[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now our climate story of the week, which we're doing every Tuesday on the show all this year. Our focus today is on Vice President Kamala Harris and her evolving stance on fracking. Fracking, if you need a refresher, is a technique for extracting natural gas by drilling thousands of feet into the ground and injecting a mix of water and chemicals through the earth's crust. Pennsylvania, Big Spring State, is one of the country's largest producers of natural gas, and it helps us understand the relationship between Pennsylvania and fracking. How Kamala Harris's position on fracking went from this in 2019. Here she is at a CNN climate crisis Town Hall in September of that year as she was running in the Democratic primaries for president.

Kamala Harris: There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.

Brian Lehrer: Here she is a little over a year later in an interview with a view on ABC as Joe Biden's running mate.

Kamala Harris: Without any ambiguity, Joe is clear we will not ban fracking.

Brian Lehrer: All right, and that's a message she has carried forward into her own presidential campaign. The shift has been fodder for Republican attacks, casting Harris as a potential threat to energy jobs, even though the Biden-Harris administration has pumped money into Pennsylvania's energy projects. They also obviously portray her as a flip flopper because of those two clips. We'll talk about Kamala Harris's positions on fracking, and the politics and science of it all with Ben Geman, energy reporter at Axios.

Ben, welcome to WNYC.

Ben Geman: Good morning, Brian. Thanks for having me on.

Brian Lehrer: First, do you want to expand on that definition of fracking, just so people are clear? I feel like we hear the word a lot these days, but people really don't have an idea of what exactly goes into it.

Ben Geman: Yes, absolutely. Fracking is the oil and natural gas extraction method that has enabled this gigantic boom in US production of both of those commodities from what are known as shale formations. Essentially, that means that you've got a lot of oil and natural gas, vast amounts of it, in fact, that are trapped in these rock formations in perhaps somewhat isolated, although connected pockets. What fracking enables is that after you have drilled a well, you then create this level of subsurface activity through the injection of water and different kinds of chemicals that essentially frees these trapped pockets of these resources. It's very difficult to overstate how important this has been to the US energy posture because this has enabled this massive increase in production of natural gas to the point where the US is the largest natural gas producer in the world, but it also works for oil as well. The US is now the largest oil producer in the world. Increasingly, the United States is exporting both of these commodities as well. The US actually, over the past year or so, has become the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. Oil exports are growing as well.

Fracking, it's a word that's tossed around a lot, but it's something that is just central to the US energy posture and the US energy economy, and now, of course, as we're discussing, becoming very central to the presidential race as well.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Though what you describe has been the case for a number of years already, I think a lot of people still have no idea that the US is the largest exporter of oil or natural gas. We still think of Saudi Arabia and places like that. What does the science tell us the climate impacts of fracking are? Are they clear on that?

Ben Geman: Yes. Just a quick thing. The US is the largest LNG, Liquefied Natural Gas, exporter. We're exporting more and more oil, but we do not export as much crude oil as Saudi Arabia. We produce more, but obviously our domestic needs are massive. The science of fracking is very interesting, especially with respect to climate change, because here's the thing, when you burn natural gas to create electricity or other forms of energy, it releases fewer pollutants and it releases much fewer carbon emissions than when you burn coal or when you burn oil.

On the other hand, when you are producing oil and natural gas using fracking, not all of this gas is captured. Some amount of it escapes as methane, which is an extraordinarily potent, powerful planet warming gas. A huge point of debate is exactly how much of this stuff is escaping, because measuring this is not always an exact science, especially in a country as big as the US. How much of it is escaping and how much can be cost effectively captured, because that really gets to this raging debate over whether natural gas is an enemy in the fight against climate change, an ally in the fight against climate change by displacing some of these even dirtier fossil fuels, or is it in the, I suppose, frenemy zone that's somewhere in between.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take the politics back to 2019. Kamala Harris is campaigning to be the Democratic nominee for 2020. What's her position on fracking at that point? Of course, we heard that clip.

Ben Geman: Yes, that's absolutely right. This is a clip that I think is going to be spawning 1,000 ads between now and election day. In fact, it has already started. Remember, this was a time in which the Democratic presidential hopefuls as a group with, on some level, the exception of Joe Biden, were all sprinting to the left. That was seen as the way to secure the base vote and get ahead in that primary season. In Harris's, what was very short lived presidential campaign, she was among that group that was endorsing a ban on fracking. She co-sponsored the Senate Green New Deal resolution, and basically she was taking a very aggressive stance around fossil fuels. That put her on some level in the mainstream of the Democratic contenders in 2019 and 2020, but it does not necessarily put her in the US political mainstream. I think that's why we've seen this big evolution in her posture.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take your calls about the politics and the science of fracking, Kamala Harris's stance on it in particular, or science questions for Ben Geman, energy reporter at Axios. 212-433-WNYC. That's our topic on our climate story of the week for this week on the show. 212-433-9692. Call or text. Going back even further on Kamala Harris's record, back further than 2019 as California's attorney general, didn't Harris sue the Obama administration over fracking?

