is exponentially concentrated, what is the point?
>But they are not built and maintained autonomously by the all mighty benevolent skynet, all working 100% on renewable energies abundant at geological scale.
No but they are significantly cheaper than an employee, A robot can pick up something and move it from A to B for upwards of 10 years. The programming and setup are a fraction of the time a robot can operate reliably
I cannot stress to you how reliable and little maintenance is required for a $60,000 fanuc robot.
The difference between the USA and, for example, China, in manufacturing is the difficulty of getting a new factory built.
If you have a product designed and ready for production, it will take you years to build a factory in the USA. All the while you'll be losing money managing the build, paying your employees and, most importantly, letting your competitors get a head start.
Likewise, if you build that factory in China, it'll be up and running in less than a year and you can start making your R&D money back, get to market before your competitors and not bleed money keeping your companies doors open.
The labor costs are easily offset by removing the logistics of moving the product.
Tesla Gigafactories are a pretty good example of this. The first two took ~3 years to build in Nevada and New York. The third, in Shanghai, took 10 months.
Gigafactory Nevada notably became the second-largest building in the world (by volume) and was a joint partnership with Panasonic, locating two major manufacturing facilities within the same structure. Seems like a big project with additional joint partner complexities. Making the second largest building in the world as your first try is going to maybe run into some things.
Gigafactory Berlin is a different beast and produces a different product mix.
Gigafactory New York produces photovoltaic cells and Tesla Supercharger assemblies but does not produce batteries or vehicles yet another product mix.
Giga Shanghai just does final vehicle assembly (basically the easiest kind of factory and most minimally regulated) and is a million square feet smaller than the other factories and with no joint partnership/co buildout.
I live in Texas, which is still part of the USA, and we manufacture a great deal.
I have a friend who works as an environmental engineer at a chem plant. They work hard to keep things safe and clean, and rigorously monitor their output.
I'm sure we could do even more if we weren't competing in meany areas against legal jurisdictions which DON'T care about such things. We aren't "priced out". We are regulated out and out competed by jurisdiction which have many fewer labor laws and much more lax environmental monitoring. If we are out-competed on product, then we deserve to loose, which is where libertarians and free-trade have a point. But if we are out-competed on keeping people and the environment reasonably safe? That's when we enact trade barriers.
That is how you actually keep the environment and people safe.
I am not saying that you should tear down anything that works for you.
Trade barriers however are bullshit and don't work. And they are a lie. You are not building IPhones in the US because building an IPhone in the US would cost three times as much as it would doing in Shenzhen. And people would not be willing to pay that. And that's why they get an exception from the trade barriers. And that list of exceptions basically goes on and on and on...
Anyway, what works, works. This is especially true if that industry had been in the area for long, and therefore has access to a lot of skilled and experienced workers.
But it does not make sense to cry and complain that building such a thing from scratch is "banned". No, it is not banned. It's just a stupid idea, and there are laws against stupid ideas using limited natural resources.
So why does it even matter if California bans manufacturing dangerous things? Who cares? Just manufacture it in some other state. As a bonus, you don't have to pay those high California taxes.
> We do manufacture things. Just not in California.
Texas beats California in total value of manufacturing shipments only because because of its petroleum and coal products manufacturing. And California beats Texas in manufacturing employment.
None of which answers the question of why we can't manufacture things in other states? Things that California clearly doesn't want to manufacture.
Again, what is the reason New Mexico, or Utah, or Nebraska, or Tennessee cannot manufacture these things? And why is it a problem if they do so instead of California?
Big companies already handle manufacturing in other states. Often in states that have the worst education systems and quality of living. It is frequently done to reduce the cost of labor.
Manufacturing jobs are also some of the most unstable because big companies will shop around for tax breaks. Once they find a political sucker ... they build a new plant and close the old one which wrecks havoc on the local economy. PR teams are designed to mitigate negative feedback when this happens.
Smart politicians know this and will not concede to tax breaks for big companies, like Amazon.
Doesn't that just make California's case for them though?
I mean if these jobs are so bad, isn't it good that California is trying to not have them in its own municipalities? The way you laid it out, shouldn't everyone be trying not to have those jobs?
Quality of a job matters. So does proper regulation so the job is not harmful to the worker or community or environment. Those others state politicians that welcome those jobs without proper regulation are willing to ignore the health and well-being of their neighbors.
Manufacturing jobs are not bad. The environment and de-regulation makes them bad.
To me a job must have a living wage tied to it and it must be in an environment that doesn't poison the employee, community, and nature.
Others have low standards like calling USA McDonald's a job when they don't even pay enough to live off of. EU McDonald's is forced to pay a living wage because of proper regulations.
> We do manufacture things. Just not in California.
California has the highest manufacturing employment and most manufacturing companies of any state, the second highest (behind only Texas) dollar value of manufacturing output.
It is just below the national average in manufacturing as a share of GDP, but its also the fifth highest state in GDP/capita; leaving it still above average in manufacturing GDP/capita.
I don't think we're priced out, there's still a lot of competitive manufacturing in the US. I think it stems from a regulatory side, primarily in unions and logistics, which is unfortunate because these provide very little or no benefit to citizens but make it sometimes impossible to invest heavily in manufacturing here. People can't create dense factories cities like Detroit if a union may come in and destroy it, and we can't move fast enough if it's going to take years to get regulatory approval to develop a large factory (the Micron factory in Syracuse comes to mind, although there are many like it).
The USA is priced out of manufacturing due to greedy capitalists and business owners. Acting like labor is an insurmountable expense is just hilariously out of touch.
Maybe those that own the wealth should pony up more in taxes or give away their factories to the workers so they can run it themselves (something tells me they'll do a better job than greedy owners that just care about money rather than building a community).
For most industries: No, you aren't. The limiting factor mostly is natural resources. Which is what the articles author is complaining about. "I am not allowed to use up the last drops of drinking water California still has! SOCIALISM!".
And the other limiting factor is knowledge/education. Your region has been known for 100 years to be highly skilled at building $THING? That knowledge is still there and has not fully retired? That's also a resource.
"High labor cost" is a smoke screen. We are not talking about acquiring from a pool of lazy dancing monkeys. The labor you need are for tasks that machines can not yet do. Those jobs are either really shitty, or need a lot of qualification.
Due to this: If you want to build a factory in an area where there aren't already similar factories, you first need to build a University and come back 25 years later.
The articles author should next try to build a business based on offering camel riding in Greenland. Camel riding? Banned in Greenland!!!1
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.
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.
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.
This website is about what is banned in California, ostensibly for environmental reasons. So pigouvian taxes would enable them to unban those practices while mitigating their harms.
If you’re worried about people evading the tax, you can make a border adjustment for imports across national borders. Note California is simply forcing things to be done elsewhere.
"So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared about the people and environment?"
- I don't need a car, I'll use public transport.
- I will only buy and eat the amount of calories I actually burn.
- This 10 year old phone actually works pretty well. I don't need a new one.
etc
You need new factories because you want more stuff. If you stop wanting more stuff, you don't need more factories, and therefore nobody needs to cry about his industry being "banned".
I have visited the US a hell lot of times. I swear, I never ever in all these visits in any part of the US had the following thought in my head: "Boy, these people really need more car factories!".
> But people don't actually care about the environment. They care about looking like they care about the environment, and sending industrial processes somewhere else. There is a difference.
The idea that people setting pollution rules secretly don't care is silly.
> 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 non-competitive.
>>> This is why you outsource to other countries and let them do it, because you simply do not care about them living in a polluted environment. Poison Outsourcing.
This is 100% about globalization: if some countries let their rivers catch on fire, the externality lets them out-compete anyone who tries to do the process cleanly. So if you let their externality-fueled products into your country, you just can't build similar things, because they wouldn't be price-competitive.
If labor and environmental standards were strong and global, or countries with high standards refused to trade with countries with low standards, we wouldn't have this situation. There would be an economic motivation to develop and implement cleaner processes.
Of course it would be great if a level field would be created by making sure other competing regions follow the same environmental standards.
But what will be the result? The product now has equal cost to be produced, but the market is gone.
People consume cheap stuff because it is cheap. If it is no longer cheap, they will not consume.
US americans just need to make up their minds. Do they want keep getting more and more and more cheap stuff? Fine. Then go on exploiting other regions of the planet. Or do you have enough cheap stuff now? Ok, then nobody needs another factory.
Many on HN are living in a society where it is normal to use a TELEPHONE for only two years before throwing it away.
What would happen if you instead used it for 5 years? No more factories needed. Problem solved. You don't have to compete, as there is no competition.
The result of charging the true cost of T-Shirt to the consumer is not that everybody now has 100 Fair-Traded-Ecofriendly T-Shirts at home that they don't wear. They will notice that 10 T-Shirts are more than enough if you wash your clothes once per week.
What I am trying to say is: The demand is only there due to the option of exploitation. Take away the part of ruining other peoples lives to get cheap stuff, then it's no longer interesting and will just stop.
So of course you can take the detour, try to re-industrialize, and then find out that your people do not actually like this kind of work, and that they for sure also aren't willing to buy your stuff at the price you are asking.
There is a reason nobody would be so stupid to produce "Make America Great Again" merch in America. Your target audience would not buy it if it was made in America.
It is pragmatic to simply skip this step and end up with the same result: You'll just consume less.
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.
In my experience, it’s the conflict of the ‘in theory’ vs
‘In practice’.
Practically, ‘in theory’ might actually be doable - if there was a single, overarching regulatory environment. That was enforced.
Chances are, that would defacto make a bunch of people starve in poorer countries, and blow a lot of stuff up, so would also likely be worse than ‘the disease’. At least right now.
Corporations don't have a backyard, based on their historical behavior. The resource extraction and manufacturing sectors simply move on after they screw up or deplete one area.
> I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing
America barely cares about the domestic poor[1] - do you think its captains of industry will care about the poor abroad? Charity begins at home.
1. See locations of Superfund sites. Or for a modern example, where they are choosing to build AI datacenters powered by on-site diesel generators or gas turbines.
A note about Superfund sites: It used to be funded by a small tax on chemical production companies. 70% of cleanup was paid for by the companies who caused it.
Then in 1995, congress "chose not to renew" that provision.
Now you and I literally and directly pay for the cleanup of hazardous waste. Companies don't really. Yet somehow they "Can't make factories" here
FWIW, California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe. CA can't tell other states to ban various manufacturing techniques.
> California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe.
I'm not sure about that, maybe it is based on the definition of "safe". There are tortilla chips made in Chicago that explicitly say they cannot be sold in California on the packaging. This is due to chemicals banned in Prop 65.
Right, because the "bad" chemical will be in CA, harming CA residents.
CA can't say "the factory that made these chips emitted chemical X into the air during manufacturing, but none of it is in the final product", so you can't import it.
The Federal Government can, but not an individual state.
> You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean.
Yes exactly. And most of the complaints in this post is not stuff that's outright banned but stuff that's "hard to do".
These companies are complaining about how much more it costs to do this AND keep the environment clean. In an ideal world we would just have environmental protections all over the world so these companies don't simply find some small town with a local gov't they can buy off and do whatever they want
> But people don't actually care about the environment. They care about looking like they care about the environment, and sending industrial processes somewhere else. There is a difference.
This is about as true as saying "But people don't care about child sexual abuse". Sure, those partying with Epstein don't.
Plenty of people do care and indeed are today making sacrifices that align with this. Including lowering living standards. If you don't then that's on you, but speak for yourself.
Also Environmental regulations are like vaccines. They're victims of their own success. In the late 1960s early 1970s, before the EPA, the air and water in the US was a disaster. The EPA documented it:
> The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process.
If you don't have regulation, for profit industry won't do it right “through process”, because that would be throwig away money. Regulation is how you do it right through process.
> So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared about the people and environment? Put high tariffs on dangerous process products, reduce regulation (permits, etc), increase standardization and final safety measurements. Then the products we use, we make, safely.
Standardization and final safety measurements are literally regulations (and permitting is just a means of enforcing standardization.) So, basically, you “cut regulations” plan is actually to pair regulations doing exactly what the regulations you claim to cut do, call them a different thing, and add tariffs on top.
Which, is a long winded way of just saying “add tariffs”, which of course, a US state can’t do.
> I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forbidden to swim in it, and if you did, you had weird oily chemicals on your skin that felt unhealthy (burn, itching etc).
That's almost exactly how my dad and many of his siblings got permanently disabling muscular dystonia. The old times were fucking bad and we don't want them back.
> So, if the US wants production industry again
It should be noted that the VALUE of US industrial output is many times higher than it was 20 years ago, even if the VOLUME is lower.
The good old coal? Have a look at the life expectancy of a coal worker, and maybe a ct scan of a coal workers lung.
Good old nuclear? Will you accept the nuclear waste getting store in your neighborhood? No? What about your neighbors neighbor? No? Keep asking until you get a yes. See you again after having asked 341.8 Million people.
There are reasons we moved on from this and de-industrialized. Because the industries we got rid of simply weren't actually that great. Go visit a Foxconn factory in Shenzhen/China. I have done it a couple of times. The part of electronics production that is not done by machines is painful and exhausting work. Your back will hurt. Your eyes will hurt.
I really wonder what people are thinking how these jobs look like. Nobody would want them. The only ones in the US who would accept those jobs would be immigrants who have seen far worse and therefore view these jobs as an upgrade. But the US doesn't want those immigrants. So why try to build industries creating jobs only the kind of people would accept that you do not want in the country?
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.
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 a bad law), making a more integrated health care system in the US territories (Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, etc.), climate law which will improve health care nebulously, and a vague statement about the supreme court hurting healthcare decisions (which is just a statement about them supporting the murder of babies).
When you get unlimited health care, health care costs skyrocket and you end up with a broken system that no party wants to fix - and everyone ends up with NO health care. If we went back to paying cash to the doctor, people with jobs will be able to afford it. And for insane life threatening events, job insurance and other forms of umbrellas.
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.
It’s an inconvenient truth that the better off don’t want to face up to. Your environmental impact is going to be correlated to your consumption. More spending == more damage.
Something to bear in mind when you are being told environmental damage is being caused by the poor or some foreign country.
There are some scenarios where it’s a coordination problem. People could drive light fuel efficient vehicles if so many other people weren’t driving large, heavy, dangerous ones, for example.
Those large heavy vehicles are incentivized by loopholes in regulations because politicians were afraid of affecting "domestic jobs" as US automakers weren't even trying to compete with JP fuel-efficient imports.
Yeah, apparently it was originally to try to stop the rules from killing Jeep, which was having a hard time. New ones that allow more emissions for bigger vehicle footprints are also a big issue since it encourages larger vehicles.
You could work less hard and buy less things, spending the time and energy you save by working less hard on more enjoyable things than buying more stuff.
And that choice is basically the exact opposite of what western civilization is heading for, and thanks to the AI boom, it has never been worse at any time in human history, I guess. Which means you are likely surrounded by people who want the opposite of what you want. That will be problematic.
However, this really only would be the proper answer if given by a majority as a community. In a crowd of people who want more, more, more more MORE, you will just drown and die.
But in principle you are right:
No, you do not really need to re-industrialize your country. Instead think about how endless growth in a reality of finite resources is going to play out. California is just fine as it is. Let's think about where Californians will get drinking water from in the near future, instead of thinking about building water-consuming factories.
As someone born in a socialist country that doesn't exist anymore (i'm still here), a very common progress of time over here was:
- a factory is built relatively far away from populated areas
- workers were moving closer to the factory, building houses (when factory workers could still afford them and were allowed to build them) closer and closer to the factory
- workers retire, die, their now adult children live in, or inherit, the houses
- adult children complain about factory being too close to the city, complain about trucks, noise, pollution, dust, demand this and that
In some cases, there is the next step too:
- factory eventually closes down, people complain about having to drive to work far away, usually to the capital city where factories and many other businesses still operate. Centralization bad! Same people protest when someone else wants to start a new factory, industrial zone, anything in their city.
Right now, there are Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAMs) going into place that put a price on the externality of carbon pollution in other countries with lower standards than your own. It's basically a carbon tax, the EU's just went into force. All the recordkeeping is probably not going to be cheap, but it seems like in theory, you could do something similar with other industrial emissions, and try to bring others onto the same level playing field, so that there's not that same pressure to cut corners.
There a lot of processes like those done in other states and in europe. PCB etching, cnc milling, allumunium anodizing are some of the ones that I order on a regular basis from european manufacturers.
One thing is to regulate the industrial sector to be cleaner if waaaay more expensive and another is to just forbid stuff that can be reasonably be done cleanly (but again, waaaay more expensive than in asia, for example)
Well than it’s good that none of this is literally forbidden despite the dramatics.
Then author just wanted to be over dramatic about how it’s not cost competitive to build in the Bay Area vs places like Reno where the land is cheaper and labor is less. Their scape goat or whipping boy is regulations but that’s highly myopic at best.
All true. But these are done in areas where the required resources are available.
A hell lot of industries, including most the original author is mentioning, simply would not work in California. California is running out of drinking water for humans. You can de-regulate all that you want, even cancel all environmental laws, but that will not change the reality: You don't have water. Want to build a water-consuming factory? Great, but please go to somewhere where water is available.
Yes, bureaucracy can be annoying, and of course California has a hell lot of "let's not fix the actual problem, but make it mandatory to put up a sign about it" regulations that for someone from the outside (like me) look silly. If the state of California knows this substance REALLY is harmful, why... is it here?! Either it's not really harmful, but if it is... what? A sign is the solution?! ;)
So I understand people complaining about environmental regulations in California. We had the same in Europe for decades. Everybody was complaining and making fun about all the EU regulations. Then the UK left via Brexit. And learned a lesson. And today nobody is joking about EU regulations anymore.
Anyway: One may call it "banned", or "expensive" or whatever. But it really is "does it really make sense to put this here?".
This is the conclusion anyone who look at things rationally must come to. The problem is, there's an endless influx of people, drunk on space-age optimism from their K-12 education system, that think "I reject that reality, there MUST be a way to have it all". They haven't learned that the universe hates us and wants us to suffer, not the opposite.
Gen Z spends less than 30 minutes outside a day, that's with 1/5 having no job/school at all. The choice is obvious, they aren't swimming either way.
Green manufacturing tech is much closer in viability, now is the best time to re-industrialize. 1/5 of people having no work is a crisis, how can they support their family?
>than have a look on how the environment in the countries you will be competing with looks like,
You are absolutely relying on some very outdated tropes, especially because I know China is in your mind. China remains a production powerhouse and has radically overhaul the country environmentally in the last 15 years. It's pulling away fast and hard in green energy. It's a country that had to go from mass poverty to modern era in 50 years compared to the hundreds of years. They aren't perfect yet, not California level of drinking water from sewers, but I fully believe they'll get there and still be a production power house by not having delusions and anti-engineering drive decisions.
No, China wasn't "on my mind". Last been there two weeks ago. I am well aware that China in most areas is lightyears ahead of the Western world. I like highspeed trains ;)
I really meant what I wrote: Compare the environment. Pretty much everybody in Shenzhen hates Shenzhen. People live in tiny apartments. And not because they are poor: Even if you have money, you live in such a tiny box. Because everybody understands that Shenzhen is a Machine, and you are a part of that machine. Your goal is to one day be able to have made enough money to be able to exit that system, and unlike the USA, that actually really works.
Want to build electronics manufacturing and be able to compete with Shenzhen? Start by first building 50,000 box apartments of 200 square feet in size. Next step: Find 50,000 US Americans who want to work in that machine.
So yes, when it comes to electronics, it's not so much about getting poisoned by a poisoned nature, but by suffering in another way.
For clothes it's a different matter, for example. There you still have the oldschool stuff - want the US to be able to compete? Let's give the kids some cancer!
Let me try to re-phrase: Go to the place where stuff is successfully made that you want to in-source into the USA. Then make an informed decision if you really want the baggage that comes with it at home.
I am massively benefitting from something like Shenzhen existing on this planet. It is so effective and productive because it was designed for that from the ground up. Would I want anything like Shenzhen anywhere near me? Hell no!
Most US Americans asking for re-industrialization have neither worked in those industries nor even have a clue what it feels like working in those industries. The people who are asking for these industrial jobs to be re-created are those who do not have any intention to take one of those jobs.
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.
Actually it did pan out. You just weren't paying attention.
Chinese cities had terrible air quality 20 years ago. Now they don't.
The Chinese and Indian governments have climate change plans that they're actively working on, sometimes ahead of schedule. The current US government has banned the words "climate change" in official documents.
They are not quite there yet. China now has a huge middle class, but they also still have a massive underclass. It’s too early to claim these projections were wrong. I think they are misguided, but there is no denying that China now pays more attention to pollution than it did a decade or two ago. There are massive investments to clean the air in large cities. Same in India: the situation is dire but the political cost of supporting the status quo keeps increasing.
It's not magical thinking; it just doesn't happen overnight. The real question is as we get relatively less wealthy in the West, will we start moving the other direction?
All these things can be done with healthy air and clean water, but the cost goes up, and people don't want to pay that cost. So we send them elsewhere instead.
The same is true re: data center water use. Evaporative cooling is cheaper. You can build a DC that uses little or no water but it costs more.
Yea, this romantizing of a past is doing no good to us. For example, It's weird how people romantize back breaking work on farm as "simple life". But I guess this was here with us every time. Grass is greener somewhere else and was greener in good old times.
hah yeah same goes for blue collar trades type jobs, it's weirdly romanticized here. My mom's side of my extended family were all blue collar types in West Texas, ranch hands, truckers, welders, that sort of thing. All of the men were basically crippled by 55 from using their bodies to make money and died in their 60s of various diseases. My father's side is all white collar and they're all still around, my dad is a minor pickleball celebrity in FL at age 80.
>But the industry and the jobs have shrunken a lot
And those people left jobless still have the right to vote. So you'll have to bribe them with welfare or invest in their upskilling, otherwise they'll turn to crime to survive and vote the most extremist parties to power that will undo all your environmentalism.
It also leaves you economically and militarily vulnerable to the countries you outsourced all your manufacturing too, as you can't fight back an invading army of mass produced consumer drones with just your remaining HR and software departments.
>I'd pick the clean air and water, and have people poisoned far away that I don't know and can ignore.
Until they mass migrate as refugees out of their polluted hlleholes you helped create, and move into your clean country straining your resources, making it your problem once again. Or, they tool up and economically or militarily crush you, turning your country into one of their colonies.
You(the West in thsi case) reap what you sow. There's no free lunch where you can have your cake and eat it too. In a highly globalized, highly mobile world, things tend to come back at you pretty quickly and the only ones safe from this are the ones who profited the most form this, the billionaires with private islands and doomsday bunkers.
Just to clarify: When it comes to myself, my post has been a provocative hypothetical scenario in which I would need to make that choice.
In the real world, decided to move to a part of the planet where this question doesn't even come up, due to society having different priorities and a different base definition of "quality of life".
>Just to clarify: When it comes to myself, my post has been a provocative hypothetical scenario in which I would need to make that choice.
I know, that's why I wasn't judging it as being your own perspective but the general business perspective of the west that lead to the current situation.
> due to society having different priorities and a different base definition of "quality of life".
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.
I'm not judging here. From my experiences in California I would say that the general mindset and cultural approach to life is comparable to that of south-western Europe.
In part that's simply because while looking different, the general environment is fostering respecting nature, giving room for arts and creative and having an open mind.
(This example of course is coming from a past world where you could safely travel to/from the US, say, 10 years ago:)
Travelling from say Portugal to Miami ) would give you a massive culture shock. Portugal to San Diego? Not so much.
Yeah as a New Yorker and someone that's lived in the Boston to Washington megalopolis basically my whole life, a lot of Europe feels very familiar. I felt right at home in Lisbon.
> 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.
In a modern money/fiat money regime, the federal government can afford anything in nominal terms. As such, the solution would be to subsidize the industries that make the most sense for standard of living and national security so they can participate in the market. Use government subsidies to offset the costs of environmental remediation .
> 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 non-competitive.
I mean, the true reason here seems to be that producing stuff without polluting is impossible if you have to compete with stuff produced with lesser pollution standards.
In theory, this could be an argument for heavy import tariffs from countries with lesser pollution standards. The downside, of course, is that at the end of the day this would still mean "stuff is more expensive, maybe a lot more", which is obviously unpopular as it means fewer people can get the stuff. (And of course, a US state's ability to restrict trade with other US states is extremely limited)
Who can forget when China closed some factories in 2008 and 2022 so the smog would clear out before the Olympic games could begin? Could we potentially have "clean" factories built in America, maybe. But then could we afford the products they produced, hell no! If it was affordably possible, it would have already happened.
The working class citizens of China have paid the price for all the industrial factories. Don't believe it, look up the cancer studies China has published. (Oh right, communist countries always tell the truth, right?)
If it is not profitable, then it must be subsidized. Trump could have supercharged the EPA and expanded the grants for clean manufacturing, but he destroyed it instead. Now we get the worst of both worlds and our higher taxes go to his own pocket.
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.
In the US, you could work 400 hours per day, and still nothing would change in regards of wealth concentration.
Inheriting money from your parents is taxed lower than earning your own money through work. Making more money due to already having money is taxed lower than earning your own money.
US Americans by a large majority over decades got trained to believe changing that would have something to do with "socialism", which was made a bad word.
But this isn't about re-distribution, making people equal or anything.
It's just that it is not logical, does not make sense, and in the end will destroy your society if already having money, which provides no benefit to society whatsoever, is rewarded over producing something, which does provide a benefit.
Why does a teacher who provides REAL benefit to society in the US has less yearly net income than someone who does not work at all but has once inherited 200k from his parents?
You have been trained to find all of this normal, and to believe it's your fault. Just work harder! No, it's not your fault. Working harder won't change anything.
So imagine you have one of the richest countries on this planet. But you don't really have enough work for every human to work full-time. Why is this a problem instead of an ideal? What strange goal is "everyone should work hard" when it comes to enjoying life? If you have an insanely rich country, there are far better solutions than trying to artificially create jobs that make no sense.
You can not compare this to a POOR country with high unemployment. There unemployment is a problem. In the US? Who cares if there is no factory to work in? Instead go help your neighbor. Study something. Become an artist. Do a public gardening project.
Again, the problem is that "having money already" that is of no use to society whatsoever is valued and awarded higher than any of those useful things above.
So, Step 1 for the US would be: You don't have to take away anything from anyone. But stop rewarding people for already having money.
As the CEO and owner of a German limited company I can choose between paying me a salary, getting taxed 45% ) for that, or paying myself a dividend, getting taxed 25% ). The first time I learned that 20 years ago I found it totally crazy and could not believe it. I still find it crazy today. Even in my own f'ing company my OWN work is valued less by society than me owning my company!
I'd choose to be the powerful and rich industrial country every single time. If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it. Clean water to swim in? Build a pool.
Frankly, any deindustrialized country is quite simply irrelevant. You need industry to have a middle class. You need middle class for capitalist consumption. There's a reason why american corporations kowtow to China now. The USA thought it could deindustrialize and act as the world's boss. China is proving them wrong via relentless industrialization. I only wish my own country had the balls to do the same.
> If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it.
I used to think this way, but I've come to realize that it's very short-sighted. It's not sustainable, and we're already seeing how unchecked industrialization over the last couple centuries is leading to unintended/undesirable effects on our health, and indeed the suitability of the environment we need to live in. Sure, those problems can be pushed onto future generations, and so far (maybe) we've been able to solve them. But if we care at all about humanity's ability to thrive, we need to be more careful.
In developed countries, nobody has to struggle anymore just to stay alive, which is a far cry from the way it was 200 years ago. Advancements now are along the lines of increasing entertainment, or quality of life. But enjoying a good life doesn't have to be a zero-sum proposition, and I think society should put a higher cost on the ability of wealthy people to use up irreplaceable natural resources for their own benefit.
You know what's not sustainable? Exponential growth fueled by credit.
Banks loaning money at nearly zero percent interest. Money that gets loaned out, spent, deposited back into the bank and loaned out again, and again, exponentially, until a ludicrously huge financial callstack is created.
This financial callstack wants to unwind. It can only do so safely by the payment of debts. At some point, someone will actually have to go out there and extract value out of this planet in order to pay back those debts. Since debt grows exponentially, so does the harvesting of the resources of this planet.
If you want to solve the problem, you need to go to the source. You need to get rid of credit. Without this, environmentalism is nothing but national suicide. You're opting out of exponential growth and promptly outcompeted by the countries that didn't opt out.
> In developed countries, nobody has to struggle anymore just to stay alive, which is a far cry from the way it was 200 years ago.
Yeah... Because they industrialized and got filthy rich. Now they can afford to give so called "rights" to their citizens.
Rights cost money. They don't appear out of thin air. Somebody's gotta work to provide them. Even the right to not get killed in broad daylight only exists because extremely violent men with guns are protecting the rest. Those men gotta be paid.
Money is not infinite. It runs out. The music can't stop. Gotta keep making money in order to keep providing all those nifty rights. The simple reality is if you don't have real industries you're probably not making that much money. My country is essentially the world's soy farm, nvidia stock alone probably moves more money in a day than my entire country put together.
Look at the national debts of countries the world over. That's money they don't have. Money future generations will be paying interest on for a long time. You want to get reelected but you're broke, so you borrow money you don't have and spend it all giving "benefits" to a population that is dumb enough to think it comes for free. Then there's so much money circulating the value of the currency is inflated away, and people's children grow up and get radicalized when they realize most of their taxes are spent on interest payments on loans made by the previous generation.
> If you want to solve the problem, you need to go to the source.
Which is precisely why it's so short-sighted to try to solve your problem by "wiping out the entire Amazon jungle and replacing it with a world class high technology industry." If you're going to have a magic button to solve problems, then why not use it wisely, instead of propagating the spiral towards destruction?
> The simple reality is....
True -- there are no magic buttons. The reality is that people with wealth and power use them to take finite global resources and leverage them to ensure they they stay wealthy and powerful. That is implicitly not sustainable, as well as being questionably moral. It's not possible to avoid being part of the system, but you don't have to actively make it worse. You can advocate for fairer alternatives, or at least not wish for the destruction of entire major global ecosystems.
> At some point, someone will actually have to go out there and extract value out of this planet in order to pay back those debts.
Not a single atom on the planet has to be moved to extinguish all debts. Money and debt are (very useful and powerful!) bookkeeping constructs only.
> Look at the national debts of countries the world over. That's money they don't have.
Then who has it? Modern money is based on debt, and where there's a debt, there must be a creditor.
> Banks loaning money at nearly zero percent interest. Money that gets loaned out, spent, deposited back into the bank and loaned out again [...] Money is not infinite.
You seem to be basing your argument on some seriously outdated and thoroughly refuted models of money.
> Not a single atom on the planet has to be moved to extinguish all debts.
You should elaborate more on this bold claim.
> Then who has it?
Plenty of people. Treasury bonds holders. Pension funds. Insurance companies. Other countries. The government owes all of those people and regularly pays them interest.
> You seem to be basing your argument on some seriously outdated and thoroughly refuted models of money.
Fractional reserve banking is outdated and refuted?
> If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it.
Wow. Why, because the Amazon is just a bunch of trees or something boring? If "high technology industry" is so much more valuable without even thinking twice about it, you probably don't understand very much of the world.
I understand. I just don't care. I'd rather my country got rich and powerful instead. Would be nice to industrialize and keep the Amazon but I'd totally sacrifice it if needed. It's home to huge rare earths reserves.
Where do you find clean water to fill the pool with?
> You need industry to have a middle class.
Your average industrial assembly-line worker is _not_ middle class. They are horrible jobs no-one really wants back, or at least not for themselves.
It is very much possible to keep your air and environment clean, and still reasonably grow and remain relevant - look at France.
> You need middle class for capitalist consumption.
Again, industry workers were not middle class, and if you pay them enough to be middle class, your product's price stops being competitive.
To have middle class for capitalist consumption, you need to stop funneling literally _all the money_ to single-digit amount of people and companies, leaving everyone else poor, regardless of what they do for work.
> Your average industrial assembly-line worker is _not_ middle class. They are horrible jobs no-one really wants back, or at least not for themselves.
That's incorrect. Factory work is a ramp from low to middle class. It's low skill on entry but teaches on the job. Long term employees are valuable because they have expertise on the process and are, therefore, more valuable.
Ask Detroit if they want the Auto Industry's manufacturing back.
> Where do you find clean water to fill the pool with?
The Earth is literally surrounded by water. I'm sure people will find a way. Treat the water if needed.
> if you pay them enough to be middle class, your product's price stops being competitive
Tell that to China's growing middle class, not me. We have western corporations shitting all over western values and culture and kowtowing before China and their censorship because they can't afford to lose the chinese market. That's where money is flowing now. It's one of the reasons why Trump wants to weaken the US dollar.
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.
Municipal water usage in California is only 20% of all water usage. The rest is almost entirely agriculture, and all that agriculture uses a strange system of water rights where you do not have to reduce consumption during a drought, and the last person in line instead absorbs all the drought problems.
This creates an insane political environment where the rich as fuck agribusiness which owns that final water right is incentivized to get that tiny municipal water usage reduced as much as possible to squeeze out a tiny bit more water for their own business, rather than reform the dumb water rights system which would ensure that they only shoulder a tiny tiny portion of drought scarcity but probably force them to pay a little bit for irrigation improvements or stop growing almonds as cheaply.
The only reason the rest of the country even knows about the California water situation is because those bottom rung agribusinesses are still wealthy as all fuck and have actively paid for national political campaigns
Most municipalities get their water out of the same system, it's just they need so much less so they get by. Also, of the 20% that used by urban water systems, 50% is for outdoor irrigation.
The definitive book on the subject is "Cadillac Desert"
The only shortages are for farmers, and a few isolated and very poor towns.
IMO, the (existing) towns should get more state support to have affordable safe domestic water. The shortage is not raw untreated water, but just transporting it and treating it.
The farmers? I sympathize, but they are trying to grow crops in an extremely fertile but arid valley. It's going to be constrained by the natural environment.
But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy. There needs to be a path towards doing things other than foisting them on people who are out of sight.
Texans seem more than happy to host these industries. Let them, they have no public land left to protect anyway. The environment is arguably California’s most valuable asset. May as well preserve it so people continue to want to actually live here.
Texans often try to regulate these industries at the local level. The state government has tried to put a stop to most of that by passing the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act which took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves. The state has ruled that Texans will be exploited by industry in order to protect profits and the citizens aren't allowed to vote to save themselves.
All we have is the weather? California is the largest agricultural producer of any state, and it's not even close. Plants like growing here for the same reason people do.
You act as though California is no longer one of the largest populations or one of the largest economies.
The “snowball fallacy” is a fallacy because there is no reason California s can’t swing the regulatory pendulum back the other direction if there is too much economy / freedom impacted.
When I took a machining course, the instructor sat in the corner and showed us YouTube videos in Mandarin with English subtitles to teach us the equipment.
China probably caught up the same way starting 40 years ago. Watching VHS tapes in English (or German, Japanese, or French) with Mandarin subtitles*. Clearly "never" is untrue because it's been done once already.
IMO this is all cyclical.
* This is metaphorical. Obviously there were also textbooks and research papers and technical manuals and everything else. The point is much of it came from abroad and they learned it all to the point that they're the experts today.
Maps of California are dotted with SuperFund sites where these companies left the taxpayers with the bill to clean up their toxic messes. We don’t “foist” these externalities on other people; they choose to hold lower value on a clean environment than regions which regulate pollutants and other negative externalities.
Most of the complaints from this website aren't about things being outright banned. It's mostly stuff where the regulation is so strict that's it's "nearly impossible". But the regulation seems fair to me wrt what's actually required to keep TCE, asbestos, Freon, chloroform, etc out of our soil and water.
Companies that are complaining are complaining that they can't treat the environment as an economic externality anymore in California. Therefore the price of all of these goods are being subsidized with our health and our ecosystems' health.
I hope more of the world follows California's lead and we eventually have a price of these goods that represents what it actually takes to manufacture them in a fair way
But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy
This is kind of disingenuous.
I mean, not everything used in California, needs to be manufactured in California. Why not manufacture it in New Mexico? Or Arkansas for that matter?
What you're implying, is that Wisconsin, Nebraska, Maine, Florida, etc, etc, etc, should all build out the manufacturing base to manufacture things that are used in those states. That's not really how a healthy economy should work.
I guess what I'm pointing out is that, we don't need to manufacture smartphones in South Dakota. It's perfectly acceptable to manufacture them in, say, New Jersey, and then ship them to South Dakota. Similarly, we don't need to manufacture everything in California.
Sure. Everything's built overseas. We all already know that.
Why can't things be be built here, in a state other than California?
What is the fixation with California? Tennessee or Nebraska would love to build smart phones, or even just the chips for smart phones. What is the reasoning for not building these things in other states?
I agree but I fail to see how bad water infrastructure that allows poop to get into the water supply in Mexico has anything to do with this topic. Nobody is arguing that you should be able to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air. It is possible to do all these industrial processes responsibly. It just costs more to do it. So either you can allow businesses to do these things with reasonable amounts of regulation locally or you can prevent those businesses (what CA does) and import these products made somewhere where they won't follow your regulations. And since pollution notoriously doesn't honor borders, perhaps its best not to use simplistic scarecrow arguments and instead have a nuanced understanding of the topic. But don't let me stop your partisan hackery, I'm sure you enjoy it.
> But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy.
I would like far less of all of these to exist than we currently produce (I use a 5 year old phone, an 11 year old car, and think the US Navy could function just fine with a lot less budget and warships).
I don't, because I care about security updates, and I don't want to have to choose between a highly degraded battery and giving up waterproofing.
> an 11 year old car
Crash safety has improved by leaps and bounds in recent years. I suspect you're more likely to be killed in a car accident that you wouldn't be in a new car, than to be killed by one of the industries that California bans.
> think the US Navy could function just fine with a lot less budget and warships
If a powerful adversary goes to war with us, then we'd want a lot more, and only increasing then would be too late, because we'd lose the war first.
I'm not from California but this to me seems like a great case to move to California. Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere? Its not like they pay more for the iPhone.
As someone who moved out of California a few years ago I assure you that it is exceedingly easy to move to a different state, assuming you have the money to move at all.
Sure. A state where housing is dirt cheap and no taxes is great, but if something happens to you, good luck finding a hospital or municipal services. Job prospects are also something to consider.
Just because houses cost more and there's a state tax, doesn't mean it's _bad_.
This is easily demonstrated to be wrong. California isn't in the top 5 highest. The top 5 being:
1. Louisiana 10.11%
2. Tennessee 9.61%
3. Washington 9.51%
4. Arkansas 9.46%
5. Alabama 9.46%
Crazy how we never hear pithy drops about sales tax in Louisiana. I wonder why that is literally never a talking point in these discussions? Probably a very similarly motivated reason as to why people rant about murder in Chicago but never Memphis.
You're combining state and local sales tax. State sales tax in Louisiana is 4.45%. Some municipalities add nothing on top of that, some add more. I said California's state sales tax is the highest and that's true.
Can’t help but feel like you’re overestimating the competency of the average voter in these effected areas; a breath after yours—though not necessarily your own—may condemn these people for being undereducated, out of touch with culture or subject to corporate grifters.
Well, I find it a bit hypocritical: if those things are so bad, why to forbid manufacturing and not consumption? Otherwise you just pollute a place where people that have no say live.
Some of these items actually net improve clean air and clean water, but you’re instead happy to export those pollutants to another country to feel better yourself
It's always hilarious when a bunch of people in Texas who hate government and government regulations get screwed so hard by the corporations that move in that they start incorporating to form governments so that they can pass government regulation to stop those corporations. See for example Webberville or the efforts to create Mitchell Bend in Hood County. Some people have to learn the hard way. Some never do.
Texas got so sick of Texans trying to protect themselves by creating regulations that they created the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act. It took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves and instead protected the profits of some the state's biggest industry buddies.
If somebody else values their health less - let them have pollution in their own back yard. If enough communities worldwide care about their health, then polluters will have to clean up their processes. But it's not for the residents of California to decide what happens in other jurisdictions.
The reason those countries take the "burden" on is because the USA became a global superpower by developing more industrial capacity than literally every other country in the decades prior to the World Wars.
They want to duplicate this success and displace the West, similar to how the USA displaced Europe during and after World War 2.
Do you not think it’s possible that there are many places where people do care about their health, but they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation?
Do you think the ship breakers in Bangladesh do it for fun?
This outsourcing of misery is the absolute worst feature of Western neoliberalism. You get a two for one, dumping misery on other countries because it’s cheaper, while outsourcing strategic concerns because they are “too dirty.” It’s NIMBYism taken to its logical conclusion.
> they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation
If these people decide that pollution is preferable to starvation, why shouldn't we let them make that decision? Why should we force them into starvation?
The answer is to spread out all forms of production globally, so nations don’t lose their smaller local industries that may be less efficient than foreign alternatives. Foreign trade should fill gaps in local production, not kill local industry.
The mechanisms by which this can be accomplished are antitrust and careful application of trade barriers. The obsession with “free trade” has done damage to countries all across the world in order to benefit a small class connected to multinational industry. The short lived benefits came at a huge cost and countries are only just now seeing this.
Free trade/open borders libertarians have lost influence to nationalists because the former position is antithetical to maintaining a functional society. It’s possible to build “libertarianism in one country,” and the sooner that people wake up to that, the better. The alternative is some form of left or right despotism.
These explanations have no citations, and even the explanations frequently conflict with the category labels. It seems much more like an elaborate propaganda infographic than a useful source of information.
"Hey AI, tell me what manufactured phone components require permitting in California." ... Copy paste copy paste copy paste
I can think of multiple manufacturers that do all engineering and have recently built manufacturing facilities in California and would manufacture there at scale too except other states gave them massive tax incentives. Tesla and Rivian both do initial manufacturing in California. Startups like Freeform, doing metal 3D printing at scale, are in California. This article is wrong.
The main processor requires ultra-clean rooms, toxic gases (arsine, phosphine), and chemical etching. No new fabs have been built in CA in over a decade. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung all build elsewhere."
Phosphine is pretty nasty stuff. California was full of EPA Superfund sites when the government got stuck with cleaning up all the toxic waste. Politicians and voters went, "Eff that!" after manufacturers left the state, but left their barrels of shit behind.
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 requirements for handling toxic materials. And we should be safely handling those materials, it's crazy to suggest we don't because of progress or whatever.
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.
The concept of "grandfathering" rule breakers has always seemed like naked corruption to me. OK, we think this thing is so bad, that we're passing a law to ban it, BUT everyone who was already doing this bad thing can keep doing it forever because... because... because putting an existing company out of business is apparently the worst thing in the world. If our elected officials think something is bad enough to ban outright, then it should go whole hog and actually ban it. Not just prevent upstart competitors to existing legacy industry.
It's not just for politics but fairness. You can't just one day up and decide to make something illegal that others depending on for livelyhood. It's good enough that it limits growth of the banned thing.
Sure you can. It just takes backbone, which is rarely found in the political class.
If I, as a voter, voted for a politician who promised to ban dumping mercury in the local river, I don't expect them to say "Oh, but any company already dumping mercury in the river can keep doing so, because we don't want to hurt people's livelihood." That's not what I voted for.
Ok, but if you are investing capital in some sort of production line or industrialization you are not going to want to do that in an area where you might just lose your entire investment instantly; instead, you're just going to invest it in Texas or China. Of course with more extreme examples like yours you do have to put some cost on the existing companies to get it fixed, but it would be something with a smaller cost like having to dispose of the mercury properly (whereas in this article's examples they just flat out ban these things, which you can't do to existing factories).
For sure there would be a disincentive to "invest" in the area where you might lose the investment. That would be intentional. As a voter, I specifically don't want companies to be making those kinds of "investments" in my region. Go "invest" your dirty industry in China. If California's reputation for harshly regulating these things prevents these kinds of businesses from opening here in the first place, I consider that Working As Intended. We could make that reputation even stronger by not grandfathering things.
Putting an existing company out of business means putting thousands of people out of work. That's the kind of thing that gets your party thrown out of office.
As just a statement of bias…the guys at that site have a pretty clear distaste for Tesla. They are industry experts and that’s where their analysis comes from, but it’s palpable. I would call it evidence versus politically based but noting it. The difference in bias though is ther snark has citations to primary sources not just wild generic claims.
> 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 general. But he flat out lies about making batteries being something grandfathered in. That wasn't a battery manufacturing plant to begin with.
And he further lies to say they had to build elsewhere because cell manufacturing was "effectively impossible" because they expanded the factory for cell manufacturing in 2023. [1]
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.
> 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"?
It is a battery cell manufacturing line and with the intent to facilitate providing research resources to California battery business. Considering the claim was that you couldn't make lithium batteries in CA, having a new manufacturing line shows that's incorrect. It also shows the state sees it as a need. I haven't seen anyone provide any info showing it isn't possible.
Now compared that to this map of superfund sites and the pollutants they've left in our soils and groundwater. Statistically speaking, an average American lives within 10 miles of one of these sites
Also funnily enough, the first place I checked from this site's list of facilities that have been grandfathered in led to this finding
> Lehigh Hanson's Permanente cement plant in Cupertino, CA, is
permanently closing following thousands of environmental violations and over 80 years of operation. The plant was a major source of air pollution and discharged toxic selenium into Permanente Creek.
Not being able to build a destroyer in California seems like a small price to pay for an ecosystem not poisoned
On the website, it claims you cannot manufacture lithium battery cells in California unless you are grandfathered in. A relatively minimal search found statevolt.com. They are building a factory in the Imperial Valley. While I did see the project is on hold. It seems implausible that they bought the site, not having researched whether you could actually build lithium battery cells in California. Considering the banned website claims it's impossible, I can't trust anything on that website without citations.
Let's be honest: People have no problem polluting elsewhere as long as they can consume the final product without suffering the consequences. TFA isn't important to the people of California.
You can thank the fine people who figured it was cheaper/easier/faster to just dump the toxic waste out back (or offshore [0]) for many of these processes being outlawed. If I'm not mistaken, CA has the 2nd most Superfund sites in the US.[1]
It's interesting, but is there some conflation of regional restrictions with the state of California?
Example: cites automotive paint shop restrictions as the quintessential example of what you can't do in CA, and qualifies it with a specific Bay Area regulation.
I'm not in the US, but isn't the Bay Area quite specifically very polluted, very densely populated, and has some weird geographical/meteorological quirk that makes it very hard to get air pollution to blow away?
So, the restrictions on incredibly stinky processes like spray painting cars that emit lots of VOCs and dust are somewhat reasonable?
Or to put it more crudely, isn't it a bit like putting up a big "NO FARTING" sign in a crowded room where the windows don't open, and then simply expecting people to understand that this is a place where they should not fart?
I live in Santa Clara where the first chip fans in the world existed. In places like Santa Clara (home to Intel, AMD, Nvidia), and neighboring Sunnyvale and Mountain View there are maps of chemical leakage of industrial solvents which had contaminated the groundwater.
The very first Google offices sat directly over one of these sites around 2004. It took decades to dissipate. People complained about noxious fumes and this was more than 20 years after the spills had occurred.
There are real tradeoffs to having heavy industry to human health and well being.
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.
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 contractors were employed before the contract and will be employed on another contract at some later point. There's no net gain of jobs in the long run. The contractors won't even necessarily be local. The builder isn't going to call up Bob's AC repair from Collierville to do the specialized datacenter HVAC. They'll fly in a company specialized in that task who will fly home at the end of the contract.
The companies scrambling to build datacenters take advantage of that linguistic ambiguity and then the local politicians end up doing the same. They give these companies sweetheart tax/zoning incentives, proclaim contractors as "generated jobs", and then leave the locals with all of the negative externalities and none of the revenue.
For instance, NC milling is done in California. Printed circuit board manufacturing is done in California. Small-scale integrated circuit fabrication is done.
Should California be treated differently than the rest of the world?
In addition to banning these manufacturing processes in California, we should ban the products manufactured with these processes from California. This would require products to "green up" in order to access California's vast market.
By allowing dirty products manufactured elsewhere, we've simply moved the problem and its harms out of our line of sight. And frequently to a place where the people are poor, non-white and under represented.
this does happen to some extent for example with auto emissions and other things. CA is such a large market when it alone makes a change, it often drags along other states or the nation.
Not really. CA can regulate import and sales of items based on the what the item does once in CA. They can't really regulate how it was made somewhere else.
When some particular item as currently made does meet California regulations the maker has four options:
1. Keep the item as is and don't sell it in California.
2. Make a California version that meets regulations. Sell that only in California. Keep making the original version and sell it elsewhere.
3. Same as #2 except sell the California version along with the original version outside of California.
4. Make a California version that meets regulations. Stop making the original version and sell the California version everywhere.
California is a big enough market that many makers cross off #1. Once they are making a California version it often turns out they selling that everywhere is more efficient for them than keeping the original version around.
I'd be curious to know if this is really the case.
States have a lot of power to regulate commerce, interstate commerce and the products their citizens have access too.
If indeed they can't, then perhaps its one subject dems and r's could get together on. Instead of blanket tarrifs, tarriffs on products made with slave labor or without strong consideration for environment impact.
This site is limiting its focus to environmental permitting concerns, it seems. The problem is that one of the biggest barriers to manufacturing in the US is labor: cost and protections of various sorts.
Don't need to worry about those pesky people and their rights in other countries where people are in desperate need for, or are coerced into, working in these industries.
Everyone wants heavy industry outcomes, no one wants heavy industry side-effects;
Do people want oil refineries that constantly catch fire or explode [1], or toxic superfund sites for fabs [2]?
There are opportunities to build safer systems of course, the capital is there but there's places with looser regulations where you can harm people for cheap.
Also, this website does not actually show what laws or reasons why things are banned, it just says it's impossible, no sources, how do I even know this is true?
They lost me at "vacuum deposition - impossible" without justification. As far as processes go it's one of the safest (everything happens in a sealed vacuum chamber). Maybe the solvents used to clean prior to coating?
Yeah, it’s the solvents used for cleaning the chambers and parts. Very nasty stuff, and it’s probably the biggest concern for this type of facility anywhere, not just in California.
The stuff my dad used for cleaning down beryllium copper sheets that then had silicon, gold, and nichrome deposited onto them to make tiny medical pressure sensors was generally various stages of xylene, amyl acetate, freon, and - on one notable occasion when a shipment of the sheet stock came heavily contaminated with tractor oil - plain ordinary petrol.
Oil refineries in particular are interesting because the sources for the blend of gasoline California requires[0] are either in CA itself or are few and far away. This means that gasoline prices are susceptible to greater supply shocks and so on. Many US regulations follow from California exercising its large market to induce companies to change their policies (electronic one-click cancel, CCPA, No Surprises in healthcare billing) but this one hasn't quite had the same effect.
One can hope that most Californians switch to BEVs from ICE vehicles before this becomes more of a constraint.
Gasoline usage externalities are poorly priced-in so the resulting increase in cost of gasoline here is probably overall a good thing. If we had appropriate carbon/sulphur/etc pricing on the outputs, I think it would be less justifiable since then the externalities would be priced in.
Paint VOCs sounds fine, until it's done at industrial scale, and it's also your neighbor, and also all the children in the neighborhood have asthma, and also healthcare is a lot more expensive...
This list isn't things you "cant do in california" but "polluting things you can't do in highly populated cities".
I'm not sure what the conclusion here is other than health is not important.
Most of this stuff could be done in compliance with the laws but it’s just cheaper to do it somewhere else where you allowed to vent poison in the air rather than having to filter it out.
Are they only banned in the cities, or are they banned in the state, which -- even in California, should have rural areas far enough away from cities to be tenable?
It's an interesting conundrum though, because in many cases, the cities could not exist without the things that are being banned in the cities. It's a curious goal of populations to centralize, then ostracize all the things that enabled that centralization
Everywhere in California that isn't a giant population center is growing food for the rest of the country, or is a mountain where these things can't be built anyway.
They're probably "not banned" only in the "basically lying" sense that they per rule won't approve you in certain cities and if you do happen to be rural the process is hostile and expensive enough that it's not worth it for the value such a facility would generate. That's how that sort of stuff is in my state.
That's the thing, often when people say stuff like "its banned" what they really mean is:
- the cost of mitigating the human health risk is too high
- competitors in low-environmental regulation places don't pay for those costs
- ongoing verification is expensive
I mean, let's face it, "self-regulation" of industries isn't really working that great. And for things that are health hazards that are basically borne by someone else, why should a local government make it easy to cheat and lie about this stuff?
The people arguing against this seem to assume that their right to have a business, make a profit, whatever, is a self-evident Good Thing, and rarely provide any additional arguments beyond "but the jobs". If they were at the VERY LEAST saying "we can make X safe" then maybe it'd be interesting. But as it is, the argument is basically asking us to mortgage the health and safety.
Nobody here wants to just let big business do whatever and turn the rivers weird colors again or go back to smog but it's very clear that the current regulatory system is not suitable and is hurting us.
It boggles the mind that someone could honestly (by which I mean dishonestly and malice are far simpler explanations) step into this conversation and be like "no, this is all fine and well, god forbid someone start spraying cars in a shop in the desert without jumping through all most of the same expensive hoops that make it not worth it down town (and would make it doubly not worth it out in the desert).
And it's not just autobody work. There's all manner of necessary economic activity that's being kept out or made artificially expensive in this manner.
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.
Would it be hypocritical nimbyism if I wanted to use semiconductors containing arsenic, but didn't want my living room to be an arsenic warehouse? Or how far away does the arsenic warehouse have to be before it starts being hypocritical nimbyism for me to not like it there?
Right, but the salient thing is the effect on people. By that I mean: Suppose we could locate all refineries outside of anywhere that is technically a "city", but in every possible such assignment of refinery locations, some refinery is still as close to someone's home as it would be if it were in a city. In this scenario, calling for a ban on refineries in your city would still be hypocritical nimbyism, since you are still requiring someone to be placed in a situation that you yourself would not accept.
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.
I think the things you are describing would make running a refinery economical, and I am sure at some price some community would be thrilled to have a refinery. Good for them, still glad its not here.
> 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.
I agree with your reasoning in principle, but I think it doesn't hold up for California specifically. According to Gemini, 90% of California's population lives in 5% of its land area, and 45-50% of the land is government-owned, much of it being unpopulated wild areas including large parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts.
The state is large, diverse and already contains vast chunks of unpopulated land. Almost everywhere that isn't near the poles is similar to some part of California.
I think if we consolidate those operations the better, and then we can improve an regulate legislative or as a market more easily than if everyone is spread all over.
If we consolidate them you wind up with the same situation we have for everything already. The big megacorps who's paid for experts and lawyers (and ability to donate to politics) to tell you why the river glowing is safe get to do what they want and the upstart who may challenge that bigCo to do better never gets off the ground. But I guess if the goal is simply to declare everything "fixed" because the government has agreed it's compliant then consolidation is fine.
The site would be better if it linked to the actual regulation that prohibits each type of business instead of just making the claim “0 new factories of this type have been built”.
It would be nice if the site cited the regulations and costs that make the different facilites impossible — are they outright banned? Are there environmental regulations that don’t exist elsewhere? Is it a long process for permitting with tons of inspections?
I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not.
His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues.
The electric induction cooktop he and his team has made is pretty cool! I'd check it out.
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 environmental impact than CA is and thus could pick up any such slack), why is there a security concern here?
As for the economic concern, it seems like this is backwards: I'd argue it's the HCOL that drives industry with the need for low-wage labor away to non-CA locations. There's nothing stopping non-polluting corporations from working and hiring large numbers of people in CA.
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 that are equally polluting no matter where you do them (like burning fossil fuels), moving production outside of the location but still buying produced materials is simply passing the buck. But it's not totally clear to me that's what's happening here.
That's exactly why the Bay Area Air Quality Management District exists (established decades before the federal EPA):
> Charged with regulating stationary sources of air pollution emissions, the Air District drafted its first two regulations in the 1950s: Regulation 1, which banned open burning at dumps and wrecking yards, and Regulation 2, which established controls on dust, droplets, and combustion gases from certain industrial sources.
> Much research and discussion went into the shaping of Regulation 2, but there was no doubt about the need for it. During a fact-finding visit to one particular facility, Air District engineers discovered that filters were used over air in-take vents to protect the plant's machinery from its own corrosive emissions! This much-debated regulation was finally adopted in 1960.
Fossil are not equally polluting. There's a difference between living next to a generator with exhaust at ground level, a properly designed smoke stack, and just being further away so the reactive emissions can dilute and degrade.
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.
> It makes no sense to say "oh, we need to manufacturer this stuff... just not here." That's basically NIMBYism for electronics.
This statement doesn't acknowledge why NIMBYism is odious. The reason is that we all need housing, but new housing may devalue current housing. While some may wish to protect their housing values/community feel/etc, others wish and may rightly deserve, access to housing at the same levels of access as earlier generations.
The analogy to manufacturing does not exist—to suggest it does ignores the real negative externalities to people who live next to polluting facilities, especially those where the pollutant was not recognized during use.
They are not fundamentally different. The underlying hypocracy of NIMBYism is wanting the positive outcomes from something (more housing, factories producing goods) with someone else having to suffer the downsides. How obnoxious it is depends on that upside/downside risk, but fundamentally if you want a thing to happen but you want it to happen near someone else, you are part of the NIMBY problem. (Note that wanting it to not happen at all, or wanting a version that is more expensive but nicer to be near, is not the same, so long as you're happy to bear the outcome of that thing being more expensive)
I think it’s reasonable to want factories and pollution to be far from anyone’s dwelling, no? And for all factories to have appropriate pollution control.
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
The notion of comparative advantage says you don't. It's not NIMBYism. And it's not a good faith argument when it comes from folks who have a bunker in New Zealand.
Similarly saying “you can’t have slavery but you can buy stuff made by enslaved people abroad” is morally inconsistent. I don’t know the obvious answer to this though.
Why? Manufacturing,design and engineering need highly different skill sets it's just not feasible to have both in one location because of the workforce required. It's the same in every other country some parts are industrial hubs and some design/engineering.
And, yes, it's a really neat stove... for wealthy people. At an installed cost of ~$8k (more if you're having to replace a standalone oven/cooktop since you need the stand for it), it's competing with lower-end Viking gas ranges that include an oven, and those have an extensive service network that Impulse doesn't (yet) have.
I mean, that's pretty normal right. The product starts out as a bit niche and expensive, and then as it scales in manufactured volume, variants & competitors become available at lower price points.
I saw this being hyped on YouTube the other day. My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.
Their website says
> We’re designing and manufacturing the stovetop, battery pack, and key internal components to comply with all relevant UL standards and other applicable compliance requirements.
but this device appears to be for sale, right now. Either it is designed for safety already or it isn’t. WHICH UL safety standards? Is there an emergency shutoff? A regular old fire extinguisher probably is not going to cut it.
> My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.
It's an induction stovetop. It doesn't itself get hot, other than whatever heat gets transferred to the top of the stove because it is in contact with the hot pot or pan sitting on top. I don't know about this one specifically but with most induction stovetops that just makes it warm to the touch in the area right under the pot or pan.
That's not going to be hot enough to be a problem for the battery even if for some reason they mounted it in contact with the bottom of the top surface, which I doubt they did.
> That's not going to be hot enough to be a problem for the battery even if for some reason they mounted it in contact with the bottom of the top surface, which I doubt they did.
My point is that’s what safety standards are for. Do they do safe things or not? You might be surprised to hear how many manufacturers do dumb things for one reason or another. If they really do comply with safety standards then they should be able to say which ones. Why don’t they say?
This guy is just mad that Copper murdered them by making an actual product people can actually buy, partly because, I imagine, Impulse CEO was busy making visuals for his Libertarian propaganda campaign.
The Copper stove is made in Berkeley, California, by the way.
I am sure the 5th largest economy in the world is truly suffering under their draconian regulations. Everyone in California making the 5th highest median income in the country wishes they were working at a local oil refinery.
To your last point, I am somewhat doubtful that this website is being honest about automotive paint shops being banned in California. Am I to believe that the 3,000 auto body shops in Southern California sit on their hands all day? Was West Coast Customs just a fake TV show filmed in Texas?
If this website’s author is correct I’m supposed to believe that no paint gets applied to cars in Canada.
As another nitpick, let’s also not forget that nobody else is building oil refineries in the US. The newest one in the entire country was built in 1976. Oil demand in the US is relatively flat since decades ago; there isn’t a pressing need for new refineries.
I also think that readers in this thread should remember that California has strict air quality regulations because its geography especially in Southern California lends itself to bad air quality. These regulations are very much written in blood. Globally, almost 7 million people die prematurely every year due to air pollution.
To me at least this appears to be a smoking gun for the creator not being able to function in good faith. Whether that's intentional or self delusion, who knows.
From the page itself, "A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA." This point is trotted out and reframed multiple times on the page but it's literally self contradictory. It's not something you can't do in California, it's something you can't do without approval in the Bay Area Air District.
It's not a good place to be doing such an activity, as the area already can't successfully keep the air healthy enough to stay within federal limits due to environmental factors that trap particulate low to the ground. If you're at all familiar with the area you know concerns about air quality are not overblown and. Go further away from people or meet strict VOC regulations if you absolutely need to be doing that kind of work in the area, seems completely reasonable to me.
Is there any reason to assume that there's a dire need for more shops to apply paint in cars in California? If not, regulating to prioritize the air quality over increasing competition isn't unreasonable.
Is there any reason to assume that air quality standards can be maintained only by 50-year-old paint shops, and not by newer ones built to higher standards?
See also the counterproductive legacy of the anti-nuclear movement.
I think this requires us to buy the premise in the first place, which might be questionable.
Some guy’s website claims with big red scary graphics that this stuff is banned and these poor downtrodden business owners can’t operate.
I can’t imagine that nobody has opened an auto body shop in California in the last decade or two.
When it comes to businesses like large factories opening up that’s more of something that often gets approved on a case by case basis.
