Yesterday's Intelligencer editorial, "Reject Clinton Energy Claims," is another in a long line of anti-Clinton editorials and it's use of evidence remains true to Intelligencer form.
Take this paragraph for example:
For many families, the cost of government limits on using coal to generate electricity already has topped $20 a month. Many utilities already have shut down economical coal-fired power plants in favor of newer units fueled by natural gas. In some states, power companies are being forced to buy electricity generated at solar or wind farms — at much higher rates.
The editorial provides no evidence for any of the three assertions in that paragraph. Or this, which is one their favorite assertions:
In all likelihood, pursuance of Obama’s war on affordable energy will cost tens of millions of families $1,000 a year or more in higher utility bills.
I've written about this assertion at least five times in the last 15 months. The original source is very questionable -- here's some of my research on that statistic. They now drop all references to the source -- for them, it's a fact.
The editorial tells us:
Last week in Pittsburgh, Trump suggested that Clinton’s energy agenda “will cost our economy $5 trillion, at least.” In the long run, that may be an understatement.
The Intelligencer is now using Donald Trump as a reliable source of evidence? Is it possible the he could be biased and what's his record on truth-telling? Here's Politico fact-checking Trump's $5 trillion statistic in his Pittsburgh speech:
Even the conservative Heritage Foundation pegs the cost of the Climate Action Plan at $1.47 trillion of lost national income by 2030, not $5 trillion.
That's amazing. They quote the fact-challenged Donald Trump and then claim, without a shred of proof, that his number may be an understatement.
In fairness to the editorial, they do cite a recent study by the Associated Press and the Energy Policy Institute that looked at consumer support at various levels of extra cost per month. Unfortunately for us, the Intelligencer did not run the original AP article which allowed them to pick and choose for their editorial. Here is what the editorial did choose from the study:
A recent public opinion poll asked Americans whether they would support government action against climate change if it takes money out of their pockets. The poll was conducted by The Associated Press and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.
Of those questioned, 57 percent said they would support more action against climate change if it costs them $1 a month. Thirty-nine percent said yes if the cost was $10 a month. Fewer than one-third want more action if the cost to them is $20 a month.
On the other hand, they did not cover the rest of the poll's findings. For instance:
Seventy-one percent want the federal government to do something about global warming, including 6 percent who think the government should act even though they are not sure that climate change is happening.
You can read the original AP article about the study here.