We Called It: Kamala Has (Net) Zero Credibility On Fracking

“Just to be clear, Vice President Harris hasn’t said anything that the administration hasn’t already said. She is not promoting expansion [of fossil fuel drilling]. She’s just said that they wouldn’t ban fracking.” — Camila Thorndike, Harris climate engagement director, to Politico

Dear Readers, we called it.

ZERO. It was one of six numbers listed by your correspondent last week that made up the case against Kamala Harris. It stood for Net Zero, a Harris-Biden administration commitment of which her Veepness took personal ownership, to wit:

“You know, when President Biden and I took office, we set an ambitious goal.  Yes, people said, ‘That can’t be done.’ We said, ‘Well, you know what? We believe in dreaming with ambition and then seeing it through.’ And so, we set an ambitious goal … to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.”

And now, with the full foot-in-mouth placement by Kamala’s Camila, a tone-deaf aide (and despite her frantic, fruitless effort to backtrack), ZERO stands for the coup-candidate’s remaining credibility on her claim that she won’t ban fracking.

To understand why begins with a swing back to the nature of Harris’ climate commitment.

Achieving her “ambitious goal” has involved the Harris-Biden administration’s pursuit since week one of a “whole-of-government approach to combatting the climate crisis” aimed primarily at obliterating oil and gas, including: 

• Commitment to “a carbon pollution-free energy sector by 2035 and net-zero emissions from the transportation sector by 2050”
• A similar “whole-of-government” approach to mitigating “climate-related financial risk” – aimed at drying up investment in the sector
• “(R)edirecting resources toward economy-wide decarbonization” as part of achieving “net-zero global emissions by mid-century” – essentially, an end not only to fracking but to all production, transportation and use of oil and gas worldwide (except for the Chinese).

In addition, the Veep has boasted of her tie-breaking vote on the $1-trillion-plus Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). That spending orgy larded an estimated $18.5 billion in taxes on oil and gas to be diverted into renewable energy boondoggles to achieve “metrics” that, per the Veep, “include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.” (Is there any other kind of deadline?) 

What “metrics” and “deadlines” might those be? Per an Energy Department fact sheet, the IRA is about “putting the United States on a pathway to achieving the Biden-Harris administration’s climate goals, including a net-zero economy by 2050.” (Emphasis added.)

Let’s take a gander at that there “pathway,” contained in a document appropriately entitled “Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050” — America’s so-called “Nationally Determined Contribution” mandated under the Paris climate accords. 

The entire document is sprinkled with references to “transitions/transitioning from fossil fuels,” “declines … in unabated fossil fuel generation,” “replac(ing) uncontrolled fossil fuel-fired generation” (note: “unabated” and “uncontrolled” refer to thus-far pie-in-the-sky development of carbon-capture technology to allow some continued use of fossil energy), “shifting away from fossil sources,” “switch(ing) from fossil fuels,” “(r)educing the use of fossil fuels,” and “substitution of more fossil-intensive construction materials.”

The slide show below shows the extent of these planned transitions/declines/ replacements/shifts/switches/reductions/substitutions. Check out the areas in grey which represent the use of fossil fuels in industry, buildings, and transportation:

Source: “Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050

Down, down, down, in transportation under some scenarios, to nada.

But even that pathway is mild compared to the radical steps the hardcore climate kooks say will be necessary to reach net zero. 

Their cry: new fossil fuel production must stop now.

• A paper published in Science by researchers from University College London and the International Institute for Sustainable Development – and linked to from a U.S. Department of Energy site – insists that “governments should ban new fossil fuel projects.”
• And as previously noted, the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that in its pathway, “Net zero means a huge decline in the use of fossil fuels. … Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway … the focus for oil and gas producers switches entirely to output – and emissions reductions – from the operation of existing assets.”

And also note again: according to the American Petroleum Institute, fracking now accounts for 95% of natural gas and oil well development.

And, pray tell, what will the effect on oil and gas workers like those in the Keystone State be? 

• IEA: “In our pathway, around 5 million jobs are lost. Most of those jobs are located close to fossil fuel resources, and many are well paid, meaning structural changes can cause shocks for communities with impacts that persist over time.”
• McKinsey: “In the NGFS (Network for Greening the Financial System) Net Zero 2050 scenario, demand for direct operations and maintenance jobs in the fossil fuel extraction and production sector and the fossil fuel–based power sector could be lower by about nine million and about four million jobs, respectively. That is the equivalent of about 70% and 60% of today’s workforce in these sectors.”
• And again, the Harris-Biden administration’s own “Long-Term Strategy:” “Although the overall economy will benefit from the transition to carbon neutrality, certain fossil fuel-dependent sectors and regions will have a more difficult transition. Some communities are already experiencing economic challenges from the declines in fossil fuel-related employment.” 

Hey, climate engagement director Camila: why don’t you “engage” with voters by reading those statements aloud in, say, western Pennsylvania?

It’s no surprise that the Institute of Energy Research has compiled 250 ways Harris-Biden and its allies, beginning on Jan. 20, 2021, have pursued an outright war on the oil and gas industries that has included numerous restrictions and outright bans on new production. 

And there’s no doubt, based on Thorndike’s ill-timed lapse into honesty, that Kamala’s hidden plan – let’s call it Project 2050 – will be to continue that strategy by dramatically reducing fracking, perhaps even eliminating new development, on an accelerated pathway to an effective ban.

Bob Maistros, a regular contributor to Issues & Insights, is a messaging and communications strategist, crisis specialist, and former political speechwriter. He can be reached at bob@rpmexecutive.com.

Views expressed by guest contributors to Issues & Insights are their own and don’t necessarily reflect the views of the I&I Editorial Board.

Support Independent Journalism

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists from the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left.

We are 100% reader supported!!

If you like what you see, please feel free to donate.

And be sure to tell your friends!