As the 2024 election approaches, energy policy has emerged as a defining issue, with voters grappling with high energy prices and the implications for foreign policy. In the midst of this debate, Vice President Kamala Harris’s stance on energy has become a focal point, drawing criticism for its apparent inconsistency and confusion. This article delves into three key areas where Harris’s rhetoric has contradicted her actions and those of the Biden-Harris administration, exploring the potential consequences for energy workers, the economy, and foreign policy.
The Fracking Quandary:
Harris’s position on fracking, a controversial method of extracting natural gas, has undergone a dramatic shift. In 2019, she unequivocally stated her support for banning fracking, declaring, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” This stance, reiterated in appearances on CNN and “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon,” was seemingly abandoned once she became the presidential nominee. At the only presidential debate in September 2024, Harris asserted, “I will not ban fracking,” seeking to appease blue-collar workers in key swing states. However, the confusion reached a new level this week when a campaign climate adviser, playing a game of Uno, declared that Harris “does not support expanding” fossil fuels and fracking. This back-and-forth leaves voters wondering exactly where Harris stands on this critical issue.The Oil and Gas Production Paradox:
Harris’s approach to oil and gas production presents another instance of contradictory messages. In 2019, she advocated for prosecuting oil executives on criminal charges and boasted about “taking on” big oil. Yet, in the current campaign, she celebrates record high oil and gas production, crediting the administration’s “approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil.” This claim clashes with the Biden-Harris administration’s actions, including easing oil sanctions on Iran and Venezuela and issuing the fewest oil and gas leases since World War II, effectively pushing up oil prices. This inconsistency leaves industry stakeholders questioning the administration’s true intentions.Electric Vehicle Mandates and Market Uncertainty:
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of Harris’s energy policy is her evolving position on gas-powered cars. As a senator, she supported legislation to ban the combustion engine, and as vice president, her administration issued an executive order mandating that 50% of all vehicle sales must be electric by 2030. California, her home state, has gone even further, mandating all new vehicles sold in the state be electric or hybrids by 2035. However, on the campaign trail, Harris vowed, “I will never tell you what car you have to drive.” This sudden shift in rhetoric comes at a time when consumer demand for electric vehicles is slowing and unsold cars are piling up on dealer lots. This inconsistency creates uncertainty in the market, making it challenging for industry to plan for the future.The inconsistencies in Vice President Kamala Harris’s energy policy have sparked widespread criticism, with many questioning her commitment to specific energy initiatives and her ability to provide stability in a critical sector. As the 2024 election approaches, voters deserve clear and consistent leadership on this critical issue, one that impacts their wallets, their jobs, and the future of energy in the United States.