The path of Kamala Harris as a candidate for Vice President under the Democrat flag is marked with complexities, not the least of which are ties to her reign over the legal system within California. A significant bone of contention, in particular for the residents and workers in Pennsylvania, is her previously established stance against hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This method of extracting natural gas and petroleum from the ground has been pivotal for the energy industry, and in turn, for the livelihood of a significant number of Pennsylvanians.
Kamala Harris’s previous opposition to fracking represents a dire threat to the thousands whose income is derived from this practice. The economic implications of the restrictions or a complete ban on fracking would be felt deeply in regions such as Pennsylvania with its rich natural gas reserves accessed predominantly through fracking. Currently, the fracking industry in Pennsylvania supports approximately 32,000 jobs and contributes $44.5 billion to the state’s economy.
Harris’s stance became even more highlighted during her tenure as the Attorney General, where legal battles regarding environmental issues were commonplace. She was an active supporter of regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and backed the state’s stringent policies—even those that risked jobs and income for citizens. Her support for the “Keep It in The Ground” movement underlines her pronounced anti-fracking stance that could be perceived as a threat by Pennsylvanian workers and families earning their living from the fracking industry.
However, the campaign trail seems to be slightly shifting perspectives for Harris, possibly in response to the enormity of public and potential voter disapproval of her stance. Speaking at a recent Pittsburgh event, Harris appeared to downplay the severity of her support for fracking ban. She shared the stage with Democratic Union leaders, pledging that she and Biden would not take a chisel to fracking endeavors but rather would integrate it into their overall environmentally-friendly energy goals. This shift, while welcomed by some, has led others to question whether this adjustment is born of political necessity rather than a genuine change of heart.
Any potential shift in stance, however, does not completely erase the anxiety among fracking workers about the prospects for the industry under a Harris-Biden administration. Harris’ track record of legal battles and a marked preference for environmental causes over the fracking industry does little to soothe their fears.
Questions also remain about whether Harris and Biden would impose fewer regulations on the fracking industry or increase restrictions. Despite Biden’s assertion in the first Presidential Debate that he wouldn’t ban fracking, his running mate’s history prompts considerable doubt amongst voters and industry professionals.
In conclusion, Harris’ anti-fracking past indeed still casts a lingering shadow on her candidacy in Pennsylvania—a state crucial to winning the electoral college. Her recent shifts in tone may have influenced some voters, but for many workers whose livelihoods are linked to fracking, her previous stance weighs heavily on their upcoming electoral decision. Despite Harris’ attempts at softening her position, her history has made it increasingly uphill for her to consolidate support amongst the working class in the industrious state of Pennsylvania.