Ben Geman: Yes, that's absolutely right. Just weeks before she left her role as attorney general and was sworn into the US Senate, she filed, or she led a lawsuit against the Interior Department over a decision to allow offshore fracking. California used to be a gigantic offshore oil producer, and there is still some legacy production there. We mostly think of fracking as an onshore thing, and that's where the vast majority of it occurs. She, yes, sued the Obama administration over this Interior Department decision that would have blessed this activity offshore. That case led to an injunction, which I'm pretty sure is still in effect.

Brian Lehrer: What's Harris's position on fracking now? How did she explain how she went from suing the then Obama-Biden administration over fracking to the tone she's had on fracking ever since she joined Joe Biden's ticket in 2020?

Ben Geman: That's a great question. I think once she begins hopefully doing some interviews, that ambiguity will be resolved. Right now, I think a lot of us are waiting for signs as to what her energy policy is going to be. Reuters had a good story where they said that her campaign is maintaining what some aides called a strategic ambiguity in this respect.

Look, I think at a first approximation, the Harris energy and climate platform will be the Biden-Harris record. That's essentially something that emphasizes carrots over sticks. There's some of each. Their biggest effort has been this huge legislation in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act, which has funneled and is funneling unprecedented federal resources in the forms of grants and tax subsidies and more, into all sorts of low emissions energy projects, purchase of low emissions appliances and electric vehicles and other goods by consumers and businesses, and subsidies for manufacturing clean energy related equipment, whether it's batteries or solar panels and that sort of thing.

One thing I think that I'm going to be very interested in looking at is whether there are any breaks with the Biden policy on any topics, for example, or even an evolution. One thing that has been a strong focus of this administration is the idea of environmental justice. This is the fact that, unfortunately, communities of color and low income communities have historically borne the brunt of a lot of different forms of pollution. This has been a priority for her going back some number of years. I think you might see even more emphasis from a Harris presidency on this topic.

At the same time, for the purposes of the general election, we've seen a big focus on consumer prices. We had her roll out that policy just a few days ago on the idea of trying to better control prices in the food industry and in the housing industry. I would not be surprised to see that extended to discussion of alleged price gouging in the oil industry, but here's the thing, the Federal Trade Commission has looked into this repeatedly over the years and never really found anything. That's something that she could do going forward.

Here's the thing. We hear so much about drill, baby, drill coming from Trump. I would caution against expecting any big, major differences in how much oil and natural gas the US produces in the near term, regardless of who wins this election. Because these tend to be very long term projects a lot of the time, or with shale, with fracking, it can be somewhat shorter term. I think what the big critique from the right of the Biden-Harris record is going to be is that they're sowing the seeds for reduced production in the future by closing off swaths of federal lands in Alaska, for example, and that essentially they would not necessarily curtail immediate production, but rather lay the groundwork for the US energy kind of posture and strategic leverage to be reduced in the years ahead.

Brian Lehrer: On the apparent Harris flip flop from 2019 to 2020, listener writes, "Notice in the clips you played, in the first one," she said, "I'm for banning fracking, but in the second clip," she said, "Joe is not for banning it." That was when she joined the ticket. "Important difference in wording," notes this listener. Fair enough, she never came out and said, "I support fracking." She said, "Basically, I'm his vice presidential candidate, and he's the presidential candidate, and he's not for banning fracking." I guess that's what we're waiting to hear. That's what you're telling us, she has not yet made clear for this presidential race whether she will advocate a national ban on fracking if she's elected?

Ben Geman: To clarify, when I reached out to her campaign, they did explicitly walk back that position. I do not think that is something she would advocate for, because she has explicitly said that is no longer her policy. It's not only not the Biden policy, but it is not her policy. The campaign has been clear on that.

I think one thing that's important here is that, we hear so much about vibes around this election, and this whole idea of a fracking ban is, I guess I would say, vibes adjacent in the sense of a White House or a president cannot ban fracking anyway with the stroke of a pen. That would require congressional legislation that would not be in the offing anyway. There simply wouldn't be political support for that. Can they do things? The most control that the federal government has is over oil and natural gas production on federal lands, both onshore and offshore. These are huge swaths of western states, as well as the federal Gulf of Mexico.

