Energy
Kamala Harris is still for banning fracking—as is everyone who advocates the net-zero agenda
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
- 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
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
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.
Energy
Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean
From Energy Now
By Calgary MP Greg McLean
Government in Full Reverse
Canada-U.S. Trade Relations is obviously the most pressing issue facing Canadians today.
It’s important to remember how we arrived at this point, but also to question the sincerity of the Liberal Ministers and leadership contenders who are now posing solutions, such as:
- We need to diversify our resource trade
- We need to build pipelines and infrastructure to get our exports to tidewater
- We need to streamline our regulatory burden that stands in the way of development
- We need to halt the escalating carbon tax
- We need to reverse the capital gains tax increase
The Liberals are turning themselves inside out on the policy choices they have made over nine years, and put Canada in a precarious economic position vis-à-vis our trade position.
If you believe what they are saying now, these Liberal Ministers and leadership contenders are saying that Canada needs EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they have delivered over these past nine years.
I can’t comment on whether these NEW Liberal policy positions completely lack sincerity, or whether they are the result of a ‘deathbed conversion’, but nine years of moving in the exact opposite direction to their new words has led Canada to where it is today – and that is nine lost years for Canadians, our prosperity, and our role in a complex world.
Below is another example of a specific morphing of a Liberal policy – to the one I helped put forth – 3 ½ years ago – regarding Canada’s policy on critical minerals.
Minister Late to Critical Mineral Strategy
Here’s a gem of wisdom from December’s Fall Economic Statement:
Canada will work with the United States and other likeminded partners to address the impacts of non-market policies and practices that unduly distort critical mineral prices. This includes ensuring that market participants recognize the value of critical minerals produced responsibly, with due regard for high environmental standards and labour practices.
Then, on January 16th, the following from Canada’s Natural Resource Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson:
During a panel discussion in Washington on Wednesday, Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson proposed that enforcing a floor on metals prices could be “one of the centerpieces of the conversations we would then be having at the G7” summit later this year.
Western nations have long warned that China’s dominance in everything from nickel to lithium has let the country’s producers flood the market with supply, thereby keeping prices artificially low for competitors. Wilkinson has touted price floors as a way to combat that market control.
What a great idea!
Here’s the relevant excerpt from June, 2021, from a dissenting report on the Natural Resources Committee, when I served as my party’s critic, in contrast to the government’s critical minerals approach at that time:
Recommendation 4: Coordinate with our allies to establish a dedicated supply stock of critical minerals, possibly through a physical storage and floor pricing mechanism for visibility and pricing purposes.
Excerpt: Canada is too small of a market to undertake this effort on its own, but it can play a key role with its longstanding leadership as the mining jurisdiction of choice in the world. Canada’s pre-eminent role as a financing jurisdiction for international mining is well understood. Although we are at the early stages of losing this historical leadership to Australia, acting quickly to solidify Canada’s leadership will be a strong signal. Australia and Europe have already established critical mineral strategies to offset the dominance of the market that China has exerted. At the very least, Canada’s coordination needs to include the United States, and probably Mexico (through CUSMA), as the ongoing funding of a critical mineral supply may require backstopping developments with a price amelioration mechanism. In essence, a floor price to ensure the protection of critical mineral developments from manipulating price volatility – and which has held back developments, or caused the insolvency of several of these developments, due to non-transparent world market pricing mechanisms. … Establishing a steady supply of these critical minerals will lead to more value-added opportunities, in conjunction with our trade partners.
Conservative Dissenting Recommendations
My question to the Minister: ‘What took you so long?’
This approach was presented three and a half years ago – and the Government chose to ignore it then.
No surprise now, perhaps, as we’ve seen this Minister flip-flop on so many of the nonsense policies he’s put forth or acquiesced in at Cabinet:
- The Clean Electricity Regulations (still opaque)
- Canada’ role in shipping hydrocarbons to the world
- Building energy infrastructure
To say nothing of the various Cabinet decisions he has been a part of that have led to Canada’s current weak negotiating position with our allies. We effectively have not had a Minister of Natural Resources under his tenure.
Nothing topped it off more succinctly than his speech at the World Petroleum Show, held in Calgary in September 2023, when his remarks on behalf of the Government of Canada left industry participants around the world questioning whether the Minister was ‘tone-deaf’ or if, in fact, he knew anything about natural resources.
It seems his move to the position I promoted – three and a half years ago – shows that he’s finally listening and learning (or un-learning his previous narratives, perhaps)– but it’s quite late in the day. Time and our future have been wasted.
Canada’s wealth is based on its success as a trading nation. Canada is blessed with immense resources spread across a vast country. It has succeeded as a small, open economy with an enviable standard of living that has been able to provide what the world needs.
