The Economic and Political Motivations Behind Kamala Harris’ Shift on Fracking

Introduction: What is Kamala Harris’ Position on Fracking and How has it Changed?

During Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump's first presidential debate of the 2024 election, Harris addressed her shift on fracking, stating, “I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking” (Hoffman, 2024). Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves extracting oil and gas from deep underground by injecting high-pressure fluids into rock formations (Bowman, 2024). This technique has revolutionised the U.S. energy landscape, allowing the country to tap into previously inaccessible reserves and significantly increasing oil production (Bowman, 2024). Harris’ comments marked a departure from her past support for a fracking ban in 2019, which shifted to adhere to the Biden Administration’s stance on fracking (Bowman, 2024). Despite the Biden-Harris administration’s initiatives to address climate change, the administration has overseen the largest increase in fracking in U.S. history. The administration rejoined the Paris Agreement, committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, and championed renewable energy projects (Bowman, 2024). Yet, in 2023, U.S. oil production hit a record 12.9 million barrels per day, with two-thirds of that coming from fracking operations (Bowman, 2024). Harris seemed intent on continuing her support of both green initiatives and fracking (Bowman, 2024). In this article, I will examine the economic, environmental, and political motivations behind Harris holding these seemingly contradictory positions, and how her position on fracking may point to overarching issues in her campaign that led to her ultimately losing the presidency.  

(U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil, 2024)

The Economic Benefits of Fracking 

Clear economic incentives drove Harris' position on fracking. The U.S. economy benefits from reducing dependence on foreign oil and stabilising domestic energy prices, especially in the wake of global disruptions such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine (Brangham & Hellerman, 2023). The oil boom has lowered prices globally, provided gas for countries reliant on Russian energy, and brought economic stability to the U.S. market (Brangham & Hellerman, 2023). It has also created jobs, particularly in regions dependent on fossil fuel industries, a crucial political consideration for Harris. A study showed that between 2005 and 2012, fracking created over 725,000 jobs, not including support roles (Irfan, 2019). Moreover, fracking has played a pivotal role in transforming the U.S. into an energy superpower. The technique has not only reduced coal dependence but also helped the U.S. lead the global energy market (Irfan, 2019), further enhancing its geopolitical influence. The boom also reduced reliance on coal, which fell from 50% of U.S. electricity production in 2007 to just 16% by 2023 (Irfan, 2019). Natural gas, derived largely from fracking, burns cleaner than coal and has contributed to a reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions while still supporting economic growth.

Harris’ Support for Both Clean Energy and Fracking 

From a political perspective, for Harris, maintaining a balanced stance on fracking was not only about economic growth and energy policy but also about securing votes in critical swing states, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan, where many voters' livelihoods depend on the fossil fuel industry (Phillips, 2024). Throughout her campaign, Harris avoided radical positions and tried to appeal to a wider demographic of voters. Pennsylvania, a key swing state with a strong fracking industry, was decisive in the 2024 election  (Phillips, 2024). Harris’s focus on job creation and energy security appeals to union workers and others reliant on fossil fuels for their livelihoods, a group she had to win over to bolster her chances of victory (Reston et al., 2024). However, this pragmatic approach drew criticism, particularly from younger, more progressive voters concerned about the climate crisis. Stevie O’Hanlon, a spokeswoman for the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement, said, “Young voters want more from Harris on climate change… We want to see a real plan that meets the scale and urgency of this crisis” (Phillips, 2024). Fracking was also a central issue in debates over energy independence and national security. By maintaining fracking operations, the U.S. could supply energy to Europe and other allies while keeping domestic gasoline prices low—a critical issue in a period marked by inflation concerns (Brangham & Hellerman, 2023). The Republican Party, meanwhile,  criticized the administration for waging a “war on oil,” despite the record oil production levels (Brangham & Hellerman, 2023).

Middle Ground: A Possible Gradual Switch to Clean Energy

Harris argued that the U.S. could pursue fracking and clean energy development, simultaneously. The Biden-Harris administration made historic investments in clean energy through the Inflation Reduction Act, which has created thousands of green energy jobs. President Biden has acknowledged “the necessity of fracking as part of an energy transition,” as it could enable the U.S. to fight climate change while continuing to provide jobs and energy security (Rapier, 2024). A ban on fracking could also shock the U.S. economy. “The most effective way to curb fracking may be to make alternative technology cheaper,” Breakthrough’s Trembath argues. This could be “less disruptive and contentious” (Irfan, 2019). In states like Texas, which “got rich powering the nation for decades”, a significant shift toward renewable energy has already begun (Brangham & Dubnow, 2023). Texas now generates nearly 40% of its energy from carbon-free sources like wind and solar because clean energy has made landowners a substantial amount of money while saving a significant amount of money for the consumers, proving that a shift to clean energy is not exclusive from economic growth (Brangham & Dubnow, 2023). However, concerns about methane leaks, water contamination, and the risk of earthquakes continue to fuel environmental groups to push for a more aggressive ban on fracking (Irfan, 2019). Methane, while producing less carbon dioxide than coal when burned, is “a potent greenhouse gas that warms the planet faster than carbon dioxide” (Bowman, 2024). Methane leaks are hard to track and “they could easily overwhelm the gains from replacing coal (Irfan, 2019). Fracking has also encouraged the early retirement of nuclear power plants, which have lower emissions than natural gas (Irfan, 2019).

