What does Harris' 'non-answer' on fracking prove? Energy expert goes into detail
Vice President Kamala Harris’ seemingly slick stance on the debate stage around fracking and oil production has energy experts questioning whether her administration has truly changed its perspective.
"Given that she supports net-zero — it's on every single letterhead, executive order — there's no way one can deduce that she supports fracking," the Independent Women’s Forum Center for Energy and Conservation director Gabriella Hoffman told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.
"She was kind of caveat in her non-answer saying that what we've encouraged is a lot of leasing," she continued, "And so that shows to me and any other observers in the energy space that they're not really inviting a culture… I think it's politically opportunistic."
During ABC News’ Presidential Debate on Tuesday night, Harris faced a question from one of the moderators which addressed her flip-flopping on fracking — or hydraulic fracturing — between her first and second run.
JUDGE'S RULING COULD END GULF OIL PRODUCTION: ‘DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS,’ SENATOR WARNS
The vice president responded that her "values have not changed" on the issue, that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) "opened new leases for fracking," and that the Biden-Harris White House has seen "the largest increase in domestic oil production in history."
Hoffman cited data from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management showing a massive decrease every year in acres offered for oil and gas leases under President Biden, compared to the Trump administration’s first three years.
"Demand is what largely triggers production. I think people forget that, including the vice president, too," the energy director explained. "The reason why Vice President Harris is touting Biden increasing production and keeping it afloat is because there [are] checks and balances in other actions you see coming from the regulatory side, from rule-making."
"President Biden said he would ban fossil fuels, but he couldn't because of checks and balances. I see the reverse happening. She's saying this to see if she can win in Pennsylvania because she knows fracking is a very sensitive topic," she added.
Fracking refers to the drilling process used to extract natural gas from the ground. They primarily remove sand and water to access the supply, using just one-eighth of an acre of land, according to Hoffman.
Her policy center has also reportedly tracked the number of new federal onshore and offshore oil leases each year, claiming there are "fewer" new leases now than at the end of Trump’s term.
"The IRA is a boon to so-called green energy, namely utility-scale solar and wind. And so that was preferred over oil and gas. And while there may have been a few protections for that," she noted, "it's on existing oil and gas leases, not inviting new oil and gas leases."
"If the Biden-Harris administration really did oversee the largest production of oil and gas in history, they wouldn't be tapping out the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is an emergency reserve. It wouldn't be calling on Venezuela, OPEC, other countries… to increase production for us to purchase from them. We wouldn't see higher prices at the pumps and on our utility bills if such an event was occurring," she explained.
"But like I said, because it's determined by supply and demand and in spite of the regulatory environment we have, you see this continued production on existing leases, again, not new ones."
While Trump had a pro-conservation and pro-energy record while he was in office, Hoffman feels he didn't spotlight that on the debate stage on Tuesday night.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
"He didn't have the opportunity to showcase his record as to why having a sensible, balanced-use conservationist approach to energy production, which also welcomed a lot of recreational opportunities and opening up more public lands to different opportunities even beyond oil and gas production," the IWF’s energy leader expanded.
"He should have highlighted that more. I thought that was a missed opportunity, but I hope in a future debate he can highlight that having a pro-energy agenda allows you to be pro-conservationists on federal lands as well. He missed an opportunity."