4 ms·
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
by beachtaxidriver 7mo 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.
- daedrdev 7mo agoSome 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
- thousand_nights 7mo agothe plurality of this website are californians so this whole discourse is about as predictable as can be
- warkdarrior 7mo agoExport the externalities baby!
- thousand_nights 7mo agolol. yeah there is but instead of "farther from the population centers" it is "farther from YOUR population centers"
- dotancohen 7mo agoYes, 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.
- iamnothere 7mo agoDo 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 7mo ago> 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 7mo agoThe 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.
- jjmarr 7mo agoThe 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.
- parhamn 7mo agoI'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.
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago> Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere? Like where?
- anon-3988 7mo agoThere's this country called China that you guys been offshoring manufacturing to...
- reliabilityguy 7mo agoUnless you are from China, your jurisdiction offshores to China as well.
- runjake 7mo agoLike 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?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- tolerance 7mo agoCan’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.
- 7mo ago
- wiredpancake 7mo ago[dead]
- crawshaw 7mo agoBut 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.
- georgemcbay 7mo ago> 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).
- josephcsible 7mo ago> 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.
- dlev_pika 7mo agoThat’s ok, Texans don’t mind having to drink bottled water
- ixtli 7mo agoI 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 7mo agoI 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.
- overfeed 7mo ago> 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 7mo agoIt'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.