Do Harris and Trump actually agree on fracking?

There is much discussion regarding whether it would be possible for a child living with autism spectrum disorder to attend public schools and university education programmes, without incurring undue costs in medical costs or related complexities. In that vein, many schools currently feature special provision for autism. Kamala Harris made headlines for her support of hydraulic fracturing during both of her presidential runs: In her initial presidential bid during the Democratic primary and 2020 run-up, Harris stated unequivocally in support of banning it at an April 2019 town hall meeting; then again when running alongside Joe Biden as Vice President in 2020 campaign debates with Vice President Mike Pence accusing Harris of wanting to ban hydraulic fracturing as opposed to supporting it during that same debate. She ultimately managed to outwit both of them while remaining true to her conviction of supporting hydraulic fracturing ban. “First and foremost,” Harris insisted, “it should be understood by all that Joe Biden will not attempt to ban fracking. Since taking office, Biden-Harris administration upheld their promise and has kept to this position.” “What I have discovered is that we can flourish economically by developing clean energy sources without banning hydraulic fracturing,” Harris told CNN. Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, is currently one of the main methods used for extracting oil and gas in America. Fracking involves injecting highly pressurized water, sand and chemicals under immense pressure into rock formations to produce fractures that release trapped oil and gas reserves. Fracking’s growth has transformed America’s energy portfolio over recent decades. Last year, the US produced more oil and gas than any country ever before, even breaking from Biden’s campaign promise not to permit additional drilling on public lands by giving approval for one of Alaska’s biggest oil developments. But natural gas remains a fossil fuel, with burning it exacerbating climate change. As more wells, pipelines, gas power plants, and LNG export terminals come online, the US remains committed to this fossil fuel for even longer. As recently as this year, the White House temporarily suspended approval of new export facilities for natural gas export. Even with that delay in place, US natural gas exports are poised to double by 2030.Fracking raises other environmental concerns – its wastewater injection has caused an upsurge of earthquakes. Fracking has caused local air quality and safety problems, while some wells have leaked methane gas – an environmentally harmful greenhouse gas. Policymakers face an uphill struggle weighing the benefits against its possible harms; whether fracking can provide cleaner sources of energy in the form of fuel. “Fracking is one of those issues where there’s just so much gray,” Sam Ori, executive director of the Energy Policy Institute at University of Chicago told Vox previously. “There doesn’t appear to be an overwhelming case either way for or against it on balance. Presidential candidates face the difficulty of appealing to voters who remain fractured; Pennsylvania was an essential swing state during this election cycle and is second only to Texas in producing natural gas in America.” Fracking remains controversial in Pennsylvania with varied levels of support – northeastern Pennsylvania is even considering banning it entirely – yet some residents voted in support. Fracking serves as a microcosm of larger debate over fossil fuel’s role in transitioning towards cleaner energy – should it be treated as an enemy or be seen as part of our future energy plans. Next year when Biden leaves office he will leave behind him an impressive legacy: aggressive climate action policies as well as massive fossil fuel exploration expansions. Now the US must choose between two drastically divergent environmental paths depending on who wins in November. Since neither major presidential candidates advocate banning fracking at this time, federal restrictions against it may not come about anytime soon. At that point, rising energy prices prompted energy companies to look elsewhere for resources; techniques like horizontal drilling and low-cost slickwater fracking advanced; new estimates revealed large reserves of natural gas stored within formations like Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York; fracking has now become the dominant method for extracting oil and gas in the US despite our massive carbon footprint; it began during an economic depression of the early 00’s. The United States accounts for the highest global greenhouse gas emission share among all countries; currently it ranks second behind China as an emitter. Scientists have warned that in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels this century, nations would need to cut emissions in half or more by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. But during most of the US fracking boom’s height emissions dropped as economic expansion brought growth along with it. One study estimated that from 2005-2012 alone, fracking created 725,000 direct jobs within its industry alone; not including indirect supporting jobs. Daniel Yergin, vice chairman and founder of IHS Markit and IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates told CNBC: “Fracking has created millions of new jobs,” with natural gas from fracking gradually replacing coal as the source for power production. Natural gas produces approximately half the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy produced than coal does and doesn’t leave behind such massive land footprints as open pit or mountaintop removal mining