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 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
Could the G7 Summit in Alberta be a historic moment for Canadian energy?

From Resource Works
Canada can be the democratic world’s top energy supplier, and the G7 Summit in Alberta is the perfect time to commit to that.
Canada is at the crossroads of opportunity as the leaders of the G7 convene in Kananaskis, Alberta.
An Ipsos poll has named Canada the top preferred oil supplier among G7 countries for the second time since 2023. No less than 68 percent of G7 respondents declared that Canada was among their top three choices to supply oil.
This should be yet another motivator for Canada to solidify itself as a key player in energy security and economic stability among the democratic nations.
The timing and location of this year’s G7 summit shows how important Canada can be to the world. Alberta, Canada’s energy heartland, is the source of nearly all of the country’s oil, and the provincial government wants more of it to reach global markets.
Those geopolitical anxieties caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 have not disappeared, and Canada’s allies and partners like the European Union (EU), Japan, South Korea, and India are looking for a reliable and responsible partner to supply them with energy, and we are the best and most obvious choice.
Willing partners are easy to find overseas, but the other provinces and the federal government need to become equally enthusiastic first.
There is more to this than mere symbolism. Canada embracing its position as the most desirable supplier of oil makes complete sense.
In 2023, Ipsos found that Canada’s political stability, comprehensive environmental rules, and strong regulatory frameworks are why it ranked first among preferred oil suppliers. Norway is another popular option, but Canada has the advantage of better market access to the United States and the Asia-Pacific, along with established infrastructure and an open government.
It all combines to create a distinct advantage for Canada in the world of trade.
The US has slid as a popular oil supplier, to Canada’s advantage, and we need to capitalize on that more than ever.
As Russia’s bloody, disruptive war with Ukraine continues to drag on, the EU still needs sources of alternative energy to make a clean break with Moscow. Russia had previously served as the bloc’s effective gas station, albeit one armed with nuclear weapons.
G7 member states like Britain and the EU are looking to slap even stricter limits on Russian energy exports that go beyond what is already in place. Whatever Russia has to lose is Canada’s to gain.
Canada began to enlarge its export capacity last year with the completion of the twinning of Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), enabling Canada to double the amount of oil it can pipe to Pacific markets. Shipping larger amounts of Canadian energy to partners in Japan, India, South Korea, and others has never been easier.
It was a monumental example of how investing in the right sorts of infrastructure can improve economic security, both nationally and internationally. Internally, developing the oil industry is a long term goal of First Nations leaders and communities.
The myth of First Nations opposing the expansion of oil and gas is one that needs to die. The Indian Resource Council, which represents over 130 First Nations, has repeatedly championed the responsible development of natural resources as a means of fostering economic independence and community renewal.
Many First Nations and other Indigenous groups have invested heavily into pipelines, production sites and storage facilities, and want to expand it further. In terms of pure economic value, there is not another industry that has created more wealth in Indigenous communities across Western Canada.
Complacency from the federal government and other authorities at this time could not be timed more poorly as the G7 Summit comes to Alberta. When the gathering ends on June 17, we should hope that it was a turning point where Canada made a direct and clear commitment to modernizing and expanding its oil and gas sector.
Our role in the world can be that of the great democratic alternative to Russia when it comes to supplying energy and other resources. Alberta knows it, as do our allies and Indigenous people across Canada.
Ottawa should listen. It is time to realize our potential to be an even greater energy superpower.
Through that, we can reduce the power of authoritarian, hostile regimes in the world by building a stronger, more unified Canada.
Alberta
Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert

From Resource Now
Alberta renews call for West Coast oil pipeline amid shifting federal, geopolitical dynamics.
Just six months ago, talk of resurrecting some version of the Northern Gateway pipeline would have been unthinkable. But with the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. and Mark Carney in Canada, it’s now thinkable.
In fact, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seems to be making Northern Gateway 2.0 a top priority and a condition for Alberta staying within the Canadian confederation and supporting Mark Carney’s vision of making Canada an Energy superpower. Thanks to Donald Trump threatening Canadian sovereignty and its economy, there has been a noticeable zeitgeist shift in Canada. There is growing support for the idea of leveraging Canada’s natural resources and diversifying export markets to make it less vulnerable to an unpredictable southern neighbour.
