Harris's Energy Stance Shift: A Key Factor in 2024 Election

The recent vice presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump failed to provide substantial insights into energy policies, disappointing viewers seeking clarity on this crucial issue. The debate moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News, focused on topics favorable to Harris, leaving little room for in-depth energy discussions.

A key point of contention was Harris's stance on hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. This technique, used to extract oil and gas from deep underground, is particularly significant in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region, a crucial swing state in US presidential elections. Harris's position on fracking has undergone a notable shift since becoming the vice presidential nominee, prompting questions about her true intentions.

"I will not ban fracking. I haven't banned fracking,"

Harris's claim of casting the deciding vote to expand drilling refers to the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022. However, the Department of Interior, led by Deb Haaland, has been reluctant to implement the act's provisions for increased leasing and drilling on federal lands.

The debate briefly touched on climate change, allowing Harris to present standard climate alarm talking points. This exchange highlighted the ongoing political divide on environmental issues in the United States.

As the 2024 election approaches, voters face a choice between Trump's known energy policies from his previous term and Harris's evolving stance. The election, scheduled for November 5, 2024, is shaping up to be a "change election," with Harris attempting to position herself as a change agent despite her role in the current administration.

Bernie Sanders' recent comments on NBC's "Meet The Press" shed light on Harris's position changes:

"I don't think she's abandoning her ideals. I think she is trying to be pragmatic and do what she thinks is right in order to win the election."

This statement raises questions about the authenticity of Harris's current positions and whether they reflect her true values or are merely election-driven pragmatism.

The debate's limited focus on energy issues leaves voters to decide whether to accept Harris's evolving positions or to believe her assertion that her "values have not changed." This decision may prove crucial in determining the outcome of the November 5 election, as voters weigh the importance of energy policy and candidate consistency in their choice for the nation's leadership.