[barelysapient]

Should California be treated differently than the rest of the world?

In addition to banning these manufacturing processes in California, we should ban the products manufactured with these processes from California. This would require products to "green up" in order to access California's vast market.

By allowing dirty products manufactured elsewhere, we've simply moved the problem and its harms out of our line of sight. And frequently to a place where the people are poor, non-white and under represented.

[gorfian_robot]

this does happen to some extent for example with auto emissions and other things. CA is such a large market when it alone makes a change, it often drags along other states or the nation.

[lokar]

Not really. CA can regulate import and sales of items based on the what the item does once in CA. They can't really regulate how it was made somewhere else.

[tzs]

When some particular item as currently made does meet California regulations the maker has four options:

1. Keep the item as is and don't sell it in California.

2. Make a California version that meets regulations. Sell that only in California. Keep making the original version and sell it elsewhere.

3. Same as #2 except sell the California version along with the original version outside of California.

4. Make a California version that meets regulations. Stop making the original version and sell the California version everywhere.

California is a big enough market that many makers cross off #1. Once they are making a California version it often turns out they selling that everywhere is more efficient for them than keeping the original version around.

[tzs]

Damn it…missing a “not” in the first sentence.

[barelysapient]

I'd be curious to know if this is really the case.

States have a lot of power to regulate commerce, interstate commerce and the products their citizens have access too.

If indeed they can't, then perhaps its one subject dems and r's could get together on. Instead of blanket tarrifs, tarriffs on products made with slave labor or without strong consideration for environment impact.

[verteu]

States can't impose tariffs: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C2-1...

[barelysapient]

Apologies, I meant federally.

Since D's control California, no need to work with R's there.

I also think they could get creative. Eg., without an attestation validated by <agency> products can't be sold.

For example, this is already done with controlled substances and food.

[lokar]

I don't think it's unreasonable for indirect impacts like this to be regulated by the federal government.

[barelysapient]

I completely agree. I'd vote that person regardless of party.

[parineum]

For example, the ubiquity of backup cameras in cars is because it is a requirement in CA.

[0xffff2]

This is not correct. The backup camera requirement comes from a NHTSA (i.e. Federal) regulation.

[parineum]

You are correct. I must have mixed that up with something else! Thanks for the correction.