Staff Reports
In a recent debate, Vice President Kamala Harris attempted to position herself as a staunch advocate for fossil fuels. Still, the reality is a bit more convoluted than her onstage performance suggested. While she declared her newfound affection for fracking and energy independence, her history tells a different, less flattering story. The irony would be comical if it weren’t so predictable.
Harris, on stage and in front of a national audience, claimed she no longer supports a ban on fracking—while standing in Pennsylvania, where the fracking industry is a lifeline for the economy. She also took credit for the provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the climate change bill that, let’s be honest, is designed more for green energy hype than actual fossil fuel promotion. Her tie-breaking vote on the IRA was less a triumph for fossil fuels and more a slick application of political spin.
Harris Campaign Official Dodges As CNN Host Presses Him On VP's Fracking Flip-Flop pic.twitter.com/WMuaFmEIyO
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 28, 2024
When pressed to explain how she reconciles her current stance with her past advocacy for banning fracking, Harris insisted her values have been consistent. Yet, her track record as both a senator and vice president paints a different picture. In previous debates, she was unequivocal about her desire for a fracking ban, a position she was conveniently silent about when debating Mike Pence in 2020. The support for a ban didn’t evaporate; it just took a backseat to her political aspirations.
Furthermore, during her early days in the Biden-Harris administration, an executive order was signed that effectively curtailed oil and gas leases on federal lands—a move that raises eyebrows when she now claims to support increased production. The IRA could be seen as something of an environmental misnomer, mandating lease sales while simultaneously allowing for a new tax on methane emissions. This tax, touted as a method to tackle emissions, could simply be viewed as a backdoor way to hit consumers in the pocketbook by increasing the costs of natural gas.
While it’s true that U.S. oil production hit record levels, many energy experts attribute this not to the Biden administration’s efforts but rather as a hangover from the robust policies of the Trump administration. The current administration’s behind-the-scenes efforts to navigate international oil dynamics and cozy up to unsavory nations have left many scratching their heads. As the Biden-Harris team feverishly plays the political game, it’s clear that any benefits to domestic oil production under their watch were largely a product of previous policies, turning the narrative into yet another exercise in selective truth-telling.
As Harris continues her dance of contradictions on stage, the question remains: how is anyone supposed to take her seriously when her record on energy policy looks more like a series of U-turns than a well-thought-out plan? The juggling act of trying to appeal to both environmentalists and fossil fuel supporters will inevitably expose her for what she really is: a politician struggling to find her footing in an increasingly polarized landscape. It’s a spectacle that many are likely to watch with a mix of disbelief and amusement.
