Connect with us

Energy

Kamala Harris is still for banning fracking—as is everyone who advocates the net-zero agenda

Published

8 minute read

From Energy Talking Points

By Alex Epstein

Myth: Kamala Harris used to be for banning fracking, but now she supports fracking.

Truth: Kamala Harris is still for banning fracking—because she is still for the net-zero agenda that requires banning fracking along with all other fossil fuel activities.

  • Kamala Harris, who in 2019 said, “There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking,” now tells voters in fracking-dependent states like Pennsylvania that she is no longer wants to ban fracking.They shouldn’t believe her, since Harris’s net-zero agenda requires banning fracking.¹
  • To know what to make of Harris’s reversal on a fracking ban, we need to first recognize that banning fracking would have been one of the most harmful policies in US history. It would have destroyed 60% of our oil production and 75% of our natural gas production.²
  • Fracking is very likely the single most beneficial technological development of the last 25 years. By extracting cheap, abundant oil and natural gas from once useless rock, it has made energy far cheaper than it would otherwise be.
  • Fracking and agriculture: The availability of food is highly determined by the cost of oil, which powers crucial machinery, and gas, which is the basis of the fertilizer that allows us to feed 8 billion people. Thanks to fracking, the world is far better fed than it would otherwise be.
  • Given how life-giving fracking is to humanity and how essential it is to the prosperity and security of the US, any politician who has ever suggested banning fracking should be considered an energy menace until and unless they issue a deeply reflective apology.
  • Harris and others who have advocated banning fracking should apologize along the following lines: “I called for banning something crucial because I listened only to exaggerated claims about its negatives and ignored its huge benefits. I am deeply sorry, and pledge to do better.”
  • Someone who comes to understand why it’s wrong to ban fracking—because the benefits you would destroy are far greater than the harms you would avoid—should also understand that the same problem exists with the broader anti-fossil-fuel, “net zero” agenda.
  • Harris has not apologized whatsoever for her support of a murderous fracking ban.And far from questioning the anti-fossil-fuel, “net zero” agenda, she has remained 100% committed to it.

    Which means she’s an enemy of not just fracking but all fossil fuel use.

  • The guiding energy goal of Biden/Harris is “net zero by 2050”—rapidly banning activities that add CO2 to the atmosphere.Since there’s no scalable way to capture CO2, burning fossil fuels necessarily means more CO2.

    “Net zero” = “ban most fossil fuel use”—including fracking.³

  • Given that “net zero by 2050” requires banning virtually all fossil fuel activity, the whole conversation about whether Kamala Harris wants to ban fracking is absurd.You can’t be for fracking and for net-zero anymore than you can be for penicillin and for banning all antibiotics.
  • For “net zero by 2050” advocates there’s no question of if they want to ban particular fossil fuel activities such as fracking in the next 25 years, just when and in what order.If Harris doesn’t try to ban fracking soon she’ll just try to ban other vital fossil fuel activities.
  • The Biden-Harris administration has already shown us that they will try to do everything they can to ban fossil fuels in pursuit of net-zero—and that they will only be limited by pro-fossil-fuel political opponents’ opposition and the resistance of voters.
  • Both Biden and Harris made it clear when campaigning that their guiding energy goal was “net zero by 2050” and that meant rapidly banning fossil fuels.Biden: “I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel.” Harris’s cosponsored Green New Deal called for banning fossil fuels.⁴
    Image
  • When they entered office, Biden and Harris continued to make “net zero by 2050” their guiding goal by rejoining the Paris Agreement that committed us to it and by announcing a “whole of government” focus on “climate”—code for: rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels.⁵
  • In action after action, the Biden-Harris administration has shown us that it will do anything it can get away with politically to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels: pipeline blocking, Federal leasing bans, LNG prohibitions, power plant shutdowns, EV mandates, SEC rules, etc, etc.

    8 ways the Biden administration is working to increase gasoline prices

    ·
    Jun 14
    8 ways the Biden administration is working to increase gasoline prices
     

    The Biden administration claims that draining the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve shows its commitment to low gas prices.

     

    Read full story
  • Americans have already paid a high price for the Biden-Harris administration’s net-zero agenda—high energy bills, power shortages, and inflation.But we’d be paying a far higher price had pro-fossil-fuel politicians and voters not opposed and dramatically slowed the agenda.⁶
  • Most of what Biden-Harris have tried to do to rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use has been, thankfully, slowed by opposition: lawsuits over power plant shutdowns, courts reversing illegal leasing bans, etc.Without this opposition they would have already caused energy ruin.⁷
  • Consider: America desperately needs more reliable power plants given huge demand from AI and (Biden-mandated) EVs.But the Biden-Harris EPA has tried to shut down all coal—1/6 of reliable capacity!

    Were it not for Biden-Harris opponents we’d already have a 3rd-world grid.⁸

    How EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid

    ·
    May 22
    How EPA's power plant rule will destroy our grid
     

    4 reasons EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid:

     

    Read full story
  • Harris tries to act reassure us that she’s “moderate” because Biden-Harris hasn’t destroyed oil and gas—e.g., fracking is allowed and oil production has actually increased.But that’s because opposition has moderated her insanely destructive net-zero ambitions.
  • The only way Kamala Harris can validly convince the public that she’s not an energy threat is to renounce not only her support of a fracking ban but of the “net zero” agenda—and to correct the anti-fossil-fuel bias that leads to both of these murderous policy ideas.
  • Whenever you hear a politician claim to be a friend of oil and gas, fracking, or any other aspect of fossil fuels, ask one simple question: Do you renounce the “net zero” agenda?If not, they will work to destroy fossil fuels—and with them our energy, prosperity, and security.

