During the 2019 Democratic primary, Kamala Harris made her position on fracking crystal clear: she supported banning it. However, as she became Joe Biden’s running mate in the 2020 presidential election, her stance evolved. In a debate against then-Vice President Mike Pence, Harris firmly denied that she or Biden would ban fracking, aligning with Biden's more moderate energy policy.
“Let me repeat: Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That’s a fact,” Harris declared during the debate. Since taking office, the Biden-Harris administration has stayed true to that promise. Harris has since echoed that it’s possible to grow the economy and clean energy sector without banning fracking entirely.
Fracking, which involves injecting high-pressure water, sand, and chemicals into rock formations to extract oil and gas, has revolutionized the U.S. energy landscape over the last 20 years. Thanks to the fracking boom, the United States is now the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, surpassing even energy giants like Saudi Arabia and Russia. But while this energy independence is an economic triumph, it has created a paradox for the Biden administration, which is trying to balance climate goals with maintaining affordable energy.
Political Tug-of-War Over Fracking Policy
Although Harris once advocated for banning fracking, she has since embraced a more pragmatic stance. Like Biden, she recognizes the economic and energy security benefits that fracking provides, especially as the U.S. transitions to cleaner energy sources. This puts Harris and Trump on the same page when it comes to keeping fracking in play — even though their broader energy policies diverge.
Trump, during his presidency, rolled back environmental regulations and promoted fossil fuel expansion, including fracking. He argued that this would secure America’s energy independence and create jobs. If re-elected in 2024, Trump has vowed to further increase fossil fuel production, doubling down on fracking as a key component of his energy strategy.
The Biden administration, while committed to addressing climate change, has also greenlit major fossil fuel projects, including one of the largest oil developments in Alaska and a major natural gas pipeline. These decisions reveal the administration’s internal struggle: how to reconcile short-term energy needs with long-term climate goals. While Biden’s climate agenda aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, expanding fracking and fossil fuel infrastructure complicates this mission.
Fracking: The Benefits and the Costs
Supporters of fracking argue that it has helped reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by displacing coal as the dominant source of electricity. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, releasing about half the carbon dioxide per unit of energy. As a result, fracking has contributed to a significant reduction in U.S. emissions even as the economy has grown.
But fracking is not without its downsides. While natural gas is cleaner than coal, it’s still a fossil fuel that contributes to climate change. Moreover, methane, the main component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas. If leaked during extraction or transport — which happens frequently — it can trap significantly more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, undermining the climate benefits of switching from coal to natural gas.
Fracking also poses environmental risks beyond emissions. Wastewater injection from fracking wells has been linked to an increase in earthquakes, particularly in states like Oklahoma. Additionally, fracking chemicals can contaminate drinking water, and air quality near fracking sites can suffer, posing health risks to local communities.
The Future of Fracking: Bridging the Gap to Clean Energy
While fracking has helped the U.S. become energy independent, it presents a major challenge for the transition to clean energy. Renewable sources like wind and solar are becoming increasingly cost-competitive, but the infrastructure needed to fully replace fossil fuels is still years away from completion. The question remains: can the U.S. continue to benefit from fracking while ramping up its investment in renewables?
Many experts believe that natural gas, obtained through fracking, can serve as a “bridge fuel” to cleaner energy. Because natural gas plants can quickly ramp up production when wind and solar are unavailable, it provides a flexible and reliable backup for renewable energy sources. This flexibility has been critical in maintaining a stable energy grid as renewables have expanded.
However, fracking’s long-term future is uncertain. Clean energy technologies are advancing rapidly, and some studies suggest that by 2035, renewable energy combined with storage will be cheaper than running 90% of existing natural gas power plants. This raises the possibility that new investments in natural gas infrastructure could become stranded assets in the near future, locking the U.S. into continued reliance on fossil fuels.
What Can a President Really Do About Fracking?
While the issue of fracking is frequently discussed in presidential campaigns, the reality is that the president’s power to directly influence fracking is limited. Energy policy in the U.S. is largely determined at the state and local levels. States like California and New York have taken steps to ban or restrict fracking, while energy-rich states like Texas and Pennsylvania continue to embrace the practice.
The federal government can regulate pollution from vehicles and power plants and limit fracking on public lands. But without broad congressional support, a president’s ability to enact sweeping changes in energy policy — including banning or expanding fracking — is constrained.
In the meantime, the Biden administration has pursued a dual strategy of promoting clean energy investments while allowing fracking to continue. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, is designed to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and electric vehicles. But this approach represents a middle ground, aiming to phase out fossil fuels gradually rather than abruptly cutting off fracking, which could destabilize the energy market.
The Tension Between Fossil Fuels and Climate Action
As the U.S. heads into the 2024 presidential election, the debate over fracking reflects a larger question about the role of fossil fuels in the energy transition. Both Harris and Trump recognize the economic benefits of fracking, but their visions for the future of energy in the U.S. diverge sharply.
Harris and the Biden administration see fracking as a temporary tool on the path to cleaner energy, while Trump views it as a cornerstone of U.S. energy policy. As clean energy technologies improve and climate change becomes an ever-more pressing issue, the next administration will need to decide whether to double down on fracking or accelerate the shift toward renewable energy.
In the end, the future of fracking in America will be determined not just by who occupies the White House, but by the nation’s ability to balance its energy needs with the urgent need to combat climate change.