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.”

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • finley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • brianary@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        On top of the likelihood that a ban would be very politically expensive, distracting, and watered down to pointlessness.

        • finley@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      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

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

            • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              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

                • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  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

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    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”

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

  • mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.