Hacker News Reader

Comment by sqnfxn | Hacker News Reader

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.

"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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com