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?

▲

ineedaj0b 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

Noaidi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

SecretDreams 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

rswail 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

seb1204 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	SecretDreams an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.

▲

soco 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"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.