E.g., we can’t just say that the Chicago Bears are banned from building a new stadium in Chicago just because they aren’t willing to pay the costs required to do so and aren’t willing to meet the city’s requirements to get the approval vote they need.
There's reason to assume that _some_ paint shops are needed, based on the fact that the existing ones are staying in business, and reason to assume that more paint shops would mean more pollution, based on addition. There's not really any other way to limit the number of them other than regulation than gives the state the ability to prevent new ones, and while you obviously are against that idea in practice, I don't think it's nearly as obviously a bad policy goal as you're implying.
What should be the basis for comparison? The locality with the most permissive rule on each aspect of manufacturing? Is there any absolute floor on the morality? Should California allow slavery to be used in factories if some other locality allows it?
To be fair, it would be very hard to argue against this website since it stays very vague.
For most things it says that they are “impossible” or “near-impossible” with no explanation or just "getting a permit is hard" with no futher detail.
It does give some cherry-picked metrics :
- 0 Semiconductor fabs built in CA in the last decade => as there been ANY semi fabs built outside of taiwan and china in the last decade ? Not exactly surprising.
- 1 West Coast shipyard that can build destroyers, 0 New automotive paint shops permitted in CA, 0 New oil refineries permitted in CA since 1969 => We don't build those for shits and giggles, is there any demand that would justify new factories for thoses ?
Basically, the website doesn't say anything. It just gives some context-less data and one guys opinion on what he perceives as not possible.
Not that I care, I am not from the US or live there, but let's not try to pass some dude rambling as a source of actual information.
The vagueness is really the crux of this whole thing. It makes it easy to argue about without really going anywhere. One can easily mold their own worldview around the points and make it about whatever they want.
Intel built a bunch of chip fabs in Oregon, Arizona, Israel, and Ireland over the past couple decades.[1] TSMC has built a new fab in Arizona.[2]
It's difficult to transport petroleum over the rocky mountains, and California requires its own blend of gasoline for use in vehicles, so there is significant demand for oil refineries in the state. Fuel imports have increased significantly due to refinery closures.[3] Some companies are trying to build pipelines to connect the west coast to refineries in Texas, but it's unclear when or if that will happen.[4]
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.
> I think to be eco neutral, you would be cost prohibitive. Which would be an issue in car manufacturing and phone manufacturing.
Which just shows that other places are allowing those costs to be externalized to society in general which is classic "privatize profits, socialize costs" that businesses have relied on.
> Pointing out that such costs have been externalised for decades should be the starting point to internalise them.
I absolutely agree. 100%. The issue is single companies can't do that. They will not be competitive against companies that aren't doing it. You need an even playing field for this to work, i.e. you need legislation and uniform environmental standards across all states, whatever those standards may be. Probably even need similar pacts across countries, within reason.
Right now, the US is moving in the opposite direction to this statement.
Why care about single use coffee cups? They begin their life as oil in the ground and end their life as plastic in the ground (in landfill).
I've grown rather weary of performative complaining about trash which has a waste lifecycle which ends at "stabilized landfill".
Because that's one of our best waste lifecycle processes: what's a disaster is greenhouse gas emissions, it waste which is reliably ending up in the oceans and doesn't biodegrade.
"you can" is a very different thing from "you do". To do you need to want, to plan, and to execute. To can is just that, something in the clouds. So this is not contradicting the argument it's trying to contradict.
There is no such thing as zero externalities in manufacturing. Unless these ‘eco conscious’ engineers ship all the waste to China these chemicals as by products will continue to harm the environment. And guess what, you are part of the environment. You all just want excuses to keep playing with these toys.
I cannot to move to California once all the billionaires move to Texas and Florida.
Really difficult to say because it doesn't make many concrete claims. It doesn't mention any regulations or say what chemicals or processes are actually banned. These are not easy things to look up. I can tell you that at least the semiconductor fabrication stuff is false, there are many fabs in California and here's a new one as of a few days ago: https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/19/san-jose-tech-nokia-i....
I realize it isn't completed yet but I don't think anyone is buying sites for something that's impossible to build.
I can tell you that your two articles that intended to refute the semiconductor fabrication stuff fail to do so. Both sites were existing facilities and would therefore fall under the granfathered in point in the site.
The Infinera one is described as a "new fab" though (https://www.nist.gov/chips/infinera-california-san-jose) and the Bosch one is adding a new type of fabrication to an existing site. If you can do all that without getting new permits then that makes California sound like a pretty lenient place to do business. I'm assuming they did have to get new permits though.
This might be a refutation but it's not super clear. It's definitely not a commercial semiconductor fab but it might do all of or some subset of what a commercial fab does at R&D scale. Hard to know for sure how this jives with the claim in the main website.
> If you can do all that without getting new permits then that makes California sound like a pretty lenient place to do business.
Being able to retool under original zoning/permitting is specifically lenient? That's extremely basic. If you're a co-Californian with me, though, it does help to understand that many people think that anyone doing anything without a permit is "lenient".
> I'm assuming they did have to get new permits though.
Well, that makes it really easy to be "right". I should try this more.
> This might be a refutation but it's not super clear.
As others have pointed out, the article itself fails to provide any direct citations of the regulations either. This is classic Russell's teapot territory; the one making the initial claim shouldn't have a lower burden of evidence than the one refuting it.
> so obviously his point can’t be true
> so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting
> so obviously I can dismiss this as teleologically false.
Please don’t be so lazy you guys. There is something to be gained here.
Why do you think there's something to be gained here? There are a lot of cheap and easy checks this content fails that it represents a well formed argument based on reality.
There is no rational basis for anyone else to expend any effort refuting anything when the author has not said anything in the first place.
The article contains no citations, and so may be presumed 100% false by default.
"may be presumed", as in, sure it might actually contain some other mix of true and false, but it doesn't matter what that mix actually is. That only matters in some other article written by someone else that citates any of it's assertions.
This piece is the same as if monkeys typed stuff at random and some of it could possibly happen to be the same as something true. It doesn't mean the monkeys made a valid point, and no one should spend one second either defending or refuting it.
> so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting
This guy, with an obvious bias, created a website that misrepresents the situation in California (by implying things are banned or "nearly impossible" when in actuality they just take time/effort), while also failing to show the specific regulations or requirements for any of it. Without supplying that kind of information this website is little better than "It's banned. trust me bro". It's not our responsibility to try to dig up evidence to support or verify this guys claims just because he can't be bothered to do it.
His motivations, his framing of the problem, and his failure to back up his own statements makes the site pretty damn easy to dismiss and I don't even doubt that there might be instances where bad regulation exists, especially regulation that protects the profits of established players in certain industries by keeping out competition. I'm entirely sympathetic to the idea that it might be happening, but if there is something to be gained you aren't going to find it on this guys website. Serious coverage on this topic would include actionable information we can use to identify and solve specific problems. This is just anti-regulation propaganda.
I don't think it makes a good case for itself. No automotive paint shops sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right??
But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic, makes me wonder how many of these banned industries I don't want in my state. I think if we want to build them in the US maybe don't build them in the most agriculturally productive and highest population state. Or first figure out how to do it without turning the US into China with its "cancer villages" from poisoned river water.
I'm not defending the dysfunctional CA bureaucracy, but the site should probably focus on specific cases of government-produced insanity than a general complaint that certain industries are banned from operation.
Wait, hold on - I watched all the seasons of "Rust To Riches" on Netflix, about a small shop that flips cars.
They routinely painted cars.
They'd paint in this sealed-up room/garage thingee, the guy would wear and industrial-grade mask, and the camera would slide past as he expertly painted the car. The 30 second montages looked awesome!
That show took place in Temecula, California. So there's no way that site is accurate.
And, more to the point, if they want to show that they are accurate they should be linking to the rules & regulations that actually prohibit these things instead of just making a claim & calling it a day.
It’s not claiming: you can’t have an automotive paint shop. It’s claiming you can’t start a new paint shop. Specifically, if you don’t have one for your car manufacturing line already, you can’t set one up. Wikipedia shows 13 pages for auto plants in CA. Most of them have the verb “was” in the opening sentence. There are two current plants: Tesla Fremont and Toyota California. Both of these plants are over 50 years old, and only one of them produces actual cars instead of parts.
Firstly, an auto paint shop is not the same as an auto manufacturing plant.
Secondly, it says you can't permit a new auto paint shop in CA, but it specifically mentions the Bay Area AQMD as the reason. But, as its name implies, the Bay Area AQMD only regulates within the San Francisco Bay Area. It is only one of 35 air districts in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_air_distric...
So, it is impossible to permit a new auto paint shop in all of these districts, or just the bay area? Because those are very different. It also labels starting a new paint shop as "impossible", but then says it's "nearly impossible". So is it actually impossible, or just nearly impossible?
It's claiming you can't get a permit to release VOCs into the air, but the GP comment describes a setup that apparently is designed to paint cars while preventing VOCs getting released into the air, so that you can still paint cars in California.
He doesn’t need to refute it he just needs to offer an alternate claim.
The site provides no citations, no evidence, so there’s no need to defend the count argument or honestly even make it.
The sit isn’t just false, it is flat out disrespectful to all the workers, engineers, founders, and everyone else involved in the industries he says don’t exist that actually do exist. The site is basically “I think this is hard so no one else could possibly do it”.
They're likely falling under some "we aren't selling car painting as a service or main part of our business, we're painting our own cars as a small ancillary part of our real business" exemption.
> I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right??
There are. They just cost more and take more time.
> But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic
People say this all the time, but semiconductor fabs simply aren't very toxic compared to just about every other industrial manufacturing process. Mostly this is because everything is sealed and sealed and sealed some more.
Yes, they handle stuff like arsenic gas (arsine AsH3), but they really try to reclaim it all. The semiconductor waste stream is often purer than most industrial inputs. Yeah, old plants would just dump crap into the environment. However, for modern semiconductor facilities, it is generally more economic to reprocess your waste than try to purify from primary sources.
Now, PCB manufacturing, on the other hand, is quite terrible or at least it used to be. I don't know if people have sealed and automated that yet.
I assume you use semiconductors yourself, since you are posting here. But you want their manufacture to be banned in your state.
So the right thing is to outsource the dirty jobs to countries that can’t afford to be picky?
Wouldn’t it be better for the world if we used our wealth to develop methods of safe semiconductor manufacturing with low environmental impact, and proudly built those facilities in California?
It's not like the laws are simply "you can't make semiconductors here". The laws ban the harmful externalities of the process. The companies that want to make semiconductors don't want to find a way to make the processes less harmful: it's cheaper and easier to just go somewhere where they can pollute instead.
There's a large middle ground between "Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone" and letting blatant polluters turn your neighborhood into a Superfund site. California solved the latter problem by going too far in the other direction.
You're asking for an example of an environmental disaster of the type the regulation is intended to prevent that happened since the regulation came into effect, with the implication that there aren't any is evidence that the regulation is bad? I'd argue there's no way to differentiate between perfectly calibrated regulation and regulation that's too onerous by the metric you're giving, so your conclusion isn't supported without more evidence.
California, by density, is that highly populated. I didn't really like the idea is "hey we need to build something that uses a toxic process, by just don't build it here. Build it somewhere else." Unless that somewhere else is in outer space.
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".
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.
Man, this guy has his head all the way up his anus. A guy who thinks that whether or not the math classes in San Francisco high schools are literally titled "algebra" is an important question, who doesn't realize that Noah Smith is a raging moron, and who considers Elon Musk to be the greatest industrialist in history, has been listening to a tad too much Garry Tan. No wonder he can't figure out how to market appliances. He's just disconnected from the real world.
I wonder if there's a law+econ analysis of comparing the current framework (regulations and upfront permitting) vs having the regulations but then enforcement via combination of randomized gov't inspections and private lawsuits. The motivation would be to allow things to move faster while also requiring the same degree of compliance, but without the massive red tape upfront with administrators having no real incentive to approve projects or move fast. One obvious downside is that it effectively creates an economic incentive to try and skirt the law and/or find loopholes, but that arguably exists to the same degree in the existing system.
Are other states building all this manufacturing/semiconductor capacity? I think it's an overall USA thing, we just don't do manufacturing anymore because it's cheaper to do it in another country.
Not sure what the point of the website is. To me it looks like a bad faith argument. The secular trend in the US has been to increase margins by moving manufacturing to other countries.
The tariffs are certainly not making it easier to manufacture domestically.
Really? Since it’s lacking any comparison to other states and because many of these complaints single out metropolitan areas comparison to nationwide census of metro areas, what actual conclusions are you drawing that are valid?
Context matters a lot. We haven’t built a lot of mercury based hat felting shops lately in California. What conclusion do you draw from that?
I assume you're being a little obtuse. The comparison to wherever manufacturers phones and EVs is implicit. They are manufactured somewhere with looser environmental regulation than California, where they are purchased en masse. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
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 regulations.
Again, without apples to apples comparisons to other areas, wha are you actually able to conclude from the website other than stoking confirmation bias?
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
Fair point. My actual conclusion: California has made it structurally impossible to manufacture things it consumes, and has exported the environmental burden to places with fewer protections.
You have a good point. California is an area that makes some things but not all things. From this data we can conclude that California is an area on earth where there are people.
This places California somewhere between the north pole (produces no things) and replicators from Star Trek (produces all of the things) in terms of productivity. This is useful information because it makes the reader feel li
“The question is whether the data is accurate, not whether it is complete”
Oh so Lies of omission don’t exist? Deception researchers will be very keen to hear how that works.
So if someone Mormon bubbles a photo of you that also has a kid in it, you’re fine being arrested for indecency and registering as a sex offender? After all, that’s just omitting a few pixels, not a lie or deception in your book.
The author equates "you need a permit, which you obtain by making proof you follow the law and best practices re: handling dangerous substances" with "BANNED!!!!!!".
I dislike how misleading and emotionally targeted this is and I understand the hate we get as tech people if this is the best we can do.
I don't have experience in basically all of these industrial processes, so I can't really comment there. I strongly support environmental protections, but I have no idea if what California does actually does that.
A separate but related topic is the warnings California requires of products. It's gotten a bit out of hand because every product you buy has the same warning, which completely dilutes what I hope was the intention. Even buying something as simple as an electric guitar comes with the "can cause cancer" warning because it can have nickel parts on it (usually for the bridge and tuners and frets).
My dad spent 40+ years working at a unionized industrial facility in California that recycled paper and cardboard waste into the paper layer used to make the corrugated interior of cardboard boxes. There were some local regulations on waste water runoff that I'm aware of, but he never mentioned much else.
There 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.
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.
California can do a lot to private companies, but the supremacy clause allows the federal government to do what it wants. If a business wants to engage in these illegal-in-California practices, they could partner with the federal government.
Edit: Now that I’m doing the research a partnership isn’t even needed, just a contract. Which makes sense, the feds cannot hire a private individual to do what would be illegal for them to do themselves… conversely, a company who is contracted to do federal business also enjoys supremacy by virtue of acting for the feds.
Got a new one. In California—the only place that matters in tech—all operating systems must implement age verification by Jan 1, 2027. Which means this is coming to a computer near you, worldwide.
Why were old PCs beige? It turns out, Germany had workplace standards laws that mandated light, unobtrusive colors on office equipment. Because it was expensive to offer different SKUs for different regions, gray or beige PC cases became the only ones available worldwide.
If a jurisdiction as big or important as California passes a law mandating certain features on products available there, manufacturers may make those features part of their products worldwide to save on costs. OEMs may make bootloader-locked PCs which cannot run operating systems that don't do age check in order to comply with the law in California and Brazil, and decide it's not worth it to offer a bootloader-unlocked version.
If you think PC manufacturers are required to make bootloader-unlockable PCs, the only thing requiring them to do so is an edict from Microsoft, something they can and will reverse in order to comply with the law.
Washington is really bad too for doing anything. We are getting more issues at the federal level too. I just want to crush some rock and I have to get a mine ID and a mine permit and a ton of other stuff.
" Building an EV requires metal forging, battery manufacturing, painting, and chip fabrication — all processes that drove Tesla to build in Nevada and Texas.
Tesla's Fremont factory was the former NUMMI plant (GM/Toyota, operating since 1962). It was grandfathered in."
I confess I don't know what to make of this. Without seeing the reasons why these are banned, what is the point? Would be like lamenting how you can't use asbestos. Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing?
Yeah, I don't think that is generally viewed as a good thing, though? And I would not be surprised to learn California has some stricter rules on it. (Would honestly not be surprised to find out some of these "banned" items are due to asbestos level concerns.)
This website gets a "very difficult" to "impossible" rating for usability: tiny, dense text, dim & blurry fonts and the modern UX that insists on reinventing how people navigate a webpage. Ironically it WAS made in California.
> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.
Banned in California.. wait, I meant the Bay Area.
A lot of people on this site clearly have never tried doing anything in California that involves more infrastructure than a laptop. Can easily be 18 months or more to get a permit to 'do things the right way'. If they'll even deign to give you one.
There are only a handful of shipyards in the US that build ships for the Navy. What makes him think regulation has anything to do with only 1 being on the West Coast?
I would like to read this website but the font and colors are so poorly selected (read and grey for most of the text) that I'm not willing to struggle to do so. I guess my eyes are just old.
While I do tend to feel it is important that superpower-level countries be capable of producing within their political borders most/all of what they consume, for reasonable prices; I do not tend to feel that everything we produce needs to be produced everywhere within those political borders. California is the most beautiful and hospitable land on the entire planet. There's nothing wrong with putting the toxic chemical factories in a desert or tundra somewhere.
i hear that's why Tesla paint is so soft, and why it's so popular for Tesla buyers to apply expensive protective film to their paint. I didn't believe anyone when they told me, and now i have more scratches after 1 year than my mazda did after 5+ years
A lot of these are stretches or remove nuance. I get the point they are trying to make, but it's a lot weaker than they think and undermined by their own "hero" example: painting cars in California
> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.
Ah yes, the Bay Area, famously "all of California". And on top of that, the restrictions are mostly in highly populated areas.
Oh it's worse bullshit. Modern paint shops don't emit meaningful VOCs. Even in Texas, for example. Nobody's even making non voc compliant auto paint anymore because there is no market for it.
I can't speak to permitting but the coating and coating voc stuff I know quite well and what they state is simply bullshit.
I can also say I know of a bunch of auto paint places that opened in the mountain view surrounding area alone in the 10 years I lived there.
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"
If California made the products illegal that couldn't be produced here I wonder how many of these laws would suddenly be removed because the issues associated with the laws were suddenly considered "acceptable".
3) I wish people that constantly complained about California's regulations/taxes/politics would just quietly see their way out rather than obsessively whine about it. Enjoy Texas/Florida/wherever you go. We'll be ok without you.
Just because it’s in GitHub doesn’t mean it’s more credible than the stuff my mother posts on Facebook about mark zuckerberg not having permission to use her photos.
This is deeply hypocritical, since Californians consume products built with these forbidden processes. They just have them made elsewhere so they can feel like they are ambassadors of environmental protection.
Great! Considering you can’t swing a dead cat around Silicon Valley without hitting a superfund site, this seems ok.
People and businesses that are ok with being exploited and exploiting others, while externalizing the true cost of their products on to the environment and future generations by treating the air and land like an open sewer can do it elsewhere.
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.
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.
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...
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.
It's because CA has stricter regulations about what can be labeled compostable. Whatever had this label was never compostable to begin with, but called itself that on a technicality.
You could make similar site about much of Europe to be honest.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental disconnect, between what society needs to function and what some societies are willing to tolerate. Almost everything we take for granted, like potable water, air conditioning, personal computers or long distance transportation, relies on industries generating some sort of externalities.
Regulating these industries is necessary. But we have reached the point, where the regulation makes many of them almost impossible. This has several effects.
First, the society is now dependent on delivery of these dirty products. This is obviously problematic if there is a major crisis that disrupts supply chains, or if those who manufacture them are no longer willing to deliver.
Second, working class collapses. Manufacturing jobs are one of the more stable available. They are generally unionized, or are conductive to unionization. This is unlike service sector jobs. White collar professions can mostly cope. But those who were already disadvantaged find themselves in an even worse position.
Third, the externalities move in locations with less oversight. This can, obviously, cause greater pollution and environmental degradation globally. Further, delivery of the manufactured goods across great distances adds to carbon footprint. This, again, leads to greater environmental toll.
Taken together, benefits of overregulating "polluting" industry to oblivion, are at best local and temporary.
I would also like to note, that the collapse of manufacturing jobs can be easily linked to increased political radicalization.
That being said, it's not all gloom and doom. I firmly believe, that as the impacts of this approach are felt more and more, there will be a push for sensible deregulation. Europe is already leading the way, weakening or delaying some of the more absurd regulation schemes.[1]
The claim that aluminum anodizing is "banned in California" because of the sulfuric acid waste it produces is patently absurd. There are no shortage of labs, factories, and more in California that use sulfuric acid, and they all figure out how to dispose of their waste without going "fuck it, YOLO it into the river".
So most of these are just saying "you can't do this because they won't let you dump your waste in the river" and some are just "nobody's doing this in California yet"
What if you ... don't dump your waste in the river? Is it legal if you dispose of your waste properly?
Ya a lot of people on this site are ideologically positioned in a way that required demonizing CA. I don’t have any skin in that game but it seems pretty clearly A Thing to me from the other side of the country.
A lot of people on this site do or used to live in CA. It is especially galling to have people who have never lived there tell those that have what it is like there. Especially people who have tried to build or run a business in CA.
The Silicon Valley founderati is chock-full of (right wing) libertarians. I can't tell if they were always that way, or are increasingly disgruntled by state-taxes the wealthier they get.
> This has 70 upvotes within 30 minutes. This feels like an astroturf.
Not really surprising given the audience, HN has an awful lot of neo-Technolibertarian types.
The kind who used to complain about government regulation of free speech, and now complain about anything that gets in the way of amassing massive amounts of capital at any social/environmental/political cost.
It's unfortunate that folks who complain incessantly about "facts not feelings" don't appear to be using their critical thinking skills here. But I guess it's not too surprising.
Please don't post generic flamebait involving comparisons between nations/regions on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Define "so many". Most people have health insurance through their job, which translates to them having basic affordable healthcare. Not everyone has this, so I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not some abysmal state of affairs where most of the country is suffering.
They aren't. Anyone can go to the ER, and if you're poor it'll be billed through Medicaid. When I was young and poor, I had a multi-day hospital stay and multiple surgeries that totaled to $3.50 out of pocket. Urgent cares are everywhere and affordable.
I had a cholecystectomy a few years ago and had a complication that caused a gallstone to get lodged in my common bile duct after removal. Three days after surgery I was in the ER, I let them know I was in debilitating pain and that I just had surgery. They made me sit in the waiting room for 8 hours and only took me back when a doctor walked passed and noticed I was jaundiced. After his shift ended, the nurse who was watching me overnight while I waited to have an emergency surgery (because the surgeon had already gone home for the day by the time I got triaged) was told to keep an eye on me and do blood draws hourly. I didn't get seen once and by morning my liver enzymes were so high they were off the testing scale.
Sure you can go to the ER. The level of treatment you get heavily depends on luck
They'll treat you if you have a heart attack and make it in alive. They won't put you on blood thinners or statins 10 years before that to keep you out of the ER in the first place.
>> so many of your citizens without even basic affordable healthcare
> They aren't. Anyone can go to the ER, and if you're poor it'll be billed through Medicaid.
You guys are both wrong, and arguing with broad brushes about something that's complicated and subtle.
Health insurance is available to everyone in the country, but it's expensive and extremely complicated (among other things: you don't "bill through" Medicaid and lots of folks who qualify aren't on it because they can't figure it out).
It's true that the pre-ACA world where getting sick without employer-provided insurance means dying poor is gone. Almost everyone who needs serious care in the US gets it in some form, but lots of care is delayed because people aren't covered, as getting covered is "affordable" but extremely expensive (unsubsidized family plans run $20k/year and up!). It's much better than it used to be but not a great system.
The flip side is that it's also true that the large-payer corporate insurance system provides "better" care in the sense of access and outcomes[1] than the state-run systems in Europe. It's extremely rare in the US to hear the "on a waiting list" stories about elective care that you hear especially in regard to the NHS.
It's complicated, basically, and not well-suited to yelling on the internet.
[1] Obviously the system pays for this with much (and I mean much) higher service rates than the rest of the world extracts for the same care. US doctors and health systems do very well.
Not "rich", but "employed by a major corporation". Large-payer private insurance in the US is fine and produces outcomes at or above the level you see in the rest of the industrialized world. All the yelling is about ACA plans and subsidy programs.
What is the 'INSERTNAME' law that explains how all conversations on HN, which is ostensibly focused on tech, devolve (evolve) into the realm of the humanities?
UK isn't EU, especially when it comes to health system. I lived in the US for quite some time (from Fr), the healthcare is great... if you can afford an expensive health insurance AND pay some extra money when required. The avg US people can not pay and when you can not pay the experience is just far worth than terrible.
One of the big reasons we have no universal healthcare is because we socialized defense for other countries like your country. You guys are years if not decades away from being able to defense yourselves.
Yeah, the administrative overhead related to just the billing system is staggering. Many hospital systems have more billing professionals than they have beds.
We spend more overall because our healthcare is bifurcated. There would be waste regardless of whether or not we socialize our healthcare completely. Look at Medicare as an example
Sure, we are now a threat, but let’s not ignore Russia or China. Neither of them are breaking news and Russia is the immediate threat for most of the West, and until recently for you guys as well
I never heard Russia or China openly say they want to annex-invade Canada.
However, I did hear the USA president say that openly, recently and multiple times.
So pardon me for entirely rejecting your 'Russia+China = BAD, USA = GOOD' narrative.
I would even go as far as saying that today, the most immediate danger to World stability is Donald Trump and his USA, which are not friends to anyone anymore. Let us hope we can survive the next 3 years.
My original point stands. Your country was able to invest in healthcare because it didn’t spend enough on defense. It doesn’t matter who the aggressor is.
Reading through this discussion and speaking from professional experience I have to say that the real challenge isn’t just specific bans, it’s the administrative cost and the inertia of a permitting paradigm designed in the 1960s and 70s. We’re still managing complexity with relics of a regulatory architecture built for a different era — one with paper files, siloed agencies, and a bias toward “check-the-box” compliance rather than real world outcomes.
That’s why so many solutions feel like de facto bans: not because the environmental goal isn’t valid, but because the cost of compliance in time, paperwork, and legal risk creates a barrier that only well-resourced actors can navigate. The real economic deadweight loss isn’t always in the policy text — it’s in the thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars spent just to prove you did the minimum.
There’s enormous opportunity right now with data tools and AI agents for qualitative assessment. We don’t have to keep defaulting to rigid checklists that presume every context is the same. With modern sensors, realtime monitoring, and AI that can synthesize qualitative evidence with quantitative data, we can finally shift toward performance-based permits that look at actual impacts rather than adherence to outdated procedural triggers.
Imagine a system where:
Sensors and connected data streams show real emissions or ecological outcomes,
AI agents help translate diverse evidence into risk profiles,
Permits adapt based on performance instead of fixed thresholds divorced from context.
That’s not just a tech fantasy — that’s a pathway to reducing administrative drag while improving environmental protection. The status quo isn’t sustainable environmentally or economically. If we cling to 20th-century process dogma, we’ll keep seeing well-intentioned policies backfire into de facto bans, regulatory bottlenecks, and inequitable access to compliance.
Just look at what they've done about rebuilding the Palisades, and the nonsense they've perpetrated, allowing people to live and build in places that are completely impossible to make safe to live because of incredibly stupid bureacratic policy conflicts. And then the staggering mismanagement of water resources, allowing huge tax breaks and claims on water rights to giant corporations, then completely taxing and running out farmers and landowners with legacy rights, making it impossible for them to live there.
At least if they drive everyone productive out of the state, the environment will be pristine.
It's like some insanely scaled up version of gentrification, but in the most aggressively, offensively stupid way possible. California is a tasteless joke.
I don’t know, 39.5m with net growth might disagree with you. Are you living in California at present? If not, do any of the deregulation in laws where you are trouble you. If so, when do you plan on leaving and where to?
Some people like to pick cherries and some are cherry pickers. California is amazing. If we lose some employers and our economy falters okay. Happy to take it as it comes personally. Growing up here was can remember when it was a quiet place I would come home to from college breaks. Those were the good old days for me. Today’s days are pretty good too.
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 the same issue as housing. Endless rules and regulations, many of which make no attempt at doing anything but block, cause the wealth of socirty to be siphoned away. An apartment project in LA with permits complete is worth twice as much as one without. How do we see this and expect our economy to do anything except drown in bureaucracy?
My advice is dont ever manufacturing anything in CA. They will try and kill your business for simply existing no matter how perfect you are.
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 "trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, trichlorofluoroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethylene, in soils on the site and in ground water on and off the site."
- a 5-acre drum recycling plant that contaminated wells within 3 miles with trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. Affecting the drinking water of 250k residents.
- about 10-15 other sites I'm not gonna cover in detail but the contaminants include asbestos-laden dust, PCBs, dichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, chloroform, vinyl chloride, xylene, and many many more
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).
Hunter’s Point was where they cleaned the boats that were used for open air nuclear weapons testing.
It’s not a great example. I’d be more convinced if you picked a decommissioned shipyard with more conventional problems, like marinship.
I picked Hunter's Point because I used to live near it. The problems from decommissioning radioactive ships are bad, but they're far from the only pollution that was there. Lots of VOCs, solvents, oils, radiation from other stuff (eg, glow-in-the-dark equipment made with radium), heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs, and what have you.
But sure, there are other shipyards they cleaned up in less than three decades.
That's the first thing that came to mind when I saw this website. The Bay Area is famous for its numerous superfund sites (among many other things, thankfully).
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.
In particular, all those PFAS firefighting foams on Navy bases (and civilian ones?), still being used: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5639257-defens...
There is a lot of manufacturing in California. There are a lot of new factories in California. California manufactures almost as much as most of the Southeast combined. (Note that CA manufacturing is spread across dozens of industries.)
The difference is that successful businesses in California just do. They don't whine about problems caused by their own incompetence.
Trust me I know. If you've ever talked to any of them they absolutely whine about California if you let them.
I’m going to doubt your claim. Texas alone has a similar number people employed in manufacturing as CA.
How CA can manufacture more when you add all the other SE states?
And your statement is like saying “sure the food has poison in it, but people just tough it out and don’t whine”
How about not poising food? Seems like a worthy goal.
There is also a good framework of shadow organizations that will take cash and some of your problems away.
> 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.
This didn't occur in a vacuum. Business interests and their aligned politicians fought successfully for a century for their freedom to destroy human health and life in pursuit of profit. Many died, many were injured and countless more had their lifespans cut short. There's obviously legitimate concerns about over-regulation, but concerns about corporate abuse of power are just as legitimate if not more so based on the history. And it's not unopposed either, but most of the backlash in California has centered on housing construction and occupational licensing - not the rights of investors to build new industrial facilities in a post-industrial state.