“I think the world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump got elected in November,” Smith said at a keynote address Wednesday at the Global Energy Show Canada in Calgary. “I think that’s changed the national conversation.” Smith said she has been encouraged by the tack Carney has taken since being elected Prime Minister, and hopes to see real action from Ottawa in the coming months to address what Smith said is serious encumbrances to Alberta’s oil sector, including Bill C-69, an oil and gas emissions cap and a West Coast tanker oil ban. “I’m going to give him some time to work with us and I’m going to be optimistic,” Smith said. Removing the West Coast moratorium on oil tankers would be the first step needed to building a new oil pipeline line from Alberta to Prince Rupert. “We cannot build a pipeline to the west coast if there is a tanker ban,” Smith said. The next step would be getting First Nations on board. “Indigenous peoples have been shut out of the energy economy for generations, and we are now putting them at the heart of it,” Smith said.
Alberta currently produces about 4.3 million barrels of oil per day. Had the Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Energy East pipelines been built, Alberta could now be producing and exporting an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. The original Northern Gateway Pipeline — killed outright by the Justin Trudeau government — would have terminated in Kitimat. Smith is now talking about a pipeline that would terminate in Prince Rupert. This may obviate some of the concerns that Kitimat posed with oil tankers negotiating Douglas Channel, and their potential impacts on the marine environment.
One of the biggest hurdles to a pipeline to Prince Rupert may be B.C. Premier David Eby. The B.C. NDP government has a history of opposing oil pipelines with tooth and nail. Asked in a fireside chat by Peter Mansbridge how she would get around the B.C. problem, Smith confidently said: “I’ll convince David Eby.”
“I’m sensitive to the issues that were raised before,” she added. One of those concerns was emissions. But the Alberta government and oil industry has struck a grand bargain with Ottawa: pipelines for emissions abatement through carbon capture and storage.
The industry and government propose multi-billion investments in CCUS. The Pathways Alliance project alone represents an investment of $10 to $20 billion. Smith noted that there is no economic value in pumping CO2 underground. It only becomes economically viable if the tradeoff is greater production and export capacity for Alberta oil. “If you couple it with a million-barrel-per-day pipeline, well that allows you $20 billion worth of revenue year after year,” she said. “All of a sudden a $20 billion cost to have to decarbonize, it looks a lot more attractive when you have a new source of revenue.” When asked about the Prince Rupert pipeline proposal, Eby has responded that there is currently no proponent, and that it is therefore a bridge to cross when there is actually a proposal. “I think what I’ve heard Premier Eby say is that there is no project and no proponent,” Smith said. “Well, that’s my job. There will be soon. “We’re working very hard on being able to get industry players to realize this time may be different.” “We’re working on getting a proponent and route.”
At a number of sessions during the conference, Mansbridge has repeatedly asked speakers about the Alberta secession movement, and whether it might scare off investment capital. Alberta has been using the threat of secession as a threat if Ottawa does not address some of the province’s long-standing grievances. Smith said she hopes Carney takes it seriously. “I hope the prime minister doesn’t want to test it,” Smith said during a scrum with reporters. “I take it seriously. I have never seen separatist sentiment be as high as it is now. “I’ve also seen it dissipate when Ottawa addresses the concerns Alberta has.” She added that, if Carney wants a true nation-building project to fast-track, she can’t think of a better one than a new West Coast pipeline. “I can’t imagine that there will be another project on the national list that will generate as much revenue, as much GDP, as many high paying jobs as a bitumen pipeline to the coast.”
-
Business17 hours ago
Carney’s European pivot could quietly reshape Canada’s sovereignty
-
Alberta17 hours ago
Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert
-
Crime1 day ago
Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband
-
Crime2 hours ago
Minnesota shooter arrested after 48-hour manhunt
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 hour ago
WOKE NBA Stars Seems Natural For CDN Advertisers. Why Won’t They Bite?
-
conflict2 hours ago
“Evacuate”: Netanyahu Warns Tehran as Israel Expands Strikes on Iran’s Military Command
-
Energy2 hours ago
Could the G7 Summit in Alberta be a historic moment for Canadian energy?