Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AbeWasHereAgain t1_is42x7u wrote

Reply to comment by ForHidingSquirrels in US Federal Reserve sees EV “battery belt” developing as greater than 15 battery manufacturing facilities worth greater than $40 billion are in development in the US by ForHidingSquirrels

state regulations = we will let them pollute the living fuck out of the area.

50

solardeveloper t1_is5ssec wrote

I hate so much that garbage takes like this get so many upvotes.

Can't be because of supply chains, minimizing freight costs or other factors that greatly reduce cost to you the consumer. No, just "they let them pollute"

Jfc

9

Hampsterman82 t1_is5wkul wrote

Bruh.... There's truth to it. Look at rare earth refining. China is no where near a leader in cutting edge tech but they do it all cause it's a bitterly polluting process and in china you can just hellscape a lake with the chemical and heavy element waste.

7

OldeHickory t1_is5x6cw wrote

The southeast has a history of local politicians being ridiculously corrupt. The lack of regulations is definitely a factor. Why follow CEQA when you can just put your factory in Georgia?

6

solardeveloper t1_is6it15 wrote

The fact that you cite CEQA demonstrates my point. CEQA is the use of environmentalism to impose NIMBY land use restrictions via plausibly deniable tactics like making development costs so high even for compliant projects that they end up not being built. Fundamentally, its a tool to destroy the economics for even good faith development so as little as possible gets built.

Congrats, we have CEQA in CA. And by far the coubtry's highest working homeless population because manufacturing and many other blue collar jobs don't pay well enough to afford housing out here.

And the irony is the same set of people treating CEQA as a victory are crying about the high cost per Watt hour of batteries, not putting 2 and 2 together about how value chain and supply chain costs are what drive cost of the end product. Due to our special fuel requirements, geographic location relative to existing manufacturing infrastructure and centers, and the lack of housing affordability for truckers, CA is poorly positioned to retain manufacturing of resource intensive items like batteries even without CEQA.

4

OldeHickory t1_is6jdvy wrote

Lmao guy sees a chance to bash California at any cost. Saying that environmental laws are just for rich nimbys is classic right wing propaganda. They would like to remove section 106, NEPA, and Section 4(f) if they could. They will bash any environmental law claiming it is just for the rich. Such a joke. Spill your propaganda elsewhere please.

−1

solardeveloper t1_isak8ai wrote

I own property in CA and directly benefit economically from CEQA and Prop 13. You need to up your game - not every critique of policy in CA is "right wing" propaganda, and shows how little grasp of actual business and housing development environment here that that's your only response.

If you want to dive deeper into how CEQA is problematic, have a read. Its from the Atlantic, the famously right wing publication (sarcasm)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/

2

OldeHickory t1_isaljye wrote

I don’t care lmao. I work in environmental compliance and I hate how weak GEPA is, written by developers and engineering firms as a rubber stamp for whatever they want to do as long as they can avoid triggering federal laws. It’s my livelihood. I am pro CEQA and any other state environmental law with actual teeth. Go on now

0

Lanky-Detail3380 t1_is6fcaz wrote

You would be surprised how little they are allowed. It will probably change but for now Tennessee is fairly serious about environment quality.

3