-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Will California ban Ships that don't comply?
- Thread starter ThomasD
- Start date
That's because it's actually from The Western Journal, which is an online right-wing site with a "newspaper" name to try to get more credibility.
dbeiler
Member
California is a writing a step-by-step instruction manual on how to hemorrhage a population at unprecedented levels. Last year, about 10% of new Tennessee residents came from the state of California. Over twenty thousand people left California to live in Tennessee, arguably the state most polar opposite of California.
For anyone who isn't yet aware, the MSN comment section is moderated with extreme bias. I used it as the subject for one of my college ethics class research projects. If you use the word "biological", your comment will automatically be flagged for review. You cannot use the term "biological fact" in any comment. Any comment containing the term "biological fact" will automatically be blocked and cannot be posted because it "doesn't meet community guidelines". My questions to MSN moderation on how biological terms go against community guidelines have gone unanswered.
For anyone who isn't yet aware, the MSN comment section is moderated with extreme bias. I used it as the subject for one of my college ethics class research projects. If you use the word "biological", your comment will automatically be flagged for review. You cannot use the term "biological fact" in any comment. Any comment containing the term "biological fact" will automatically be blocked and cannot be posted because it "doesn't meet community guidelines". My questions to MSN moderation on how biological terms go against community guidelines have gone unanswered.
Lots of new people in NC are from CA also. But the average price of a San Jose home at $1.5M is certainly part of the reason. But moving to a state with no income tax (TN) is not a bad idea for a lot of people.
For the most part though, a house in San Jose is $1.5M for a reason. The market is perfect - right?
Yep - lots of people can't afford that or don't want to (Elon) but the consensus is that it is worth it.
Funny how CA is probably the richest state by most measures yet has the strictest environmental regulations. And I believe that has been true for 50 years or so.
TN will never be the richest state. Like NC, its legislature is dominated by intellectually embarrassing neanderthals (queue up GEICO caveman video).
BTW - CA population declined about 40,000 last year(0.1%). So not sure where your 20,000 came from except that it might not be net migration. Certainly people have moved into CA also (some probably from TN). 2020 was the big year of population loss not last year. Hint, that wasn't about environmental regulation.
For the most part though, a house in San Jose is $1.5M for a reason. The market is perfect - right?
Yep - lots of people can't afford that or don't want to (Elon) but the consensus is that it is worth it.
Funny how CA is probably the richest state by most measures yet has the strictest environmental regulations. And I believe that has been true for 50 years or so.
TN will never be the richest state. Like NC, its legislature is dominated by intellectually embarrassing neanderthals (queue up GEICO caveman video).
BTW - CA population declined about 40,000 last year(0.1%). So not sure where your 20,000 came from except that it might not be net migration. Certainly people have moved into CA also (some probably from TN). 2020 was the big year of population loss not last year. Hint, that wasn't about environmental regulation.
dbeiler
Member
"Domestic out-migration slowed in 2022-23, to a net domestic migration loss of 260,400 people.
Natural increase—births minus deaths—added 107,300 people from 2022 to 2023 with 409,200 births, and 301,900 deaths. Births were down from 423,400 in the year ending July 1, 2022, while deaths were down from 318,500.
For nearly 20 years California has experienced negative net domestic migration, in which the number of people moving out of the state in a year exceeds the number moving in. Since 2016, net domestic outmigration has exceeded net international migration, leaving natural increase as the only source of population growth. Natural increase is constrained by continuing fertility declines and increased deaths from an aging population.
Net international migration to California reached 115,900 people in the year preceding July 2023, nearing Pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. While net international migration added population during this period, negative domestic net migration still outweighed these gains, resulting in an overall net migration loss of 144,500 residents." (State of California Department of Finance)
TLDR: Over a quarter million people moved out of California between July '22 and '23. A hundred thousand of these ex-residents were replaced by immigrants.
Why are people still fleeing California? Will forcing emissions equipment on ships change their mind?
zoomer0056
Active Member
The people leave certain States then vote for the same type of Politician policies that caused them to leave that State anyways. If you move out to the Country or a Rural area don't complain that you can't get Uber Eats. People have Guns. Even Democrats have Guns in the South and Rural areas. Move into a Housing Development near a Farm and then complain about smelly Animals and noise. That is your fault.
fholbert
Active Member
I can't believe we're arguing about the right to breath clean air. LA/Long Beach Harbors are the largest polluter in SoCal and making it cleaner over the decades has been a very successful task. Not sure why people think this is a California issue? Both smoke and cargo on the ships push east, it affects everyone.
People move out of California because housing is so expensive. Federal and state governments have no control over that. It's a fact, people want to live here. It's a fact, businesses want to be here. They say the televised Rose Parade moved more people to California than anything else.
Most of the people I know moving out of California do so when they retire. I plan to move out of state in a couple of years myself. I'll sell the house and pocket about $1m in equity, $1m buys a really nice home in small town America.
dbeiler
Member
I'm confused. Which is it?
That's true. California's median housing cost is significantly higher than other states, yet the California median household income isn't. California is down in fifth place or so for annual income. That's a lopsided scenario. It means Californians are making sacrifices in other aspects of their quality of life to afford housing.
