In her first major interview since replacing Joe Biden on the ballot, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris was questioned about her shifting statements on fracking, which has been linked to a surge in methane gas emissions over the past decade. Harris, who has previously made comments opposing fracking, vowed not to ban it if elected. The vice president went on to highlight the Biden-Harris administration’s environmental record, which activists have criticized for vastly expanding oil production rather than drawing down the country’s reliance on fossil fuels. “The data is telling us that what Kamala Harris said about fracking — that we can do it without dealing with reducing the supply of fossil fuels — it’s just not borne out by the numbers,” explains The Lever’s David Sirota, who adds, “Ultimately, consequences for that will be on the United States, for the entire world.”

In her first major interview since replacing Joe Biden on the ballot, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris was questioned about her shifting statements on fracking, which has been linked to a surge in methane gas emissions over the past decade.

Harris, who has previously made comments opposing fracking, vowed not to ban it if elected. The vice president went on to highlight the Biden-Harris administration’s environmental record, which activists have criticized for vastly expanding oil production rather than drawing down the country’s reliance on fossil fuels.

“The data is telling us that what Kamala Harris said about fracking — that we can do it without dealing with reducing the supply of fossil fuels — it’s just not borne out by the numbers,” explains The Lever’s David Sirota, who adds, “Ultimately, consequences for that will be on the United States, for the entire world.”

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    183·
    3 months ago

    Literally what Clinton said she was going to do. Do it AFTER the election. This is to fucking important because if he wins it’s game over on our democracy.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
      47·
      3 months ago

      No, she didn’t. She didn’t promise people from Pennsylvania anything to help their situation. She didn’t promise to bring jobs to those towns dependent on oil companies by shifting subsidizing to renewable energy companies in those towns. She needed to convince them that her policies would help improve their access to jobs and improve local development.

      I’m not saying Harris needs to ban fracking, I’m saying it’s a much more effective message to promote more opportunities for those towns by improving the subsidizing of renewable energy companies, public and/or private. Their main concern is jobs, which can easily be addressed.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
          35·
          3 months ago

          In that respect, yeah. Not when it comes to capitulating to right wing framing on immigration and having more hawkish rhetoric on foreign policy. People want progressive policies that will improve their lives, she needs more of that

            • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
              35·
              3 months ago

              I am voting Harris. This isn’t about me, people want more. Anti-genocide is a line for many.

              Are you anti-immigration too? Immigrants aren’t responsible for any crime wave, they’re responsible for less crime per capita than US citizens. Neither are they responsible for bringing drugs like fentanyl over the border, that’s done overwhelmingly by US citizens. Those are the points she’s conceited to right wing framing on, both completely made up and not backed up by any evidence. The crisis at the border is our two-tier immigration system, our inhumane treatment of immigrants such as separating families, and rejecting of those seeking asylum

              • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
                31·
                3 months ago

                Are you anti-immigration too?

                Not at all, but you can address the reasons so many people want to leave their country so quickly. I’d say a vast majority don’t want to leave their countries at all, and most have their hand forced because of economic issues. Sure, there are many who rightfully leave because of the oppressive governments, but if we can use the influence of America to create economic opportunities to create jobs for them and make it so they dont have to undertake such a dangerous journey, we should do it.

                • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
                  11·
                  3 months ago

                  Our foreign policy in the Americas is one if not the major reason for the increase in immigration. I agree, we should stop America’s influence of Embargos and Regime Changes that have led to these kinds of conditions. I think we’re in agreement there. Ending US influence would certainly help reduce the crisis, but we should also accept them all as legal immigrants that have a path for citizenship. We are a nation of immigrants after all.

                  My point is that the Democrats capitulating to the right wing narrative, which is completely made up, is bad politics and bad policy. The Pro-immigration stance Democratics have had for decades was very popular too. Sentiment has only changed once Democrats stopped providing a counter-narrative and instead ran with the right wing framing.