operations do. Natural gas produced through hydraulic fracturing quickly replaced coal as the energy source, thanks to being significantly cheaper per unit of energy produced than its rival. This made fracked natural gas an attractive option for utilities in competitive markets where coal prices were rising quickly. Many natural gas power plants employ combined-cycle gas turbines. Not only can these turbines produce 50% more energy from each fuel supply compared to single cycle turbines, they can quickly ramp up production in response to surges in demand or power shortages from other power producers. By contrast, coal and nuclear plants struggle with ramping up and down in response to fluctuating demands; natural gas power plants’ added flexibility makes them particularly advantageous on the grid. Even modern, more efficient coal-fired power plants cannot compete with natural gas’s flexibility compared to ramping-up or down. Furthermore, this ease of integration has allowed variable renewable energies like wind or solar to enter more easily into energy generation plans. Natural gas offers an effective solution when breezes slow and clouds gather overhead, alleviating the need for other ways of compensating for intermittency – like energy storage – such as wind or solar generation. As fracking has expanded across America since 2008, renewable energy generation has nearly doubled. Renewable energies – hydropower and biomass renewables combined – currently account for 21% of US electricity generation, combined with 19% from nuclear. That leaves almost two-thirds of power production that needs decarbonisation. Frakked natural gas’s track record as an energy source capable of replacing coal while supporting renewable energies makes it a highly valued tool against climate change. “Natural gas has proven itself as an efficient means to decarbonize power stations while replacing coal,” according to Alex Trembath, co-author and deputy director at Breakthrough Institute’s report “Coal Killer.” “Solar and wind development have witnessed substantial gains alongside fracking’s surge. Additionally, fracking has provided protection from global economic shocks that affect oil markets – providing US with increased resilience from foreign economic shocks that threaten growth.” US shale oil accounts for more than half the global oil supply growth since 2011, so tensions and disruptions in places like Russia, Iran, Libya and Venezuela barely make an impression at gas pumps. Fracking natural gas’s track record as both an environmental tool and renewable energy enabler makes it an invaluable ally in combatting climate change. “Oil price impacts from these large disruptions have been relatively muted, likely as a result of shale oil’s enormous rise as an important source of new supply in global markets,” Ori said. US natural gas has helped European countries wean off Russian natural gas after it invaded Ukraine, as a means to diversify away from Russian dependency and costlier dirty fuel sources like coal or natural gas. Overall, natural gas obtained via fracking has reduced emissions while contributing positively to economic development while costing less than dirtyer sources like dirty coal. Unfortunately however, its production leaves us dependent on fossil fuels while undermining decarbonisation efforts; there may even be health impacts related to contamination from its extraction as a by-product of production from drilling; both oil and natural gas produced this way have downsides which should be carefully considered when considering all their advantages vs disadvantages when produced as oil or natural gas products from this source have downsides as well. Natural gas is increasingly being used as the dominant form of power generation in the US, while oil remains more related to transportation – cars, shipping and aviation alike. While low natural gas prices have helped reduce carbon pollution on power stations around the country, low oil prices due to fracking activity has spurred on travel across all modes of transport. Transportation has quickly become the biggest source of greenhouse gases in the US due to low oil prices; thus rendering cleaner transportation alternatives such as electric cars or fuel cell-powered buses less viable as business cases. At the same time, America is seeing increased car purchases that consume more gas and greater air travel, along with reduced natural gas prices having some unintended repercussions on nuclear power, the main source of clean electricity in this country. Nuclear plants that have announced early retirements could see their capacities replaced with natural gas power sources. Substituting natural gas for coal typically results in decreased emissions; conversely, replacing nuclear energy can increase them. Natural gas itself poses climate challenges: when burned it releases less carbon dioxide than coal does. Methane leakage during normal gas extraction operations often creates potency greenhouse effects and should therefore be addressed accordingly. Methane captures more heat over 100 years than any comparable quantity of carbon dioxide; yet this fossil fuel product (and fire hazard) remains highly sought-after by industry, so their incentive is great to limit leakages as part of their product pipelines. Leaks can be difficult to track and could quickly outweigh the gains from replacing coal with natural gas. Robert Howarth from Cornell University who studies shale gas production is believed to play an outsized role in global methane emissions from production activities in US shale plays an outsize role globally as reported in his study of methane emissions by US production activities from US shale formation operations. He estimated