CNN Must Know Harris’s Position on Fracking, Does Not Care What Fracking Is
Image via CNN
Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz sat for their first major interview as Democratic Party nominees on Thursday, with CNN. Among the first questions CNN’s Dana Bash asked was a climate and energy question — great! Let’s see how that went:
BASH: I want to get some clarity on where you stand on some key policy issues. Energy is a big one. In — when you were in Congress, you supported the Green New Deal. And in 2019 you said, quote, “There is no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania.HARRIS: Sure.
BASH: Do you still want to ban fracking?
Ah! Well. I’m sure this question about a five-year-old quote will gain some further context about the idea of banning fracking, which of course CNN would helpfully explain refers to the practice of fracturing certain kinds of underground rock formations in order to release the fossil gas contained within. And I’m sure Bash went on to mention how fracking and the unconventional drilling techniques that it involves boomed starting in the 2000s on its way to creating an enormous fossil gas boom that, while undeniably lucrative for states including Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Texas, and others, has also contributed meaningfully to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and to the fact that while progress is being made, the country remains well off track to meet the Biden administration’s emissions reductions promises.
Then undoubtedly she engaged Harris and Walz in conversation about the impacts of those emissions and rising temperatures, the rising tide of billion-dollar disasters the country continues to face — in short, I’m sure they had a meaningful discussion of the reasons why someone might want to ban fracking, just as a good interview might plumb the reasons for any politician holding any particular policy position. Anyway let’s see how this progressed:
HARRIS: No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking. As vice president, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking.BASH: In 2019, I believe in a town hall you said — you were asked, “Would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office?” and you said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. So yes.” So it changed in — in that campaign?
HARRIS: In 2020 I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I have not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word.
Hm. Well, Bash does seem pretty focused on these 2019 comments! Perhaps she went on to discuss some of the preferences of the people in the state she mentioned, like how a 2021 poll found that 55 percent of Pennsylvanians prefer to end the practice of fracking either as soon as possible or over time, while only 31 percent hope that it continues indefinitely.
Or maybe they could dive into some 2022 polling indicating that 75 percent of Pennsylvanians agree there is “solid evidence” that the planet is warming, and 53 percent think that warming is a “serious problem”? They could even tackle some of the contradictions in that poll, like how 48 percent of respondents still were in favor of natural gas extraction compared with 44 percent opposed and eight percent unsure. Complicated topics to discuss, to be sure! Let’s see which of these worthy avenues Bash pursued next:
BASH: What made you change that position at the time?HARRIS: Well, let’s be clear. My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.
The Inflation Reduction Act, what we have done to invest by my calculation over t— probably a trillion dollars over the next ten years investing in a clean energy economy. What we’ve already done creating over 300,000 new clean energy jobs. That tells me from my experience as vice president we can do it without banning fracking. In fact, Dana — Dana, excuse me — I cast the tie-breaking vote that actually increased leases for fracking as vice president. So I’m very clear about where I stand.
Interesting. Bash seems very intent on this apparent flip-flop, that unforgivable sin of abandoning the hobgoblin of little minds, while Harris wants to talk about the potential benefits of, if not banning fracking, at least trying to pivot the economy away from burning dirty things to building clean things. Her answer, though, suggests actual support for continued and expanded fracking — for someone intent on addressing the issues behind a theoretical, never-actually-on-the-table ban, that does seem worthy of follow-up! Perhaps they then discussed the pros and cons of various climate change policy maneuvers, the ins and outs of carrots versus sticks, the potential and pitfalls of taxes or subsidies or regulation. Let’s read on:
BASH: And was there some policy or scientific data that you saw that you said, “Oh, okay. I get it now”?
Oh my. Bash, as a consummate professional and of course totally impartial, unbiased interviewer, must have misspoken here. What else could explain such a turn of phrase, the clear implication of there being an “it” to “get,” which in context can refer only to the idea that banning fracking is inherently a bad idea, that continuing digging up as much fossil fuel as possible to burn and export and emit is an incontrovertible good, and a politician’s only reasonable path to enlightenment involves finally grasping the innate badness of a ban.
After all, she began the question by including the idea of “scientific data” offering guidance to this undeniable truth; science like, say, studies showing that 60 percent of all oil and gas reserves must remain in the ground to maintain any hope at climate targets, and that oil and gas production must decline by three percent each year through 2050. Or perhaps how that science sits in clear conflict with the U.S. setting all-time records for any country in terms of crude oil production last year and again this year or a fossil gas production trajectory that has risen almost every year since 2005 culminating in an astonishing 41 trillion cubic feet in 2023. Or perhaps she was thinking of more localized impacts of fracking, like the 2023 study showing links between the practice and childhood asthma and lymphoma?
But suppose we allow for the occasional rhetorical misstep on the part of the interviewer. I am sure these issues of climate change and energy, obviously among the most central to both the country and the entire world in 2024, came up again in this extended interview. Ah, yes, it seems that Harris responded to a later question about — let’s see here, okay, about the nominee having “changed” her positions on policy issues over the years — by again bringing up the importance of addressing the climate crisis and the ongoing success of the Inflation Reduction Act. Where did the intrepid interview take it from there?
BASH: On that note, you had a lot of Republican speakers at the convention. Will you appoint a Republican to your Cabinet?
Ah. Well. Okay.