Energy
Kamala Harris is still for banning fracking—as is everyone who advocates the net-zero agenda
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ed141/ed14146715cb61505988a2d4dc0f2fe10e870029" alt=""
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 14The 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 224 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
Trump’s tariffs made Ottawa suddenly start talking about new east-to-west pipelines, but how long will it last?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a7c5f/a7c5f66528d90d97d644ea74b7c823345420be20" alt=""
For years, oil pipelines have been a political fault line in Canada, with battles over environmental policies, economic development and national energy security. The Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has sent mixed signals – championing climate goals while approving some energy projects like the Trans Mountain Expansion. But now, with a trade war looming over Canada, a surprising shift has occurred: a consensus across the political spectrum in favour of building new pipelines.
And it’s all due to one man: United States President Donald Trump.
Trump’s threat to impose a 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy and 25 percent on other Canadian exports has woken up Ottawa. Previously, Trudeau’s government made decisions that killed off big pipeline projects like Energy East. Bill C-69 was blamed for creating an uncertain regulatory environment that discouraged investment in pipelines.
But now, Liberal ministers are talking about revisiting those projects.
On February 6, Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, a long-time climate crusader, surprised many when he said Canada is too dependent on the U.S. as an oil buyer and suggested Ottawa should consider a pipeline to Eastern Canada to diversify energy exports. He’d made similar comments in September and October 2024 when he said oil demand had peaked and pipelines were unnecessary.
The next day, it was reported that Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne followed Wilkinson’s lead, saying Canada must reassess its energy infrastructure given Trump’s threat. He even suggested Quebec, which has long opposed pipelines, might be open to reconsidering Energy East.
Shortly after, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seized the moment, urging Ottawa to restart talks on national energy infrastructure.
And then on February 9, Champagne again said Quebecers might have a different view on pipelines now that their economic security is at stake.
This is a stunning reversal. Just months ago Wilkinson and other Liberal officials were saying oil demand was declining and Canada should focus on renewables and electrification.
However, is this a real policy shift?
While some senior Liberals are suddenly in favour of pipelines, one key figure has been silent: Mark Carney, the front runner in the Liberal leadership race.
Carney has made climate action a central plank of his campaign, but says he supports the “concept” of an east-west pipeline.
His silence raises a big question: Are the Liberals really in favour of oil pipelines or is this just a reaction to Trump?
Despite Carney, Wilkinson and Champagne’s comments, big industry players remain skeptical. Pipeline projects take years of regulatory approval, billions of investment and political will at both the federal and provincial level. The Trudeau government’s track record has been one of obstacles, not encouragement, for big energy projects.
And some experts say pipeline companies may not be keen to jump back into the fray. TC Energy, the former proponent of Energy East, divested its oil pipeline business in 2023. Would a new pipeline proponent be willing to navigate the regulatory and political minefield that Ottawa itself created?
The political fallout could be immense.
If the Liberals go for pipelines, it will be one of the biggest policy reversals in Canadian energy history. It will also expose deep divisions within the party. Environmental groups and Liberal voters in urban centres will likely rage against such a shift while oil-producing provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan will remain skeptical of Ottawa’s new enthusiasm.
Meanwhile the Conservative Party, the only federal party that has always been in favour of pipelines, will find itself in an unusual position—watching the Liberals adopt its policies as their own.
In the next few weeks all eyes will be on Carney and the Liberal leadership race. If Carney keeps hedging on pipelines, it will be unclear if this new consensus is real or just political expediency in the face of Trump’s tariffs.
For now Canada’s pipeline debate is no longer about energy or the environment—it’s about sovereignty, trade and survival in an uncertain global economy. Will this consensus last beyond the immediate crisis?
