Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The worst part is that most of number 3 is self imposed by the ridiculous amount of environmental review and litigation delays surrounding that process.

Because, surprise, we do not want more Superfund sites. Like, the Silicon Valley is the US' biggest cluster of Superfund sites by far.

At the same time, it is very convenient that there are lots of piss poor countries that have very difficult/dirty to mine resources... be it China, Congo or whatever. These countries didn't have the luxury to think decades into the future, and capitalism doesn't have built-in ethics, and this is how we ended up here.

The EU tried to introduce supply chain laws aiming at cutting back at this kind of exploitation, but the pressure from industry was immense.





If SV is full of superfund sites then I guess they aren't as bad as I thought because millions of people live there and are doing just fine.

> Like, the Silicon Valley is the US' biggest cluster of Superfund sites by far

Source? My understanding was that NJ was the worse.

Wikipedia shows 94 SF sites in CA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Cal...

And 115 in NJ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_New...

And of course, CA is _much much_ larger. If we look at the entire bos/wash corridor, it's huuugely than CA.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: