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.
From the Fraser Institute
Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.
First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.
Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.
And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.
Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.
Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.
So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.
If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Audrey Streb
President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the end of green energy subsidies by strengthening provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Monday night, citing national security concerns and unnecessary costs to taxpayers.
The order argues that a heavy reliance on green energy subsidies compromise the reliability of the power grid and undermines energy independence. Trump called for the U.S. to “rapidly eliminate” federal green energy subsidies and to “build upon and strengthen” the repeal of wind and solar tax credits remaining in the reconciliation law in the order, directing the Treasury Department to enforce the phase-out of tax credits.
“For too long, the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,” the order states. “Reliance on so-called ‘green’ subsidies threatens national security by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.”
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!
Former President Joe Biden established massive green energy subsidies under his signature 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which did not receive a single Republican vote.
The reconciliation package did not immediately terminate Biden-era federal subsidies for green energy technology, phasing them out over time instead, though some policy experts argued that drawn-out timelines could lead to an indefinite continuation of subsidies. Trump’s executive order alludes to potential loopholes in the bill, calling for a review by Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to ensure that green energy projects that have a “beginning of construction” tax credit deadline are not “circumvented.”
Additionally, the executive order directs the U.S. to end taxpayer support for green energy supply chains that are controlled by foreign adversaries, alluding to China’s supply chain dominance for solar and wind. Trump also specifically highlighted costs to taxpayers, market distortions and environmental impacts of subsidized green energy development in explaining the policy.
Ahead of the reconciliation bill becoming law, Trump told Republicans that “we’ve got all the cards, and we are going to use them.” Several House Republicans noted that the president said he would use executive authority to enhance the bill and strictly enforce phase-outs, which helped persuade some conservatives to back the bill.
Alberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
Why it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast
Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada
If Canada Wants to be the World’s Energy Partner, We Need to Act Like It
-
Addictions2 days ago‘Over and over until they die’: Drug crisis pushes first responders to the brink
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUSAID Quietly Sent Thousands Of Viruses To Chinese Military-Linked Biolab
-
International2 days agoNo more shoes off: Trump ends TSA’s decades-old rule
-
Automotive2 days ago
Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate
-
Alberta2 days ago‘Far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism’: Complaint filed against Globe and Mail article challenging Alberta’s gender surgery law
-
Freedom Convoy1 day agoCourt Orders Bank Freezing Records in Freedom Convoy Case
-
Also Interesting19 hours ago9 Things You Should Know About PK/PD in Drug Research
-
Crime1 day agoTucker Carlson: US intelligence is shielding Epstein network, not President Trump