There, I think, the differences you would see between a Harris and a Trump administration, would be that Harris would most likely be less interested in auctioning off more large swaths of federal lands and waters to companies than a Trump administration would. In terms of slamming the brakes on existing domestic production, I don't think that would be in the offing, largely because a lot of this production onshore is on private lands or state lands. That's certainly the case in Texas and Pennsylvania, the number one and number two largest natural gas producing states.

Brian Lehrer: Ashwin in West Orange, who says he's a professor of sustainability at Ramapo College. Ashwin, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Ashwin: Hi, Brian. How are you?

Brian Lehrer: Good, thank you. Please go ahead.

Ashwin: Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, go ahead.

Ashwin: Here's the thing. Those who know the scientific method understand Type 1 errors and Type 2 errors. There's a Type 3 error when you ask the wrong question. The problem is not fracking per se. The problem is that when it began as a practice, Dick Cheney was vice president and waived the environmental laws on fracking. They took away the Clean Air Act, he took away the Clean Water Act, he took away the Safe Drinking Water Act. That's why fracking is bad. The reason it's become popular is because it doesn't have to comply with these environmental rules. It's the cheapest way to get polluting activities. The problem is not fracking. The problem is fossil fuels.

I will maintain, to my dying day, that the idea of banning something is really dumb. It doesn't work. You need to change things. Put environmental regulations on it. Take fracking as it is, and the environmental regulations back. Price will go up, but fracking will still continue. We'll still have oil.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting, Ashwin. Thank you very much. In fact, knowing that Ashwin was going to say that, we looked up what he was referring to with respect to former vice president, Cheney, who, of course, came out of the oil industry. We've also got this to elaborate on what he said from Inside Climate News. It says the so called Halliburton loophole, named after the oil and gas services company once headed by former vice president, Dick Cheney, means that the industry can use fracking fluid containing chemicals linked to negative health effects, including kidney and liver disease, fertility impairment, and reduced sperm counts, without being subject to regulation under the Act. That's very interesting from a legal standpoint. Are you familiar with that, too, Ben?

Ben Geman: Yes, I am. The caller makes a fantastic point, because while a lot of this discussion about fracking is very binary, would she or wouldn't she seek to ban it, the truth is that the most important thing to look at is how heavily would the practice be regulated. Because it's regulated, certainly already under the Clean Air Act, you've got different types of hazardous emissions that come from all sorts of industrial processes, including oil and natural gas development. I think one difference you might see between a Harris and a Trump administration would be how aggressively they used their existing enforcement powers around clean air and clean water to either have a very aggressive look and aggressive investigations and inspections, or whether or not there would be a more hands off approach. That can be true on both federal and private lands. I'm really glad the caller made that point because, yes, this is not a binary yes or no type of thing.

Brian Lehrer: We frame this in the intro as being of great importance to the State of Pennsylvania, considered the ultimate swing state in this presidential election. Is fracking done very much and is popular in Pennsylvania?

Ben Geman: Yes, and to some extent, I would say is how I would answer those two questions. Certainly Pennsylvania is sitting over a gigantic underground shale formation. A lot of the natural gas production from Pennsylvania does come from this extraction technique. I think the fact that Harris has got a very strong supporter and popular supporter in Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro, he's somebody who has taken a more, I suppose, moderate or centrist position on fracking. He has tried to engage with the industry more around disclosures and environmental protection while recognizing how important it is to the state's economy.

I do not expect the Harris campaign to take a very hard line, well, at least a hard rhetorical line. I guess I would say is, as we're looking ahead to the Harris campaign in these final few weeks, and also potential presidency, I think what we're going to really see her lean into is not a sort of making climate and environmental protection necessarily, the kind of tip of the rhetorical or policy sphere, but rather getting at these things by weaving them into a broader economic policy. That is certainly the goal of this 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which remains to be implemented for years.

The theory of the case for Biden and now would be President Harris is that it's good not only for the climate, but that it's good for the US economy if we have these unprecedented federal tax subsidies and grants and other types of financial support to really bolster clean energy industries. They're not going to talk as much about wanting to thwart existing fossil fuel production so much as they are trying to turbocharge the transition away from fossil fuels and toward more lower carbon forms of energy.

Brian Lehrer: Here's Luke in State College, Pennsylvania, calling in about this. Luke, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Luke: Hi, Brian. Hi, Ben.

Ben Geman: Hi.

Luke: I just wanted to go back to what you're talking about, Ben, in terms of the methane leaks. