Kamala Harris and her Anti-Fossil Fuel Blueprint for America

With an already unapologetic track record of anti-fossil fuel rhetoric, having blatantly said and famously backtracked on the idea that the United States should ban hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” the American people should expect that any energy policies from a Harris presidency would result in higher energy prices across the board and a suicidal effort to eliminate fossil fuels – society’s most reliable and affordable energy resource.  

A recent report from Bloomberg claims that discussions of Harris’ true environmental policy goals are happening, although quite secretively, as her true intentions risk spooking any remaining undecided voters.  The suggestions for Harris are based on her far-left voting record and include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Limit liquefied natural gas exports.
2. Shut down Energy Transfer LP’s Dakota Access Pipeline, which carries oil from North Dakota to Illinois.
3. Push for a swift end to oil and gas production using special emergency authority to bar crude exports.
4. Curb U.S. public investment in foreign fossil fuel projects.
5. Open a federal investigation of the oil and gas industry’s approach to the “climate crisis.”

These policy suggestions are not only naive but demonstrate a level of disconnect unbecoming of a nation supposedly full of the greatest policy minds in the world.  For example, limiting liquified natural gas exports is not only a poor economic policy, but the act would artificially raise the cost of electricity given that millions of people rely on natural gas to keep their lights on.  It also is illogical due to the abundance of natural gas resources in the U.S. given that there are over 65 quadrillion cubic feet of recoverable gas in the U.S., which, at 2022 consumption rates, would equal 1,000 years of supply.   Furthermore, America’s allies in Europe who have decoupled themselves from Russian natural gas, would be left in the cold if the U.S. were to limit natural gas exports as American LNG is necessary to solidify severe Europe’s dependence on Russian energy – such action also cripples Russia’s ability to fund their war in Ukraine.

Additionally, shutting down the Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172 mile long underground pipeline, that had transported up to 750,000 barrels of crude per day since it began operation in 2016, would have severe long-term consequences for the North Dakotan economy, and would weaken America’s ability to remain energy independent.  Furthermore, by transporting the equivalent of 3,000 tanker trucks or 815 railcars worth of crude oil, the Dakota Access Pipeline, and pipelines in general, help lower emissions resulting from mass transportation of crude making them one of the most environmentally friendly means for ensuring that people have access to affordable energy.

Conclusion

Vice President Kamal Harris has a reputation for being one of the most left-leaning politicians of this century, and her anti-fossil fuel rhetoric supports this claim.  Kamala Harris has flip-flopped on whether or not she would ban fracking and only recently due to the necessity for her to win Pennsylvania in the 2024 election.  Her political career is littered with support for anti-free market and anti-fossil fuel policies with plenty of interviews with her proudly espousing supportive rhetoric for self-defeating anti-fossil fuel policies.  The current blueprints for energy and environmental policies being discussed behind closed doors with the Harris campaign are guaranteed to be more costly and far less reliable to the American people than traditional, and proven dependent, fossil fuels.  The free market has spoken, and demand for oil and gas isn’t going away anytime soon, therefore, federal policies should support pipeline construction as one of the most environmentally friendly means for transporting such a vital resource.