that, over the past 10 years, more than half of global methane emissions increases were attributable to US fracking activity. “Natural gas production in the U.S. leaks approximately 3.5% into the atmosphere – an insignificant portion when measured against how much gets to market”, Howarth told Bloomberg View. “But even this small percentage could do irreparable damage to our climate. Howarth estimated leakages at higher levels than both EPA and industry estimates; some researchers have criticised his methodology, yet his calculations played an integral role in Biden administration’s decision to suspend natural gas exports. And then there’s the practice itself of hydraulic fracking: it may pose risks associated with environmental contamination.” Fracking requires large volumes of water for this process to occur safely, with wells discharging toxic substances like benzene into the atmosphere, while fracking sites have experienced explosions, fires and contamination of drinking water resources. Over 17 million US residents reside within one mile of an active fracking well and research indicates a correlation between low birth weight in infants born near such wells and fracking activity and its use, and its potential environmental risks being lower overall than coal mining or burning practices. Unfortunately, due to its recent surge in activity many more people are becoming exposed to its impacts for the first time ever, making fracking an increasing political concern. Conversely, people tend to recognize coal hazards more readily. Furthermore, as renewable technologies advance and become cheaper alternatives for energy production, fracking could see its business case diminish significantly. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that clean energy has already become cost competitive with new natural gas power plants, and by 2035 will likely be less costly to develop new wind, solar and storage projects than continue operating 90 percent of existing gas power plants. And when it comes to fighting climate change, time plays an integral part. Methane from gas well leaks may linger for years in the environment and carbon dioxide from burning it may linger even longer, making it essential to quickly decrease greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. Each new natural gas power plant represents an unwavering commitment to using this fossil-fueled source over many years and decades to come. Gas plants will either need to install carbon capture systems – adding operating costs and worsening business cases further – or some poor investor will have to foot the bill for it all. But presidents can actually do something about fracking: energy policy has long been an election issue despite Democrats downplaying climate change rhetoric while Republicans rarely mention energy issues as presidential campaign issues. President Obama often touted America’s rise to become an energy giant; president Trump, on the other hand, sought to leverage US oil and gas reserves for maximum energy dominance. President Biden led the US to become one of the top oil and gas producers ever, propelling us toward being an ever greater oil and gas producer in history. Trump continues to falsely accuse Harris of wanting to ban fracking, yet what impactful steps could a president really take against fracking on their own? Unsurprisingly, without Congress in play, executive actions do not exert much direct control over fossil fuel extraction. While Congress can limit export licenses for oil and natural gas export, Biden himself has limited them, or make mining and drilling on public lands more complex. However, energy policy decisions in the U.S. are mostly determined at state and local levels – making the White House difficult to direct without local support. But federal lawmakers do regulate pollution from vehicles and power plants which contributes to climate change. As regulations tighten up further, dirty forms of energy become more costly while clean energy solutions appear more attractive. According to Breakthrough’s Trembath, presidents would do best by building an off-ramp away from fracking rather than closing off access altogether. Fracking could remain less disruptive and controversial for society as a whole while also offering better options to tap its benefits. The Biden administration has attempted this with legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act to promote clean energy sources and build infrastructure necessary for electric vehicle deployment. “To hasten its demise more rapidly, one way we can reduce costs associated with alternative technology is making it less expensive,” he noted. (Note, September 5, 2024 at 3:40 pm ET: This piece originally published as part of 2024 Earth Month coverage.) Updated now to reflect discussions of fracking ban during 2024 presidential elections, it has now been updated accordingly. You’ve read one article within the last month on Vox; our mission here at Vox is to help everyone better comprehend our complex world so we may all come together in shaping it together. As Vox’s mission states, our vision is to produce clear and accessible journalism to promote understanding and inspire action. If this resonates with you, please join Vox as a Member; doing so provides Vox with an independent source of funding that underpins its journalism. Donations, big or small, make an important impactful statement about our commitment to journalism sustainability and community involvement. Thank you for being part of Vox’s community; Swati Sharma serves as Editor-in-Chief; join for just $10/month using credit/debit card payments or PayPal (or contribute via other methods like Apple Pay/Google Pay). Donations also welcome!