Now the regulatory industry is fighting to destroy productive society in the pursuit of profit. The value-added is fairly stagnant, but the costs have been growing dramatically.
Ebb and flow. Would you prefer only ebb, when that ebb was decimating the health of millions of working people? Maybe some flow is justified and necessary.
I just prefer shorter, less dramatic cycles. Overregulation also increases accidents, when there's more incentive to ignore them
That might be true, but this article does not show how, nor does your own comment. Without citations the only proper way to respond to this article is to presume it's 100% false and ignore it.
Neither defend nor refute, and by "presume false" I don't actually mean to come way actively and newly believing the opposite of the claims, but just disregard entirely.
Argue over some other article that actually backs it's assertions with citations and reasoning.
[flagged]
When you read a paragraph you have to read all the sentences in that paragraph.
The rest of the paragraph doesn’t say anything useful either. It’s the inane ramblings of someone who’s describing an imaginary scenario because they haven’t a clue what they’re actually talking about other than the woes of businesses that weren’t allowed to profit by destroying the local ecosystem.
I obviously mean that you can filter out and properly dispose of and neutralize what would be emissions, so that they are not emitted. I cant see your comment as anything but bad faith, why are you responding like this?
Can you give us a couple of examples of a company that was stopped by the state of California because they weren't producing any harmful emissions whatsoever and/or were disposing their waste in ways that were not harmful? It would be interesting to see exactly what they were doing in violation of the regulations, what regulations they ran into, and where those rules came from.
Sir, this is a hive of pedants. They live for this. Just accept it and move on.
I have no idea what you obviously meant because what you’re describing doesn’t actually exist for anything on that page. I’m not privvy to whichever science fiction you’ve applied here, so it all sounds like rambling to me.
“Yes you can” misses the point.
But you’ll incur heavy taxes, huge COB increases, tightening regulatory scrutiny and all for nothing compared to being just one or two states over. It’s has been one economically and morally disadvantageous to do manufacturing in California due to hypernanny regulation. What’s worse is that generational and heritage firms that have lived in California for 50+ years are effectively put out of business because of these policies… and that’s just at the national level. No one has even mentioned how CA based businesses can’t compete with China.
I get what you’re protective over though. We all like clean air and streams. No one is voting for more superfund sites. We can agree on that.
Your response seems to either woefully uninformed or bad faith. I’m assuming the former.
> No one is voting for more superfund sites. We can agree on that.
Why would you think that? Lots of people vote for that every other year.
Plating operations are a huge headache. They have corrosive plating baths. They have to do some chemical processing on site to neutralize the corrosive chemicals and get them down to a neutral pH.
Some years ago, a plating company in San Jose dumped a plating bath into the sewer system. This was so toxic that it killed the bacteria that reduce organic sludge at the sewerage plant. This knocked the whole plant offline, releasing untreated sewerage into the bay. The lower bay was toxic for a week. It's normally swimmable. San Jose was fined by the EPA. The plating company was heavily fined by San Jose.
It's a good sewerage plant. The output is drinkable, and if you take the tour, you're offered some to drink. Some of the output is used for irrigation. In a severe drought emergency, water could be fed back into the water system. They've never had to do that, but in a big drought a few years ago, things got close to that point.
San Jose, which is more of an industrial city than most people realize, still has plating companies. Here's an inspection report for one of them.[1] This one was releasing too much chromium.
[1] https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/region9/water/pre...
a plating company in San Jose dumped a plating bath into the sewer system. This was so toxic that it killed the bacteria that reduce organic sludge at the sewerage plant. This knocked the whole plant offline, releasing untreated sewerage into the bay. The lower bay was toxic for a week
toxic because of chemicals and toxic because of the release of untreated sewage (bacteria) are sufficiently different that I thought I'd point out that you kind of mix them here. Also, toxic because of high concentrations (e.g. pH) that will dilute vs toxic cumulative forever chemicals are different orders of magnitude altogether.
This incident you describe seems like a one-off and fairly benign compared to long term patterns that lead to superfund sites. Till this company dumped that batch, they weren't dumping batches, i.e. the system was working.
I'm not up on the latest, not a civil engineer or public health authority, but it is generally recommended in many seaside places not to swim at the beach after rainstorms. the influx of large volumes of water into the sewage treatment systems means that they overflow and raw sewage is released. These systems are being improved all the time, but it's a known problem and civilization hasn't collapsed. Some natural creatures like sewage outflow. When Boston moved their outflow pipe from the inner harbor to deeper water in Cape Cod bay, the lobster population collapsed. Maybe we should have called it the lobster poopulation.
> it's a known problem and civilization hasn't collapsed.
Waiting for civilizational collapse to justify regulation seems like an unhelpful standard TBH. In fact, I would argue that it's one of the main problems we are having right now: that we know our current trajectory will lead to civilizational collapse, but aren't willing to change course.
Nuclear power plants have secondary and tertiary overflow reservoirs, intended to capture any uncontrolled dangerous outflow if things go wrong.
I wonder if chemical plants have something similar, a way to contain an uncontrolled outflow of toxic stuff if the normal flow of neutralization fails.
BTW this likely means quite a bit of land used up by such a reservoir which is ideally never needed, but must be present.
Yes. In Silicon Valley, if you go to Bedwell Bayfront Park, which is behind Meta/Facebook HQ, there is, on the bay side, a small sewerage treatment plant. There's a fenced concrete-lined pond, usually empty. That is a sewerage overflow containment pond. It's next to a hiking trail, so it's easily visible to the public. That whole park, by the way, is a recycled garbage dump. So is the bay side park behind Google HQ.
Wastewater plants have other ponds and tanks which are part of the process, and they're usually full, with liquid moving in and out, accompanied by stirring, air, and chemical injection. A big empty one is a backup system.
Real engineering.[1]
[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-09/documents/la...
Does the area smell, or is that all captured somehow? I've been to the plant in my city many years ago and it only smelled in certain buildings.
Well, the concrete pond is usually empty. But yeah, the site kinda smells like methane. Hard to say if it's from the dump (which of course has vents), or from the sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant is always burning.. something. Maybe methane escaping from the dump? Maybe from the wastewater? I'm not sure.
Anyway, it's not bad-- I run around there all the time. It's just when the wind blows a certain way. I live a half mile from it and you absolutely do not ever smell it outside of the park.
I worked at a plant and the answer is yes. The EPA requires it.
It can range from overflow tanks to capture spills to concrete “pools” around the entire operation that capture any catastrophic leaks and direct it to underground holding tanks.
There are a ton of highly toxic industrial processes. Properly designed plants and safety infrastructure means it’s never an issue.
> BTW this likely means quite a bit of land used up by such a reservoir which is ideally never needed, but must be present
This is enough to earn chemical plants a spot on a future "BANNED in California 2" article, because it's "clearly" overregulation.
[flagged]
> He wants this problem to happen to other people…
I think he wants them not to dump the chemicals straight down the sewer?
FWIW, I don't see anywhere that the parent post said that there shouldn't be plating plants in San Jose, just that they are dangerous.
Yes. It's a miserable business. Look at the pictures from the inspection of a plating plant. Everything near the process is corroded and covered with crud. Such plants have to be regulated and inspected, to prevent them from becoming a hazard both to the neighborhood and downstream.
Plants which do chemistry on an industrial scale tend to need their own waste processing, which gets the waste products down to a reasonably neutral form. Regulation is needed to prevent dumping it unprocessed. That's what the EPA really does.
ok but I'm willing to have occasionally poisoned water in exchange for an industrial society
You know you can have clean water and industrial society, right?
https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
When I was a kid growing up in Texas, our ocean visits were to the Gulf of Mexico, off the Texas coast, and you would grab little alcohol wipes for when you got out of the ocean, to wipe the oil off.
Years later, swimming in Hawaii, I found myself looking for wipes. I mentioned it to a snorkel-outfit operator, and she looked at me like I was insane. They didn't even put damaging sunscreen in the water, and there was no expectation of little 1-2 inch sticky spots of oil.
The good old days, in the 80's, where we swam in oceans filled with slow-motion natural disasters. I wonder how much of it was place (Hawaiians seem to have a stronger relationship with the land and nature surrounding them) and how much of it was the time (20 years later).
Crude oil floating in the ocean used to be a big nuisance in parts of California. It is a natural phenomenon, created by oil deposits on the ocean floor leaking into the environment. Santa Barbara was particularly famous for it.
Extraction of that oil via commercial wells greatly reduced the natural seepage, which is why there is so little crude oil floating in that ocean water today. Oil drilling actually made the water cleaner.
To me this "drilling is good for the environment narrative" sounded a bit misleading.
And not far down the rabbit whole one finds: The author of the study often cited by oil companies for above narrative, felt impelled to publish a clarifying statement: https://luyendyk.faculty.geol.ucsb.edu/Seeps%20pubs/Luyendyk...
Maybe stricter guidelines against operational "routine" spills led to a reduction of the sticky spots, plausible?
Per NOAA and USGS, ~20 million liters of crude oil naturally seeps into that part of the California ocean each year. That is more crude oil each year than the worst oil spill in California history[0].
You are projecting your biases. There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative. I was recounting an interesting fact about the environment there.
Many of these seeps are under considerable pressure as there is substantial natural gas mixed in. The seepage rate of each has been mapped and studied for many decades. It has long been observed that the introduction of drilling appears to substantially reduced the seepage rate at many of these underwater sites. Drilling wells significantly reduces natural pressure in these reservoirs, likely leading to the observed reductions in seepage.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill
> There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative.
…
> Oil drilling actually made the water cleaner.
For it to be a "narrative", there would need to be an additional claim that this specific case and context, which is factual, generalizes to most unrelated cases. That is not in evidence. Thinking that this was an attempt to create a narrative is a failure of reading comprehension.
This insistence that acknowledgement of facts has an ideological narrative is a pernicious strain of anti-science thinking.
To be clear, I have no skin in the game here. I thought the point you made sounded plausible and as I have zero experience or expertise, I wouldn't argue against it.
I just thought it's ridiculous - and kind of funny - to deny making the claim you literally made. I'm not sure you have a lot of legs to stand on, accusing others of "anti-science thinking" and a "failure of reading comprehension" when asking us to ignore the clear, textual evidence of that contradiction.
> For it to be a "narrative", there would need to be an additional claim that this specific case and context, which is factual, generalizes to most unrelated cases.
Says who? That seems a very narrow and unusual definition of what makes a "narrative", bent to your purpose. It seems to me, a "narrative" in common parlance just means "telling a story" or "relaying a sequence of events". I honestly have never seen someone use the word to imply generalization (doesn't mean no one ever did, of course).
In any case, given that you responded to a comment talking about the two examples of Texas and Hawaii with an example about California and an "actually", it seems pretty fair to me to say, that you even fulfilled this artificially narrowed definition.
I mean, come on, you have got to admit that you have at least been unclear, if you didn't intend to make this argument. Instead of just defensively flinging insults.
"This insistence that acknowledgement of facts has an ideological narrative is a pernicious strain of anti-science thinking."
That is very well put. This should be added to the general list of fallacies in argument, and like the other ones (the slippery slope, hasty generalization, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc.) more general awareness should exist about these.
The current wave of anti-science, anti-logic, rejection of objective data, etc. is like nothing I've experienced in my lifetime. This is a subjective observation, maybe it has always been this way and I never paid attention because I was caught up in whatever I used to be caught up in.
So you’re saying drilling destroyed crude oil’s natural habitat?
To this day if you walk on the beach your soles or the soles of your shoes will get sticky tar spots. You need baby oil wipes to clean them up before entering your home.
And some of it, if not most of it is not natural seepage but early environmental catastrophes in the 50s and 60s, particularly around Summerland.
(Source ex-resident)
Wtf I love Exxon now.
How did the wildlife adapt to that? There must be some cool species there
I don't know much about it but I have read that the local ecosystem is well-adapted to the oil seep environment.
That area has been like that for something like 100,000 years, which is a considerable amount of time in evolutionary terms.
I remember swimming in Santa Barbara growing up (well closer to the Ventura side really) and having to dodge oil on the sand and water.
Natural seepage is still just as big of an issue now as it was back then in those areas, including Santa Barbara.
There is still tons of tar on beaches in Santa Barbara county, mostly all from natural seeps.
For what it's worth you still need the alcohol wipes (mineral oil works well too) when swimming off the coast of Santa Barbara. It's naturally occurring oil that gets all over your feet in little annoying sticky spots.
yeah same for the Gulf Coast, oil just seeps right out of the ground at some beaches or at some times. There's plenty of man-made pollution to go around though.
Half-ish (don't get hung up on being exact, they are at least of similar orders of magnitude) of the oil that makes its way into the ocean is natural. That is, leaking out of the ground into the water not at all as a result of human activity. Obviously enormous anthropogenic oil spills make this a very spiky statistic one way or the other.
Oil production and natural oil seepage happen in the gulf of mexico because there's oil there, there's not much oil around Hawaii.
So there's likely both a human and non-human reason for this in Texas.
Growing up on the Atlantic coast of Florida, we kept a can or Renuzit solvent in the garage to wipe tar spots off our feet after coming home from the beach. I'm sure that stuff was toxic. The tar was everywhere for a few weeks, then gone for a while.
Hawaii has other problems. When I lived there, I went through a lot of Neosporin because every scrape you get from a reef pushes in bacteria that got into the ocean from the leaking sewer pipes.
Ha, yeah I remember the Galveston beaches as a kid. Left when I was 9, I can't imagine things have improved much since then...
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 the regulations nation wide, then applying tariffs on imported products that don't enforce the same regulations.
Net result, more expensive phones, better health and improved environment for the public. In the same way as car pollution was cleaned up.
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...
That's certainly one interpretation. Most of the workers there keep doing what they do to protect the environment though, so it's entirely plausible that they are taking precautions to save the environment, but find the method in which the regulations are implemented to be slow or arcane. If it's anything like cybersecurity in the government, the laborious process of filling out irrelevant paperwork is orthogonal to actually accomplishing the initial goals.
>laborious process of filling out irrelevant paperwork is orthogonal to actually accomplishing the initial goals.
Well yes, it's designed so that a handful of teenagers can't just clone the IRS database, for example.
If there's anything I have learned with age it's that regulations have bizarre unintended consequences. The incentives are too numerous and too precariously balanced to muck with without tipping someone's seesaw right into a volcano.
...because dumping stuff into the middle of what is already a barren wasteland isn't actually a problem.
The Gigafactory is less than 20 miles from a drinking water reservoir (and recreation area) in one direction, and the city of Reno in the other.
~30 miles to Lake Tahoe.
And according to https://www.reno.gov/home/showpublishedimage/4088/6351980817..., it's about two miles from the watershed that feeds it.
20 miles is a very long way away
Surely you must know what a watershed is.
NMP in particular readily biodegrades in aerobic environments, both in water treatment plants and just in water. Bacteria seem to crack it quickly. It's also not volatile. You have to protect yourself while working with it, but it's not comparable to really nasty stuff, like heavy metals.
I'm not aware of many (non-manmade) barren wastelands on Terra. Even the Empty Quarter has wildlife. About the only place I can think of would be something like the Dead Sea.
It’s not like the health of the public stopped Lonnie from installing a bunch of generators near poorer neighborhoods in Tennessee.
The desert is not a "barren wasteland." It is a valuable, vibrant ecosystem no different than any other.
The desert is an ocean with its life underground, and the perfect disguise up above.
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground, but the humans will give no love.
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.
Yeah I think there are two problems
First: we may have gone too far toward anti-pollution. China has more naval vessels than the US. Everything changes when peace isn't a foregone conclusion, as it has been for the past 30? 50? years.
Second: it's not the regulations per se, but the difficulty of dealing with the bureaucracy, particularly (a) long delays and (b) uncertainty.
I run an electrical contractor, so this is not the least bit theoretical to me. The hassle of dealing with local government and PG&E for what should be routine things adds tremendous cost to doing business. Recent concrete example: it cost over $1,000 and two months to process a minor change to an electrical permit set, in Alameda (City). The actual change was moving some panels outside, a small revision to a plan that had already been checked and permitted. This required $1,400 in engineering fees, plus a ~$200 application fee to the City, and then the actual plan check and review charge of $650-700. It was probably one hour of actual work. The worst part was that Alameda outsources its plan check to a third party and I'm pretty sure the plans sat for two weeks on someone's desk at the City, before I asked for status, and then, an hour later, by "complete coincidence", it was sent to the outsourced plan checker.
If we could put a precise price on pollution, it would be a different story. It's a collateral damage of all the (even well-intentioned, good) regulation that drives business away.
> It's a collateral damage of all the (even well-intentioned, good) regulation that drives business away.
I keep hearing this, but it never happens. Despite attempts to get jurisdictions to race to the bottom, businesses simply follow the money/markets: I can bet you a hefty sum that Alameda will never go without electrical contractors.
> I can bet you a hefty sum that Alameda will never go without electrical contractors.
You *really* don't understand the issue then because no one is saying that there will be 0 electrical contractors.
Electrical contractors will continue to exist because demand will continue to exist, but the wait time to get the work done will increase due to not enough electrical contractors.
Or the work will be left undone because the owner doesn't have enough money to pay the few electrical contractors that remain.
Or the work will occur but will avoid all regulations because the cost of complying relative to the odds of being caught don't justify paying it.
That's a lot of words to say business won't be driven away by regulations.
You can't see if there is 1000+ dollars of fees for any small electrical change then there will be less actual work done in an area.
I understand why businesses would want to maximize work done in an area - I hope you're self-aware enough to realize this.
The tension you may be blind to, is that society wants to maximize safety in an area - and any work done should be in service to that goal, and not an end unto itself. We shouldn't blindly maximize for work done in an area, we have to make sure the result is safe: this introduces rules and regulations, and the time and monetary costs tag along.
No two people will agree where the balance is, but generally there's regional culture. Hell, Texas allows home-owners to do their own electrical work - does that "drive business away" since some people won't pay for small DIY fixes in TX? I can't say I've ever heard that argued, but I hear it deployed a lot in response to regulations.
Many states are littered with work environments criss-crossed by extension cords because if it plugs in it doesn't need a permit, forklifts moving IBC totes because that's cheaper than the permitting it would take to install real process equipment and be regulated differently. Rain and snow covered parking and work areas that should have structures over them but can't due to the realities of environmental calculations and permitting.
Every time someone trips on a cord and smashes their face, gets mashed by a forklift, slips and falls on ice and can't work for 6mo, you personally, along with everyone else who's fetish for bureaucracy has driven up the cost of "better solutions" that would've prevented that has a little bit of that blood on their hands.
I'm not saying to just let anyone do a 3ph 480v panel swap and connect that shit to the utility. But at this point that might be better than letting you people continue to run things your way.
It's like saying that a ball-and-chain thing is not going to entirely prevent you from walking, so you're not denied the ability to walk. While technically correct, this conclusion misses a few important related consequences.
Everyone just says F the permits and becomes a youtube academy engineer. Then you start seeing all the issues that the permit system was designed to fix.
Half my house was built less-than-safely by the previous owner because getting the permits for the structures would be too expensive, time-consuming, and maybe not even possible.
The increased costs (time and money) of permits really changes the risk-reward.
> China has more naval vessels than the US
... what?
Yeah, everyone wants faster bureaucracy until they see the cost estimate for proper staffing, then just pretending there wasn't any harm to regulate in the first place becomes the preferred option.
Agreed that staffing the bureaucracy with good people costs a lot.
There is a large opportunity to simplify and rationalize the regulations. This would dramatically reduce the cost of both bureaucracy and compliance. In addition to massively reduced cost, it would enable people in CA to do more cool stuff faster!
But simplification, rationalization, and acceleration is not in the interest of the bureaucracy or the incumbents... so we are very unlikely to see change until there is an existential crisis.
Every bureaucracy I've ever experienced is constantly complaining about being under-staffed, but when they get more funding, the service level rarely improves. It seems like complaining about 'over-work' is just an easy excuse for doing a bad job, which makes sense given how many friends I have in government who are constantly complaining about their lazy and inept colleagues.
I think that one solution might be making it much easier to sue companies for their externalities and then loosen the regulation. IMHO, all that regulation is necessary primarily because methods of controlling the corpos and the rich have broken down.
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.
It helps you can buy an electric car in China for 1/4th the price as California. They also massively invested in every sort of energy (not just solar) where it's cheap and affordable to develop industry. Everyone obsesses about labour costs but almost everything is easier and cheaper to build in China because they allow stuff to be built there. Including the workers far lower housing, utilities, fuel, and food prices which lower the cost of living.
That's because the bureaucracy there is making stuff get built instead of making stuff not get built, and it planned all the externalities too.
Don't forget Insurance companies! They define and enforce a lot of the requirements too, it's also why all the new parks look the same.
It really helps when the government can just disappear someone when they don't play along with government edicts.
Don't worry, we in the US will get to enjoy that soon enough.
> In the US environmental laws are not about the environment at all.
that is literally nonsense .. lazy nonsense, ill-willed nonsense.. Ignorant nonsense.
literally four seconds to search " history of us environmental law"
The phones might not even be more expensive in the long term, if we’re just in an easier-to-discover local maximum in efficacy x cost x pollution space.
We've kicked the can down the road. Stuff used to cost more; now we make everything out of plastic overseas. Once all of those economies are wealthy enough to start caring about the environment (and I'm convinced we'll get there), pollution will have to be dealt with globally.
Maybe by then we'll have returned to building products which last (although I'm not holding my breath).
And starts out with a Musk quote, to boot. (Assuming it's not made up wholesale; could not verify.)
We need to push these people out of California.
By “these people” do you mean the people who actually make things?
These banned industrial processes sum to making almost every physical object. The net effect is that it’s nearly illegal to make anything physical. Do you think that the state or country will do well in the long term if it’s basically illegal to actually make things?
Also funny that you Musk derangement people will never actually engage with the content of the quote’s message, preferring to dismiss it based on your political disagreement with the person who said it.
I think "these people" referred to the people who write articles like this one.
Why is disliking racists political. What do words even mean.
> These banned industrial processes sum to making almost every physical object
The processes are obviously not banned, only an idiot would think that. You just can't do the process and dump all the pollutants into the nearby river.
What’s funny is how much the chuds try to frame revulsion at white supremacy as “political disagreement” and “derangement.” As I was raised, this is actually just deadass “normal.”
I see no reason to engage in any way with the mental flatulations of this virulently racist Epstein fanboy. The quicker his empire can be dismantled and the sooner he gets utterly shunned from polite society, the better off we’ll all be. To a lesser degree, the same goes for his eager and willing co-conspirators.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/12/elon-musk...
As for California, as a resident, I’ll take environment over industry, thanks. Half my home neighborhood is already a Superfund site. Go fuck up Texas if you like.
Again, very little engagement on ideas, but full paragraphs of derangement about "white supremacy" and "racism". Nobody cares man, you spent the last 10 years calling everything you disagreed with racism and now those words mean nothing.
>Go fuck up Texas if you like.
Indeed, Texas is taking a net inflow of builders and entrepreneurs, California has a net outflow. The state is booming and the future is being built in Texas. The most advanced rocket in the world, something that puts governments to shame, is being built there. Massive semiconductor manufacturing plants, electric cars, financial companies, tons of new housing (look at Austin, 25% price reduction because of new supply in recent years), all happening there.
But I really do think that your train of thought is sort of misanthropic. Anti-progress, anti-science, and just generally being "anti-building" does not play out well in the long term. I supposed it's a lesson that generations have to re-learn.
Millions upon millions of people very clearly care. You don’t care. :)
And doubling down on puerile trigger words like “derangement” does absolutely nothing aside from reflecting poorly on the author. It’s a strange sentiment to preserve in the Internet amber, I must say.
Please tell me what "If I wanted to build a new car factory, I literally couldn't paint the cars." has to do with white supremacy?
Maybe the regulations for new car factories are good, maybe they are bad, maybe Musk was exaggerating or making things up whole cloth, but the veracity of these things is mostly unrelated to Musk's views on race.
I’m sure David Duke has said some interesting and intelligent things in his life, too. But once you’ve done enough shitty things, the taint of your shittiness eclipses the value of your ideas.
Which is to say: I’m not going to quote David Duke at someone if I’m engaged in intelligent discussion, even if he happens to have the perfect quote. Unless I want people to think I share his values.
> What would fix that is enforcing the regulations nation wide, then applying tariffs on imported products that don't enforce the same regulations.
This is the biggest lie we are told, and the most heinous. The only thing that will fix it is when people like you (and me!) stop purchasing things which were made in those regulatory environments. If you continue to purchase them under the premise that "I have no choice, I have to participate in this fallen world," so does the state of California. Banning these activities when there are alternative regulatory environments just pushes the problem to someone else.
A great example of this is the Obama-era fuel efficiency laws. No one actually wanted a more efficient truck, so to get around the laws, the manufacturers just made larger trucks, which caused more problems than they solved.
Outlawing something, then doing nothing to stop demand for that thing, that's just irresponsible.
I want a more efficient truck!
I don't think that will work. There's simply no viable path towards that much coordination; especially when late stage capitalism ensures that most people are living too hand to mouth to be able to worry about stuff like the environment.
The Grandfatherd-in section is incredibly misleading. Look at the Semiconductor Fabrication section, for example. The implication is that these are the only fabs in the state, they wouldn't be able to get new permits today, and the red dots indicate that it would be "effectively impossible" to open any other ones. In fact (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat...) there are at least 18 fabs in California, and these are just two random examples of particularly old ones. Obviously they couldn't reopen under the same permits they got in the 60s, why would anyone expect that to be the case?
A lot of these are actually grandfathered in. Vulcanization, electrolysis, auto painting, etc. I think the emphasis is that CA has effectively made it difficult to get regulatory authorities to agree to issue new permits. That was the part that stood out to me.
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 manufacture in California. That doesn't appear to be factual. With no references, it's just a California bashing site based on easily disproven falsehoods.
> 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...
That grant is only for nonprofits and only for "pilot manufacturing and testing", not useful mass manufacturing.
Good catch. One has to wonder how many private non-profit entities there are in the world that want to build a "pilot manufacturing and testing" plant, that
- Are able to put up $5m of their own money in order to receive $25m. - Are not associated with a university. - Are not a public non-profit electrical utility (heaven forbid!)
One, as it turns out. Who received $28m. According to the list of grants given under the program.
Smells a bit off.
Without sources all of this is…suspicious at best.
They list playing and Cnc machining as banned and then only describe the chemicals used in playing.
There is a huge defense production industry in CA and an even larger machining industry that would be really surprised to hear that.
The largest manufacturer of machine tools in the US (Haas) is based in California.
> why would anyone expect that to be the case?
Why would you expect it to be impossible?
I wouldn't expect it to be impossible, and it isn't, but I would expect the permits to be different than they were 60 years ago. You can still build a house today, but that doesn't mean you can build one using the same permits you received in 1965. This is true for everything.
Of course. And the goal in part is to enrich prior entrants and also to create massive unearned gains for them by printing a license for something no one else can have. This explains a lot of the housing prices writ large -- boomers and others who own houses that are grandfathered in via various regulations that let them build for cheap but not you, and making a new one has to be done at much higher regulations, basically printing money for those grandfathered in without them having to do anything but add regulations that apply to everyone else but them.
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 then, so why call out California?
Just because something isn’t done doesn’t mean it’s banned. Neither is it necessarily bad. There’s a lot of reasons why not to build certain things certain areas - labor cost, earthquake risk, land is more desired leading to higher cost, blah blah blah
That doesn’t mean something is banned. Maybe we should look at making some things easier but this website is just a hit piece and has a clear motivation rather than being a trustworthy evaluation.
It’s like those cringy billboards on highway 5 about Gavin newsom and water.
Edit —— Complaining that large factories can’t easily be built in dense population centers like the Bay Area means things are banned is weird - who in the right mind thinks a sprawling factory with emissions should go smack dab in the middle of population centers? Why can’t we build a new nuclear plant in Manhattan or maybe an oil refinery on wall street!? Waah waah so outrageous! None were built in the last decade so it’s the outrageous regulations fault! I want my lead battery smelter in downtown Portland but Oregon banned it! Waah waah!
Aside that, this site is mostly blaming California regulations for the nationwide manufacturing issues driven heavily by free trade
California is mismanaged and you don’t need to vote Red to fix it. We can do better as Blue State. Wake up. We’re losing to ourselves like an obese patient anemic to a diet.
You kind of do need to vote Red - or, more precisely, make Red competitive again. Because Californians don't vote Red often enough, most of the candidates in the Republican Party in California are completely unserious. This has allowed the more impractical progressive side of the Democratic Party to increasing set the direction of the Democratic Party in California, to the detriment of governance for everyone.
Personally I hope that the two Republican candidates in California both win the jungle primary - maybe that will lead to some soul searching on how bad the Democratic politicians have become in the state.
I think it could be better run for sure. We need to look at things other states seem to do well (Utah - homelessness, Texas - K12) and push to improve.
The problem for me is that when you go out in the rest of the country the dislike bordering on hate for California is really common. It is insane to me that you can send Marines to Los Angeles and almost no one cares. California is a such a huge chunk of the US economy, not just tech but agriculture, trade and yes even manufacturing.
The partisanship is poison for everyone and it holds back reform in California. We're all the same country.
>Texas - K12
Uh..
I'd do Massachusetts K-12. Texas is pretty bad.
Massachusetts consistently ranks in the top 10 in the world on PISA. An exam which removes all the political "BS"-ability from the results and comparisons. It's just your students taking the same test as all the other students in the world, and the resultant scores being ranked.
Texas K-12 is horrible. Lived there from Katrina to a few years past Harvey. Our PISA scores were consistently horrible when we were ranked internationally.
Though, curiously enough, we were not "horrible" if you only compared us to the same test results in other US states. We were nowhere near Massachusetts. But we weren't Alabama/Florida/Mississippi either. Which means education in general in the US is pretty bad outside maybe the top 3 to 5 states by performance on the PISA exams.
Massachusetts is unusually good though, probably because of the high concentration of elite universities in Boston, which is also the capital of the state, which means politicians there take education most seriously - and don't forget the demographic effect of the number of professors and other highly-educated professionals.
Texas, California, and Florida are all fairly similar, with California doing somewhat worse than Texas and Florida. Unfortunately, the dedication of California to effective education is going down over time, while even the Deep South, which has consistently been at the bottom, is going up.
>while even the Deep South, which has consistently been at the bottom, is going up
Well their PISA scores haven't been going up. In fact they've been going down. So if their education is getting better, it's not showing up in the ability of their students to answer questions that other students seem to be able to answer.
That's kind of what I meant by PISA removing "BS"-ability from the equation. For some reason, on American standardized tests, all our children do great. Then we take PISA with all the other kids in the world, and the truth comes out.
That's also why I think we should all just take Massachusetts' education curriculum and implement it across the nation. Because you talk about demographics, but even when you control for income and race, kids in Massachusetts just flat out do better than our kids. Even just taking all kids at the bottom of the rankings in Massachusetts, they are still doing better than kids at the median of the rankings of many, many other states. (And think about the demographics of kids at the bottom in Boston, Brockton, or Springfield. Come on, admit it man. I'll try to stay politically correct here and just state that those very likely aren't professors' kids at the bottom of the rankings in Massachusetts.)
