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.
Alberta
Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada
From Pierre Poilievre
Photo by David Bloom / Postmedia file
From Energy Now
By Gary Mar
With the Trans Mountain Expansion online, we have new access to Pacific markets and Asia has responded, with China now a top buyer of Canadian crude.
The world is short on reliable energy and long on instability. Tankers edge through choke points like the Strait of Hormuz. Wars threaten pipelines and power grids. Markets flinch with every headline. As authoritarian regimes rattle sabres and weaponize supply chains, the global appetite for energy from stable, democratic, responsible producers has never been greater.
Canada checks every box: vast reserves, rigorous environmental standards, rule of law and a commitment to Indigenous partnership. We should be leading the race, but instead we’ve effectively tied our own shoelaces together.
In 2024, Canada set new records for oil production and exports. Alberta alone pumped nearly 1.5 billion barrels, a 4.5 per cent increase over 2023. With the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) online, we have new access to Pacific markets and Asia has responded, with China now a top buyer of Canadian crude.
The bad news is that we’re limiting where energy can leave the country. Bill C-48, the so-called tanker ban, prohibits tankers carrying over 12,500 tons of crude oil from stopping or unloading crude at ports or marine installations along B.C.’s northern coast. That includes Kitimat and Prince Rupert, two ports with strategic access to Indo-Pacific markets. Yes, we must do all we can to mitigate risks to Canada’s coastlines, but this should be balanced against a need to reduce our reliance on trade with the U.S. and increase our access to global markets.
Add to that the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) which was designed in part to shorten approval times and add certainty about how long the process would take. It has not had that effect and it’s scaring off investment. Business confidence in Canada has dropped to pandemic-era lows, due in part to unpredictable rules.
At a time when Canada is facing a modest recession and needs to attract private capital, we’ve made building trade infrastructure feel like trying to drive a snowplow through molasses.
What’s needed isn’t revolutionary, just practical. A start would be to maximize the amount of crude transported through the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, which ran at 77 per cent capacity in 2024. Under-utilization is attributed to a variety of factors, one of which is higher tolls being charged to producers.
Canada also needs to overhaul the IAA and create a review system that’s fast, clear and focused on accountability, not red tape. Investors need to know where the goalposts are. And, while we are making recommendations, strategic ports like Prince Rupert should be able to participate in global energy trade under the same high safety standards used elsewhere in Canada.
Canada needs a national approach to energy exporting. A 10-year projects and partnerships plan would give governments, Indigenous nations and industry a common direction. This could be coupled with the development of a category of “strategic export infrastructure” to prioritize trade-enabling projects and move them through approvals faster.
Of course, none of this can take place without bringing Indigenous partners into the planning process. A dedicated federal mechanism should be put in place to streamline and strengthen Indigenous consultation for major trade infrastructure, ensuring the process is both faster and fairer and that Indigenous equity options are built in from the start.
None of this is about blocking the energy transition. It’s about bridging it. Until we invent, build and scale the clean technologies of tomorrow, responsibly produced oil and gas will remain part of the mix. The only question is who will supply it.
Canada is the most stable of the world’s top oil producers, but we are a puzzle to the rest of the world, which doesn’t understand why we can’t get more of our oil and natural gas to market. In recent years, Norway and the U.S. have increased crude oil production. Notably, the U.S. also increased its natural gas exports through the construction of new LNG export terminals, which have helped supply European allies seeking to reduce their reliance on Russian natural gas.
Canada could be the bridge between demand and security, but if we want to be the world’s go-to energy partner, we need to act like it. That means building faster, regulating smarter and treating trade infrastructure like the strategic asset it is.
The world is watching. The opportunity is now. Let’s not waste it.
Gary Mar is president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation
The Quiet Invasion: How Transnational Crime and Chinese State Actors Infiltrated Vancouver and Eroded Canada’s Sovereignty
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Business1 day ago
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
-
Crime2 days ago
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Business13 hours agoWhy it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoGlobal media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report
-
Alberta8 hours agoAlberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
-
Alberta13 hours ago
Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada
-
Business1 day agoElon Musk slams Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ calls for new political party