Alberta
Can Trump Revive The Keystone Pipeline?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/abedb/abedb585d4c7b77181faa707d06b369be1e4abe1" alt=""
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By David Blackmon
In a post on his Truth Social media platform Monday night, President Donald Trump said he still wants to see the Keystone XL pipeline through to completion. Here is the full text of the president’s post:
“Our Country’s doing really well, and today, I was just thinking, that the company building the Keystone XL Pipeline that was viciously jettisoned by the incompetent Biden administration should come back to America, and get it built — NOW! I know they were treated very badly by Sleepy Joe Biden, but the Trump Administration is very different — Easy approvals, almost immediate start! If not them, perhaps another Pipeline Company. We want the Keystone XL Pipeline built!”
For those unaware, the company that spent a decade attempting to finance, obtain permits, and build the Keystone XL pipeline project is TC Energy (formerly Trans Canada), which is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!
Fraught with controversy from the beginning, Keystone XL became a true political football during the Barack Obama presidency as the anti-oil and gas lobby in the U.S. mounted a disinformation campaign to kill public support for it. The mounting of the costly disinformation campaign made the process of obtaining permits at all levels of government – state, local, and federal – far more difficult and time-consuming, needlessly running up the project’s cost in the process.
After the Obama State Department led by Secretary John Kerry refused to issue the international cross-border permit required to complete the line, Trump quickly acted to ensure its approval early in his first term in office. By the time Joe Biden assumed office in January 2021, TC Energy had invested billions of dollars – creating thousands of high-paying jobs in the process – and well over half the line was already in the ground. Still, despite the huge sunk cost and lacking an ability to cite any instance in which TC Energy stood in violation of any U.S. law or regulation, Biden took the extraordinary, indefensible step of cancelling the project with the stroke of a pen.
But can the project really be revived now? It’s an important question given that Keystone XL was designed to bring as many as 830,000 barrels of Canadian oil per day into the United States for refining and delivery to markets.
Here, it is key to note that – as I pointed out last November when then-President-elect Trump raised this topic – TC Energy is no longer the owner of the moribund project. The remnants of Keystone XL were included in a group of assets TC Energy spun off last year when it formed a new company named South Bow Energy.
Complicating matters further is the fact that, after it decided the pipeline was a lost cause back in 2021, TC Energy pulled the installed pipe out of the ground so it could be repurposed for other projects in its portfolio. Then, there’s the fact that many of the permits the company spent years trying to obtain from various levels of governments are no longer valid and would have to go through the application and approval processes again were the project to be revived.
At the federal level, the Department of Interior and FERC would govern most of the necessary permitting processes. President Trump ordered all of his departments and commissions in January to research ways the executive branch can streamline the federal processes and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum included that goal as one of his 6 top priorities in a memo to staff dated February 3.
But even if those projects are successful in speeding up permitting at the federal level, they would have no impact on such challenges at the state and local levels. Activist groups who organized the opposition to the project saw great success in holding up permitting issuances at these lower levels of government, and would no doubt revive that strategy to attack any effort to restart the pipeline.
There can be no doubt that Trump’s desire to get the pipeline built is a laudable goal from a commercial, environmental and national security standpoint. Whether it is a practical goal is another question with many factors arrayed in opposition to it.
But one thing I’ve learned long ago is to never underestimate Donald Trump’s ability to get a deal done, so no one should give up hope just yet.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
-
Alberta1 day ago
Provincial Budget 2025: Meeting the challenge
-
Crime2 days ago
Could the UK’s ‘Grooming Gangs’ operate in Canada?
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta Budget 2025: Health and education
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta 2025 Budget Review from the Alberta Institute
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Admin investigates Biden-era decision to kill 100 million chickens over bird flu
-
COVID-191 day ago
RFK Jr. pauses $240 million contract for new ‘oral COVID vaccine’
-
Business23 hours ago
Trump warns Canada tariffs coming in March unless drug trafficking is ‘seriously limited’
-
Business21 hours ago
‘Dark Truth’ Of USAID: House Lawmakers Spotlight Biden’s Foreign Aid Abuses In Fiery Oversight Hearing