Two years ago, President Biden enacted the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is recognized as the largest climate change spending plan globally, initially projected to allocate $370 billion toward programs aimed at reducing emissions.
During Tuesday’s presidential debate, Vice President Kamala Harris highlighted the law for a contrasting assertion: it facilitated increased oil and gas drilling. This statement was part of her broader narrative that, alongside promoting clean energy initiatives, she would also enhance domestic fossil fuel production. She notably expressed her current support for fracking, a drilling technique for oil and gas, despite her previous stance in 2019 advocating for a ban. Harris remarked that the Biden Administration has overseen the “largest increase in domestic oil production in history,” and emphasized the need to invest in various energy sources to decrease dependence on foreign oil.
In response, former President Donald Trump attempted to position Harris defensively, declaring that her election would spell the end of oil, recurrently addressing the topic throughout the debate.
The debate primarily reflected the ongoing policy discourse in Washington. Biden’s approach has involved significant investment and regulatory efforts to promote clean energy, while simultaneously advocating for increased oil and gas production as renewable technologies develop. Conversely, Republicans largely support policies that would further benefit the oil and gas sector.
Harris’ shift in rhetoric was notably pronounced; she not only reversed her earlier opposition to fracking but also built her reputation as California’s attorney general by investigating oil companies.
This shift underscores the evolving landscape of energy and climate politics over the past four years. The oil market experienced volatility since the 2020 presidential election, when prices had plummeted due to the COVID pandemic. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 incited concerns about oil supply disruptions, prompting Biden to urge U.S. companies to ramp up production.
Instead of pursuing a new, comprehensive climate policy, Democrats now find themselves defending the regulations established over the past four years, particularly as a potential future Trump administration could seek to dismantle numerous environmental protections instituted by Biden. Attention will likely center on the IRA, with some Republicans aiming to eliminate the law’s clean energy tax incentives and retract funding allocated to federal agencies.
When discussing her approach to climate change, Harris focused on the IRA’s achievements, citing the creation of manufacturing jobs and investment in the American auto sector. She claimed that during her vice presidency, significant resources have been funneled into clean energy, leading to the establishment of factories worldwide.
The political implications of fracking have also garnered significant attention, particularly in Pennsylvania, which is a critical swing state where fracking has significantly impacted the economy. Consequently, opposing a ban on fracking is seen as a safer political stance, given its economic importance in the region.
However, concentrating solely on fracking may overlook broader dynamics. For one, presidents cannot unilaterally ban fracking. Additionally, the oil industry is influenced more by market conditions than by policy decisions. Moreover, it is crucial for voters to recognize that the most impactful climate actions Harris might pursue as president would likely involve upholding existing laws rather than initiating new ones.