| ▲ | beachtaxidriver 15 hours ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | crawshaw 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | WD-42 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | encoderer 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | WD-42 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because they get all the water that can possibly be piped in from somewhere else. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Good? If it's the best place for producing a product, but requires an input from somewhere else, that's how businesses work. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mh- 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And if the last several years are indicative of the trend, wildfire season is now a substantial part of the year. | |
| ▲ | thephyber 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | jjmarr 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | themaninthedark 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | jjmarr 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | ozlikethewizard 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most of the comp sci videos on youtube are indian, but is India the cutting edge producing of comp sci innovations? | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | culi 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 | |
| ▲ | paxys 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Plenty of states and countries are okay with having this stuff in their backyard. Most of them encourage it. Let them build it. | |
| ▲ | thephyber 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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). | |
| ▲ | bilbo0s 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | nailer 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Ifkaluva 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if, hear me out, what if we did these things… in space?! | | | |
| ▲ | dlev_pika 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That’s ok, Texans don’t mind having to drink bottled water | | |
| ▲ | ixtli 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | hunterpayne 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | parhamn 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | jameson 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Consider housing price and state tax as well | | |
| ▲ | georgeecollins 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And don't forget the strict laws that prevent people from leaving and require them to complain instead. | | |
| ▲ | kg 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | Take8435 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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_. |
| |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere? Like where? | | |
| ▲ | runjake 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | culi 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | corporations taking hold of small local governments and passing laws that benefit them, unbeknownst to the locals living there, is hardly "consent" | |
| ▲ | tolerance 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | anon-3988 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's this country called China that you guys been offshoring manufacturing to... | | | |
| ▲ | tokenless 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well the attitude that puts a full stop (well a question mark) after "NIMBY" says implicity "where the poors live". | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | daedrdev 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 |
| |
|
| ▲ | overfeed 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | autoexec 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | thousand_nights 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| lol. yeah there is but instead of "farther from the population centers" it is "farther from YOUR population centers" |
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | jjmarr 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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? | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wiredpancake 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |