Kamala Harris’s shifting stance on fracking reveals a clear pattern of political positioning rather than genuine policy evolution. Early in her career, Harris was vocal about supporting a ban on fracking, notably in the context of the Green New Deal, which aimed for aggressive environmental reforms. However, as she transitioned from a presidential candidate to Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick, her stance aligned more closely with Biden’s platform, which did not call for an outright ban. Critics argue that her shifts are strategic moves aimed at gaining voter approval and political power, rather than consistent ideological commitments.
Early Support for a Fracking Ban
In 2019, during a CNN town hall on climate change, Kamala Harris made her stance on fracking clear. As one of the many Democratic candidates vying for the presidential nomination, Harris asserted that she was “in favor of banning fracking.” At the time, this position aligned her with the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which was advocating for the Green New Deal, a bold legislative proposal aimed at transitioning the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources.
Harris’s embrace of the Green New Deal and her advocacy for a fracking ban signaled her commitment to aggressive climate action. It resonated with the party’s base, which had grown increasingly concerned about climate change. The Green New Deal, championed by figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called for an end to fracking, which is a method of extracting oil and gas that many environmentalists believe contributes to water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Shift: From Fracking Ban to Energy Balance
Despite her clear support for banning fracking during the primaries, Harris’s position shifted once she became Joe Biden’s running mate in the 2020 presidential election. Biden’s platform was more moderate on energy policy, recognizing the need to balance environmental concerns with the economic importance of fossil fuels, particularly in swing states like Pennsylvania, which relies heavily on fracking.
During the 2020 vice-presidential debate, Harris stated that “Joe Biden will not ban fracking,” a message meant to reassure voters that the Democratic ticket was not aligned with the more radical climate policies feared by some Americans. In this instance, Harris did not explicitly disavow her previous position but made it clear that as vice president, she was supporting Biden’s policy.
This was seen as a political necessity. With Pennsylvania being one of the key battleground states, any anti-fracking stance would likely cost the Biden-Harris ticket crucial votes. Thus, Harris aligned herself with Biden’s more centrist approach, which aimed to reduce carbon emissions and invest in clean energy without immediately banning fracking, especially on private lands.
Further Backtracking and Clarifications
Fast forward to 2024, as Harris emerged as the Democratic nominee for president. During a debate with Donald Trump, Harris was pressed on her changing views regarding fracking. She claimed that as early as 2020, she made it “clear” that she was not in favor of banning fracking. This statement, however, does not entirely reflect her earlier positions in 2019, when she unequivocally supported a ban.
Fact-checkers, including CNN’s Daniel Dale, pointed out that Harris never fully clarified her personal shift on fracking during the 2020 debate with then-Vice President Mike Pence. Instead, she deferred to Biden’s platform, stating that Biden would not ban fracking, without addressing her own change in viewpoint. This has fueled criticism from both conservatives and progressives who argue that Harris’s positions change depending on the political landscape.
Criticism of Harris’s Shift
Harris’s political opponents, including Trump and his allies, have not hesitated to use her past statements against her. During her debate with Trump, he remarked, “Fracking? She’s been against it for 12 years.” This critique taps into the frustration that many voters feel toward politicians who appear to change their positions for political gain.
Critics argue that Harris’s shift from supporting a fracking ban to opposing one as vice president suggests political opportunism. Pennsylvania’s economy, deeply tied to the fracking industry, likely played a significant role in Harris’s recalibration of her stance, but for those who supported her more progressive climate policies, the change feels like a betrayal.
Conclusion: Political Pragmatism or Flip-Flopping?
Kamala Harris’s approach to fracking is not an example of political evolution but rather a calculated shift to align with the electorate and gain political power. Initially, she supported a ban on fracking, particularly in her endorsement of the Green New Deal. However, as Biden’s running mate, she adjusted her stance, mirroring his more moderate position. This alignment with Biden’s policies suggests that Harris’s policy changes are strategic, aimed at voter approval, rather than a genuine shift in beliefs, reinforcing the perception of opportunistic maneuvering.
Ultimately, Harris’s shifting positions—whether on fracking or other key issues—demonstrate a pattern of aligning with the broader Democratic leadership rather than standing firm on previously stated commitments. Her policy moves are seen less as an ideological shift and more as a reflection of political pragmatism designed to secure electoral support and maintain alignment with Biden’s administration.