Why is California housing so expensive? Do you think forcing emissions equipment on California ships, at a cost of up to 5 million each according to the (biased) article will lower the cost of housing? Or will it raise the cost of housing? Look, I'm all for reducing harmful emissions, but lets be honest about the short term costs that need to be shouldered to reach those long term goals.
fholbert
Active Member
Like I said, I'm not moving until I retire. Salaries are too good here.
Look at SoCal, average income is $132K. I find it hard to believe a two income family would be that low.
That would have no effect on the price of housing in California any more than any other state. Very little material needed to build a house is imported.
Put the cost to reduce emissions in perspective. The $5m your talking about is one tank of fuel for these ships.
A recent NJ to NC transplant recently told me of the expression - Raise a family in a blue state and retire in a red state. It is the logical, if selfish thing to do.
5 million per ship is a quote from a rabidly partisan source. Given the size of the ships, even that might not be as bad as it seems at first. Maybe they have 25000 containers and do 100 trips in a lifespan of that equipment. Then it is $2 per container on a $5,000 shipping cost.
Actual numbers I found - 24,000 per ship; $2k - $5k cost. No idea on lifespan.
Does that make it seem more reasonable to make the air healthier?
Do you really think that cost is borne by the homeowners in CA exclusively? 40% of US imports come through Long Beach or LA.
So roughly .1% of shipping cost borne by all of us. So when you buy that $10 Amazon item that probably has 5 cents of shipping cost from China to LA, know that .005 cents of that is making the air healthier in southern CA. That is what the outrage is about.
All costs are costs and they should be examined that way. That $5 million maybe could be put to better use or maybe not. I know that shipping in that area is a big problem as far as emissions. There does tend to be a knee jerk response by some in regards to any regulations. It is like the health of the population doesn't matter to some or, more likely, they believe that regulation is the source of a lot of problems including cost of goods. Regulation does cost some money and it saves some lives (and save health care costs). But these are complex issues. Not all regulations are good and not all are bad. The level of complexity is not something someone who isn't a professional in the field is going to understand (including myself for sure).
It is both interesting and depressing to watch moneyed interests control the population. Call it plutocracy or call it fascism but it isn't the best we could be by a long shot.
5 million per ship is a quote from a rabidly partisan source. Given the size of the ships, even that might not be as bad as it seems at first. Maybe they have 25000 containers and do 100 trips in a lifespan of that equipment. Then it is $2 per container on a $5,000 shipping cost.
Actual numbers I found - 24,000 per ship; $2k - $5k cost. No idea on lifespan.
Does that make it seem more reasonable to make the air healthier?
Do you really think that cost is borne by the homeowners in CA exclusively? 40% of US imports come through Long Beach or LA.
So roughly .1% of shipping cost borne by all of us. So when you buy that $10 Amazon item that probably has 5 cents of shipping cost from China to LA, know that .005 cents of that is making the air healthier in southern CA. That is what the outrage is about.
All costs are costs and they should be examined that way. That $5 million maybe could be put to better use or maybe not. I know that shipping in that area is a big problem as far as emissions. There does tend to be a knee jerk response by some in regards to any regulations. It is like the health of the population doesn't matter to some or, more likely, they believe that regulation is the source of a lot of problems including cost of goods. Regulation does cost some money and it saves some lives (and save health care costs). But these are complex issues. Not all regulations are good and not all are bad. The level of complexity is not something someone who isn't a professional in the field is going to understand (including myself for sure).
It is both interesting and depressing to watch moneyed interests control the population. Call it plutocracy or call it fascism but it isn't the best we could be by a long shot.
Last edited:
dbeiler
Member
The $5 million is only the cost of initial equipment installation. Engines fitted with DPF suffer a lifetime penalty of reduced fuel efficiency due to increased pumping losses, an increase in maintenance downtime and cost due to cleaning of clogged DPF, and fuel wasted from being injected and burnt solely to facilitate DPF regen cycles. The ironically ignored downside of fitting DPF to equipment is that it actually increases carbon dioxide output. It certainly does lower particulate emissions, which is desirable in populated areas, but it comes at the cost of higher carbon dioxide output.
Regardless, the increased operating cost isn't even the primary concern in this situation. Its the completely unrealistic deadline set by California. The installation of emissions equipment on all California ships for compliance by Jan 1 isn't going to happen without some magic fairy dust.
Regardless, the increased operating cost isn't even the primary concern in this situation. Its the completely unrealistic deadline set by California. The installation of emissions equipment on all California ships for compliance by Jan 1 isn't going to happen without some magic fairy dust.
Good on the Coast Guard for pushing back on this. It's pretty wild that California is mandating the installation of marine equipment that hasn't been tested or certified by the U.S. Coast Guard. It's also interesting that California expects the Coast Guard - a federal agency - to enforce state laws.
I'm all for cleaning up maritime emissions, but California seems to be missing a few steps in the process.
I'm all for cleaning up maritime emissions, but California seems to be missing a few steps in the process.
Similar threads
