131 comments

[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 74.6 ms ] thread
But don't you get it? We're moving up the value chain to things only WE can do.
So no new car paint shops or oil refineries? I'm okay with that.
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.

> 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?

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?
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.

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.

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.

Guess we can add free (from age verification) operating systems to that list now as well.
The newest thing I've seen:

"compostable - except in CA"

Probably helpful to add why, otherwise this is just seems intended to trigger biases
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.
(comment deleted)
Lot of things could be added to this list. Good luck getting permission to start a hospital, or permission to mine/refine anything with a slightly messy process (e.g. rare earth metals). You can't build a new port. The California Coastal Commission won't let you open a new hotel anywhere on the water. You can't even keep a bar open late in San Francisco.
A new 22 floor hotel is on the way in less than a mile from the ocean in Newport Beach.
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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

This is a non-argument, and it does not even in the slightest counter anything claimed on the site.
That’s good to know, but it’s still interesting information.
ad hominem? Please explain what makes the regulatory burdens onerous instead of impossible.
Oh the smell of freshly groomed Astroturf. They should call it neighbors for a more profitably toxic environment or something like that.
Feel free to point out any inaccuracies.
Feel free to provide sources for the claims
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.
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.

> 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.

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.
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.