In her first major interview since replacing Joe Biden on the ballot, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris was questioned about her shifting statements on fracking, which has been linked to a surge in methane gas emissions over the past decade.
Harris, who has previously made comments opposing fracking, vowed not to ban it if elected. The vice president went on to highlight the Biden-Harris administration’s environmental record, which activists have criticized for vastly expanding oil production rather than drawing down the country’s reliance on fossil fuels.
“The data is telling us that what Kamala Harris said about fracking — that we can do it without dealing with reducing the supply of fossil fuels — it’s just not borne out by the numbers,” explains The Lever’s David Sirota, who adds, “Ultimately, consequences for that will be on the United States, for the entire world.”
She cast the tie breaking vote to expand fracking leases as VP…
I don’t know why people thought she’d try to ban it as president, record breaking fossil fuels production under Biden is what’s propping up “the economy”
Hello, fellow citizen, and welcome to the time-honored tradition of “Bread & Circuses”! 🥳 I can see you’re new here and having some difficulty with the minutiae of this season’s hottest event, and I’d like to offer some guidance:
It’s turtles all the way down. 😅💩🤷🏼♂️
Hold on tight, and keep your limbs inside the vehicle.
Wtf is she doing killing her chances after a great start.
Not banning something doesn’t sound like “doubling down”. Doubling down would be pushing for increases, or asking for tax incentives to encourage it. It’s more likely she knows it won’t be able to compete with renewables and will naturally die out without banning it.
there’s also the possibility that, through further green initiatives and climate benchmarks, her administration can simply make fracking somehow prohibitively expensive or somehow impractical within certain performance restrictions without outright banning it.
On top of the likelihood that a ban would be very politically expensive, distracting, and watered down to pointlessness.
exactly. taking that stance now would create a huge industry backlash at a critical moment that wouldn’t be offset by any real political gains from the left, but skirting her true intentions with oblique language allows her to approach the issue in a circumspect manner later.
All the way up we’re pumping is currently a huge part of our economy: we have to get off that addiction in fairly short order but can’t just wish it away, like it or not.
So it comes down to the details. I’d be satisfied if she started restricting longer term activities like exploration and building pipelines. That’s the climate change of the future that needs to be stopped now. It also makes clear to those businesses that they need to plan for a different path into their future
