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

Carney government’s anti-oil sentiment no longer in doubt

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The Carney government, which on Monday survived a confidence vote in Parliament by the skin of its teeth, recently released a “second tranche of nation-building projects” blessed by the Major Projects Office. To have a chance to survive Canada’s otherwise oppressive regulatory gauntlet, projects must get on this Caesar-like-thumbs-up-thumbs-down list.

The first tranche of major projects released in September included no new oil pipelines but pertained largely to natural gas, nuclear power, mineral production, etc. The absence of proposed oil pipelines was not surprising, as Ottawa’s regulatory barricade on oil production means no sane private company would propose such a project. (The first tranche carries a price tag of $60 billion in government/private-sector spending.)

Now, the second tranche of projects also includes not a whiff of support for oil production, transport and export to non-U.S. markets. Again, not surprising as the prime minister has done nothing to lift the existing regulatory blockade on oil transport out of Alberta.

So, what’s on the latest list?

There’s a “conservation corridor” for British Columbia and Yukon; more LNG projects (both in B.C.); more mineral projects (nickel, graphite, tungsten—all electric vehicle battery constituents); and still more transmission for “clean energy”—again, mostly in B.C. And Nunavut comes out ahead with a new hydro project to power Iqaluit. (The second tranche carries a price tag of $58 billion in government/private-sector spending.)

No doubt many of these projects are worthy endeavours that shouldn’t require the imprimatur of the “Major Projects Office” to see the light of day, and merit development in the old-fashioned Canadian process where private-sector firms propose a project to Canada’s environmental regulators, get necessary and sufficient safety approval, and then build things.

However, new pipeline projects from Alberta would also easily stand on their own feet in that older regulatory regime based on necessary and sufficient safety approval, without the Carney government additionally deciding what is—or is not—important to the government, as opposed to the market, and without provincial governments and First Nations erecting endless barriers.

Regardless of how you value the various projects on the first two tranches, the second tranche makes it crystal clear (if it wasn’t already) that the Carney government will follow (or double down) on the Trudeau government’s plan to constrain oil production in Canada, particularly products derived from Alberta’s oilsands. There’s nary a mention that these products even exist in the government’s latest announcement, despite the fact that the oilsands are the world’s fourth-largest proven reserve of oil. This comes on the heels on the Carney government’s first proposed budget, which also reified the government’s fixation to extinguish greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, continue on the path to “net-zero 2050” and retain Canada’s all-EV new car future beginning in 2036.

It’s clear, at this point, that the Carney government is committed to the policies of the previous Liberal government, has little interest in harnessing the economic value of Canada’s oil holdings nor the potential global influence Canada might exert by exporting its oil products to Asia, Europe and other points abroad. This policy fixation will come at a significant cost to future generations of Canadians.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Energy

Carney bets on LNG, Alberta doubles down on oil

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Rashid Husain Syed

Carney is promoting LNG as Canada’s future. Alberta insists the future still runs through oil

Prime Minister Mark Carney is a man in a hurry. He’s fast-tracking energy megaprojects to position Canada as a global LNG powerhouse, but Alberta’s oil ambitions and the private sector’s U.S. focus could throw his plan off course.

It’s all part of a broader federal strategy to reframe Canada’s energy priorities and show that his government is delivering economic results. Some say the motivation is political, with a fragile minority government and the potential for a snap election.
Others say it’s about legacy: Carney wants to be remembered as the prime minister who put Canada back on the global energy map.

That ambition came into sharper focus last week. On Thursday, he announced a second wave of projects being sent to the federal Major Projects Office, a body set up to fast-track infrastructure Ottawa sees as vital to national priorities.

The new list includes the Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas project and the North Coast Transmission Line in British Columbia, along with a hydroelectric project in Nunavut. It also features nickel, graphite and tungsten mines in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Ksi Lisims is the second LNG project Ottawa has submitted to the Major Projects Office.

Carney’s goal is clear, according to Lisa Baiton, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. “With Ksi Lisims LNG and the related Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project joining LNG Canada Phase 2 on the major projects list, paired with Cedar and Woodfibre LNG, which are already under construction, Canada is on a path to become one of the top five LNG exporters in the world,” she said in a statement.

But not everyone is on the same page, especially Alberta.

The first batch of fast-tracked projects, announced two months ago, included a Montreal port expansion, a small modular nuclear plant in Ontario, mining projects in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and LNG Canada Phase 2.

Alberta’s proposed oil export pipeline project was on neither list.

Premier Danielle Smith had said she hoped an agreement with Ottawa would be finalized by early last week to allow a new bitumen pipeline to proceed. That didn’t happen. But in a statement last Wednesday, her office said “sensitive” negotiations are continuing.

“Currently, we are working on a (memorandum of understanding) agreement with the federal government that includes the removal, carveout or overhaul of several damaging laws chasing away private investment in our energy sector, and an agreement to work towards ultimate approval of a bitumen pipeline to Asian markets,” the statement said.

Alberta argues such pipelines are critical if Canada is serious about energy diversification and global exports, particularly to Asia, where demand is rising. So far, those arguments don’t appear to have moved Carney.

With no federal deal in place, the industry is moving ahead with its own export agenda by doubling down on the U.S. market.

Enbridge has approved $1.4 billion in upgrades to its Mainline and Flanagan South pipelines, adding 250,000 barrels per day of capacity to move Canadian crude to the U.S. Midwest and Gulf Coast. The expansion is expected to come online in 2027.

The company also plans to test commercial demand in 2026 for a second phase of Mainline expansion that could add another 250,000 barrels per day.

Colin Gruending, Enbridge’s president of liquids pipelines, said the U.S. remains the most logical export market for Canadian oil, followed by Asia via the West Coast. The federal government’s goal of reducing reliance on U.S. buyers may take time.

Trans Mountain Corp., which moves oil sands crude to the Vancouver area for export, is reportedly also considering ways to increase volumes quickly and affordably.

Keystone XL, the pipeline project killed by former U.S. president Joe Biden in 2021, may also be back in play. The existing Keystone system, now owned by South Bow Corp., moves Canadian oil to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. The cancelled XL expansion would have added new pipe and a more direct route south.

Whether Carney’s push makes Canada an LNG superpower or hits a wall of regional resistance and market reality, the energy and political maps are shifting.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X