Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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

Alberta

New children’s book demonstrates how the everyday world is connected to natural resources

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

‘Today’s youth have the opportunity to lead us into the future with innovative solutions for environmental challenges’

After a 24-year career in oil sands land reclamation, author Tanya Richens is sharing her knowledge with young minds.

Her new book, From the Earth to Us: Discovering the Origins of Everyday Things, explores the relationship between natural resources and the things we use in everyday life, from computers and water bottles to batteries and solar panels.

“There is a gap in society’s understanding of where things come from. We are a society driven by consumerism and immediate gratification. We order something online, and it arrives on our doorstep the next day. We don’t stop to think about where it really came from or how it was made,” Richens says.

“There’s an ever-increasing societal position that mining is bad, and oil is even worse… But there’s a simple hypocrisy in those beliefs, since so many things in our lives are made from the raw materials that come from mining and oil and natural gas,” she says.

The book, illustrated by reclamation artist Shannon Carla King, follows young Hennessy Rose and her Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Riley on a trip to a children’s summer camp.

Hennessy’s mom is a guest speaker on the origin of everyday items and the relationship between humans and the earth. Through detailed explanations of items surrounding her, Hennessy’s mom teaches the kids how rocks, minerals, oil and gas from the earth are used to power and aid our lives, creating items such as building supplies, food and hair products, camping and sports equipment, and cell phones.

Author Tanya Richens poses with her two books for children about natural resources. Photo for Canadian Energy Centre

“I thought a simple and fun book explaining the raw materials needed to make everyday items would be valuable for all ages,” Richens says.

“When people feel personally connected to natural resources, they are more likely to promote sustainable practices. Today’s youth will have the opportunity to lead us into the future with innovative solutions for environmental challenges.”

Richens‘ career began with Alberta Environment, where she was a coordinator of reclamation approvals in the oil sands. She oversaw technical reviews of oil sands reclamation applications, communicated with statement of concern filers, coordinated public hearings and provided support for legislative changes.

She moved from government to Suncor Energy, ensuring the company’s compliance on reclamation projects and led initiatives to obtain reclamation certificates. She now works as an independent consultant.

Drawing on her wealth of experience in the field, Richens’ first book, Adventures in Land Reclamation: Exploring Jobs for a Greener Future, seeks to excite kids aged 9-12 years about jobs related to the environment and land reclamation.

Hoping to get From the Earth to Us into the hands of teachers, Richens is heading to the Edmonton Teachers Convention in late February. She says the book supports multiple learning outcomes in Alberta’s new science curriculum for grades 3, 4, 5 and 6.

“Ultimately, I’d like people to understand and acknowledge their individual part in the need for mining and oil and natural gas development. Until the naivety and hypocrisy in the world is addressed, I’m not sure that real environmental change is possible.”

Richens’ books can be purchased on her website at tcrenvironmental.com.

Continue Reading

Energy

Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean

Published on

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.

FULL REPORT

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X