Kamala Harris‘s 2019 campaign promise to ban fracking was clear and unwavering. Her longstanding support for progressive energy policies, such as endorsing the Green New Deal and opposing federal land drilling, seemed to back this stance. However, recent statements from anonymous campaign representatives suggest that Harris may no longer support a fracking ban, leaving her current position unclear.
The ambiguity surrounding Harris’s energy policy likely stems from the need to balance her progressive base’s climate concerns with the economic interests of swing-state voters, particularly in Pennsylvania, where the energy sector is crucial.
Kamala Harris’s past pledge to ban fracking faces scrutiny as her current position on energy policy remains unclear
This sector provides over 123,000 jobs and contributes $75 billion to the state’s economy. Consequently, Harris’s statements on energy have been general, focusing on climate support and job creation.
Voters are seeking detailed responses on energy issues, as energy prices impact inflation and contribute to national security concerns. The stability provided by domestic energy production has historically shielded the U.S. from global crises, such as those in the Middle East.
Harris must clarify whether her stance on fracking has changed and, if so, provide reasons for the shift. While a revised position could align with current practices in energy extraction, it would contradict her previous advocacy, including her litigation against the Obama administration’s fracking policies in California.
Additionally, Harris should address whether she will maintain the Biden administration’s approach to energy production on federal lands or adopt Obama’s policy of continued leasing to support energy independence.
Similarly, she needs to specify her position on the approval of liquefied natural gas exports. A permanent halt, as some climate activists advocate, could undermine the U.S. natural gas industry and negatively impact global energy dynamics by increasing reliance on less clean sources from adversaries like Russia.
Further, Harris needs to clarify her stance on other critical energy issues. These include her support for banning new pipelines, the need for a comprehensive energy strategy to meet global demand, the proposed ban on gas-powered vehicles by 2040, and the transparency of federal regulations affecting energy companies.
Given the short campaign timeline, clear answers on these topics are crucial. As a leader in oil and gas production, LNG exports, and emissions reductions, the U.S. benefits from lower energy costs and enhanced global stability. There is considerable concern that a potential President Harris might implement policies that could diminish America’s energy leadership. To address these concerns, Harris needs to provide definitive answers soon.
