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’s learning from Hillary. You don’t tell people that you’ll end their jobs and then expect them to vote for you. More than a few states gave economies based on fossil fuels I’m not sure why people expected her to say she’s going to cut those off. We will expand green energy no matter what everything else is platitudes and pandering.
Fracking means that the in United States is the chief petro state of the world, and can safely ignore OPEC.
This situation is going to continue in geopolitics at least into the 2040s regardless of what the policy on renewables is.
A huge chunk of rural Pennsylvania is fracking jobs, and winning Pennsylvania involves making sure people stay employed.
Stupid motherfuckers want her to pull a Clinton and tell an entire section of the Pennsylvania working class, “tough titty go back to school” just before an election.
Or give them other job opportunities like in the renewable energy sector? They only want fracking because oil companies exploit those small towns to make them entirely dependent on the oil companies for employment
Literally what Clinton said she was going to do. Do it AFTER the election. This is to fucking important because if he wins it’s game over on our democracy.
No, she didn’t. She didn’t promise people from Pennsylvania anything to help their situation. She didn’t promise to bring jobs to those towns dependent on oil companies by shifting subsidizing to renewable energy companies in those towns. She needed to convince them that her policies would help improve their access to jobs and improve local development.
I’m not saying Harris needs to ban fracking, I’m saying it’s a much more effective message to promote more opportunities for those towns by improving the subsidizing of renewable energy companies, public and/or private. Their main concern is jobs, which can easily be addressed.
In that respect, yeah. Not when it comes to capitulating to right wing framing on immigration and having more hawkish rhetoric on foreign policy. People want progressive policies that will improve their lives, she needs more of that
I think women’s rights, making the child tax credit permanent, fixing housing, taxing the rich, supporting Ukraine, and continuing fixing the counties infrastructure is pretty progressive. But nah I guess it’s not enough for you? Her program is working too. With a little wore time and money, she won’t even need the Republican Border version. They can make their own
I am voting Harris. This isn’t about me, people want more. Anti-genocide is a line for many.
Are you anti-immigration too? Immigrants aren’t responsible for any crime wave, they’re responsible for less crime per capita than US citizens. Neither are they responsible for bringing drugs like fentanyl over the border, that’s done overwhelmingly by US citizens. Those are the points she’s conceited to right wing framing on, both completely made up and not backed up by any evidence. The crisis at the border is our two-tier immigration system, our inhumane treatment of immigrants such as separating families, and rejecting of those seeking asylum
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
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.
Wtf is she doing killing her chances after a great start.
I think she made the correct decision. Banning fossil fuels is not realistic.