Massachusetts is so far ahead of all of us that I think I'd be comfortable just saying that they seem to have gotten it right, and we should simply copy it. Because right now, the gap is just getting wider and wider with every round of PISA testing.
Could you link where you're getting the PISA scores from? I've seen references that PISA was not conducted in all 50 states, at least recently. Also, I can't get a breakdown of "US States and Territories" for 2022 on the PISA website at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/idepisa/report.aspx
Texas K-12 performance has decreased significantly in recent decades, largely due to massive poorly-educated Hispanic immigration.
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.
> Why can’t we build a new nuclear plant in Manhattan
We should, it would replace significant amounts of natural gas usage for space heating. Not doing so is literally cooking the planet.
I think a nuclear plant in Manhattan would cost far more than just building the plant in outer NY, and then running a big power line in to Manhattan. Sure, the power line would take up space, but so would the nuclear plant's cooling system.
Or, just turning back on the one we mothballed in Peekskill.
The space heating is the cooling system.
So's a turbine. Sometimes people don't want heating, but you still need to cool down the plant. And while I'm sure the nuclear plant will have a great emergency stop button (the type where paying $1k per press is absolute peanuts), the systems used daily to turn the heat up/down will either need a buffer, or have a delay on taking the heat up/down. That'll take up space. Remind me why power lines aren't an option?
Manhattan is an island. It's surrounded by cooling fluid.
> Sometimes people don't want heating, but you still need to cool down the plant.
You can turn it down or off.
> Remind me why power lines aren't an option?
It's more economical not to waste half the plant's power output. 1 GW of heat comes out the reactor, 50% becomes electricity (with heat pumps you can make that 2x heating) and 50% is low-grade heat sufficient for space heating. You get 1/3 more heating for the same cost.
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 involved in doing stuff. But the risk of a bunch of litigation isn't a ban, right? I get that it's trying to be attention-grabbing, but calling it a ban when it's not just sort of confuses the issue.
Being unable to start a project without doing 5 years of legal wrangling once you put shovel to earth may not be a "ban", but it sure doesn't encourage development.
Just Devil's Advocate..
but why is this a problem?
There are other states without the regulations that these businesses apparently find offensive. Why can't the manufacturing be spun up in those states?
Serious question.
> 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 assured me.
What's so bad about negative externalities? Instead of thinking about that think of the profits (for me)!
/s
He's talking about taking the government to court to force it to follow the law, not "maybe we'll get sued later."
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).
It's not a good way to get to the truth. If your aim is to spread truth then you should be able to back up everything you say.
I think it is. It keeps listeners engaged because what they love most is telling you that you might be wrong and looking ways for it. A listener should make up their own mind anyway and double check -- if what you say is 99% right better they take that away than be 100% right and not be heard at all. I also just respect people more that can be bold with their points rather than hiding behind some chicken shit nuance that always covers them if what they really meant to postulate was wrong.
There's an important distinction here, between "banned" and "has far cheaper alternatives".
Things can appear banned even when they aren't merely because there is a new technology that's better and cheaper and it's a big investment so people go with the cheaper option.
Nobody is building new coal in the US because it's so expensive, not because there's an outright ban. Now, part of the reason it's more expensive than in the past is that using once-through water for cooling raises the cost of disposing of waste heat. And now, modern and much more efficient natural gas combined cycle plant is the obvious choice because not only is the fuel cheaper per kWh, but you also need to spend a lot less on waste heat disposal.
So is coal banned? No. Did some environmental regulations have an impact on just how bad of an idea coal is these days? Sure, but let's talk about the tradeoffs here, it's not a ban and framing it is a ban leads to bad solutions to real regulatory problems.
You can just look at examples in the article. For example "Lithium-Ion Cell Manufacturing"
> Cell manufacturing uses NMP solvent for electrode coating, handles flammable electrolytes, and requires formation cycling that generates heat and gases. Tesla chose Reno for the Gigafactory specifically because of California's permitting environment.
EPA tried to heavily restrict these outright in 2024 [1] and California has air/environmental rules that made it nearly impossible to develop large battery factories in California, which is why Tesla chose Reno in 2014. An alternative didn't exist at the time and now a decade later Tesla recently filed a patent this year for Dry electrode processing [2]
So basically California lost a decade of possible lithium factories
[1] https://www.sgs.com/en-ca/news/2024/06/safeguards-9624-us-ep...
[2] https://www.benzinga.com/markets/tech/26/02/50290319/elon-mu...
That's a good story to consider.
Given the labor challenges in California due to high housing costs, which selectively pushes out those willing to work for lower wages, I am always surprised when manufacturers choose the state at all. Throwing additional challenges doesn't make it any easier.
It's like the death sentence in CA. The minority who wanted to abolish it couldn't get enough votes, so the actual process was systemically altered until it became too cost-prohibitive.
*This is not a post in support of death penalty, just how CA politicians have figured out ways to legally get what they want even if it directly contradicts the will of the people.
if you own a factory and the legislators make your factory illegal, that's a ban. "well you can just upgrade" is no consolation. one day your factory is allowed, the next day it's not.
Why mince words?
I was advocating specifically against mincing words so that appropriate remedies can be pursued. "Unbanning" coal isn't going to make coal appear again!
If there's a specific regulation on one aspect of a factory, as you describe, then "unbanning" the factory isn't going to help either, one must specifically unban that which was banned.
Mincing words would be saying "Factories doing X are banned" when in fact an existing Factory doing X with negative externality Y had negative externality Y priced or regulated.
That's exactly what we shouldn't be mincing, if we want to address the problems and make better decisions.
[flagged]
Great, me too! Trying to play semantics rather than clearly stating reality, or trying to make a picture fuzzy so that inaccurate generalizations take priority over reality, is not a a good way to run a democracy.
It’s a republic .
It's a republic and a democracy, but every person I've heard say "it's a republic" erroneously believes that the US is not a democracy, and that republics can't be a democracy, because somebody told them that once and they liked the sound of it without ever checking it.
So, who's mincing words?
[flagged]
Hey you seem puzzled by the Republic vs democracy concepts so I’ll throw you a bone. Here’s a clear explainer that will solve your confusion: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republ...
If you don’t have time to read it, the short answer is the USA is both a republic and democracy!
Merriam Webster settled it!
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 forbidden to swim in it, and if you did, you had weird oily chemicals on your skin that felt unhealthy (burn, itching etc).
Back then we had huge production industries upstream, employing thousands of people.
Today you can swim in the river without any problem at all. But the industry and the jobs have shrunken a lot, because not polluting the air and water simply is expensive.
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 non-competitive.
This is why you outsource to other countries and let them do it, because you simply do not care about them living in a polluted environment. Poison Outsourcing.
So, if the US wants production industry again, and want it to be competitive, than have a look on how the environment in the countries you will be competing with looks like, and then to an informed decision if you really want that.
I'd pick the clean air and water, and have people poisoned far away that I don't know and can ignore.
What would be your choice?
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 about the people and environment? Put high tariffs on dangerous process products, reduce regulation (permits, etc), increase standardization and final safety measurements. Then the products we use, we make, safely.
But people don't actually care about the environment. They care about looking like they care about the environment, and sending industrial processes somewhere else. There is a difference.
> The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer
We cannot. We are richer because we don't do it. We export it to areas so poor they view the environmental impact as a fair trade-off for being able to eat.
You're both likely correct.
We can afford to do it right. It will cost more and we'll have to make more prudent, effective, efficient, etc... decisions about producing and allocating goods and services and would need to give up many of the net negative/zero economic activities we like.
We've also likely enriched ourselves by externalizing the negative externalities of some of our goods and services to other countries. That's our choice, and I don't think it's a great one.
>> The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer
> We cannot.
Apple can afford to do test fabrication while abiding by the rules, but chooses not to. https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/apple-fine-over-bay-area...
Glad you said areas rather than countries. It is quite common to degrade the environment within rich countries as long as it isn't near where powerful people live.
Correct. We are also richer because we won't do it. The EPA has saved countless lives, at least did, it's been basically dismantled.
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.
Central/Eastern European here. Our labor costs are comparable or even lower than China today. And the manufacturing is still struggling. So it's not only that.
That, and you have to ensure your energy costs (power) are low and you have a secure source of raw materials. I'm not an expert, but from what I've heard, the economic region over there has been doing a poor job on both those fronts. Furthermore, you have to talk about regulation vs safety. The EU has regulation. Maybe too much.
There are also network effects. Your plant that is energy intensive is closing? Now other manufactures must increase their cost as transportation is increased and local contracts harder to get. Your chemical plant, which has operated within good bounds for a decade can't get a permit to expand, or is protested? Your intake products now either go up in price or become unable to attain them at all.
There's also that large scale effort ongoing to make those energy costs higher and take those raw materials away.
And even still - there's a lot of manufacturing in Easter Europe. Go to IKEA or an appliance or auto store. You might be surprised to find where things are made these days. Often they'll say "made in EU" instead of the actual country name though.
In Central/Eastern Europe, the problem is increasingly one of demographics. You can sometimes find somewhat cheap labour due to shitty (geo)politics, stagnant economies and poorly trained workers, but big-picture-like, the age of labour abundance is over. These economies have nowhere to go but down, down, down, starved of talent due to the twin cancers of bad demographics and emigration. Some countries are better, some worse, but the overall trend is the same all over the region. Going gentle into that good night.
(China's predicament is not much better, with the added wrinkle that there's absolutely nothing whatsoever they can do about bad demographics due to their size, whereas Central/Eastern Europe can import people once we collectively get over ourselves and let go of uppity xenophobia).
>the age of labour abundance is over.
There IS labour over abundance. Unemployment in most EU countries is at record highs. And it shows no sign of slowing down.
The problem is it's mostly white collar labor overabundance. And those college educated people aren't gonna want to make sneakers in sweatshops.
The number of kids born in 2025 in Uzbekistan (population 38 million) is about the same as the number of kids born in 2025 in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland, *combined* (total population 131 million). The age of labour abundance IS OVER, we're witnessing its very last days in EE. Unemployment may remain due to terrible politics and economic mismanagement.
There's not going to be any point even having sweatshops or factories in this region soon. Why bother? If it's anything low or medium-skill and low or medium-capital intense, just open up shop in... Well, why not Uzbekistan? And if double-landlocked isn't your thing, there's dozens of other options.
[dead]
This is false, patently incorrect. With a good manufacturing line workers are not priced out by "cheap labor" they are priced out by almost zero cost labor, Robots are basically a rounding error compared to human's wages.
Robots bring very different tradeoffs on the table. But they are not built and maintained autonomously by the all mighty benevolent skynet, all working 100% on renewable energies abundant at geological scale.
Plus scaling industrial production is one thing, but if proletarians are unable to afford them because wealth distribution is exponentially concentrated, what is the point?
>But they are not built and maintained autonomously by the all mighty benevolent skynet, all working 100% on renewable energies abundant at geological scale.
No but they are significantly cheaper than an employee, A robot can pick up something and move it from A to B for upwards of 10 years. The programming and setup are a fraction of the time a robot can operate reliably
I cannot stress to you how reliable and little maintenance is required for a $60,000 fanuc robot.
A factory isn't made of workers who pick up something and move it from A to B all day.
Frankly, that doesn't need a robot, it needs a concert belt, maybe a hopper.
It's actually not labor costs at all.
The difference between the USA and, for example, China, in manufacturing is the difficulty of getting a new factory built.
If you have a product designed and ready for production, it will take you years to build a factory in the USA. All the while you'll be losing money managing the build, paying your employees and, most importantly, letting your competitors get a head start.
Likewise, if you build that factory in China, it'll be up and running in less than a year and you can start making your R&D money back, get to market before your competitors and not bleed money keeping your companies doors open.
The labor costs are easily offset by removing the logistics of moving the product.
Tesla Gigafactories are a pretty good example of this. The first two took ~3 years to build in Nevada and New York. The third, in Shanghai, took 10 months.
'Company learns from mistakes, third time it does something it does it better, quicker'
The 4th one, in Germany, took 2 years.
Gigafactory Nevada notably became the second-largest building in the world (by volume) and was a joint partnership with Panasonic, locating two major manufacturing facilities within the same structure. Seems like a big project with additional joint partner complexities. Making the second largest building in the world as your first try is going to maybe run into some things.
Gigafactory Berlin is a different beast and produces a different product mix.
Gigafactory New York produces photovoltaic cells and Tesla Supercharger assemblies but does not produce batteries or vehicles yet another product mix.
Giga Shanghai just does final vehicle assembly (basically the easiest kind of factory and most minimally regulated) and is a million square feet smaller than the other factories and with no joint partnership/co buildout.
Famously regulated to hell Germany. There is no way that Nevada and NY have more regulations than Germany. It really is all about having experience.
I live in Texas, which is still part of the USA, and we manufacture a great deal.
I have a friend who works as an environmental engineer at a chem plant. They work hard to keep things safe and clean, and rigorously monitor their output.
I'm sure we could do even more if we weren't competing in meany areas against legal jurisdictions which DON'T care about such things. We aren't "priced out". We are regulated out and out competed by jurisdiction which have many fewer labor laws and much more lax environmental monitoring. If we are out-competed on product, then we deserve to loose, which is where libertarians and free-trade have a point. But if we are out-competed on keeping people and the environment reasonably safe? That's when we enact trade barriers.
That is how you actually keep the environment and people safe.
I am not saying that you should tear down anything that works for you.
Trade barriers however are bullshit and don't work. And they are a lie. You are not building IPhones in the US because building an IPhone in the US would cost three times as much as it would doing in Shenzhen. And people would not be willing to pay that. And that's why they get an exception from the trade barriers. And that list of exceptions basically goes on and on and on...
Anyway, what works, works. This is especially true if that industry had been in the area for long, and therefore has access to a lot of skilled and experienced workers.
But it does not make sense to cry and complain that building such a thing from scratch is "banned". No, it is not banned. It's just a stupid idea, and there are laws against stupid ideas using limited natural resources.
This is what I don't understand?
We do manufacture things. Just not in California.
So why does it even matter if California bans manufacturing dangerous things? Who cares? Just manufacture it in some other state. As a bonus, you don't have to pay those high California taxes.
In what world is this a problem?
> We do manufacture things. Just not in California.
Texas beats California in total value of manufacturing shipments only because because of its petroleum and coal products manufacturing. And California beats Texas in manufacturing employment.
None of which answers the question of why we can't manufacture things in other states? Things that California clearly doesn't want to manufacture.
Again, what is the reason New Mexico, or Utah, or Nebraska, or Tennessee cannot manufacture these things? And why is it a problem if they do so instead of California?
Big companies already handle manufacturing in other states. Often in states that have the worst education systems and quality of living. It is frequently done to reduce the cost of labor.
Manufacturing jobs are also some of the most unstable because big companies will shop around for tax breaks. Once they find a political sucker ... they build a new plant and close the old one which wrecks havoc on the local economy. PR teams are designed to mitigate negative feedback when this happens.
Smart politicians know this and will not concede to tax breaks for big companies, like Amazon.
Doesn't that just make California's case for them though?
I mean if these jobs are so bad, isn't it good that California is trying to not have them in its own municipalities? The way you laid it out, shouldn't everyone be trying not to have those jobs?
Quality of a job matters. So does proper regulation so the job is not harmful to the worker or community or environment. Those others state politicians that welcome those jobs without proper regulation are willing to ignore the health and well-being of their neighbors.
Manufacturing jobs are not bad. The environment and de-regulation makes them bad.
To me a job must have a living wage tied to it and it must be in an environment that doesn't poison the employee, community, and nature.
Others have low standards like calling USA McDonald's a job when they don't even pay enough to live off of. EU McDonald's is forced to pay a living wage because of proper regulations.
> We do manufacture things. Just not in California.
California has the highest manufacturing employment and most manufacturing companies of any state, the second highest (behind only Texas) dollar value of manufacturing output.
It is just below the national average in manufacturing as a share of GDP, but its also the fifth highest state in GDP/capita; leaving it still above average in manufacturing GDP/capita.
California produces ~$350B in manufacturing GDP. It is the #1 state in manufacturing jobs in the US.
By its sheer size and population it is probably #1 in almost anything you care to rank.
Damn, don't tell the guy from Texas.
I don't think we're priced out, there's still a lot of competitive manufacturing in the US. I think it stems from a regulatory side, primarily in unions and logistics, which is unfortunate because these provide very little or no benefit to citizens but make it sometimes impossible to invest heavily in manufacturing here. People can't create dense factories cities like Detroit if a union may come in and destroy it, and we can't move fast enough if it's going to take years to get regulatory approval to develop a large factory (the Micron factory in Syracuse comes to mind, although there are many like it).
Shipbuilding in particular has negligible labour costs, even for rich countries. Cost to build a ship is about 80% materials costs.
Which leaves plenty of room for a non-negligible 15% discount.
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.
Ouch!
The USA is priced out of manufacturing due to greedy capitalists and business owners. Acting like labor is an insurmountable expense is just hilariously out of touch.
Maybe those that own the wealth should pony up more in taxes or give away their factories to the workers so they can run it themselves (something tells me they'll do a better job than greedy owners that just care about money rather than building a community).
For most industries: No, you aren't. The limiting factor mostly is natural resources. Which is what the articles author is complaining about. "I am not allowed to use up the last drops of drinking water California still has! SOCIALISM!".
And the other limiting factor is knowledge/education. Your region has been known for 100 years to be highly skilled at building $THING? That knowledge is still there and has not fully retired? That's also a resource.
"High labor cost" is a smoke screen. We are not talking about acquiring from a pool of lazy dancing monkeys. The labor you need are for tasks that machines can not yet do. Those jobs are either really shitty, or need a lot of qualification.
Due to this: If you want to build a factory in an area where there aren't already similar factories, you first need to build a University and come back 25 years later.
The articles author should next try to build a business based on offering camel riding in Greenland. Camel riding? Banned in Greenland!!!1
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
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.
This website is about what is banned in California, ostensibly for environmental reasons. So pigouvian taxes would enable them to unban those practices while mitigating their harms.
If you’re worried about people evading the tax, you can make a border adjustment for imports across national borders. Note California is simply forcing things to be done elsewhere.
"So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared about the people and environment?"
- I don't need a car, I'll use public transport. - I will only buy and eat the amount of calories I actually burn. - This 10 year old phone actually works pretty well. I don't need a new one.
etc
You need new factories because you want more stuff. If you stop wanting more stuff, you don't need more factories, and therefore nobody needs to cry about his industry being "banned".
I have visited the US a hell lot of times. I swear, I never ever in all these visits in any part of the US had the following thought in my head: "Boy, these people really need more car factories!".
> But people don't actually care about the environment. They care about looking like they care about the environment, and sending industrial processes somewhere else. There is a difference.
The idea that people setting pollution rules secretly don't care is silly.
California can't fix the whole world's problems.
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 non-competitive.
>>> This is why you outsource to other countries and let them do it, because you simply do not care about them living in a polluted environment. Poison Outsourcing.
This is 100% about globalization: if some countries let their rivers catch on fire, the externality lets them out-compete anyone who tries to do the process cleanly. So if you let their externality-fueled products into your country, you just can't build similar things, because they wouldn't be price-competitive.
If labor and environmental standards were strong and global, or countries with high standards refused to trade with countries with low standards, we wouldn't have this situation. There would be an economic motivation to develop and implement cleaner processes.
Of course it would be great if a level field would be created by making sure other competing regions follow the same environmental standards.
But what will be the result? The product now has equal cost to be produced, but the market is gone.
People consume cheap stuff because it is cheap. If it is no longer cheap, they will not consume.
US americans just need to make up their minds. Do they want keep getting more and more and more cheap stuff? Fine. Then go on exploiting other regions of the planet. Or do you have enough cheap stuff now? Ok, then nobody needs another factory.
Many on HN are living in a society where it is normal to use a TELEPHONE for only two years before throwing it away.
What would happen if you instead used it for 5 years? No more factories needed. Problem solved. You don't have to compete, as there is no competition.
The result of charging the true cost of T-Shirt to the consumer is not that everybody now has 100 Fair-Traded-Ecofriendly T-Shirts at home that they don't wear. They will notice that 10 T-Shirts are more than enough if you wash your clothes once per week.
What I am trying to say is: The demand is only there due to the option of exploitation. Take away the part of ruining other peoples lives to get cheap stuff, then it's no longer interesting and will just stop.
So of course you can take the detour, try to re-industrialize, and then find out that your people do not actually like this kind of work, and that they for sure also aren't willing to buy your stuff at the price you are asking.
There is a reason nobody would be so stupid to produce "Make America Great Again" merch in America. Your target audience would not buy it if it was made in America.
It is pragmatic to simply skip this step and end up with the same result: You'll just consume less.
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.
Is it actually tricky?
Do we let other countries wage war, pillage, etc. because others gathered wealth that way previously?
One persons experience with a river 30 years ago doesn’t invalidate a theory about how things could be done differently.
In my experience, it’s the conflict of the ‘in theory’ vs ‘In practice’.
Practically, ‘in theory’ might actually be doable - if there was a single, overarching regulatory environment. That was enforced.
Chances are, that would defacto make a bunch of people starve in poorer countries, and blow a lot of stuff up, so would also likely be worse than ‘the disease’. At least right now.
But maybe I’m just being a cynical bastard.
> But people don't actually care about the environment.
They probably do if it's near their backyard
Also I have significantly more influence in my local elections than elections on the other side of the world.
Corporations don't have a backyard, based on their historical behavior. The resource extraction and manufacturing sectors simply move on after they screw up or deplete one area.
> I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing
America barely cares about the domestic poor[1] - do you think its captains of industry will care about the poor abroad? Charity begins at home.
1. See locations of Superfund sites. Or for a modern example, where they are choosing to build AI datacenters powered by on-site diesel generators or gas turbines.
A note about Superfund sites: It used to be funded by a small tax on chemical production companies. 70% of cleanup was paid for by the companies who caused it.
Then in 1995, congress "chose not to renew" that provision.
Now you and I literally and directly pay for the cleanup of hazardous waste. Companies don't really. Yet somehow they "Can't make factories" here
FWIW, California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe. CA can't tell other states to ban various manufacturing techniques.
> California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe.
I'm not sure about that, maybe it is based on the definition of "safe". There are tortilla chips made in Chicago that explicitly say they cannot be sold in California on the packaging. This is due to chemicals banned in Prop 65.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1220zn9/...
Right, because the "bad" chemical will be in CA, harming CA residents.
CA can't say "the factory that made these chips emitted chemical X into the air during manufacturing, but none of it is in the final product", so you can't import it.
The Federal Government can, but not an individual state.
Thanks for clarifying. I believe I misunderstood your initial comment.
> So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared about the people and environment? Put high tariffs on dangerous process products
No, California can't do that. States cannot impose tariffs per the Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C2-1...
They could push for more regulations at the federal level (and indeed, Californians do this quite often!)
> You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean.
Yes exactly. And most of the complaints in this post is not stuff that's outright banned but stuff that's "hard to do".
These companies are complaining about how much more it costs to do this AND keep the environment clean. In an ideal world we would just have environmental protections all over the world so these companies don't simply find some small town with a local gov't they can buy off and do whatever they want
I’m sure it’s possible to do both in theory but I find it hard to believe that it’s possible in practice.
If it was California wouldn’t be covered in superfund sites that originated from industrial activities that took place decades ago.
A lot of people are poor. The cheap Chinese shit keeps them alive and relatively happy.
In your proposal you'd also cede the global market to China- because nobody in Angola cares about how those solar panels were made.
> But people don't actually care about the environment. They care about looking like they care about the environment, and sending industrial processes somewhere else. There is a difference.
This is about as true as saying "But people don't care about child sexual abuse". Sure, those partying with Epstein don't.
Plenty of people do care and indeed are today making sacrifices that align with this. Including lowering living standards. If you don't then that's on you, but speak for yourself.
Also Environmental regulations are like vaccines. They're victims of their own success. In the late 1960s early 1970s, before the EPA, the air and water in the US was a disaster. The EPA documented it:
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-us-cities-looked-like-b...
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/542493
You keep saying reduce regulation and then bring up things like adding permitting and taxing certain processes which is regulation.
The other thing you're not understanding is how the state can enforce regulations and how the federal government has to. States cannot levy tariffs.
> The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process.
If you don't have regulation, for profit industry won't do it right “through process”, because that would be throwig away money. Regulation is how you do it right through process.
> So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared about the people and environment? Put high tariffs on dangerous process products, reduce regulation (permits, etc), increase standardization and final safety measurements. Then the products we use, we make, safely.
Standardization and final safety measurements are literally regulations (and permitting is just a means of enforcing standardization.) So, basically, you “cut regulations” plan is actually to pair regulations doing exactly what the regulations you claim to cut do, call them a different thing, and add tariffs on top.
Which, is a long winded way of just saying “add tariffs”, which of course, a US state can’t do.
> I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forbidden to swim in it, and if you did, you had weird oily chemicals on your skin that felt unhealthy (burn, itching etc).
That's almost exactly how my dad and many of his siblings got permanently disabling muscular dystonia. The old times were fucking bad and we don't want them back.
> So, if the US wants production industry again
It should be noted that the VALUE of US industrial output is many times higher than it was 20 years ago, even if the VOLUME is lower.
Yes, it is crazy.
The good old coal? Have a look at the life expectancy of a coal worker, and maybe a ct scan of a coal workers lung.
Good old nuclear? Will you accept the nuclear waste getting store in your neighborhood? No? What about your neighbors neighbor? No? Keep asking until you get a yes. See you again after having asked 341.8 Million people.
There are reasons we moved on from this and de-industrialized. Because the industries we got rid of simply weren't actually that great. Go visit a Foxconn factory in Shenzhen/China. I have done it a couple of times. The part of electronics production that is not done by machines is painful and exhausting work. Your back will hurt. Your eyes will hurt.
I really wonder what people are thinking how these jobs look like. Nobody would want them. The only ones in the US who would accept those jobs would be immigrants who have seen far worse and therefore view these jobs as an upgrade. But the US doesn't want those immigrants. So why try to build industries creating jobs only the kind of people would accept that you do not want in the country?
When people can't afford homes, food and medicine, environment ceases to be a priority.
It's mostly a question of when, not if.
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 a bad law), making a more integrated health care system in the US territories (Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, etc.), climate law which will improve health care nebulously, and a vague statement about the supreme court hurting healthcare decisions (which is just a statement about them supporting the murder of babies).
When you get unlimited health care, health care costs skyrocket and you end up with a broken system that no party wants to fix - and everyone ends up with NO health care. If we went back to paying cash to the doctor, people with jobs will be able to afford it. And for insane life threatening events, job insurance and other forms of umbrellas.
This is such an impossible to solve problem that every advanced nation on Earth has already solved it, except the United States.
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.
The political party that wants socialized medicine is the one stacked with NIMBYs and blocking construction of housing.
Which political party wants socialized medicine? I'd like to join it, I say this as a current democratic party operative.
Current democratic party is currently a pro-corporate pro-deregulation party, basically Reaganites from 80s.
NIMBYism is more of a socio-economic class than it is associated with a political ideology.
Rich, older homeowners tend to be NIMBYs. It's a true bipartisan effort.
> What would be your choice?
Less stuff and less pollution everywhere.
It’s an inconvenient truth that the better off don’t want to face up to. Your environmental impact is going to be correlated to your consumption. More spending == more damage.
Something to bear in mind when you are being told environmental damage is being caused by the poor or some foreign country.
There are some scenarios where it’s a coordination problem. People could drive light fuel efficient vehicles if so many other people weren’t driving large, heavy, dangerous ones, for example.
Those large heavy vehicles are incentivized by loopholes in regulations because politicians were afraid of affecting "domestic jobs" as US automakers weren't even trying to compete with JP fuel-efficient imports.
Yeah, apparently it was originally to try to stop the rules from killing Jeep, which was having a hard time. New ones that allow more emissions for bigger vehicle footprints are also a big issue since it encourages larger vehicles.
There's not much point in being better off if you don't use that money for a holiday to Japan.
After all most of us work hard so that we can buy things.
As I said more spending == more damage:
https://iere.org/how-tourists-affect-the-environment/
You could work less hard and buy less things, spending the time and energy you save by working less hard on more enjoyable things than buying more stuff.
Yes, I fully agree.
And that choice is basically the exact opposite of what western civilization is heading for, and thanks to the AI boom, it has never been worse at any time in human history, I guess. Which means you are likely surrounded by people who want the opposite of what you want. That will be problematic.
However, this really only would be the proper answer if given by a majority as a community. In a crowd of people who want more, more, more more MORE, you will just drown and die.
But in principle you are right:
No, you do not really need to re-industrialize your country. Instead think about how endless growth in a reality of finite resources is going to play out. California is just fine as it is. Let's think about where Californians will get drinking water from in the near future, instead of thinking about building water-consuming factories.
As someone born in a socialist country that doesn't exist anymore (i'm still here), a very common progress of time over here was:
- a factory is built relatively far away from populated areas
- workers were moving closer to the factory, building houses (when factory workers could still afford them and were allowed to build them) closer and closer to the factory
- workers retire, die, their now adult children live in, or inherit, the houses
- adult children complain about factory being too close to the city, complain about trucks, noise, pollution, dust, demand this and that
In some cases, there is the next step too:
- factory eventually closes down, people complain about having to drive to work far away, usually to the capital city where factories and many other businesses still operate. Centralization bad! Same people protest when someone else wants to start a new factory, industrial zone, anything in their city.
In some more extreme cases:
- since everyone is driving to the capital city, they also shop there, send post there, visit doctors there, do bank stuff there... this means that the store, post office, the bank, etc. close down in their smaller city. Again, people protest. Sometimes literally: https://siol-net.translate.goog/novice/slovenija/krajani-gri... & https://www-nadlani-si.translate.goog/novice/zapirajo-kar-dv... & https://www-kostel-si.translate.goog/objava/1129317?_x_tr_sl...
You can avoid this scenario with trains.
My choice would be, if banning a particular process, also ban imports of products made with this process.
Another facet is that not only we got to enjoy clean air and outsourced pollution, we also paid our strategic enemies enough for them to transcend us.
The EU started charging carbon tariffs from 1 January- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Carbon_Border_Adjustment_Me...
Right now, there are Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAMs) going into place that put a price on the externality of carbon pollution in other countries with lower standards than your own. It's basically a carbon tax, the EU's just went into force. All the recordkeeping is probably not going to be cheap, but it seems like in theory, you could do something similar with other industrial emissions, and try to bring others onto the same level playing field, so that there's not that same pressure to cut corners.
There a lot of processes like those done in other states and in europe. PCB etching, cnc milling, allumunium anodizing are some of the ones that I order on a regular basis from european manufacturers.
One thing is to regulate the industrial sector to be cleaner if waaaay more expensive and another is to just forbid stuff that can be reasonably be done cleanly (but again, waaaay more expensive than in asia, for example)
Well than it’s good that none of this is literally forbidden despite the dramatics.
Then author just wanted to be over dramatic about how it’s not cost competitive to build in the Bay Area vs places like Reno where the land is cheaper and labor is less. Their scape goat or whipping boy is regulations but that’s highly myopic at best.
All true. But these are done in areas where the required resources are available.
A hell lot of industries, including most the original author is mentioning, simply would not work in California. California is running out of drinking water for humans. You can de-regulate all that you want, even cancel all environmental laws, but that will not change the reality: You don't have water. Want to build a water-consuming factory? Great, but please go to somewhere where water is available.
Yes, bureaucracy can be annoying, and of course California has a hell lot of "let's not fix the actual problem, but make it mandatory to put up a sign about it" regulations that for someone from the outside (like me) look silly. If the state of California knows this substance REALLY is harmful, why... is it here?! Either it's not really harmful, but if it is... what? A sign is the solution?! ;)
So I understand people complaining about environmental regulations in California. We had the same in Europe for decades. Everybody was complaining and making fun about all the EU regulations. Then the UK left via Brexit. And learned a lesson. And today nobody is joking about EU regulations anymore.
Anyway: One may call it "banned", or "expensive" or whatever. But it really is "does it really make sense to put this here?".
This is the conclusion anyone who look at things rationally must come to. The problem is, there's an endless influx of people, drunk on space-age optimism from their K-12 education system, that think "I reject that reality, there MUST be a way to have it all". They haven't learned that the universe hates us and wants us to suffer, not the opposite.
Gen Z spends less than 30 minutes outside a day, that's with 1/5 having no job/school at all. The choice is obvious, they aren't swimming either way.
Green manufacturing tech is much closer in viability, now is the best time to re-industrialize. 1/5 of people having no work is a crisis, how can they support their family?
>than have a look on how the environment in the countries you will be competing with looks like,
You are absolutely relying on some very outdated tropes, especially because I know China is in your mind. China remains a production powerhouse and has radically overhaul the country environmentally in the last 15 years. It's pulling away fast and hard in green energy. It's a country that had to go from mass poverty to modern era in 50 years compared to the hundreds of years. They aren't perfect yet, not California level of drinking water from sewers, but I fully believe they'll get there and still be a production power house by not having delusions and anti-engineering drive decisions.
No, China wasn't "on my mind". Last been there two weeks ago. I am well aware that China in most areas is lightyears ahead of the Western world. I like highspeed trains ;)
I really meant what I wrote: Compare the environment. Pretty much everybody in Shenzhen hates Shenzhen. People live in tiny apartments. And not because they are poor: Even if you have money, you live in such a tiny box. Because everybody understands that Shenzhen is a Machine, and you are a part of that machine. Your goal is to one day be able to have made enough money to be able to exit that system, and unlike the USA, that actually really works.
Want to build electronics manufacturing and be able to compete with Shenzhen? Start by first building 50,000 box apartments of 200 square feet in size. Next step: Find 50,000 US Americans who want to work in that machine.
So yes, when it comes to electronics, it's not so much about getting poisoned by a poisoned nature, but by suffering in another way.
For clothes it's a different matter, for example. There you still have the oldschool stuff - want the US to be able to compete? Let's give the kids some cancer!
Let me try to re-phrase: Go to the place where stuff is successfully made that you want to in-source into the USA. Then make an informed decision if you really want the baggage that comes with it at home.
I am massively benefitting from something like Shenzhen existing on this planet. It is so effective and productive because it was designed for that from the ground up. Would I want anything like Shenzhen anywhere near me? Hell no!
Most US Americans asking for re-industrialization have neither worked in those industries nor even have a clue what it feels like working in those industries. The people who are asking for these industrial jobs to be re-created are those who do not have any intention to take one of those jobs.
It's not about clean inputs, its about industrial outputs and waste product. China is NOT a leader in that field. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57853-z
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.
Actually it did pan out. You just weren't paying attention.
Chinese cities had terrible air quality 20 years ago. Now they don't.
The Chinese and Indian governments have climate change plans that they're actively working on, sometimes ahead of schedule. The current US government has banned the words "climate change" in official documents.
They are not quite there yet. China now has a huge middle class, but they also still have a massive underclass. It’s too early to claim these projections were wrong. I think they are misguided, but there is no denying that China now pays more attention to pollution than it did a decade or two ago. There are massive investments to clean the air in large cities. Same in India: the situation is dire but the political cost of supporting the status quo keeps increasing.
It's not magical thinking; it just doesn't happen overnight. The real question is as we get relatively less wealthy in the West, will we start moving the other direction?
China deploys more solar and wind power then the US.
Americans seem to love to count their past successes and then declare the game is over and they won.
History doesn't end though.
China
All these things can be done with healthy air and clean water, but the cost goes up, and people don't want to pay that cost. So we send them elsewhere instead.
The same is true re: data center water use. Evaporative cooling is cheaper. You can build a DC that uses little or no water but it costs more.
Yea, this romantizing of a past is doing no good to us. For example, It's weird how people romantize back breaking work on farm as "simple life". But I guess this was here with us every time. Grass is greener somewhere else and was greener in good old times.
hah yeah same goes for blue collar trades type jobs, it's weirdly romanticized here. My mom's side of my extended family were all blue collar types in West Texas, ranch hands, truckers, welders, that sort of thing. All of the men were basically crippled by 55 from using their bodies to make money and died in their 60s of various diseases. My father's side is all white collar and they're all still around, my dad is a minor pickleball celebrity in FL at age 80.
Simple != easy
>But the industry and the jobs have shrunken a lot
And those people left jobless still have the right to vote. So you'll have to bribe them with welfare or invest in their upskilling, otherwise they'll turn to crime to survive and vote the most extremist parties to power that will undo all your environmentalism.
It also leaves you economically and militarily vulnerable to the countries you outsourced all your manufacturing too, as you can't fight back an invading army of mass produced consumer drones with just your remaining HR and software departments.
>I'd pick the clean air and water, and have people poisoned far away that I don't know and can ignore.
Until they mass migrate as refugees out of their polluted hlleholes you helped create, and move into your clean country straining your resources, making it your problem once again. Or, they tool up and economically or militarily crush you, turning your country into one of their colonies.
You(the West in thsi case) reap what you sow. There's no free lunch where you can have your cake and eat it too. In a highly globalized, highly mobile world, things tend to come back at you pretty quickly and the only ones safe from this are the ones who profited the most form this, the billionaires with private islands and doomsday bunkers.
Just to clarify: When it comes to myself, my post has been a provocative hypothetical scenario in which I would need to make that choice.
In the real world, decided to move to a part of the planet where this question doesn't even come up, due to society having different priorities and a different base definition of "quality of life".
>Just to clarify: When it comes to myself, my post has been a provocative hypothetical scenario in which I would need to make that choice.
I know, that's why I wasn't judging it as being your own perspective but the general business perspective of the west that lead to the current situation.
> due to society having different priorities and a different base definition of "quality of life".
What is their definition of quality of life?
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.
I'd pick the advanced components and find ways to protect the environment as well, both can co-exist together, Why not Fischgericht?
> "Europe-like US states like California"
This statement makes me smile. Although I see where this comes from...
I'm not judging here. From my experiences in California I would say that the general mindset and cultural approach to life is comparable to that of south-western Europe.
In part that's simply because while looking different, the general environment is fostering respecting nature, giving room for arts and creative and having an open mind.
(This example of course is coming from a past world where you could safely travel to/from the US, say, 10 years ago:)
Travelling from say Portugal to Miami ) would give you a massive culture shock. Portugal to San Diego? Not so much.
) Yes, Portugal to Key West would have worked.
Yeah as a New Yorker and someone that's lived in the Boston to Washington megalopolis basically my whole life, a lot of Europe feels very familiar. I felt right at home in Lisbon.
> 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.
In a modern money/fiat money regime, the federal government can afford anything in nominal terms. As such, the solution would be to subsidize the industries that make the most sense for standard of living and national security so they can participate in the market. Use government subsidies to offset the costs of environmental remediation .
> 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 non-competitive.
I mean, the true reason here seems to be that producing stuff without polluting is impossible if you have to compete with stuff produced with lesser pollution standards.
In theory, this could be an argument for heavy import tariffs from countries with lesser pollution standards. The downside, of course, is that at the end of the day this would still mean "stuff is more expensive, maybe a lot more", which is obviously unpopular as it means fewer people can get the stuff. (And of course, a US state's ability to restrict trade with other US states is extremely limited)
Who can forget when China closed some factories in 2008 and 2022 so the smog would clear out before the Olympic games could begin? Could we potentially have "clean" factories built in America, maybe. But then could we afford the products they produced, hell no! If it was affordably possible, it would have already happened.
The working class citizens of China have paid the price for all the industrial factories. Don't believe it, look up the cancer studies China has published. (Oh right, communist countries always tell the truth, right?)
It would have worked out fine. We would have just bought less useless junk.
If it is not profitable, then it must be subsidized. Trump could have supercharged the EPA and expanded the grants for clean manufacturing, but he destroyed it instead. Now we get the worst of both worlds and our higher taxes go to his own pocket.
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.
In the US, you could work 400 hours per day, and still nothing would change in regards of wealth concentration.
Inheriting money from your parents is taxed lower than earning your own money through work. Making more money due to already having money is taxed lower than earning your own money.
US Americans by a large majority over decades got trained to believe changing that would have something to do with "socialism", which was made a bad word.
But this isn't about re-distribution, making people equal or anything.
It's just that it is not logical, does not make sense, and in the end will destroy your society if already having money, which provides no benefit to society whatsoever, is rewarded over producing something, which does provide a benefit.
Why does a teacher who provides REAL benefit to society in the US has less yearly net income than someone who does not work at all but has once inherited 200k from his parents?
You have been trained to find all of this normal, and to believe it's your fault. Just work harder! No, it's not your fault. Working harder won't change anything.
So imagine you have one of the richest countries on this planet. But you don't really have enough work for every human to work full-time. Why is this a problem instead of an ideal? What strange goal is "everyone should work hard" when it comes to enjoying life? If you have an insanely rich country, there are far better solutions than trying to artificially create jobs that make no sense.
You can not compare this to a POOR country with high unemployment. There unemployment is a problem. In the US? Who cares if there is no factory to work in? Instead go help your neighbor. Study something. Become an artist. Do a public gardening project.
Again, the problem is that "having money already" that is of no use to society whatsoever is valued and awarded higher than any of those useful things above.
So, Step 1 for the US would be: You don't have to take away anything from anyone. But stop rewarding people for already having money.
As the CEO and owner of a German limited company I can choose between paying me a salary, getting taxed 45% ) for that, or paying myself a dividend, getting taxed 25% ). The first time I learned that 20 years ago I found it totally crazy and could not believe it. I still find it crazy today. Even in my own f'ing company my OWN work is valued less by society than me owning my company!
*) Oversimplification, but the ratios are correct
[flagged]
I'd choose to be the powerful and rich industrial country every single time. If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it. Clean water to swim in? Build a pool.
Frankly, any deindustrialized country is quite simply irrelevant. You need industry to have a middle class. You need middle class for capitalist consumption. There's a reason why american corporations kowtow to China now. The USA thought it could deindustrialize and act as the world's boss. China is proving them wrong via relentless industrialization. I only wish my own country had the balls to do the same.
> If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it.
I used to think this way, but I've come to realize that it's very short-sighted. It's not sustainable, and we're already seeing how unchecked industrialization over the last couple centuries is leading to unintended/undesirable effects on our health, and indeed the suitability of the environment we need to live in. Sure, those problems can be pushed onto future generations, and so far (maybe) we've been able to solve them. But if we care at all about humanity's ability to thrive, we need to be more careful.
In developed countries, nobody has to struggle anymore just to stay alive, which is a far cry from the way it was 200 years ago. Advancements now are along the lines of increasing entertainment, or quality of life. But enjoying a good life doesn't have to be a zero-sum proposition, and I think society should put a higher cost on the ability of wealthy people to use up irreplaceable natural resources for their own benefit.
> It's not sustainable
You know what's not sustainable? Exponential growth fueled by credit.
Banks loaning money at nearly zero percent interest. Money that gets loaned out, spent, deposited back into the bank and loaned out again, and again, exponentially, until a ludicrously huge financial callstack is created.
This financial callstack wants to unwind. It can only do so safely by the payment of debts. At some point, someone will actually have to go out there and extract value out of this planet in order to pay back those debts. Since debt grows exponentially, so does the harvesting of the resources of this planet.
If you want to solve the problem, you need to go to the source. You need to get rid of credit. Without this, environmentalism is nothing but national suicide. You're opting out of exponential growth and promptly outcompeted by the countries that didn't opt out.
> In developed countries, nobody has to struggle anymore just to stay alive, which is a far cry from the way it was 200 years ago.
Yeah... Because they industrialized and got filthy rich. Now they can afford to give so called "rights" to their citizens.
Rights cost money. They don't appear out of thin air. Somebody's gotta work to provide them. Even the right to not get killed in broad daylight only exists because extremely violent men with guns are protecting the rest. Those men gotta be paid.
Money is not infinite. It runs out. The music can't stop. Gotta keep making money in order to keep providing all those nifty rights. The simple reality is if you don't have real industries you're probably not making that much money. My country is essentially the world's soy farm, nvidia stock alone probably moves more money in a day than my entire country put together.
Look at the national debts of countries the world over. That's money they don't have. Money future generations will be paying interest on for a long time. You want to get reelected but you're broke, so you borrow money you don't have and spend it all giving "benefits" to a population that is dumb enough to think it comes for free. Then there's so much money circulating the value of the currency is inflated away, and people's children grow up and get radicalized when they realize most of their taxes are spent on interest payments on loans made by the previous generation.
> If you want to solve the problem, you need to go to the source.
Which is precisely why it's so short-sighted to try to solve your problem by "wiping out the entire Amazon jungle and replacing it with a world class high technology industry." If you're going to have a magic button to solve problems, then why not use it wisely, instead of propagating the spiral towards destruction?
> The simple reality is....
True -- there are no magic buttons. The reality is that people with wealth and power use them to take finite global resources and leverage them to ensure they they stay wealthy and powerful. That is implicitly not sustainable, as well as being questionably moral. It's not possible to avoid being part of the system, but you don't have to actively make it worse. You can advocate for fairer alternatives, or at least not wish for the destruction of entire major global ecosystems.
> At some point, someone will actually have to go out there and extract value out of this planet in order to pay back those debts.
Not a single atom on the planet has to be moved to extinguish all debts. Money and debt are (very useful and powerful!) bookkeeping constructs only.
> Look at the national debts of countries the world over. That's money they don't have.
Then who has it? Modern money is based on debt, and where there's a debt, there must be a creditor.
> Banks loaning money at nearly zero percent interest. Money that gets loaned out, spent, deposited back into the bank and loaned out again [...] Money is not infinite.
You seem to be basing your argument on some seriously outdated and thoroughly refuted models of money.
> Not a single atom on the planet has to be moved to extinguish all debts.
You should elaborate more on this bold claim.
> Then who has it?
Plenty of people. Treasury bonds holders. Pension funds. Insurance companies. Other countries. The government owes all of those people and regularly pays them interest.
> You seem to be basing your argument on some seriously outdated and thoroughly refuted models of money.
Fractional reserve banking is outdated and refuted?
> If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it.
Wow. Why, because the Amazon is just a bunch of trees or something boring? If "high technology industry" is so much more valuable without even thinking twice about it, you probably don't understand very much of the world.
I understand. I just don't care. I'd rather my country got rich and powerful instead. Would be nice to industrialize and keep the Amazon but I'd totally sacrifice it if needed. It's home to huge rare earths reserves.
> Clean water to swim in? Build a pool.
Where do you find clean water to fill the pool with?
> You need industry to have a middle class.
Your average industrial assembly-line worker is _not_ middle class. They are horrible jobs no-one really wants back, or at least not for themselves.
It is very much possible to keep your air and environment clean, and still reasonably grow and remain relevant - look at France.
> You need middle class for capitalist consumption.
Again, industry workers were not middle class, and if you pay them enough to be middle class, your product's price stops being competitive.
To have middle class for capitalist consumption, you need to stop funneling literally _all the money_ to single-digit amount of people and companies, leaving everyone else poor, regardless of what they do for work.
> Your average industrial assembly-line worker is _not_ middle class. They are horrible jobs no-one really wants back, or at least not for themselves.
That's incorrect. Factory work is a ramp from low to middle class. It's low skill on entry but teaches on the job. Long term employees are valuable because they have expertise on the process and are, therefore, more valuable.
Ask Detroit if they want the Auto Industry's manufacturing back.
> Where do you find clean water to fill the pool with?
The Earth is literally surrounded by water. I'm sure people will find a way. Treat the water if needed.
> if you pay them enough to be middle class, your product's price stops being competitive
Tell that to China's growing middle class, not me. We have western corporations shitting all over western values and culture and kowtowing before China and their censorship because they can't afford to lose the chinese market. That's where money is flowing now. It's one of the reasons why Trump wants to weaken the US dollar.
> 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.
Not a problem. Countries should get rich first, then they can afford all of those costs and have money to spare.
We've been building canals for thousands of years.
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.
Municipal water usage in California is only 20% of all water usage. The rest is almost entirely agriculture, and all that agriculture uses a strange system of water rights where you do not have to reduce consumption during a drought, and the last person in line instead absorbs all the drought problems.
This creates an insane political environment where the rich as fuck agribusiness which owns that final water right is incentivized to get that tiny municipal water usage reduced as much as possible to squeeze out a tiny bit more water for their own business, rather than reform the dumb water rights system which would ensure that they only shoulder a tiny tiny portion of drought scarcity but probably force them to pay a little bit for irrigation improvements or stop growing almonds as cheaply.
The only reason the rest of the country even knows about the California water situation is because those bottom rung agribusinesses are still wealthy as all fuck and have actively paid for national political campaigns
Most municipalities get their water out of the same system, it's just they need so much less so they get by. Also, of the 20% that used by urban water systems, 50% is for outdoor irrigation.
The definitive book on the subject is "Cadillac Desert"
The only shortages are for farmers, and a few isolated and very poor towns.
IMO, the (existing) towns should get more state support to have affordable safe domestic water. The shortage is not raw untreated water, but just transporting it and treating it.
The farmers? I sympathize, but they are trying to grow crops in an extremely fertile but arid valley. It's going to be constrained by the natural environment.
> 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.
As a resident who likes to breathe clean air and drink clean water, none of that seems all that bad.
I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though.
But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy. There needs to be a path towards doing things other than foisting them on people who are out of sight.
Texans seem more than happy to host these industries. Let them, they have no public land left to protect anyway. The environment is arguably California’s most valuable asset. May as well preserve it so people continue to want to actually live here.
Texans often try to regulate these industries at the local level. The state government has tried to put a stop to most of that by passing the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act which took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves. The state has ruled that Texans will be exploited by industry in order to protect profits and the citizens aren't allowed to vote to save themselves.
Who votes for the state government?
Some guy called Gerry Mander aparrently.
https://lwvtexas.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=979482&i...
This is a self fulfilling profecy.
For a long time, it was jobs and the promise of a better future for your family. By killing that all we have is weather.
All we have is the weather? California is the largest agricultural producer of any state, and it's not even close. Plants like growing here for the same reason people do.
Because they get all the water that can possibly be piped in from somewhere else.
Good? If it's the best place for producing a product, but requires an input from somewhere else, that's how businesses work.
That's pretty much true of half the USA.
And if the last several years are indicative of the trend, wildfire season is now a substantial part of the year.
You act as though California is no longer one of the largest populations or one of the largest economies.
The “snowball fallacy” is a fallacy because there is no reason California s can’t swing the regulatory pendulum back the other direction if there is too much economy / freedom impacted.
When I took a machining course, the instructor sat in the corner and showed us YouTube videos in Mandarin with English subtitles to teach us the equipment.
We are never going to catch up.
What a myopic attitude.
3 to 4 decades ago anything from China was poor quality and US manufacturing was tight tolerance.
When we outsourced, we did the training to get them where they are today and stopped investing in our skills at home.
There are still skilled people here who can train and the knowledge is not some sort of eldritch incantation.
The main issues with learning is lack of jobs and lack of opportunity to apply skills if you have them.
I had to pay an instructor to show me YouTube videos because the college wouldn't admit to being unable to find domestic talent.
> There are still skilled people here who can train
If you don't acknowledge you're losing the race, you will never catch up.
China probably caught up the same way starting 40 years ago. Watching VHS tapes in English (or German, Japanese, or French) with Mandarin subtitles*. Clearly "never" is untrue because it's been done once already.
IMO this is all cyclical.
* This is metaphorical. Obviously there were also textbooks and research papers and technical manuals and everything else. The point is much of it came from abroad and they learned it all to the point that they're the experts today.
Most of the comp sci videos on youtube are indian, but is India the cutting edge producing of comp sci innovations?
Maps of California are dotted with SuperFund sites where these companies left the taxpayers with the bill to clean up their toxic messes. We don’t “foist” these externalities on other people; they choose to hold lower value on a clean environment than regions which regulate pollutants and other negative externalities.
Plenty of states and countries are okay with having this stuff in their backyard. Most of them encourage it. Let them build it.
Most of the complaints from this website aren't about things being outright banned. It's mostly stuff where the regulation is so strict that's it's "nearly impossible". But the regulation seems fair to me wrt what's actually required to keep TCE, asbestos, Freon, chloroform, etc out of our soil and water.
Companies that are complaining are complaining that they can't treat the environment as an economic externality anymore in California. Therefore the price of all of these goods are being subsidized with our health and our ecosystems' health.
I hope more of the world follows California's lead and we eventually have a price of these goods that represents what it actually takes to manufacture them in a fair way
But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy
This is kind of disingenuous.
I mean, not everything used in California, needs to be manufactured in California. Why not manufacture it in New Mexico? Or Arkansas for that matter?
What you're implying, is that Wisconsin, Nebraska, Maine, Florida, etc, etc, etc, should all build out the manufacturing base to manufacture things that are used in those states. That's not really how a healthy economy should work.
I guess what I'm pointing out is that, we don't need to manufacture smartphones in South Dakota. It's perfectly acceptable to manufacture them in, say, New Jersey, and then ship them to South Dakota. Similarly, we don't need to manufacture everything in California.
> I mean, not everything used in California, needs to be manufactured in California.
Not the parent but nobody is implying that. Just that most Californians consume or want these things and thus expect other states to build them.
Which is no different than any other state.
No, other states build these things. It it a point specially about California.
Sure. Everything's built overseas. We all already know that.
Why can't things be be built here, in a state other than California?
What is the fixation with California? Tennessee or Nebraska would love to build smart phones, or even just the chips for smart phones. What is the reasoning for not building these things in other states?
What if, hear me out, what if we did these things… in space?!
Assemble a navy in space then just airdrop it through the atmosphere?
To be fair there is quite a bit of space there.
That’s ok, Texans don’t mind having to drink bottled water
I lived in Mexico for a while and while I really enjoyed it it’s horrible that you have to fear the tap water. It’s not humane
I agree but I fail to see how bad water infrastructure that allows poop to get into the water supply in Mexico has anything to do with this topic. Nobody is arguing that you should be able to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air. It is possible to do all these industrial processes responsibly. It just costs more to do it. So either you can allow businesses to do these things with reasonable amounts of regulation locally or you can prevent those businesses (what CA does) and import these products made somewhere where they won't follow your regulations. And since pollution notoriously doesn't honor borders, perhaps its best not to use simplistic scarecrow arguments and instead have a nuanced understanding of the topic. But don't let me stop your partisan hackery, I'm sure you enjoy it.
> Nobody is arguing that you should be able to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air.
TFA appears to be arguing just that. It lists a prohibition on spewing cancer-causing chemicals into the air, as a ban which needs to be lifted.
> But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy.
I would like far less of all of these to exist than we currently produce (I use a 5 year old phone, an 11 year old car, and think the US Navy could function just fine with a lot less budget and warships).
> I use a 5 year old phone
I don't, because I care about security updates, and I don't want to have to choose between a highly degraded battery and giving up waterproofing.
> an 11 year old car
Crash safety has improved by leaps and bounds in recent years. I suspect you're more likely to be killed in a car accident that you wouldn't be in a new car, than to be killed by one of the industries that California bans.
> think the US Navy could function just fine with a lot less budget and warships
If a powerful adversary goes to war with us, then we'd want a lot more, and only increasing then would be too late, because we'd lose the war first.
I'm not from California but this to me seems like a great case to move to California. Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere? Its not like they pay more for the iPhone.
Consider housing price and state tax as well
And don't forget the strict laws that prevent people from leaving and require them to complain instead.
As someone who moved out of California a few years ago I assure you that it is exceedingly easy to move to a different state, assuming you have the money to move at all.
Good to hear and I hope and I suspect you are doing well. People leaving is good for other states and good for affordability of California.
Sure. A state where housing is dirt cheap and no taxes is great, but if something happens to you, good luck finding a hospital or municipal services. Job prospects are also something to consider.
Just because houses cost more and there's a state tax, doesn't mean it's _bad_.
They do pay more for the iPhone, they have the highest state sales tax in the US.
This is easily demonstrated to be wrong. California isn't in the top 5 highest. The top 5 being:
1. Louisiana 10.11%
2. Tennessee 9.61%
3. Washington 9.51%
4. Arkansas 9.46%
5. Alabama 9.46%
Crazy how we never hear pithy drops about sales tax in Louisiana. I wonder why that is literally never a talking point in these discussions? Probably a very similarly motivated reason as to why people rant about murder in Chicago but never Memphis.
You're combining state and local sales tax. State sales tax in Louisiana is 4.45%. Some municipalities add nothing on top of that, some add more. I said California's state sales tax is the highest and that's true.
> Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere?
Like where?
Like the places where people welcome deregulation and jobs?
Not trying to sound like a jerk but there’s plenty of places in the US where people welcome stuff like coal mines and polluting factories.
If the factories have to be somewhere and they consent, then why not there?
corporations taking hold of small local governments and passing laws that benefit them, unbeknownst to the locals living there, is hardly "consent"
Can’t help but feel like you’re overestimating the competency of the average voter in these effected areas; a breath after yours—though not necessarily your own—may condemn these people for being undereducated, out of touch with culture or subject to corporate grifters.
There's this country called China that you guys been offshoring manufacturing to...
Unless you are from China, your jurisdiction offshores to China as well.
Well the attitude that puts a full stop (well a question mark) after "NIMBY" says implicity "where the poors live".
Well, I find it a bit hypocritical: if those things are so bad, why to forbid manufacturing and not consumption? Otherwise you just pollute a place where people that have no say live.
Some of these items actually net improve clean air and clean water, but you’re instead happy to export those pollutants to another country to feel better yourself
the plurality of this website are californians so this whole discourse is about as predictable as can be
Export the externalities baby!
> I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though.
Maybe Texas is far enough? The [l]one-star state has laissez-faire regulations, and may be more to author's speed.
It's always hilarious when a bunch of people in Texas who hate government and government regulations get screwed so hard by the corporations that move in that they start incorporating to form governments so that they can pass government regulation to stop those corporations. See for example Webberville or the efforts to create Mitchell Bend in Hood County. Some people have to learn the hard way. Some never do.
Texas got so sick of Texans trying to protect themselves by creating regulations that they created the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act. It took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves and instead protected the profits of some the state's biggest industry buddies.
lol. yeah there is but instead of "farther from the population centers" it is "farther from YOUR population centers"
Yes, exactly. That's fine - live and let live.
If somebody else values their health less - let them have pollution in their own back yard. If enough communities worldwide care about their health, then polluters will have to clean up their processes. But it's not for the residents of California to decide what happens in other jurisdictions.
The reason those countries take the "burden" on is because the USA became a global superpower by developing more industrial capacity than literally every other country in the decades prior to the World Wars.
They want to duplicate this success and displace the West, similar to how the USA displaced Europe during and after World War 2.
Do you not think it’s possible that there are many places where people do care about their health, but they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation?
Do you think the ship breakers in Bangladesh do it for fun?
This outsourcing of misery is the absolute worst feature of Western neoliberalism. You get a two for one, dumping misery on other countries because it’s cheaper, while outsourcing strategic concerns because they are “too dirty.” It’s NIMBYism taken to its logical conclusion.
The answer is to spread out all forms of production globally, so nations don’t lose their smaller local industries that may be less efficient than foreign alternatives. Foreign trade should fill gaps in local production, not kill local industry.
The mechanisms by which this can be accomplished are antitrust and careful application of trade barriers. The obsession with “free trade” has done damage to countries all across the world in order to benefit a small class connected to multinational industry. The short lived benefits came at a huge cost and countries are only just now seeing this.
Free trade/open borders libertarians have lost influence to nationalists because the former position is antithetical to maintaining a functional society. It’s possible to build “libertarianism in one country,” and the sooner that people wake up to that, the better. The alternative is some form of left or right despotism.
[dead]
These explanations have no citations, and even the explanations frequently conflict with the category labels. It seems much more like an elaborate propaganda infographic than a useful source of information.
"Hey AI, tell me what manufactured phone components require permitting in California." ... Copy paste copy paste copy paste
I can think of multiple manufacturers that do all engineering and have recently built manufacturing facilities in California and would manufacture there at scale too except other states gave them massive tax incentives. Tesla and Rivian both do initial manufacturing in California. Startups like Freeform, doing metal 3D printing at scale, are in California. This article is wrong.
I confuses “it’s hard” with “it’s banned”
It’s…not even wrong it is detached from any effort at truth.
Interesting website.
"Semiconductor Fabrication (7nm/5nm)
The main processor requires ultra-clean rooms, toxic gases (arsine, phosphine), and chemical etching. No new fabs have been built in CA in over a decade. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung all build elsewhere."
Phosphine is pretty nasty stuff. California was full of EPA Superfund sites when the government got stuck with cleaning up all the toxic waste. Politicians and voters went, "Eff that!" after manufacturers left the state, but left their barrels of shit behind.
And there’s still mercury contamination from the gold rush in San Jose.
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 requirements for handling toxic materials. And we should be safely handling those materials, it's crazy to suggest we don't because of progress or whatever.
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.
The concept of "grandfathering" rule breakers has always seemed like naked corruption to me. OK, we think this thing is so bad, that we're passing a law to ban it, BUT everyone who was already doing this bad thing can keep doing it forever because... because... because putting an existing company out of business is apparently the worst thing in the world. If our elected officials think something is bad enough to ban outright, then it should go whole hog and actually ban it. Not just prevent upstart competitors to existing legacy industry.
It's not just for politics but fairness. You can't just one day up and decide to make something illegal that others depending on for livelyhood. It's good enough that it limits growth of the banned thing.
Sure you can. It just takes backbone, which is rarely found in the political class.
If I, as a voter, voted for a politician who promised to ban dumping mercury in the local river, I don't expect them to say "Oh, but any company already dumping mercury in the river can keep doing so, because we don't want to hurt people's livelihood." That's not what I voted for.
