From Canadian Free Press writer Fred Dardick: "A Harvard University study of (President) Obama's global warming legislation estimates it will cause the price of gas to increase to $7 a gallon. Because of higher energy costs, whatever is left of our manufacturing sector will be transferred to China where energy is cheaper and they aren't so concerned about carbon emissions." Yet another example of "progress" from your garden-variety "progressives."I don't know what to say. The researching abilities of these guys leaves much to be desired. Let's start out with Fred Dardick. Who is he? His page at the Canada Free Press reads:
Fred Dardick is the owner and operator of a medical staffing company based in Chicago. Prior to the business world, he worked as a biological researcher at various highly regarded universities in the United States.My guess is that had he graduated from any of these "highly regarded universities" they would have said so. All we know is that he's a Chicago based businessman who writes for a conservative Canadian website (what, it's not a newspaper??). And at the risk of doing a "guilt by association" thing, I should point out that the standards of "reporting" at the Canada Free Press are so high, they publish the rantings one J B Williams. He's a birther.
A great "news" source, eh?
Anyway back to Dardick. In a piece that asserts that money being "thrown" at green business means more jobs in China (really? - we'll let that one pass) he writes what the Trib quotes:
A Harvard University study of Obama’s global warming legislation estimates it will cause the price of gas to increase to $7-a-gallon.But notice something? Two separate paragraphs. Two separate ideas. And yet the Trib strings them together - doesn't it look like the part about jobs in China comes from the Harvard study?
Because of higher energy costs, whatever is left of our manufacturing sector will be transferred to China where energy is cheaper and they aren’t so concerned about carbon emissions.
Here's the brief on that study. It does mention the $7/gallon gas (though projected to 2020). Can someone show me where it says "China"?
It also says:
The macroeconomic impacts of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are small, even with our relatively aggressive policy scenarios. GDP is projected to grow at 2.1-3.7% per year through 2030 under all of our scenarios, with losses in annual GDP, relative to business-as-usual, less than 1% for all scenarios.Which kinda puts the kibosh on the Trib's economic apocalypse, don't it?
It also also says:
An economy-wide CO2 price combined with transportation sector-specific policies can reduce total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels — a significant reduction from business-as-usual projections. However, options now being discussed in Congress cannot by themselves achieve the significant reductions in the transportation sector needed to meet the Obama administration's targets for total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The most effective policy for reducing CO2 emissions and oil imports from transportation is to spur the development and sale of more efficient vehicles with strict efficiency standards while increasing the cost of driving with strong fuel taxes. Without addressing both, CO2 emissions from the U.S. transportation sector will continue to grow.So it's not a summary of any sort of legislative agenda, is it? It's a set of recommendations.
And it also also also says:
Statements and views expressed in this memo are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.So it's not even a Harvard Study, is it?
I did all this in about 30 minutes. How bad is the research over there at the Trib that they can't even manage that?