Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, and Kamala Harris, the Democratic contender, are rekindling an argument that dates back almost twenty years over hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the technique that initiated the current oil and gas boom in the United States.
This is really a symbolic debate about the technology; despite her promises from five years ago, Harris would probably not be able to implement a nationwide ban on fracking if she were president. Whatever the case may be, she has expressed a desire to stop.
Although record energy production occurred throughout the Biden-Harris administration, Trump has made that 2019 pledge a staple of his stump speeches in an attempt to cast them as anti-fossil fuel. Important ramifications for the pivotal swing state of Pennsylvania are entangled in the broader, more basic dispute about inflation and the fight against climate change.
If you want to know who is saying what and why they are fighting, here is a good place to start.
A: So, what exactly is fracking?
The term “fracking,” which stands for “hydraulic fracturing,” was popularized in the oil business in the mid-2000s after gaining traction in the natural gas production sector. Drilling into layers of shale rock hundreds of feet below ground is an advanced drilling technique that producers use to inject millions of gallons of water, chemicals, and sand into cracks in the rock in the hopes of extracting fluids like oil, natural gas, or other substances.
At its core, it’s a method for extracting previously unreachable fuel reserves. An industry-wide race ensued from an initially specialized production technique, leading to energy booms in states like West Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania and ultimately propelling the United States to the position of leading oil and gas producer in the world.
Nowadays, fracking is the most popular method for extracting gas and oil in the US. It has also reduced the price of natural gas to the point where it has surpassed coal as the most popular fuel for electric power generation in the country.
Curiously, geothermal energy—a renewable energy source that Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has advocated for—can also be produced through fracking.
Fracking, you know, sounds great. Then why would anybody seek to outlaw it?
Answer: Pollution and global warming are two of the main causes.
Concerns that the injecting and fracturing process could put chemicals into adjacent groundwater supplies were at the center of the most high-profile fracking disputes a decade ago. A sequence in the Oscar-nominated documentary GasLand from 2010 saw locals in Pennsylvania setting fire to their water supply, amplifying these worries.
Another concern is the disposal of the millions of gallons of “produced water” that is often radioactive and toxic and is a byproduct of the fracking process. There is evidence that being close to fracked wells can worsen asthma and make pregnancies more difficult, but studies regarding whether fracking damages subsurface water supplies are still ongoing. Fracking has been associated with earthquakes in certain research.
But the impact on global warming from the oil and gas boom caused by hydraulic fracturing is, according to many environmental organizations, an even more pressing issue.
The increase in oil and gas production adds to the pollution of greenhouse gases, which is a key factor in the global warming that has led to unprecedented heat records and intensified hurricanes and wildfires. Leaks from wellheads, pipelines, and storage tanks frequently release methane, a powerful climatic pollutant and the principal component of natural gas. Burning methane also releases carbon dioxide into the air, which can stay there for a long time.
Proponents of hydraulic fracturing argue that the retirement of many coal facilities due to the increased usage of natural gas as the primary energy source in the country has reduced carbon dioxide emissions. However, others who are fighting climate change argue that the only way out of this mess is to “keep it in the ground” and cease using all fossil fuels.
Q: Oh, I see. Would legislators be able to prohibit hydraulic fracturing? Has it ever been attempted to be banned by lawmakers?
Although none of these states are significant energy producers, fracking has been outlawed in Vermont, Washington, and Maryland. It is expected that California, which was formerly a significant oil producer, would follow New York’s lead in banning new fracked wells in October. Fracking was outlawed three years ago in Pennsylvania by both the multistate commission that oversees the eastern part of the state’s Delaware River basin and by some municipalities.
The federal government has not sought to outright prohibit fracking, and its legal capacity to do so is being questioned. This is due, in part, to a “Halliburton loophole” that was created during the Bush administration and limits the EPA’s authority to even regulate the practice.
While in office, Obama sought to have the Interior Department crack down harder on hydraulic fracturing on federal property and to have corporations reveal the chemicals used in their fracking “cocktails” to the public. However, the federal court rejected both efforts on the grounds that the agency lacked the jurisdiction granted to it by Congress.
Asking why Harris promised a 2019 moratorium on fracking.
A: Voters concerned about climate change were encouraged by environmental groups to support Democrats who would ban fracking in the 2020 election. During their campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spearheaded the call for a nationwide ban on fracking. Harris, in an effort to distinguish herself in a crowded primary field, declared her intention to do the same.
It’s clear that Harris supports a moratorium on fracking, she stated at a 2019 CNN climate change forum.
Former Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden, however, stood firm against the demands for a ban, stating that he preferred to invest in renewable energy sources in order to wean the nation off of fossil fuels. In 2020, Harris joined Biden’s campaign and quickly reversed her mind, stating over and time again that Biden’s administration will not outlaw fracking. During her campaign for president this year, Harris has taken up the argument, declaring on CNN last month, “as president I will not ban fracking.”
“What I have seen is that we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking,” Harris said, attempting to explain her shift in position in light of the more than a trillion dollars that the Biden administration has spent on renewable energy and infrastructure.
Despite claims by environmental groups that Trump would be worse for the planet, Harris has been granted some leeway to speak her mind on the matter.