Ok, but if you are investing capital in some sort of production line or industrialization you are not going to want to do that in an area where you might just lose your entire investment instantly; instead, you're just going to invest it in Texas or China. Of course with more extreme examples like yours you do have to put some cost on the existing companies to get it fixed, but it would be something with a smaller cost like having to dispose of the mercury properly (whereas in this article's examples they just flat out ban these things, which you can't do to existing factories).
For sure there would be a disincentive to "invest" in the area where you might lose the investment. That would be intentional. As a voter, I specifically don't want companies to be making those kinds of "investments" in my region. Go "invest" your dirty industry in China. If California's reputation for harshly regulating these things prevents these kinds of businesses from opening here in the first place, I consider that Working As Intended. We could make that reputation even stronger by not grandfathering things.
Putting an existing company out of business means putting thousands of people out of work. That's the kind of thing that gets your party thrown out of office.
It's not corruption if you lose elections if you don't do it.
It's not great, but it's political and legal reality.
The site is wrong about the Fremont plant being exempted as detailed here:
https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/29/docs-reveal-teslas-produc...
(With things like…links to their permit applications, I.e., sources)
Neat, thanks!
As just a statement of bias…the guys at that site have a pretty clear distaste for Tesla. They are industry experts and that’s where their analysis comes from, but it’s palpable. I would call it evidence versus politically based but noting it. The difference in bias though is ther snark has citations to primary sources not just wild generic claims.
That's helpful context, too. Always happy when anyone goes crate-digging for citations. Thanks!
> 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 general. But he flat out lies about making batteries being something grandfathered in. That wasn't a battery manufacturing plant to begin with.
And he further lies to say they had to build elsewhere because cell manufacturing was "effectively impossible" because they expanded the factory for cell manufacturing in 2023. [1]
[1] https://electrek.co/2023/06/09/tesla-snaps-new-location-frem...
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.
Tesla famously has to use horse drawn carriages to move new Teslas to their paint shop in Nevada. This is why they do not paint the cybertruck. /s
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"?
> How is it that tesla expanded their cell manufacturing in 2023 in California
They didn't, they built it in Reno.
The website is garbage. Bad guy anti manufacturing California put out a grant to build impossible to build lithium battery cell manufacturing capacity in California. https://www.grants.ca.gov/grants/gfo-24-304-california-batte...
That grant is only for nonprofits and only for "pilot manufacturing and testing", not useful mass manufacturing.
It is a battery cell manufacturing line and with the intent to facilitate providing research resources to California battery business. Considering the claim was that you couldn't make lithium batteries in CA, having a new manufacturing line shows that's incorrect. It also shows the state sees it as a need. I haven't seen anyone provide any info showing it isn't possible.
It's a pilot program, nobody said you can't uneconomically do research, but you can't build things in quantity.
Like I thought you've got nothing.
Just like this program you keep bringing up :)
https://electrek.co/2023/06/09/tesla-snaps-new-location-frem...
Thanks for posting. It says "The facility will support production of Tesla’s 4680 battery cell technology" (emphasis mine)
So they may be doing simpler portions of manufacturing. The article didn't claim you couldn't build any part of a battery without grandfathering.
Now compared that to this map of superfund sites and the pollutants they've left in our soils and groundwater. Statistically speaking, an average American lives within 10 miles of one of these sites
all sites: https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::epa-facility-registry-s...
npl sites: https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=...
Also funnily enough, the first place I checked from this site's list of facilities that have been grandfathered in led to this finding
> Lehigh Hanson's Permanente cement plant in Cupertino, CA, is permanently closing following thousands of environmental violations and over 80 years of operation. The plant was a major source of air pollution and discharged toxic selenium into Permanente Creek.
Not being able to build a destroyer in California seems like a small price to pay for an ecosystem not poisoned
On the website, it claims you cannot manufacture lithium battery cells in California unless you are grandfathered in. A relatively minimal search found statevolt.com. They are building a factory in the Imperial Valley. While I did see the project is on hold. It seems implausible that they bought the site, not having researched whether you could actually build lithium battery cells in California. Considering the banned website claims it's impossible, I can't trust anything on that website without citations.
Let's be honest: People have no problem polluting elsewhere as long as they can consume the final product without suffering the consequences. TFA isn't important to the people of California.
> No new fabs have been built in CA in over a decade. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung all build elsewhere.
The Bay Area is peppered with Superfund sites that used to be fabs in the 80s. Maybe CA is saying it's done its part and now it's someone else's turn.
You can thank the fine people who figured it was cheaper/easier/faster to just dump the toxic waste out back (or offshore [0]) for many of these processes being outlawed. If I'm not mistaken, CA has the 2nd most Superfund sites in the US.[1]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_ocean_dumps_off_Southern...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Cal...
It's interesting, but is there some conflation of regional restrictions with the state of California?
Example: cites automotive paint shop restrictions as the quintessential example of what you can't do in CA, and qualifies it with a specific Bay Area regulation.
I'm not in the US, but isn't the Bay Area quite specifically very polluted, very densely populated, and has some weird geographical/meteorological quirk that makes it very hard to get air pollution to blow away?
So, the restrictions on incredibly stinky processes like spray painting cars that emit lots of VOCs and dust are somewhat reasonable?
Or to put it more crudely, isn't it a bit like putting up a big "NO FARTING" sign in a crowded room where the windows don't open, and then simply expecting people to understand that this is a place where they should not fart?
I live in Santa Clara where the first chip fans in the world existed. In places like Santa Clara (home to Intel, AMD, Nvidia), and neighboring Sunnyvale and Mountain View there are maps of chemical leakage of industrial solvents which had contaminated the groundwater.
The very first Google offices sat directly over one of these sites around 2004. It took decades to dissipate. People complained about noxious fumes and this was more than 20 years after the spills had occurred.
There are real tradeoffs to having heavy industry to human health and well being.
There was a fairly recent case on Apple about this in the Santa Clara California area: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-action-against-ap... (EPA, 2025)
See also https://mastodon.social/@ashleygjovik/112668309100333232 (Ashley M. Gjøvik , 2024)
IIRC Google mountain view had to get evacuated once for fumes seeping through the ground
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 already are not being given the choice.
And, I imagine not many of the people that live there are being offered one of those 3000 jobs.
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 contractors were employed before the contract and will be employed on another contract at some later point. There's no net gain of jobs in the long run. The contractors won't even necessarily be local. The builder isn't going to call up Bob's AC repair from Collierville to do the specialized datacenter HVAC. They'll fly in a company specialized in that task who will fly home at the end of the contract.
The companies scrambling to build datacenters take advantage of that linguistic ambiguity and then the local politicians end up doing the same. They give these companies sweetheart tax/zoning incentives, proclaim contractors as "generated jobs", and then leave the locals with all of the negative externalities and none of the revenue.
Yep a local Walmart probably creates more long term (entry) jobs.
But cash strapped councils take what they can get.
I agree 100%.
Some points on this page are simply incorrect.
For instance, NC milling is done in California. Printed circuit board manufacturing is done in California. Small-scale integrated circuit fabrication is done.
Should California be treated differently than the rest of the world?
In addition to banning these manufacturing processes in California, we should ban the products manufactured with these processes from California. This would require products to "green up" in order to access California's vast market.
By allowing dirty products manufactured elsewhere, we've simply moved the problem and its harms out of our line of sight. And frequently to a place where the people are poor, non-white and under represented.
this does happen to some extent for example with auto emissions and other things. CA is such a large market when it alone makes a change, it often drags along other states or the nation.
Not really. CA can regulate import and sales of items based on the what the item does once in CA. They can't really regulate how it was made somewhere else.
When some particular item as currently made does meet California regulations the maker has four options:
1. Keep the item as is and don't sell it in California.
2. Make a California version that meets regulations. Sell that only in California. Keep making the original version and sell it elsewhere.
3. Same as #2 except sell the California version along with the original version outside of California.
4. Make a California version that meets regulations. Stop making the original version and sell the California version everywhere.
California is a big enough market that many makers cross off #1. Once they are making a California version it often turns out they selling that everywhere is more efficient for them than keeping the original version around.
Damn it…missing a “not” in the first sentence.
I'd be curious to know if this is really the case.
States have a lot of power to regulate commerce, interstate commerce and the products their citizens have access too.
If indeed they can't, then perhaps its one subject dems and r's could get together on. Instead of blanket tarrifs, tarriffs on products made with slave labor or without strong consideration for environment impact.
States can't impose tariffs: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C2-1...
Apologies, I meant federally.
Since D's control California, no need to work with R's there.
I also think they could get creative. Eg., without an attestation validated by <agency> products can't be sold.
For example, this is already done with controlled substances and food.
I don't think it's unreasonable for indirect impacts like this to be regulated by the federal government.
I completely agree. I'd vote that person regardless of party.
For example, the ubiquity of backup cameras in cars is because it is a requirement in CA.
This is not correct. The backup camera requirement comes from a NHTSA (i.e. Federal) regulation.
You are correct. I must have mixed that up with something else! Thanks for the correction.
> California has outsourced its industrial base while still consuming the products.
America did that. If it was just California then they could import iPhone parts from Alabama, but they don't do that do they?
This site is limiting its focus to environmental permitting concerns, it seems. The problem is that one of the biggest barriers to manufacturing in the US is labor: cost and protections of various sorts.
Don't need to worry about those pesky people and their rights in other countries where people are in desperate need for, or are coerced into, working in these industries.
[dead]
Everyone wants heavy industry outcomes, no one wants heavy industry side-effects;
Do people want oil refineries that constantly catch fire or explode [1], or toxic superfund sites for fabs [2]?
There are opportunities to build safer systems of course, the capital is there but there's places with looser regulations where you can harm people for cheap.
Also, this website does not actually show what laws or reasons why things are banned, it just says it's impossible, no sources, how do I even know this is true?
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/A-look-back-at-s... [2] https://www.theverge.com/23990525/semiconductor-biden-infras...
They lost me at "vacuum deposition - impossible" without justification. As far as processes go it's one of the safest (everything happens in a sealed vacuum chamber). Maybe the solvents used to clean prior to coating?
Yeah, it’s the solvents used for cleaning the chambers and parts. Very nasty stuff, and it’s probably the biggest concern for this type of facility anywhere, not just in California.
The stuff my dad used for cleaning down beryllium copper sheets that then had silicon, gold, and nichrome deposited onto them to make tiny medical pressure sensors was generally various stages of xylene, amyl acetate, freon, and - on one notable occasion when a shipment of the sheet stock came heavily contaminated with tractor oil - plain ordinary petrol.
This was back in the 80s.
You are very much Not Allowed To Do That Now.
I was trying to follow a piece of older equipment's cleaning procedures to the letter, but once I hit "flush with freon" I decided to go off-book.
Some 30-odd years later (more in fact, it's been over 30 years since he died) I can still smell the workshop.
That and the lathe oil in the machine shop where they made various mechanical components, too.
So no new car paint shops or oil refineries? I'm okay with that.
Oil refineries in particular are interesting because the sources for the blend of gasoline California requires[0] are either in CA itself or are few and far away. This means that gasoline prices are susceptible to greater supply shocks and so on. Many US regulations follow from California exercising its large market to induce companies to change their policies (electronic one-click cancel, CCPA, No Surprises in healthcare billing) but this one hasn't quite had the same effect.
One can hope that most Californians switch to BEVs from ICE vehicles before this becomes more of a constraint.
Gasoline usage externalities are poorly priced-in so the resulting increase in cost of gasoline here is probably overall a good thing. If we had appropriate carbon/sulphur/etc pricing on the outputs, I think it would be less justifiable since then the externalities would be priced in.
0: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65184
They are wrong about paint shops.or at least the reason.
They are all using voc compliant paints these days, even outside California.
I have no idea how hard permitting is mind you, but the claimed thing here is that they can't be voc compliant and that's just totally wrong.
Paint VOCs sounds fine, until it's done at industrial scale, and it's also your neighbor, and also all the children in the neighborhood have asthma, and also healthcare is a lot more expensive...
This list isn't things you "cant do in california" but "polluting things you can't do in highly populated cities".
I'm not sure what the conclusion here is other than health is not important.
Most of this stuff could be done in compliance with the laws but it’s just cheaper to do it somewhere else where you allowed to vent poison in the air rather than having to filter it out.
This place you speak of doesn't exist.
First, manufacturers don't really make non voc compliant auto paints. The market is too small. They may make 550 and 275 variants but most don't.
Second, even like Texas has voc regulations on paints and also requires filtering and enclosed spray booths and gun cleaners and ....
And like I said, nobody is selling non compliant coatings because the market is zero.
Are they only banned in the cities, or are they banned in the state, which -- even in California, should have rural areas far enough away from cities to be tenable?
It's an interesting conundrum though, because in many cases, the cities could not exist without the things that are being banned in the cities. It's a curious goal of populations to centralize, then ostracize all the things that enabled that centralization
Everywhere in California that isn't a giant population center is growing food for the rest of the country, or is a mountain where these things can't be built anyway.
They're probably "not banned" only in the "basically lying" sense that they per rule won't approve you in certain cities and if you do happen to be rural the process is hostile and expensive enough that it's not worth it for the value such a facility would generate. That's how that sort of stuff is in my state.
That's the thing, often when people say stuff like "its banned" what they really mean is:
- the cost of mitigating the human health risk is too high - competitors in low-environmental regulation places don't pay for those costs - ongoing verification is expensive
I mean, let's face it, "self-regulation" of industries isn't really working that great. And for things that are health hazards that are basically borne by someone else, why should a local government make it easy to cheat and lie about this stuff?
The people arguing against this seem to assume that their right to have a business, make a profit, whatever, is a self-evident Good Thing, and rarely provide any additional arguments beyond "but the jobs". If they were at the VERY LEAST saying "we can make X safe" then maybe it'd be interesting. But as it is, the argument is basically asking us to mortgage the health and safety.
You know what the V in VOC stands for right?
Hint: It doesn't stand for "there forever"
Nobody here wants to just let big business do whatever and turn the rivers weird colors again or go back to smog but it's very clear that the current regulatory system is not suitable and is hurting us.
It boggles the mind that someone could honestly (by which I mean dishonestly and malice are far simpler explanations) step into this conversation and be like "no, this is all fine and well, god forbid someone start spraying cars in a shop in the desert without jumping through all most of the same expensive hoops that make it not worth it down town (and would make it doubly not worth it out in the desert).
And it's not just autobody work. There's all manner of necessary economic activity that's being kept out or made artificially expensive in this manner.
The V in VOC stands for "evaporates at room temperature" which means that if you use it, people breathe it in.
Are you okay with not using products that have an oil refinery in their supply chain?
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.
Would it be hypocritical nimbyism if I wanted to use semiconductors containing arsenic, but didn't want my living room to be an arsenic warehouse? Or how far away does the arsenic warehouse have to be before it starts being hypocritical nimbyism for me to not like it there?
IMO it would be hypocritical nimbyism if the arsenic warehouse would need to be in someone's living room for those semiconductors to get manufactured.
So if an oil refinery doesn't need to go in a city, it's not hypocritical nimbyism to say you don't want an oil refinery in your city?
Right, but the salient thing is the effect on people. By that I mean: Suppose we could locate all refineries outside of anywhere that is technically a "city", but in every possible such assignment of refinery locations, some refinery is still as close to someone's home as it would be if it were in a city. In this scenario, calling for a ban on refineries in your city would still be hypocritical nimbyism, since you are still requiring someone to be placed in a situation that you yourself would not accept.
In any case, California is a state, not a city.
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.
So you're okay with no refineries after all.
So, no combustion-based private or public transportation, no detergents, no aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen.
It would still be possible to drive an EV, though. You could keep it lubricated with whale oil.
I think the things you are describing would make running a refinery economical, and I am sure at some price some community would be thrilled to have a refinery. Good for them, still glad its not here.
Much of the pharmaceutical industry depends on petroleum byproducts.
> 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.
I agree with your reasoning in principle, but I think it doesn't hold up for California specifically. According to Gemini, 90% of California's population lives in 5% of its land area, and 45-50% of the land is government-owned, much of it being unpopulated wild areas including large parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts.
The state is large, diverse and already contains vast chunks of unpopulated land. Almost everywhere that isn't near the poles is similar to some part of California.
I think if we consolidate those operations the better, and then we can improve an regulate legislative or as a market more easily than if everyone is spread all over.
If we consolidate them you wind up with the same situation we have for everything already. The big megacorps who's paid for experts and lawyers (and ability to donate to politics) to tell you why the river glowing is safe get to do what they want and the upstart who may challenge that bigCo to do better never gets off the ground. But I guess if the goal is simply to declare everything "fixed" because the government has agreed it's compliant then consolidation is fine.
Yeah I agree. Since Russia is mostly empty and they have a lot of oil, let's put all refineries there! (/s)
This is to show that there is more geopolitically than meets the eye.
The site would be better if it linked to the actual regulation that prohibits each type of business instead of just making the claim “0 new factories of this type have been built”.
It would be nice if the site cited the regulations and costs that make the different facilites impossible — are they outright banned? Are there environmental regulations that don’t exist elsewhere? Is it a long process for permitting with tons of inspections?
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
I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not.
His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues.
The electric induction cooktop he and his team has made is pretty cool! I'd check it out.
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 environmental impact than CA is and thus could pick up any such slack), why is there a security concern here?
As for the economic concern, it seems like this is backwards: I'd argue it's the HCOL that drives industry with the need for low-wage labor away to non-CA locations. There's nothing stopping non-polluting corporations from working and hiring large numbers of people in CA.
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 that are equally polluting no matter where you do them (like burning fossil fuels), moving production outside of the location but still buying produced materials is simply passing the buck. But it's not totally clear to me that's what's happening here.
That's exactly why the Bay Area Air Quality Management District exists (established decades before the federal EPA):
> Charged with regulating stationary sources of air pollution emissions, the Air District drafted its first two regulations in the 1950s: Regulation 1, which banned open burning at dumps and wrecking yards, and Regulation 2, which established controls on dust, droplets, and combustion gases from certain industrial sources.
> Much research and discussion went into the shaping of Regulation 2, but there was no doubt about the need for it. During a fact-finding visit to one particular facility, Air District engineers discovered that filters were used over air in-take vents to protect the plant's machinery from its own corrosive emissions! This much-debated regulation was finally adopted in 1960.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/about-the-air-district/history-of-...
Yep. And it's why it's hard to paint cars in the Bay Area, but you can do it in less populated areas with better average air quality.
Fossil are not equally polluting. There's a difference between living next to a generator with exhaust at ground level, a properly designed smoke stack, and just being further away so the reactive emissions can dilute and degrade.
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.
Depends on the fossil. Coal emits all kinds of poison in the smoke.
> It makes no sense to say "oh, we need to manufacturer this stuff... just not here." That's basically NIMBYism for electronics.
This statement doesn't acknowledge why NIMBYism is odious. The reason is that we all need housing, but new housing may devalue current housing. While some may wish to protect their housing values/community feel/etc, others wish and may rightly deserve, access to housing at the same levels of access as earlier generations.
The analogy to manufacturing does not exist—to suggest it does ignores the real negative externalities to people who live next to polluting facilities, especially those where the pollutant was not recognized during use.
They are not fundamentally different. The underlying hypocracy of NIMBYism is wanting the positive outcomes from something (more housing, factories producing goods) with someone else having to suffer the downsides. How obnoxious it is depends on that upside/downside risk, but fundamentally if you want a thing to happen but you want it to happen near someone else, you are part of the NIMBY problem. (Note that wanting it to not happen at all, or wanting a version that is more expensive but nicer to be near, is not the same, so long as you're happy to bear the outcome of that thing being more expensive)
I think it’s reasonable to want factories and pollution to be far from anyone’s dwelling, no? And for all factories to have appropriate pollution control.
Do the factories need to be polluting? Or can it be done less polluting or even neutral?
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
The notion of comparative advantage says you don't. It's not NIMBYism. And it's not a good faith argument when it comes from folks who have a bunker in New Zealand.
Similarly saying “you can’t have slavery but you can buy stuff made by enslaved people abroad” is morally inconsistent. I don’t know the obvious answer to this though.
Why? Manufacturing,design and engineering need highly different skill sets it's just not feasible to have both in one location because of the workforce required. It's the same in every other country some parts are industrial hubs and some design/engineering.
If this were really the case, you wouldn't need to ban the practice. You could just offer recommendations
Despite the catchy url none of the examples from the site are bans...
it's just specialization, in most cases it's not efficient to do locally
So you're fine with having a fab in your backyard?
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2024/08/28/18869003.php
And, yes, it's a really neat stove... for wealthy people. At an installed cost of ~$8k (more if you're having to replace a standalone oven/cooktop since you need the stand for it), it's competing with lower-end Viking gas ranges that include an oven, and those have an extensive service network that Impulse doesn't (yet) have.
I mean, that's pretty normal right. The product starts out as a bit niche and expensive, and then as it scales in manufactured volume, variants & competitors become available at lower price points.
I saw this being hyped on YouTube the other day. My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.
Their website says
> We’re designing and manufacturing the stovetop, battery pack, and key internal components to comply with all relevant UL standards and other applicable compliance requirements.
but this device appears to be for sale, right now. Either it is designed for safety already or it isn’t. WHICH UL safety standards? Is there an emergency shutoff? A regular old fire extinguisher probably is not going to cut it.
> My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.
It's an induction stovetop. It doesn't itself get hot, other than whatever heat gets transferred to the top of the stove because it is in contact with the hot pot or pan sitting on top. I don't know about this one specifically but with most induction stovetops that just makes it warm to the touch in the area right under the pot or pan.
That's not going to be hot enough to be a problem for the battery even if for some reason they mounted it in contact with the bottom of the top surface, which I doubt they did.
> That's not going to be hot enough to be a problem for the battery even if for some reason they mounted it in contact with the bottom of the top surface, which I doubt they did.
My point is that’s what safety standards are for. Do they do safe things or not? You might be surprised to hear how many manufacturers do dumb things for one reason or another. If they really do comply with safety standards then they should be able to say which ones. Why don’t they say?
This guy is just mad that Copper murdered them by making an actual product people can actually buy, partly because, I imagine, Impulse CEO was busy making visuals for his Libertarian propaganda campaign.
The Copper stove is made in Berkeley, California, by the way.
I am sure the 5th largest economy in the world is truly suffering under their draconian regulations. Everyone in California making the 5th highest median income in the country wishes they were working at a local oil refinery.
To your last point, I am somewhat doubtful that this website is being honest about automotive paint shops being banned in California. Am I to believe that the 3,000 auto body shops in Southern California sit on their hands all day? Was West Coast Customs just a fake TV show filmed in Texas?
https://www.autobodynews.com/news/new-paint-voc-regulations-...
If this website’s author is correct I’m supposed to believe that no paint gets applied to cars in Canada.
As another nitpick, let’s also not forget that nobody else is building oil refineries in the US. The newest one in the entire country was built in 1976. Oil demand in the US is relatively flat since decades ago; there isn’t a pressing need for new refineries.
I also think that readers in this thread should remember that California has strict air quality regulations because its geography especially in Southern California lends itself to bad air quality. These regulations are very much written in blood. Globally, almost 7 million people die prematurely every year due to air pollution.
To me at least this appears to be a smoking gun for the creator not being able to function in good faith. Whether that's intentional or self delusion, who knows.
From the page itself, "A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA." This point is trotted out and reframed multiple times on the page but it's literally self contradictory. It's not something you can't do in California, it's something you can't do without approval in the Bay Area Air District.
It's not a good place to be doing such an activity, as the area already can't successfully keep the air healthy enough to stay within federal limits due to environmental factors that trap particulate low to the ground. If you're at all familiar with the area you know concerns about air quality are not overblown and. Go further away from people or meet strict VOC regulations if you absolutely need to be doing that kind of work in the area, seems completely reasonable to me.
If this website’s author is correct I’m supposed to believe that no paint gets applied to cars in Canada.
Existing shops get grandfathered.
Is there any reason to assume that there's a dire need for more shops to apply paint in cars in California? If not, regulating to prioritize the air quality over increasing competition isn't unreasonable.
Is there any reason to assume that air quality standards can be maintained only by 50-year-old paint shops, and not by newer ones built to higher standards?
See also the counterproductive legacy of the anti-nuclear movement.
I think this requires us to buy the premise in the first place, which might be questionable.
Some guy’s website claims with big red scary graphics that this stuff is banned and these poor downtrodden business owners can’t operate.
I can’t imagine that nobody has opened an auto body shop in California in the last decade or two.
When it comes to businesses like large factories opening up that’s more of something that often gets approved on a case by case basis.
E.g., we can’t just say that the Chicago Bears are banned from building a new stadium in Chicago just because they aren’t willing to pay the costs required to do so and aren’t willing to meet the city’s requirements to get the approval vote they need.
There's reason to assume that _some_ paint shops are needed, based on the fact that the existing ones are staying in business, and reason to assume that more paint shops would mean more pollution, based on addition. There's not really any other way to limit the number of them other than regulation than gives the state the ability to prevent new ones, and while you obviously are against that idea in practice, I don't think it's nearly as obviously a bad policy goal as you're implying.
What should be the basis for comparison? The locality with the most permissive rule on each aspect of manufacturing? Is there any absolute floor on the morality? Should California allow slavery to be used in factories if some other locality allows it?
This is a non-argument, and it does not even in the slightest counter anything claimed on the site.
To be fair, it would be very hard to argue against this website since it stays very vague.
For most things it says that they are “impossible” or “near-impossible” with no explanation or just "getting a permit is hard" with no futher detail.
It does give some cherry-picked metrics : - 0 Semiconductor fabs built in CA in the last decade => as there been ANY semi fabs built outside of taiwan and china in the last decade ? Not exactly surprising. - 1 West Coast shipyard that can build destroyers, 0 New automotive paint shops permitted in CA, 0 New oil refineries permitted in CA since 1969 => We don't build those for shits and giggles, is there any demand that would justify new factories for thoses ?
Basically, the website doesn't say anything. It just gives some context-less data and one guys opinion on what he perceives as not possible.
Not that I care, I am not from the US or live there, but let's not try to pass some dude rambling as a source of actual information.
The vagueness is really the crux of this whole thing. It makes it easy to argue about without really going anywhere. One can easily mold their own worldview around the points and make it about whatever they want.
Intel built a bunch of chip fabs in Oregon, Arizona, Israel, and Ireland over the past couple decades.[1] TSMC has built a new fab in Arizona.[2]
It's difficult to transport petroleum over the rocky mountains, and California requires its own blend of gasoline for use in vehicles, so there is significant demand for oil refineries in the state. Fuel imports have increased significantly due to refinery closures.[3] Some companies are trying to build pipelines to connect the west coast to refineries in Texas, but it's unclear when or if that will happen.[4]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_si...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC_Arizona
3. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65704
4. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/california-refinery-...
It isn't claiming to be an argument. It's context.
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.
> I think to be eco neutral, you would be cost prohibitive. Which would be an issue in car manufacturing and phone manufacturing.
Which just shows that other places are allowing those costs to be externalized to society in general which is classic "privatize profits, socialize costs" that businesses have relied on.
We live in a throwaway garbage generating society. Many things we use or consume should be costly and prohibitive. E.g. single use coffee cups.
Pointing out that such costs have been externalised for decades should be the starting point to internalise them.
> Pointing out that such costs have been externalised for decades should be the starting point to internalise them.
I absolutely agree. 100%. The issue is single companies can't do that. They will not be competitive against companies that aren't doing it. You need an even playing field for this to work, i.e. you need legislation and uniform environmental standards across all states, whatever those standards may be. Probably even need similar pacts across countries, within reason.
Right now, the US is moving in the opposite direction to this statement.
Why care about single use coffee cups? They begin their life as oil in the ground and end their life as plastic in the ground (in landfill).
I've grown rather weary of performative complaining about trash which has a waste lifecycle which ends at "stabilized landfill".
Because that's one of our best waste lifecycle processes: what's a disaster is greenhouse gas emissions, it waste which is reliably ending up in the oceans and doesn't biodegrade.
"you can" is a very different thing from "you do". To do you need to want, to plan, and to execute. To can is just that, something in the clouds. So this is not contradicting the argument it's trying to contradict.
There is no such thing as zero externalities in manufacturing. Unless these ‘eco conscious’ engineers ship all the waste to China these chemicals as by products will continue to harm the environment. And guess what, you are part of the environment. You all just want excuses to keep playing with these toys.
I cannot to move to California once all the billionaires move to Texas and Florida.
> has an agenda
Everyone has an agenda. Is anything on this site false? Is it incorrect information?
Really difficult to say because it doesn't make many concrete claims. It doesn't mention any regulations or say what chemicals or processes are actually banned. These are not easy things to look up. I can tell you that at least the semiconductor fabrication stuff is false, there are many fabs in California and here's a new one as of a few days ago: https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/19/san-jose-tech-nokia-i....
I realize it isn't completed yet but I don't think anyone is buying sites for something that's impossible to build.
Here's another one: https://www.bosch-semiconductors.com/roseville/
I can tell you that your two articles that intended to refute the semiconductor fabrication stuff fail to do so. Both sites were existing facilities and would therefore fall under the granfathered in point in the site.
That's true they are not new buildings. Here's one that is: https://www.appliedmaterials.com/us/en/semiconductor/epic-pl...
The Infinera one is described as a "new fab" though (https://www.nist.gov/chips/infinera-california-san-jose) and the Bosch one is adding a new type of fabrication to an existing site. If you can do all that without getting new permits then that makes California sound like a pretty lenient place to do business. I'm assuming they did have to get new permits though.
> Here's one that is: https://www.appliedmaterials.com/us/en/semiconductor/epic-pl...
This might be a refutation but it's not super clear. It's definitely not a commercial semiconductor fab but it might do all of or some subset of what a commercial fab does at R&D scale. Hard to know for sure how this jives with the claim in the main website.
> If you can do all that without getting new permits then that makes California sound like a pretty lenient place to do business.
Being able to retool under original zoning/permitting is specifically lenient? That's extremely basic. If you're a co-Californian with me, though, it does help to understand that many people think that anyone doing anything without a permit is "lenient".
> I'm assuming they did have to get new permits though.
Well, that makes it really easy to be "right". I should try this more.
> This might be a refutation but it's not super clear.
As others have pointed out, the article itself fails to provide any direct citations of the regulations either. This is classic Russell's teapot territory; the one making the initial claim shouldn't have a lower burden of evidence than the one refuting it.
I don't know. He didn't provide anything to backup his claims. Without data that site is worthless.
Maybe reworded as “He has skin in the game”
> so obviously his point can’t be true > so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting > so obviously I can dismiss this as teleologically false.
Please don’t be so lazy you guys. There is something to be gained here.
Why do you think there's something to be gained here? There are a lot of cheap and easy checks this content fails that it represents a well formed argument based on reality.
Post these “checks” that failed. Don’t hide behind some bullshit about the author being motivated
There is no rational basis for anyone else to expend any effort refuting anything when the author has not said anything in the first place.
The article contains no citations, and so may be presumed 100% false by default.
"may be presumed", as in, sure it might actually contain some other mix of true and false, but it doesn't matter what that mix actually is. That only matters in some other article written by someone else that citates any of it's assertions.