Canada has been stuck in a situation where it cannot complete nation‑building projects like the Canadian Pacific Railway that was completed in 1885, or the Trans Canada Highway that was completed in the 1960s. With the uncertainty of U.S. tariffs looming over our country and province, Canada needs to take bold action to revitalize the productivity and competitiveness of its economy – going east to west and not always relying on north-south trade. There’s no better time than right now to politically de-risk these projects.
A lack of leadership from the federal government has led to the following:
- Inadequate federal funding for trade infrastructure.
- A lack of investment is stifling the infrastructure capacity we need to diversify our exports. This is despite federally commissioned reports like the 2022 report by the National Supply Chain Task Force indicating the investment need will be trillions over the next 50 years.
- Federal red tape, like the Impact Assessment Act.
- Burdensome regulation has added major costs and significant delays to projects, like the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project, a proposed container facility at Vancouver, which spent more than a decade under federal review.
- Opaque funding programs, like the National Trade Corridors Fund (NTCF).
- Which offers a pattern of unclear criteria for decisions and lack of response. This program has not funded any provincial highway projects in Alberta, despite the many applications put forward by the Government of Alberta. In fact, we’ve gone nearly 3 years without decisions on some project applications.
- Ineffective policies that limit economic activity.
- Measures that pit environmental and economic objectives in stark opposition to one another instead of seeking innovative win-win solutions hinder Canada’s overall productivity and investment climate. One example is the moratorium on shipping crude through northern B.C. waters, which effectively ended Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal and has limited Alberta’s ability to ship its oil to Asian markets.
In a federal leadership vacuum, Alberta has worked to advance economic corridors across Canada. In April 2023, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba signed an agreement to collaborate on joint infrastructure networks meant to boost trade and economic growth across the Prairies. Alberta also signed a similar economic corridor agreement with the Northwest Territories in July 2024. Additionally, Alberta would like to see an agreement among all 7 western provinces and territories, and eventually the entire country, to collaborate on economic corridors.
Through our collaboration with neighbouring jurisdictions, we will spur the development of economic corridors by reducing regulatory delays and attracting investment. We recognize the importance of working with Indigenous communities on the development of major infrastructure projects, which will be key to our success in these endeavours.
However, provinces and territories cannot do this alone. The federal government must play its part to advance our country’s economic corridors that we need from coast to coast to coast to support our economic future. It is time for immediate action.
Alberta recommends the federal government take the following steps to strengthen Canada’s economic corridors and supply chains by:
- Creating an Economic Corridor Agency to identify and maintain economic corridors across provincial boundaries, with meaningful consultation with both Indigenous groups and industry.
- Increasing federal funding for trade-enabling infrastructure, such as roads, rail, ports, in-land ports, airports and more.
- Streamlining regulations regarding trade-related infrastructure and interprovincial trade, especially within economic corridors. This would include repealing or amending the Impact Assessment Act and other legislation to remove the uncertainty and ensure regulatory provisions are proportionate to the specific risk of the project.
- Adjusting the policy levers that that support productivity and competitiveness. This would include revisiting how the federal government supports airports, especially in the less-populated regions of Canada.
To move forward expeditiously on the items above, I propose the establishment of a federal/provincial/territorial working group. This working group would be tasked with creating a common position on addressing the economic threats facing Canada, and the need for mitigating trade and trade-enabling infrastructure. The group should identify appropriate governance to ensure these items are presented in a timely fashion by relative priority and urgency.
Alberta will continue to be proactive and tackle trade issues within its own jurisdiction. From collaborative memorandums of understanding with the Prairies and the North, to reducing interprovincial trade barriers, to fostering innovative partnerships with Indigenous groups, Alberta is working within its jurisdiction, much like its provincial and territorial colleagues.
We ask the federal government to join us in a new approach to infrastructure development that ensures Canada is productive and competitive for generations to come and generates the wealth that ensures our quality of life is second to none.
-
Devin Dreeshen
Devin Dreeshen was sworn in as Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors on October 24, 2022.
DOGE discovers $4.7T in untraceable U.S. Treasury payments
Canada badly misjudged the future of LNG
U.S. tariffs or not, Canada needs to build new oil and gas pipeline space fast
Dr. Deborah Birx Makes Two Shocking COVID Admissions
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoBipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It
-
Business2 days agoNew climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians
-
Business1 day agoArgentina’s Javier Milei gives Elon Musk chainsaw
-
Alberta1 day ago
Open letter to Ottawa from Alberta strongly urging National Economic Corridor
-
Energy12 hours ago
Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean
-
International1 day agoJihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
Health7 hours agoRFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B
-
Addictions1 day agoBC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam