It's not controversial....its explicitly FALSE. There is no link or evidence supporting this.

You know what isn't controversial? Not allowing 10s of 1000s of innocent children to die from a multitude of diseases that, until quite recently, were no longer a threat to 1st world countries over the objections of people uniformed and spouting FUD.

We simply didn't have whooping cough or measles or mumps outbreaks for the last multiple decades. Now, after a decade or two of people not vaccinating, they are back.

If a parent doesn't want to get the vaccinations required, then sorry, they get to pay for qualified private education.

Nice straw man. Never said 100% renewables right now. But until you start a journey you'll never get there - which you seem to claim to want to go. Nothing for free, so we need to start paying now to get where you say you want to go. Scratch that, solar energy is free...

Wow, totally missed this. The science claims CO2 effects on future climate is largely imaginary? just wow. we're done here, you truly are a denier.

The frog in the pot says the same thing as the temp slowly warms. No concrete provable harm right now so why jump out?

But lets throw this back...
How would you prove that something going on TODAY is going to cause massive harm in 50-100 years?

Because, assuming the VAST majority of science and scientists, that is what's happening now. If we assume for a minute this is fact. That what we're doing now will cause these problems, what proof is available now to show these future results?

Is it really worth the risk to wait until absolutely concrete evidence exists when that might very well be too late?

not just aerospace. Pretty much any contractor to the federal govt has to do this. I"m currently on a Dept of State project and it's the same deal. I'm salaried/exempt but have to report hours worked AND can't work 10 extra this pay period and bill short next pay period like any sane accounting system.

A somewhat predictable result. However, it would be a teachable moment in how much overtime they are expecting from you.

tech is different. Tech is generally paid well above 'normal' salary job positions so the 'need' for overtime pay is a lot less. Hence exempting tech won't be likely to happen. Its also why the semi-regular calls to unionize tech workers fall flat every time - the problem unionizing solves isn't really a huge problem in tech.

Now I'd whole heartily support OT pay, being in tech myself :)

What costs? Specifically the release of millions of years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a couple centuries.

As far as scrubbers, are you saying acid rain wasn't a problem? Or Sulfur Dioxide? Or Nitrogen oxides? Mercury? Estimates are that coal plants kill thousands annually. So yes, pollute and you, and I did say we, should pay for it.

The United States is one of the leading producers of CO2 emissions. China only recently surpassed us. You seem to be both claiming we're great (clean/green) and decrying the very things that made us that 'great', the scrubbers and other requirements to NOT pollute the environment.

The major environmental problems with coal come from burning it. CO2 specifically, but also the other various pollutants it puts out causing long term health issues.

We do. It's called regulated franchises so that the power companies are required to damn near everyone regardless of *where* they happen to live. If you left it up to the cost effectiveness then rural places wouldn't get the infrastructure installed.

We also do so by providing government assistance to those who are having trouble paying bills. There are many, many plans in place around the country that do this specifically.

As I said it's larger societal issue as to how we deal with things going forward. If there are systemic problems causing growing numbers of people to be unable to afford basic utility rates...that's something that has to be dealt with because just cutting people off hurts everyone in the long run.

No it isn't. You're confusing electric service with the infrastructure build out. People in the outer burbs or outright rural have electricity because the infrastructure installation cost has been subsidized by the closer in masses. The service is then how this is amortized over time with rates that are the same for everyone even though rural places had a lot more spent to connect them to the grid.

Gas and electricity are certainly important, but Detroit is cutting WATER off. I have no doubt they'd just as easily cut off the others.

'Lapsed' payment definition may be the issue. A few months is one thing, what about years of non-payment?

And they fight attempts to change this because it's cheaper to stand pat. Which was the point you said wasn't true. They are dumping the costs of their power production on the environment and it's time they (& we) started paying for it.

The issue isn't individuals, but the broader society. If we allow only those who can afford electricity or solar to have it, the poorer segments are deprived and that ends up hurting everybody.

Basic services are provided to just about everyone. Electric companies are regulated and have been quasi-monopolies because having 15 separate power grids running around town is wasteful. By allowing a single company to server a broader area they can amortize the costs of the more expense areas against the lower cost areas and give everyone access to the basic services. It's the franchise model that works well at getting widespread deployment but once that's done becomes a hindrance to innovation (i.e. cable companies).

The problem is that if the rich areas start being able to mostly go off grid, the franchise provider is now screwed having to provide to the high cost areas while still also serving the low cost areas, but receiving much smaller revenue due to the roof top solar/batteries cutting usage of the grid.

It's a macro-economics and social situation we're going to see more of as disruptive technologies challenge the entrenched franchises. Killing the franchises outright is bad, but not innovating and moving forward is bad too.

How to move forward right now is the question.

It's not the mining of coal that's the major environmental problem, it's the burning of it. That's the Electric companies by and large.