Political Considerations

Harris’ position on fracking also reflected the limitations of presidential power over energy policy. Many decisions about energy production, including fracking, are made at the state and local levels (Irfan, 2019). Even if Harris wanted to ban fracking outright, it would require new radical laws, which the polarized Congress is unlikely to pass (Irfan, 2019).

Electoral Considerations: Was Harris’ Moderate Approach Ineffective?

On November 6th, 2024, Kamala Harris lost the presidential race to Donald Trump, who captured the popular vote for the first time. With the economy as the top voter concern and climate change ranking only tenth (2. Issues and the 2024 Election, 2024), Harris’ stance on fracking may indicate why she ultimately lost the presidential race. From my perspective, Harris’ shift in fracking policy was likely influenced by her experience as vice president, during which she recognised fracking’s importance to the economy and the transition to clean energy. However, she struggled to effectively communicate the reasoning behind her moderate stance, which may have seemed disingenuous to voters. New York Times columnist David Brooks noted, “It’s unclear what Harris wants most deeply, other than the vague chance to do good and to be president… If you don’t have a clear personal narrative, people will struggle to fully understand you, and you will struggle to define your priorities” (Brooks, 2024). Harris’ moderate approach to fracking may have alienated those who normally vote for the Democrat party. This year, Trump won 20% of Black male voters and almost half of Latino male voters, doubling his support among Black men compared to previous levels and shifting Hispanic-majority counties rightward by an average of 10 percentage points (Fung, 2024). In Dearborn, Michigan - a majority-Arab community that played a significant role in Biden's 2020 victory - Trump received 42% of the vote, compared to Harris' 36% (Fung, 2024). “It was a missed opportunity for her to draw a really clear contrast with Donald Trump and show young voters, who are wondering what the next president will do to protect our future and our lives,” O’Hanlon, spokeswoman for Sunrise Movement, said (Phillips, 2024).

Furthermore, Harris inherited her campaign from former President Joe Biden and struggled to separate herself from his deeply unpopular administration. According to an October NBC News poll, more voters were concerned about Harris continuing Biden’s path (43%) than Trump repeating actions from his first term (41%) (Murray, 2024). Democrats hoped for a clean break from Biden, yet Harris’ policies, including her stance on fracking, aligned closely with his and she highlighted their connection (Cadelago & Otterbein, 2024). “Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight,” said a Harris aide granted anonymity (Cadelago & Otterbein, 2024). 

Harris was only given four months as presidential candidate. Her campaign struggled to communicate a clear message and inspire confidence in a new direction, and despite her efforts, the election was an uphill battle that she ultimately lost.

Edited by Sherry Cai

References

Becket, S. (2024, October 2). Read the full VP debate transcript from the Walz-Vance showdown. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-vp-debate-transcript-walz-vance-2024/

Bowman, E. (2024, August 30). What is fracking? Charged issue resurfaces in presidential race. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2024/08/30/nx-s1-5096107/what-is-fracking-explained

Brangham, W., & Dubnow, S. (2023, December 28). How U.S. oil production reached an all-time high in 2023. PBS News. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-u-s-oil-production-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2023

Brangham, W., & Hellerman, C. (2023, December 4). Texas goes green: How oil country became the renewable energy leader. PBS News. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/texas-goes-green-how-oil-country-became-the-renewable-energy-leader

Brooks, D. (2024, October 10). Opinion | How Kamala Harris Can Finish Strong. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/10/opinion/kamala-harris-election-attention.html

Cadelago, C., & Otterbein, H. (2024, November 6). Why Kamala Harris lost the election - POLITICO. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/how-bidens-vulnerabilities-led-to-a-bloodbath-for-harris-00187807

Daly, M. (2024, September 13). Why Harris is promoting domestic oil drilling at the same time as clean energy jobs. PBS News. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-harris-is-promoting-domestic-oil-drilling-at-the-same-time-as-clean-energy-jobs

Fung, K. (2024, November 10). Hasan Piker on Kamala Harris Loss: 'You Can't Podcast Your Way Out of This'. Newsweek. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/hasan-piker-kamala-harris-loss-failures-podcast-twitch-streamer-progressive-politics-1983001

Hoffman, R. (2024, September 10). READ: Harris-Trump presidential debate transcript - ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542

Irfan, U. (2019, September 12). Wait — do Harris and Trump actually agree on fracking? Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/9/12/20857196/kamala-fracking-ban-biden-climate-change

Medina, J., Glueck, K., & Igielnik, R. (2024, October 14). Harris Fights to Restore a Splintering Democratic Coalition. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/us/politics/harris-democratic-coalition.html

Murray, M. (2024, October 15). 'Dead heat': Trump pulls even with Harris in NBC News poll. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/dead-heat-trump-pulls-even-harris-nbc-news-poll-rcna174201

Phillips, A. (2024, September 11). Why Kamala Harris has embraced America's oil boom. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/11/kamala-harris-fracking-gas-climate-change/

Rapier, R. (2024, September 11). Why Kamala Harris Won't Ban Fracking. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/09/11/why-kamala-harris-wont-ban-fracking/

Reston, M., McDaniel, J., & LeVine, M. (2024, October 18). Harris and Trump fight for an edge with working-class voters in Michigan. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/18/harris-trump-michigan-union-workers/

2. Issues and the 2024 election. (2024, September 9). Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 10, 2024. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil. (2024, September 30). U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved 10 19, 2024, from https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

Environment America. (2012, September 29). The costs of fracking: The price tag of dirty drilling’s environmental damage. Retrieved from https://environmentamerica.org/center/resources/the-costs-of-fracking/