Hacker News Reader

Comment by orasis | Hacker News Reader

This seems appropriate. Local governments shouldn’t be able to determine international commerce policy.

I think local governments should be able to regulate emissions in their local area. I'm surprised they didn't take that approach as it would have allowed the economic benefit if possible without the harmful effects. After this court ruling, I expect the next step will be related to monitoring emissions and fining as appropriate.

https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/coal-dust...

But they aren't determining international commerce policy. The coal companies are free to ship it out through Texas, or Wyoming, or wherever will have them.

There's a difference between "I don't want guns in my house" and "I want guns to be banned in my country."

It's not Oakland's responsibility to ensure that the coal industry can make money in Oakland.

If we're going to use invalid analogies, there's also a big difference between "I declare murder to be legal in the home that I own!" and "I think murder should be legalized!"

Such reasoning is detrimental to a free society. It's not a house, it's a port. And a major one at that.

Should ISPs be free to discriminate and ban anything they don't like too?

The government does regulate what ISPs can host. In this case, the local government is trying to regulate what the port can host.

Should cities where fiber cables land be able to regulate what packets pass through them?

Your original statement was that ISPs should not get to ban. I noted that ISPs might not get to ban, but governments do get to ban. You are now asking me if governments should get to ban. I believe I already said that they do get to ban.

If your point is that you believe specifically cities should not be able to ban, then maybe that should be the case. I'd like to hear your argument, though.

You're actually replying to a different person.

But in any case, giving local government the power to arbitrarily deny access to national infrastructure is a terrible idea, and it would allow local government to override any national foreign trade strategies, amongst other things. There's lots of major exchange points on the west coast, should the cities where they're located have a say on what packets they handle? Do you think your requests should be dropped if the City of San Jose doesn't want to serve them for you? Because that's no different than this.

Oakland owns this “national infrastructure” so it doesn’t seem at all like San Jose dropping my requests, unless they own the network.

This point is entirely contrived. California owns all of the interstates within it's borders, are they also "national infrastructure"? Do you think California should be able to dictate what goods can and cannot be transported on them? Numerous private companies own the fiber cables and exchanges that deliver internet across the country, are they "national infrastructure" too? In this case a local council is trying to control what goods can and cannot be imported out of America, something which it does not and should not have the power to do.

Edit: in case it’s not clear, your “unless they own the network” remark is an assertion that Net Neitrality should not exist in any form.

“Edit: in case it’s not clear, your “unless they own the network” remark is an assertion that Net Neitrality should not exist in any form.”

Excuse me? I was describing what would be needed for your comparison to make sense. There’s no sensible path from that to “Net Neutrality should not exist in any form.”

Lots of different parties own the internet infrastructure, same as the roads, ports, utilities... Should any of those parties have the right to dictate what packets can traverse their networks, and what cannot. Should a state or municipality decide what good can be transported on the roads they 'own'? The comparison is perfectly sound. You simply don't want to address it, or respond to your ludicrous implication that international ports are not part of our national infrastructure.

You seem determined to read way more into my comments than I actually wrote, so I’ll leave you to it.

The only thing you have offered in response to any of my comments is deflection.

I just thought your analogy was bad due to differences in ownership. Principles for regulating things owned by others are different from principles for regulating things owned by the regulating entity. That’s not deflection, that’s my entire and sole point here.

Governments already do dictate what goods can not be carried on their roads. At the very least we have load limits, size limits, speed limits. Then there is dangerous goods regulation meaning you aren't allowed to transport fuel in buckets on an open trailer, and you aren't allowed to transport sand in uncovered trailers either.

All of those regulations are for public safety, and regulate how goods are transported, not what goods are transported. If Oakland could provide some evidence that exporting coal via it's port posed a public safety risk to the people of Oakland, then they'd have had a case. The truth is simply that they don't want anybody exporting coal from the US, and they are trying to majorly overstep the limits of their power.

Or maybe the truth is that coal handling ports produce a lot of particulate pollution in excess of existing regulations which Oakland is sick and tired of policing only to have offenders return to their polluting ways.

The goal of these organisations is to end US coal exports, and that they will abuse the court system with any vexatious lawsuit they can dream up. They had the opportunity to present evidence to support their claim that shipping coal through the city posed any health risk to the community, and they failed to produce any evidence to that effect.

They did produce documentstion to that effect, but Tagami claimed thst using these brand new whizzo coal car covers, no dust would escape (despite having no evidence to support that claim).

The judge basically ruled thst since the report didn't perform a comparison to other sources of pollution, that it was not relevant.

Which I guess is fine if you regard deaths from lung cancer as a statistical measure rather than preventable losses.

The only reason we need regulations to stop ISPs from banning things is because there isn’t enough competition to make it happen naturally. This is not the case with ports.

Also local governments such as Los Angeles are planning to ban Diesel and Gas by 2030. So I guess people on vacation visiting will get a huge fine, car impounded, etc for just visiting?

I think local governments are overstepping their bounds. Now if it has to do with sales of gas/diesel within city limits that would make more sense, people who disagree can just go give money to the next city over if they prefer liquid over electric. However couldn't find much info on it, just a pledge right now. I think they did it to despite Trump for dropping out of the Paris agreement. So I'm hoping it's more of just trying to create PR than actually creating any new laws.

Plus that's a huge area where I doubt every one can afford to go buy a electric, plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs. Then you also got classic car collectors too. Just imagine being told by some city you have to buy a new car by a certain date and gas stations all closed by then too.

You sound very concerned about a proposal you read about that might happen in 10 or 15 years in a city you don't live in.

"...plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs"

You also seem to know very little about electric vehicles.

In America we have freedom of movement. So I think a city banning certain types of cars is wrong if it's legal on the federal level, so I do very much care about this sort of topic.

Electric you have to plan where to charge instead of just fueling up anywhere. Plus liquid pours faster than electric, and fast charging isn't healthy for batteries according to some articles I read. Suppose to be more for emergencies. Not every hotel or camping spot has EV chargers. Same for restaurants, tourist attractions, and other places you'd naturally stop.

Orlando to Los Angeles is over 2,500 miles.

Then RV people can go off the grid for weeks at a time, just visiting town to dump tanks, fill up water and fuel. Quartzite is a popular destination for snowbirds.

Sure a lot of people who go off the grid has solar for like powering their lights and electronics, but not sure if the storage and solar is there yet to also worry about the engine itself and not just the house batteries. Especially since you still need to run the generator for AC.

I think electric still needs more development. I feel like mandating it is limiting people's freedom of movement... Maybe the government of California would rather keep it's residents from moving to Texas and Florida which is happening according to statistics. People want to be able to afford housing and cheaper goods.

I guess if it does become a mandate, you could just tote around a bunch of fuel containers and a standalone generator to charge your electric engine up if it ever did come to that... I think solar is cool but even then you don't get enough sun everyday or something acts up, so fuel for backup is always good to have too.

Then Lithium ion batteries are more efficient than other batteries, but fire is a concern. Especially how cars can heat up like a oven.

Personally I'm more open to a hybrid than 100% electric. I know they are coming out with a Jeep Wrangler hybrid, along with a diesel model too which sounds interesting. Electric for city driving or fuel for highway and off road driving sounds awesome. Best of both worlds. Clean for city driving or when wanting to go on a long distance trip no need to worry about range.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com