With the U.S. presidential election less than a week away, energy policy has become a key topic of debate, especially around the issue of fracking. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have very different views on the topic and their energy policies show a sharp contrast in how they would shape the future of U.S. energy. So, let’s break down where each candidate stands and how their policies compare.
Donald Trump has always been a strong advocate for the oil and gas industry, including fracking. Throughout his campaign, he has made it clear that boosting oil and gas production is one of his top priorities. Trump has been vocal about his willingness to cut regulations that he believes are holding the industry back from efficient development. He wants to roll back emissions rules, including those on methane leaks and routine flaring, to make it easier for oil and gas companies to operate. Trump also plans to expand drilling on federal lands and bring back policies from his first term that made it easier to get permits for pipelines and LNG projects.
Trump’s energy policy is focused on keeping fossil fuels at the center of the U.S. energy landscape. He typically opposes regulations that favor clean energy over traditional energy sources, and he’s been critical of electric vehicle mandates and incentives that encourage a shift to renewables. His approach is all about increasing access to fossil fuels and making sure they remain the backbone of the country’s energy supply.
Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has a more complicated history with fracking. As a senator, she supported the Green New Deal, which called for eliminating fossil fuels, and she even pushed for a fracking ban. However, her stance has softened as she runs for president. Harris has reassured voters in states like Pennsylvania, where fracking plays a big role in the economy, that she would not ban it. Instead, she’s focusing on the role of natural gas as a reliable and affordable energy source that helps meet the country’s growing energy demands while reducing carbon emissions.
Harris also wants to revise the permitting process for pipelines, which are critical for transporting natural gas. However, her past support for canceling projects like the Keystone XL pipeline raises questions about how fully she would back new infrastructure projects. Unlike Trump, Harris is trying to strike a balance between supporting fossil fuels and pushing for a cleaner energy future. She has moved away from her earlier calls to ban fracking and is now emphasizing a more balanced energy strategy.
The contrast between Trump and Harris on energy policy is very clear. Trump is fully committed to maximizing fossil fuel production and cutting regulations to boost oil and gas output. He believes in making fossil fuels more accessible and keeping them at the core of the country’s affordable energy strategy, regardless of the impact on clean energy initiatives.
Harris, meanwhile, is trying to find a middle ground. She recognizes the importance of natural gas in meeting current needs, but she also wants to move toward cleaner energy sources. Her shift away from a fracking ban suggests a more pragmatic approach, one that aims to balance energy security with environmental concerns.
In short, this election offers voters a choice between two very different energy futures. Trump’s plan is all about deregulation and expanding fossil fuel production, while Harris is aiming for a balanced approach that keeps natural gas in play while also looking to build a cleaner energy future. The outcome of this election will shape how the U.S. navigates its energy needs in an increasingly climate-conscious world.