This piece is the same as if monkeys typed stuff at random and some of it could possibly happen to be the same as something true. It doesn't mean the monkeys made a valid point, and no one should spend one second either defending or refuting it.
> so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting
This guy, with an obvious bias, created a website that misrepresents the situation in California (by implying things are banned or "nearly impossible" when in actuality they just take time/effort), while also failing to show the specific regulations or requirements for any of it. Without supplying that kind of information this website is little better than "It's banned. trust me bro". It's not our responsibility to try to dig up evidence to support or verify this guys claims just because he can't be bothered to do it.
His motivations, his framing of the problem, and his failure to back up his own statements makes the site pretty damn easy to dismiss and I don't even doubt that there might be instances where bad regulation exists, especially regulation that protects the profits of established players in certain industries by keeping out competition. I'm entirely sympathetic to the idea that it might be happening, but if there is something to be gained you aren't going to find it on this guys website. Serious coverage on this topic would include actionable information we can use to identify and solve specific problems. This is just anti-regulation propaganda.
Your argument makes sense to me and changed my mind. Thank you.
The lack of citations makes it not just easy to dismiss but an obligation to dismiss.
Your downvotes are invalid.
> Aluminum Anodizing & CNC Machining
There are a ton of CNC machining (AL and otherwise) and anodizing shops in the Bay Area.
I don't think it makes a good case for itself. No automotive paint shops sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right??
But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic, makes me wonder how many of these banned industries I don't want in my state. I think if we want to build them in the US maybe don't build them in the most agriculturally productive and highest population state. Or first figure out how to do it without turning the US into China with its "cancer villages" from poisoned river water.
I'm not defending the dysfunctional CA bureaucracy, but the site should probably focus on specific cases of government-produced insanity than a general complaint that certain industries are banned from operation.
> No automotive paint shops
Wait, hold on - I watched all the seasons of "Rust To Riches" on Netflix, about a small shop that flips cars.
They routinely painted cars.
They'd paint in this sealed-up room/garage thingee, the guy would wear and industrial-grade mask, and the camera would slide past as he expertly painted the car. The 30 second montages looked awesome!
That show took place in Temecula, California. So there's no way that site is accurate.
And, more to the point, if they want to show that they are accurate they should be linking to the rules & regulations that actually prohibit these things instead of just making a claim & calling it a day.
It’s not claiming: you can’t have an automotive paint shop. It’s claiming you can’t start a new paint shop. Specifically, if you don’t have one for your car manufacturing line already, you can’t set one up. Wikipedia shows 13 pages for auto plants in CA. Most of them have the verb “was” in the opening sentence. There are two current plants: Tesla Fremont and Toyota California. Both of these plants are over 50 years old, and only one of them produces actual cars instead of parts.
Firstly, an auto paint shop is not the same as an auto manufacturing plant.
Secondly, it says you can't permit a new auto paint shop in CA, but it specifically mentions the Bay Area AQMD as the reason. But, as its name implies, the Bay Area AQMD only regulates within the San Francisco Bay Area. It is only one of 35 air districts in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_air_distric...
So, it is impossible to permit a new auto paint shop in all of these districts, or just the bay area? Because those are very different. It also labels starting a new paint shop as "impossible", but then says it's "nearly impossible". So is it actually impossible, or just nearly impossible?
It's claiming you can't get a permit to release VOCs into the air, but the GP comment describes a setup that apparently is designed to paint cars while preventing VOCs getting released into the air, so that you can still paint cars in California.
The website is extremely clear about this being about _new_ automotive paint shops, so nothing you said here refutes the website.
He doesn’t need to refute it he just needs to offer an alternate claim.
The site provides no citations, no evidence, so there’s no need to defend the count argument or honestly even make it.
The sit isn’t just false, it is flat out disrespectful to all the workers, engineers, founders, and everyone else involved in the industries he says don’t exist that actually do exist. The site is basically “I think this is hard so no one else could possibly do it”.
They're likely falling under some "we aren't selling car painting as a service or main part of our business, we're painting our own cars as a small ancillary part of our real business" exemption.
Sounds like the "llantera" model you see out west. There's about 10x the number of them that would actually be needed just to change tires.
> I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right??
There are. They just cost more and take more time.
> But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic
People say this all the time, but semiconductor fabs simply aren't very toxic compared to just about every other industrial manufacturing process. Mostly this is because everything is sealed and sealed and sealed some more.
Yes, they handle stuff like arsenic gas (arsine AsH3), but they really try to reclaim it all. The semiconductor waste stream is often purer than most industrial inputs. Yeah, old plants would just dump crap into the environment. However, for modern semiconductor facilities, it is generally more economic to reprocess your waste than try to purify from primary sources.
Now, PCB manufacturing, on the other hand, is quite terrible or at least it used to be. I don't know if people have sealed and automated that yet.
I assume you use semiconductors yourself, since you are posting here. But you want their manufacture to be banned in your state.
So the right thing is to outsource the dirty jobs to countries that can’t afford to be picky?
Wouldn’t it be better for the world if we used our wealth to develop methods of safe semiconductor manufacturing with low environmental impact, and proudly built those facilities in California?
Well that's the whole problem isn't it?
It's not like the laws are simply "you can't make semiconductors here". The laws ban the harmful externalities of the process. The companies that want to make semiconductors don't want to find a way to make the processes less harmful: it's cheaper and easier to just go somewhere where they can pollute instead.
In many cases, California’s environmental regulations don’t make an earnest attempt to permit safe ways to do things.
And in all cases, those industries make no earnest attempt to develop safe ways to do things instead of simply doing it where it doesn't matter.
[Citation needed]
A sibling comment a few levels up provided it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160514
Got anything from the last 50 years?
There's a large middle ground between "Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone" and letting blatant polluters turn your neighborhood into a Superfund site. California solved the latter problem by going too far in the other direction.
You're asking for an example of an environmental disaster of the type the regulation is intended to prevent that happened since the regulation came into effect, with the implication that there aren't any is evidence that the regulation is bad? I'd argue there's no way to differentiate between perfectly calibrated regulation and regulation that's too onerous by the metric you're giving, so your conclusion isn't supported without more evidence.
When an industry leaves this many superfund sites in an area, that industry can expect some regulatory blowback from that area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Cal...
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-y...
It actually makes me wanna move to CA.
California, by density, is that highly populated. I didn't really like the idea is "hey we need to build something that uses a toxic process, by just don't build it here. Build it somewhere else." Unless that somewhere else is in outer space.
I would imagine a paint booth with negative pressure and particle and carbon filters on the exhaust would work fine.
I go by a paint shop every now and then. It’s not nearly as smelly as a quite of a few of the nearby restaurants.
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".
Lies can be either by commission or omission.
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.
Oh the smell of freshly groomed Astroturf. They should call it neighbors for a more profitably toxic environment or something like that.
ad hominem? Please explain what makes the regulatory burdens onerous instead of impossible.
That’s good to know, but it’s still interesting information.
Feel free to point out any inaccuracies.
Feel free to provide sources for the claims
I’m happy this is coming from a real person with skin in the game and not just a veiled PAC with murky intentions.
Man, this guy has his head all the way up his anus. A guy who thinks that whether or not the math classes in San Francisco high schools are literally titled "algebra" is an important question, who doesn't realize that Noah Smith is a raging moron, and who considers Elon Musk to be the greatest industrialist in history, has been listening to a tad too much Garry Tan. No wonder he can't figure out how to market appliances. He's just disconnected from the real world.
I wonder if there's a law+econ analysis of comparing the current framework (regulations and upfront permitting) vs having the regulations but then enforcement via combination of randomized gov't inspections and private lawsuits. The motivation would be to allow things to move faster while also requiring the same degree of compliance, but without the massive red tape upfront with administrators having no real incentive to approve projects or move fast. One obvious downside is that it effectively creates an economic incentive to try and skirt the law and/or find loopholes, but that arguably exists to the same degree in the existing system.
Probably helpful to add why, otherwise this is just seems intended to trigger biases
Are other states building all this manufacturing/semiconductor capacity? I think it's an overall USA thing, we just don't do manufacturing anymore because it's cheaper to do it in another country.
Not sure what the point of the website is. To me it looks like a bad faith argument. The secular trend in the US has been to increase margins by moving manufacturing to other countries.
The tariffs are certainly not making it easier to manufacture domestically.
> Not sure what the point of the website is
I think it's just informative. I found it interesting at least. I formed my own conclusions from it.
Really? Since it’s lacking any comparison to other states and because many of these complaints single out metropolitan areas comparison to nationwide census of metro areas, what actual conclusions are you drawing that are valid?
Context matters a lot. We haven’t built a lot of mercury based hat felting shops lately in California. What conclusion do you draw from that?
I assume you're being a little obtuse. The comparison to wherever manufacturers phones and EVs is implicit. They are manufactured somewhere with looser environmental regulation than California, where they are purchased en masse. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
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 regulations.
Again, without apples to apples comparisons to other areas, wha are you actually able to conclude from the website other than stoking confirmation bias?
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
Fair point. My actual conclusion: California has made it structurally impossible to manufacture things it consumes, and has exported the environmental burden to places with fewer protections.
You have a good point. California is an area that makes some things but not all things. From this data we can conclude that California is an area on earth where there are people.
This places California somewhere between the north pole (produces no things) and replicators from Star Trek (produces all of the things) in terms of productivity. This is useful information because it makes the reader feel li
Nice, you’ve just described how confirmation bias works.
Out of context, incomplete single data points that feels like one’s already held view is how confirmation bias works.
All data points can be called confirmation bias if you frame them that way. The question is whether the data is accurate, not whether it's complete.
The site isn't claiming regulations are the only factor, just that they're sufficient to make things impossible regardless of other factors.
“The question is whether the data is accurate, not whether it is complete”
Oh so Lies of omission don’t exist? Deception researchers will be very keen to hear how that works.
So if someone Mormon bubbles a photo of you that also has a kid in it, you’re fine being arrested for indecency and registering as a sex offender? After all, that’s just omitting a few pixels, not a lie or deception in your book.
Agree to disagree, I guess. Not everything interesting has to be comprehensive.
I think I'm done with this conversation now you're comparing a website about manufacturing to child porn. That's in bad taste.
Bad taste started with you calling me obtuse
This kinda makes me wanna move to CA. someone should take these list items and make a map of those fabs in the US so we can avoid moving near them.
close enough, here's a map of superfund sites
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::epa-facility-registry-s...
The author equates "you need a permit, which you obtain by making proof you follow the law and best practices re: handling dangerous substances" with "BANNED!!!!!!".
I dislike how misleading and emotionally targeted this is and I understand the hate we get as tech people if this is the best we can do.
I don't have experience in basically all of these industrial processes, so I can't really comment there. I strongly support environmental protections, but I have no idea if what California does actually does that.
A separate but related topic is the warnings California requires of products. It's gotten a bit out of hand because every product you buy has the same warning, which completely dilutes what I hope was the intention. Even buying something as simple as an electric guitar comes with the "can cause cancer" warning because it can have nickel parts on it (usually for the bridge and tuners and frets).
I grew up in the 80s, not far from Times Beach, Missouri, so I'm a huge supporter of environmental protection. Hooray for California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri
https://www.epa.gov/mo/town-flood-and-superfund-looking-back...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ElM_xAtbAY
My dad spent 40+ years working at a unionized industrial facility in California that recycled paper and cardboard waste into the paper layer used to make the corrugated interior of cardboard boxes. There were some local regulations on waste water runoff that I'm aware of, but he never mentioned much else.
There 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.
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.
California can do a lot to private companies, but the supremacy clause allows the federal government to do what it wants. If a business wants to engage in these illegal-in-California practices, they could partner with the federal government.
Edit: Now that I’m doing the research a partnership isn’t even needed, just a contract. Which makes sense, the feds cannot hire a private individual to do what would be illegal for them to do themselves… conversely, a company who is contracted to do federal business also enjoys supremacy by virtue of acting for the feds.
Got a new one. In California—the only place that matters in tech—all operating systems must implement age verification by Jan 1, 2027. Which means this is coming to a computer near you, worldwide.
Not in the free states they won’t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1skbgEGEn80
Why were old PCs beige? It turns out, Germany had workplace standards laws that mandated light, unobtrusive colors on office equipment. Because it was expensive to offer different SKUs for different regions, gray or beige PC cases became the only ones available worldwide.
If a jurisdiction as big or important as California passes a law mandating certain features on products available there, manufacturers may make those features part of their products worldwide to save on costs. OEMs may make bootloader-locked PCs which cannot run operating systems that don't do age check in order to comply with the law in California and Brazil, and decide it's not worth it to offer a bootloader-unlocked version.
If you think PC manufacturers are required to make bootloader-unlockable PCs, the only thing requiring them to do so is an edict from Microsoft, something they can and will reverse in order to comply with the law.
The free states that demand it of Pornhub causing it to withdraw services from those states?
Half the states in the country are actively deregulating all of this stuff. Why not take your factories there? California is anyways too expensive.
Washington is really bad too for doing anything. We are getting more issues at the federal level too. I just want to crush some rock and I have to get a mine ID and a mine permit and a ton of other stuff.
" Building an EV requires metal forging, battery manufacturing, painting, and chip fabrication — all processes that drove Tesla to build in Nevada and Texas. Tesla's Fremont factory was the former NUMMI plant (GM/Toyota, operating since 1962). It was grandfathered in."
This website misses talking about all the Tesla Fremont paint shop violations (see https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/news-and-events/page-resources/202... ) and various OSHA violations:
- https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-02-11/tesla-fine... (2025)
- https://www.thedrive.com/news/26727/tesla-had-3-times-as-man... (2019)
To be clear ….violations of their, repeatedly update, permit to paint cars. Something the website labels impossible.
I confess I don't know what to make of this. Without seeing the reasons why these are banned, what is the point? Would be like lamenting how you can't use asbestos. Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing?
apparently you can use asbestos and they have been and will continue until 2030-ish. It's now in the wild in all kinds of unexpected places.
Yeah, I don't think that is generally viewed as a good thing, though? And I would not be surprised to learn California has some stricter rules on it. (Would honestly not be surprised to find out some of these "banned" items are due to asbestos level concerns.)
This website gets a "very difficult" to "impossible" rating for usability: tiny, dense text, dim & blurry fonts and the modern UX that insists on reinventing how people navigate a webpage. Ironically it WAS made in California.
> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.
Banned in California.. wait, I meant the Bay Area.
yet oddly California is the #1 manufacturing state by a wide margin.
https://www.industryselect.com/blog/top-10-us-states-for-man...
A lot of people on this site clearly have never tried doing anything in California that involves more infrastructure than a laptop. Can easily be 18 months or more to get a permit to 'do things the right way'. If they'll even deign to give you one.
> 1 West Coast shipyard that can build destroyers
There are only a handful of shipyards in the US that build ships for the Navy. What makes him think regulation has anything to do with only 1 being on the West Coast?
I would like to read this website but the font and colors are so poorly selected (read and grey for most of the text) that I'm not willing to struggle to do so. I guess my eyes are just old.
The line about auto paint shops is out of place / misleading.
It's not all of CA, it's just the Bay Area, and probably some other urbanized areas with a history of really bad air quality.
"Grandfathered in"? Isn't that how you create monopolies?
If geographic location is a serious advantage, then yes, kind of. Competitors would have an uphill battle against the grandfathered incumbents.
I doubt it is though, in these cases. Was probably just to make the measures more popular, as in not destroying existing investments / jobs.
Poorly written site. Javascript-only, no references, no sources.
Is this a lobbying initiative?
Surely the answer is not let's just allow to pillage, pollute and extort again to build a car, ship or phone.
I like clean air, and rivers. They are good for every being.
Make sure not to list the things that are easy to build or permit because California will find a way to make it impossible.
While I do tend to feel it is important that superpower-level countries be capable of producing within their political borders most/all of what they consume, for reasonable prices; I do not tend to feel that everything we produce needs to be produced everywhere within those political borders. California is the most beautiful and hospitable land on the entire planet. There's nothing wrong with putting the toxic chemical factories in a desert or tundra somewhere.
I don't want to make a mess in my yard but I don't care if your yard is a mess and I'll buy it
Why not invest in ways to make these processes more eco friendly?
Without the list of environmental side effects those things have it’s not a neutral list.
How about the ban of asbestos and Chlorofluorocarbons?
i hear that's why Tesla paint is so soft, and why it's so popular for Tesla buyers to apply expensive protective film to their paint. I didn't believe anyone when they told me, and now i have more scratches after 1 year than my mazda did after 5+ years
My favorite banned in CA is the "off roster" handguns that the police can buy and sell to the people of CA at a markup.
California has some deep trauma from all of the superfund sites the semis left behind.
There is a difference between banned and you can't just pump it into the next water stream.
How do the new manufacturing startups in the Bay Area and El Segundo deal with these limitations?
A lot of these are stretches or remove nuance. I get the point they are trying to make, but it's a lot weaker than they think and undermined by their own "hero" example: painting cars in California
> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.
Ah yes, the Bay Area, famously "all of California". And on top of that, the restrictions are mostly in highly populated areas.
Oh it's worse bullshit. Modern paint shops don't emit meaningful VOCs. Even in Texas, for example. Nobody's even making non voc compliant auto paint anymore because there is no market for it.
I can't speak to permitting but the coating and coating voc stuff I know quite well and what they state is simply bullshit.
I can also say I know of a bunch of auto paint places that opened in the mountain view surrounding area alone in the 10 years I lived there.
So I suspect it's all bullshit
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"
Guess we can add free (from age verification) operating systems to that list now as well.
If California made the products illegal that couldn't be produced here I wonder how many of these laws would suddenly be removed because the issues associated with the laws were suddenly considered "acceptable".
As a Californian:
1) They forgot to list Kid Rock (https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1969256868364095868)
2) Good, I'm glad this toxic shit is banned.
3) I wish people that constantly complained about California's regulations/taxes/politics would just quietly see their way out rather than obsessively whine about it. Enjoy Texas/Florida/wherever you go. We'll be ok without you.
They are: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2026/demo/stat...
Operating systems are now updating legal docs so people in california can't use them. California has gone full retard.
https://github.com/MidnightBSD/src/commit/7d956a27123f2d77a0...
Or the person writing this has?
Just because it’s in GitHub doesn’t mean it’s more credible than the stuff my mother posts on Facebook about mark zuckerberg not having permission to use her photos.
This will come to other states soon enough.
This is deeply hypocritical, since Californians consume products built with these forbidden processes. They just have them made elsewhere so they can feel like they are ambassadors of environmental protection.
At least the New Republic is clean and healthy... on paper...
Great! Considering you can’t swing a dead cat around Silicon Valley without hitting a superfund site, this seems ok.
People and businesses that are ok with being exploited and exploiting others, while externalizing the true cost of their products on to the environment and future generations by treating the air and land like an open sewer can do it elsewhere.
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.
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.
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.
A new 22 floor hotel is on the way in less than a mile from the ocean in Newport Beach.
Lot of unsupported "impossibles" in there.
I guess Tesla’s paint shop in Fremont is virtual.
The newest thing I've seen:
"compostable - except in CA"
Why? The microbes don't get along with sourdough starter bacteria?
It's because CA has stricter regulations about what can be labeled compostable. Whatever had this label was never compostable to begin with, but called itself that on a technicality.
yeah we took one of those cups and buried in a compost heap for a few years. it was not degraded in the slightest.
You could make similar site about much of Europe to be honest.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental disconnect, between what society needs to function and what some societies are willing to tolerate. Almost everything we take for granted, like potable water, air conditioning, personal computers or long distance transportation, relies on industries generating some sort of externalities.
Regulating these industries is necessary. But we have reached the point, where the regulation makes many of them almost impossible. This has several effects.
First, the society is now dependent on delivery of these dirty products. This is obviously problematic if there is a major crisis that disrupts supply chains, or if those who manufacture them are no longer willing to deliver.
Second, working class collapses. Manufacturing jobs are one of the more stable available. They are generally unionized, or are conductive to unionization. This is unlike service sector jobs. White collar professions can mostly cope. But those who were already disadvantaged find themselves in an even worse position.
Third, the externalities move in locations with less oversight. This can, obviously, cause greater pollution and environmental degradation globally. Further, delivery of the manufactured goods across great distances adds to carbon footprint. This, again, leads to greater environmental toll.
Taken together, benefits of overregulating "polluting" industry to oblivion, are at best local and temporary.
I would also like to note, that the collapse of manufacturing jobs can be easily linked to increased political radicalization.
That being said, it's not all gloom and doom. I firmly believe, that as the impacts of this approach are felt more and more, there will be a push for sensible deregulation. Europe is already leading the way, weakening or delaying some of the more absurd regulation schemes.[1]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
Page seems to be blocked from EU.
I love that "The Grandfathered In" section. Here's just one sample of a place that presumably this stupid website wants to keep up and running:
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-10-04/chevron...
The guy who made this site is selling a $7k stove? Good luck with that, my dude.
CA is currently importing gas from Bermuda via the Panama Canal:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/16/gasoline-starved-cali...
I appreciate some of the arguments here about pushing pollution outside the state, but this is madness.
But don't you get it? We're moving up the value chain to things only WE can do.
The claim that aluminum anodizing is "banned in California" because of the sulfuric acid waste it produces is patently absurd. There are no shortage of labs, factories, and more in California that use sulfuric acid, and they all figure out how to dispose of their waste without going "fuck it, YOLO it into the river".
So most of these are just saying "you can't do this because they won't let you dump your waste in the river" and some are just "nobody's doing this in California yet"
What if you ... don't dump your waste in the river? Is it legal if you dispose of your waste properly?
Fuck oil refineries though. That's what you want to lead with?
honestly, you couldn't even build your own house.
Is hosting a website in California banned? /s
https://check-host.net/ip-info?host=bannedincalifornia.org
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Ya a lot of people on this site are ideologically positioned in a way that required demonizing CA. I don’t have any skin in that game but it seems pretty clearly A Thing to me from the other side of the country.
A lot of people on this site do or used to live in CA. It is especially galling to have people who have never lived there tell those that have what it is like there. Especially people who have tried to build or run a business in CA.
The Silicon Valley founderati is chock-full of (right wing) libertarians. I can't tell if they were always that way, or are increasingly disgruntled by state-taxes the wealthier they get.
Yep, fake libertarians. They personally get to do whatever they want, not pay taxes, and everyone else needs to follow the rules.
> This has 70 upvotes within 30 minutes. This feels like an astroturf.
Not really surprising given the audience, HN has an awful lot of neo-Technolibertarian types.
The kind who used to complain about government regulation of free speech, and now complain about anything that gets in the way of amassing massive amounts of capital at any social/environmental/political cost.
It's unfortunate that folks who complain incessantly about "facts not feelings" don't appear to be using their critical thinking skills here. But I guess it's not too surprising.
[flagged]
Please don't post generic flamebait involving comparisons between nations/regions on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47165849 and marked it off topic.
I’m married to a Brit and she is constantly in awe of how much better our healthcare is here in the US. And she paid for private insurance there too.
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.
So why are so many of your citizens without even basic affordable healthcare?
Define "so many". Most people have health insurance through their job, which translates to them having basic affordable healthcare. Not everyone has this, so I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not some abysmal state of affairs where most of the country is suffering.
They aren't. Anyone can go to the ER, and if you're poor it'll be billed through Medicaid. When I was young and poor, I had a multi-day hospital stay and multiple surgeries that totaled to $3.50 out of pocket. Urgent cares are everywhere and affordable.
I had a cholecystectomy a few years ago and had a complication that caused a gallstone to get lodged in my common bile duct after removal. Three days after surgery I was in the ER, I let them know I was in debilitating pain and that I just had surgery. They made me sit in the waiting room for 8 hours and only took me back when a doctor walked passed and noticed I was jaundiced. After his shift ended, the nurse who was watching me overnight while I waited to have an emergency surgery (because the surgeon had already gone home for the day by the time I got triaged) was told to keep an eye on me and do blood draws hourly. I didn't get seen once and by morning my liver enzymes were so high they were off the testing scale.
Sure you can go to the ER. The level of treatment you get heavily depends on luck
That's a ER triage complaint, not a financing complaint.
ER isn't the only part of healthcare that matters. Most things can be prevented with easy access to GP level care.
ER is for accidents and when health problems get out of hand. If you end up at ER with a preventable problem the system has already failed you.
Only having free access to ER doesn't constitute healthcare.
> Anyone can go to the ER
They'll treat you if you have a heart attack and make it in alive. They won't put you on blood thinners or statins 10 years before that to keep you out of the ER in the first place.
I don't think ERs do chemotherapy either.
Yup, ERs are not a replacement for actual medical care.
Their only goal/duty is to stabilize you during an acute medical emergency so you don't immediately die.
>> so many of your citizens without even basic affordable healthcare
> They aren't. Anyone can go to the ER, and if you're poor it'll be billed through Medicaid.
You guys are both wrong, and arguing with broad brushes about something that's complicated and subtle.
Health insurance is available to everyone in the country, but it's expensive and extremely complicated (among other things: you don't "bill through" Medicaid and lots of folks who qualify aren't on it because they can't figure it out).
It's true that the pre-ACA world where getting sick without employer-provided insurance means dying poor is gone. Almost everyone who needs serious care in the US gets it in some form, but lots of care is delayed because people aren't covered, as getting covered is "affordable" but extremely expensive (unsubsidized family plans run $20k/year and up!). It's much better than it used to be but not a great system.
The flip side is that it's also true that the large-payer corporate insurance system provides "better" care in the sense of access and outcomes[1] than the state-run systems in Europe. It's extremely rare in the US to hear the "on a waiting list" stories about elective care that you hear especially in regard to the NHS.
It's complicated, basically, and not well-suited to yelling on the internet.
[1] Obviously the system pays for this with much (and I mean much) higher service rates than the rest of the world extracts for the same care. US doctors and health systems do very well.
What do you do to address health concerns before they become ER-level?
Medicaid or ACA subsidized insurance
[flagged]
It’s good if you’re rich I assume
Not "rich", but "employed by a major corporation". Large-payer private insurance in the US is fine and produces outcomes at or above the level you see in the rest of the industrialized world. All the yelling is about ACA plans and subsidy programs.
Healthcare trilemma
US healthcare is excellent – if you can afford it.
Yeah that's the crux isn't it? Either you provide healthcare for everyone and thus have to ration it or you make it unavailable for the poors.
[flagged]
What is the 'INSERTNAME' law that explains how all conversations on HN, which is ostensibly focused on tech, devolve (evolve) into the realm of the humanities?
Seems like a corollary of Godwin’s Law.
UK isn't EU, especially when it comes to health system. I lived in the US for quite some time (from Fr), the healthcare is great... if you can afford an expensive health insurance AND pay some extra money when required. The avg US people can not pay and when you can not pay the experience is just far worth than terrible.
[flagged]
It’s in progress. Most of Europe slept on that - thats true.
But pretty sure we’ll figure it out over the next decade.
[flagged]
One of the big reasons we have no universal healthcare is because we socialized defense for other countries like your country. You guys are years if not decades away from being able to defense yourselves.
That’s not really true, as an American.
We spend a ton on healthcare anyway, just inefficiently and in a way that causes stress and struggles for patients.
Yeah, the administrative overhead related to just the billing system is staggering. Many hospital systems have more billing professionals than they have beds.
We spend more overall because our healthcare is bifurcated. There would be waste regardless of whether or not we socialize our healthcare completely. Look at Medicare as an example
Defend against who? You?
I am in Canada, and the USA recently threatened to invade us, basically.
So we need to buy weapons from the USA in order to defend ourselves from the USA?
Sounds like mafia protection schemes.
Sure, we are now a threat, but let’s not ignore Russia or China. Neither of them are breaking news and Russia is the immediate threat for most of the West, and until recently for you guys as well
I never heard Russia or China openly say they want to annex-invade Canada.
However, I did hear the USA president say that openly, recently and multiple times.
So pardon me for entirely rejecting your 'Russia+China = BAD, USA = GOOD' narrative.
I would even go as far as saying that today, the most immediate danger to World stability is Donald Trump and his USA, which are not friends to anyone anymore. Let us hope we can survive the next 3 years.
My original point stands. Your country was able to invest in healthcare because it didn’t spend enough on defense. It doesn’t matter who the aggressor is.
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
Reading through this discussion and speaking from professional experience I have to say that the real challenge isn’t just specific bans, it’s the administrative cost and the inertia of a permitting paradigm designed in the 1960s and 70s. We’re still managing complexity with relics of a regulatory architecture built for a different era — one with paper files, siloed agencies, and a bias toward “check-the-box” compliance rather than real world outcomes.
That’s why so many solutions feel like de facto bans: not because the environmental goal isn’t valid, but because the cost of compliance in time, paperwork, and legal risk creates a barrier that only well-resourced actors can navigate. The real economic deadweight loss isn’t always in the policy text — it’s in the thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars spent just to prove you did the minimum.
There’s enormous opportunity right now with data tools and AI agents for qualitative assessment. We don’t have to keep defaulting to rigid checklists that presume every context is the same. With modern sensors, realtime monitoring, and AI that can synthesize qualitative evidence with quantitative data, we can finally shift toward performance-based permits that look at actual impacts rather than adherence to outdated procedural triggers.
Imagine a system where:
Sensors and connected data streams show real emissions or ecological outcomes,
AI agents help translate diverse evidence into risk profiles,
Permits adapt based on performance instead of fixed thresholds divorced from context.
That’s not just a tech fantasy — that’s a pathway to reducing administrative drag while improving environmental protection. The status quo isn’t sustainable environmentally or economically. If we cling to 20th-century process dogma, we’ll keep seeing well-intentioned policies backfire into de facto bans, regulatory bottlenecks, and inequitable access to compliance.
They just really, really want to be European.
Just look at what they've done about rebuilding the Palisades, and the nonsense they've perpetrated, allowing people to live and build in places that are completely impossible to make safe to live because of incredibly stupid bureacratic policy conflicts. And then the staggering mismanagement of water resources, allowing huge tax breaks and claims on water rights to giant corporations, then completely taxing and running out farmers and landowners with legacy rights, making it impossible for them to live there.
At least if they drive everyone productive out of the state, the environment will be pristine.
It's like some insanely scaled up version of gentrification, but in the most aggressively, offensively stupid way possible. California is a tasteless joke.
> At least if they drive everyone productive out of the state, the environment will be pristine.
Most of what you said has been going on for >100 years. That's sure driven people out!
I don’t know, 39.5m with net growth might disagree with you. Are you living in California at present? If not, do any of the deregulation in laws where you are trouble you. If so, when do you plan on leaving and where to?
California is one of the only states in the union seeing a population decline year over year (while surrounding states are seeing population growth).
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2026/demo/stat...
And that doesn't even take in to account the major businesses fleeing the state as well.
Now do economic growth?
Some people like to pick cherries and some are cherry pickers. California is amazing. If we lose some employers and our economy falters okay. Happy to take it as it comes personally. Growing up here was can remember when it was a quiet place I would come home to from college breaks. Those were the good old days for me. Today’s days are pretty good too.