Share

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Poilievre Will Bring in ‘One and Done’ Resource Approvals, and Ten Specific Projects Including LNG Canada Phase II

Published on

From Energy Now 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre announced that he will create a new ‘One and Done’ rule for resource projects: a one-stop shop, with one simple application and one environmental review. Poilievre also announced that he will rapidly approve 10 projects that have been stuck for years in the slow federal approval process. That will include Phase II of LNG Canada, a massive natural gas liquefaction project in Northern British Columbia. Many other projects will also be encouraged, all with an aim to bolster Canada’s economic independence against the Americans.

ONE-AND-DONE RULE will:

  1. Create a ‘One Stop Shop’ – A single office called the Rapid Resource Project Office will handle all regulatory approvals across all levels of government, so businesses don’t waste years navigating bureaucratic chaos and coordinating between multiple departments with different processes. We will cooperate with provincial governments to get all approvals into this single office.
  2. One application. End duplication – There will be one application and one environmental review per project, ensuring efficiency without sacrificing environmental standards. Instead of multiple overlapping studies that stall projects, governments will work together to deliver a single, effective review.
  3. One-year maximum wait times for approvals with a target of six months. There will be a target goal of decisions on applications in six months, with an upper time limit of one year, giving businesses certainty, cutting delays, and getting shovels in the ground faster.

“After the Lost Liberal decade, Canada is poorer, weaker, and more dependent on the United States than ever before, especially as a market for our natural resources,” said Poilievre. “My ‘One-and-Done’ rule will quickly and safely unleash Canada’s natural resources by rapidly approving the projects Canadians need more of now: mines, roads, LNG terminals, hydro projects, and nuclear power stations, so we can stand on our own two feet and stand up to the Americans.”

 

When completed, LNG Canada Phase II will double LNG output from 14 million to 28 million tonnes annually, creating hundreds of jobs in construction, operations and maintenance, and generating new revenues to fund the social programs that Canadians depend on. A new Conservative Government will also repeal C-69, the No Pipelines–No Development Law, and lift the cap on Canadian energy that would prevent LNG Canada Phase II from ever proceeding. Mark Carney has confirmed he will keep both C-69 and the cap in place.

Conservatives will also establish the Canadian Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (CIOC), to offer loan guarantees for local Indigenous-led resource projects.

A new Conservative government will also rapidly review nine other projects to find the hold-ups and accelerate federal decisions to get industry moving, workers working, and dollars flowing back to Canada. The full list of projects is at the end of this release.

Mark Carney and Steven Guilbeault’s “keep-it-in-the-ground” ideology–which maintains Bill C-69, the energy production cap, and the industrial carbon tax–will continue to stifle development in Canada, leading to job losses and increased reliance on foreign imports. Carney has said that “more than 80 per cent of current fossil fuel reserves … would need to stay in the ground.”

“The choice is clear: a fourth Liberal term that will keep our resources in the ground and keep us weak and vulnerable to Trump’s threats, or a strong new Conservative government that will approve projects, unleash our economy, bring jobs and dollars home, and put Canada First—For a Change.”

Some of the priority projects a Poilievre government will work with proponents and First Nations to approve:

  1. LNG Canada Phase II Expansion Project (BC): Aims to double LNG output but faces power supply challenges and output limitations related to the emissions cap.
  2. Suncor Base Mine Extension (Alberta): Expansion of an existing mine anticipated to produce 225,000 barrels per day of bitumen froth. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2020.
  3. Rook 1 Uranium Mine (Saskatchewan): A development-stage uranium project expected to be a major source of low-cost uranium. Approval process started in 2019 with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
  4. Springpole Lake Gold (Ontario): A proposed gold and silver mine with an on-site metal mill. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2018.
  5. Upper Beaver Gold Mine (Ontario): A proposed underground and gold and copper mine. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2021.
  6. Northern Road Link (Ontario): A proposed all-season, multi-use road in northern Ontario. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2023.
  7. Crawford Nickel Project (Ontario): A proposed nickel-cobalt mine with an on-site metal mill. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2022.
  8. Troilus Gold and Copper Mine (Quebec): A proposed gold and copper mine. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2022.
  9. Sorel-Tracy Port Terminal (Quebec): A proposed new port terminal in the industrial-port area of Sorel-Tracy. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2022.
  10. Cape Ray Gold and Silver Mine (Newfoundland): A proposed gold and silver mine with a milling complex. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2017.
Continue Reading

Energy

Energy group urges Trump administration to restock oil reserves

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

An energy worker advocacy group is calling on the Trump administration to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve now that oil prices have fallen to four-year lows.

Former President Joe Biden drained the reserve of more than 40% of its capacity when gas prices reached record highs, averaging more than $5 a gallon across the U.S. in June 2022.

With the price of a barrel of crude oil at about $61, Power The Future says it’s the right time to restock the reserve.

“This drop in oil prices is not only potential good news for Americans at the pump, it also provides a window to strengthen our national energy security,” Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of Power The Future, said Monday.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in 1975 after member countries of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries placed an embargo on oil production and distribution, leading to oil shortages and higher costs. The stock pile of oil in the reserve is meant to protect the U.S. from similar supply disruptions.

“Joe Biden left America weaker by not refilling the SPR, but today’s prices provide an opportunity to fix yet another one of his failure,” Turner said. “The SPR can now be refilled while giving taxpayers a break and it can be purchased tariff-free because we’ll use all American-made energy.”

​Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Trending

X