ANALYSIS: Fox News’ Chris Wallace Disingenuous About Solar, Coal Jobs

(Paul Chesser, Liberty Headlines) In a 12-minute badgering of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (who would have done much better if he could articulately argue against the bogus science behind global warming alarmism), “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace posited an absurd analogy with regard to the “jobs of the future,” in discussing the Trump administration’s withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Climate agreement.

In a discussion of the economic effects of keeping coal as part of the fuel mix that produces electricity, Pruitt contended it keeps the U.S. price-per-kilowatt low compared to Europe and “helps us grow jobs in this country.”

Wallace, ignoring the government’s meddlesome and destructive role in energy policy, attempted to rebut with an economic case for the future of renewables.

“But Mr. Pruitt,” Wallace interrupted, “aren’t you focusing on the wrong thing? I want to put up (graphically) some surprising statistics. The U.S. now employs more than double the number of people in the solar industry than it does in coal….”

.

Wallace’s producers then put up this graphic:

Chris Wallace

“Aren’t you and the President talking about protecting the horse-and-buggy business just as cars come online?” Wallace asked Pruitt.

Left out of context by Wallace are the policies of eight years of the Obama administration that led to those results. First, as a candidate for his first presidential term, Obama stated clearly that any attempts to build new coal power plants would result in their bankruptcy, as part of his “War on Coal:

At the same time the Obama administration’s Department of Energy poured billions of taxpayer dollars into speculative solar, with much of it ending in defaults.

Wallace has been around Fox News for a long time, knows all this context, and yet tried to pull a “gotcha” on Pruitt — which failed miserably.

If Wallace wanted to identify which energy source represents the “horse-and-buggy” in such an analogy, it is solar, which has been around for centuries and is still an inefficient failure when compared to fossil fuels, and only survives thanks to massive subsidies.