Trump represents an existential threat and it remains imperative that Kamala Harris win this election. But to do that, she would be well-advised to stop embracing fracking and return to her roots of confronting the coal, oil, and gas companies head-on.
Mitch Jones
Oct 16, 2024
The impacts of climate change are all around us—hurricanes battering Florida and Appalachia, extreme heat in October baking the West, and a continual stream of new temperature records. It’s pretty clear what needs to happen. We need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels. But for some reason, rather than taking on the fossil fuel companies driving the climate crisis, Vice President Harris’s team has determined that it's good politics to tout fracking and increased oil and gas production. This is not a winning approach, and it could actually cost Harris an election we desperately need her to win.
Embracing fracking and fossil fuel production is bad politics in addition to bad policy. D.C. conventional wisdom holds that in order to win Pennsylvania, candidates need to embrace fracking—but like much of D.C. conventional wisdom, this is wrong. Food & Water Action has worked on the ground in Pennsylvania for years. We’ve seen up close the dark underside of fracking - polluted water and air, cancer, and other social ills. Working with impacted communities, we have passed dozens of local measures restricting the practice in the state. Pennsylvanians don’t love fracking. In fact, they want to see it reined in rather than further unleashed.
The science is clear: We need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. No amount of investment in renewable energy by itself will avert worsening climate change as long as we are simultaneously continuing to increase fossil fuel production.
Polling reflects this deep concern. A recent survey from the Ohio River Valley Institute showed that 74% of Pennsylvanians support stricter regulations on fracking due to concern about health risks, while 90% or more want expanded setbacks from schools and hospitals, stronger air monitoring, and more rigorous regulation on transportation of fracking waste. Ignoring these concerns and instead framing fracking as a virtue makes little political sense in the Keystone state.
Further, in Pennsylvania and beyond, Harris needs a groundswell of support from young and progressive voters—people most likely to care deeply about climate change and preventing it. In a recent survey of young people in swing states from the Environmental Voter Project, 40% said that “a candidate must prioritize ‘addressing climate change’ or else it is a ‘deal breaker.’” More significantly, 16% said they would definitely not support a candidate that talks about “increasing U.S. use of fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal,” yet this is exactly what Harris has been bragging about. This election will be decided at the margins, and these are the type of hesitant voters we need to be motivated and engaged to put Harris over the line..
When she ran for president in 2019, Harris advocated for a much different agenda. She was one of several major candidates to call for an outright ban on fracking, she embraced a Green New Deal, and she championed a quick transition to a clean energy economy. These are the policies that would give her a great platform to address the climate crisis and talk about building a new energy economy based on good, unionized clean energy jobs.
They also have the advantage of being in line with what scientists are telling us is necessary to avert worse and escalating climate chaos. The science is clear: We need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. No amount of investment in renewable energy by itself will avert worsening climate change as long as we are simultaneously continuing to increase fossil fuel production.
Based on her prior statements and record (she went after fossil fuel companies as California attorney general) Harris knows this. And, she has an opportunity to draw a stark contrast with Donald Trump, whose record is the epitome of climate denial and fossil fuel industry pandering. But now, if she is elected, Harris will face tremendous pressure to work with the fossil fuel industry and support its pet projects. It will be up to all of us to provide a loud and clear message from day one that this approach is unacceptable.
The stakes in this election could not be higher. Trump’s agenda poses a severe threat to our environment and our climate, as well as our democracy. It is imperative that Kamala Harris wins this election. But to do that, she would be well-advised to stop embracing fracking and fossil fuels, and return to her roots of confronting the oil and gas industry head-on. A large and powerful movement is ready to back her if she does, or hold her accountable if she doesn’t.
www.commondreams.org
Mitch Jones
Oct 16, 2024
The impacts of climate change are all around us—hurricanes battering Florida and Appalachia, extreme heat in October baking the West, and a continual stream of new temperature records. It’s pretty clear what needs to happen. We need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels. But for some reason, rather than taking on the fossil fuel companies driving the climate crisis, Vice President Harris’s team has determined that it's good politics to tout fracking and increased oil and gas production. This is not a winning approach, and it could actually cost Harris an election we desperately need her to win.
Embracing fracking and fossil fuel production is bad politics in addition to bad policy. D.C. conventional wisdom holds that in order to win Pennsylvania, candidates need to embrace fracking—but like much of D.C. conventional wisdom, this is wrong. Food & Water Action has worked on the ground in Pennsylvania for years. We’ve seen up close the dark underside of fracking - polluted water and air, cancer, and other social ills. Working with impacted communities, we have passed dozens of local measures restricting the practice in the state. Pennsylvanians don’t love fracking. In fact, they want to see it reined in rather than further unleashed.
The science is clear: We need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. No amount of investment in renewable energy by itself will avert worsening climate change as long as we are simultaneously continuing to increase fossil fuel production.
Polling reflects this deep concern. A recent survey from the Ohio River Valley Institute showed that 74% of Pennsylvanians support stricter regulations on fracking due to concern about health risks, while 90% or more want expanded setbacks from schools and hospitals, stronger air monitoring, and more rigorous regulation on transportation of fracking waste. Ignoring these concerns and instead framing fracking as a virtue makes little political sense in the Keystone state.
Further, in Pennsylvania and beyond, Harris needs a groundswell of support from young and progressive voters—people most likely to care deeply about climate change and preventing it. In a recent survey of young people in swing states from the Environmental Voter Project, 40% said that “a candidate must prioritize ‘addressing climate change’ or else it is a ‘deal breaker.’” More significantly, 16% said they would definitely not support a candidate that talks about “increasing U.S. use of fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal,” yet this is exactly what Harris has been bragging about. This election will be decided at the margins, and these are the type of hesitant voters we need to be motivated and engaged to put Harris over the line..
When she ran for president in 2019, Harris advocated for a much different agenda. She was one of several major candidates to call for an outright ban on fracking, she embraced a Green New Deal, and she championed a quick transition to a clean energy economy. These are the policies that would give her a great platform to address the climate crisis and talk about building a new energy economy based on good, unionized clean energy jobs.
They also have the advantage of being in line with what scientists are telling us is necessary to avert worse and escalating climate chaos. The science is clear: We need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. No amount of investment in renewable energy by itself will avert worsening climate change as long as we are simultaneously continuing to increase fossil fuel production.
Based on her prior statements and record (she went after fossil fuel companies as California attorney general) Harris knows this. And, she has an opportunity to draw a stark contrast with Donald Trump, whose record is the epitome of climate denial and fossil fuel industry pandering. But now, if she is elected, Harris will face tremendous pressure to work with the fossil fuel industry and support its pet projects. It will be up to all of us to provide a loud and clear message from day one that this approach is unacceptable.
The stakes in this election could not be higher. Trump’s agenda poses a severe threat to our environment and our climate, as well as our democracy. It is imperative that Kamala Harris wins this election. But to do that, she would be well-advised to stop embracing fracking and fossil fuels, and return to her roots of confronting the oil and gas industry head-on. A large and powerful movement is ready to back her if she does, or hold her accountable if she doesn’t.
Embrace of Fossil Fuels Isn't Helping Kamala Harris | Common Dreams
Trump represents an existential threat and it remains imperative that Kamala Harris win this election. But to do that, she would be well-advised to stop embracing fracking and return to her roots of confronting the coal, oil, and gas companies head-on.
www.commondreams.org
