Banned in California
California's stringent environmental regulations have quietly made it impossible to permit new facilities for many fundamental industrial processes required for modern manufacturing, from smartphones to warships. The site provocatively illustrates how the state consumes high-tech goods while outsourcing their production, sparking debate about the balance between environmental protection and industrial capacity. This paradox resonates with HN readers, highlighting a critical tension in modern economic and environmental policy.
The Lowdown
The "Banned in California" website vividly demonstrates how the state's environmental regulations have rendered the permitting of new industrial facilities for essential manufacturing processes virtually impossible. It highlights a striking dichotomy where California is a major consumer of high-tech products but can no longer produce many of their core components within its borders.
- The site details numerous processes, including semiconductor fabrication, aluminum anodizing, lithium-ion battery manufacturing, and automotive paint shops, categorizing them as "impossible" or "extremely difficult" to permit for new facilities.
- It provides concrete examples, such as Tesla building its Gigafactory in Nevada and Cybertruck factory in Texas, explicitly due to California's prohibitive permitting environment for battery and vehicle production.
- The scope extends to heavy industry like warship building, noting that complex operations involving steel rolling, superalloy casting, and specialized electronics manufacturing would be impossible to establish anew in California.
- A significant section lists existing, decades-old industrial facilities (e.g., oil refineries, Intel's Santa Clara campus, SpaceX, General Dynamics NASSCO) that continue to operate solely because they are "grandfathered in" under older regulations, implying they could not be replaced today.
The website ultimately argues that California has effectively offshored its industrial base, forcing the state to rely on external production for goods whose manufacturing processes are deemed too environmentally impactful to conduct within its own borders, prompting questions about sustainability and self-reliance.
The Gossip
Green Gains vs. Industrial Exodus
Commenters debated the merits of California's strict regulations. Some strongly defended the bans, prioritizing clean air and water as essential benefits of the policies, even if it meant certain industries couldn't operate in the state. Others implicitly criticized the economic and strategic implications, suggesting that the state was exporting its industrial base and relying on others to bear the environmental burden of production.
American Apathy or Golden State Gaffes
The discussion broadened to question whether California's situation was unique or a reflection of a larger national trend. One commenter posited that the outsourcing of industrial production was an "America problem" rather than solely a Californian one, suggesting a wider pattern of deindustrialization or shifting manufacturing priorities across the country.
Contextual Clarity for Critical Critiques
Several commenters expressed a desire for more nuanced information regarding the specific reasons behind each industrial ban. They questioned whether all prohibited processes were genuinely harmful (like asbestos) or if some regulations were overly burdensome without sufficient justification, indicating a need for a deeper understanding of the trade-offs involved.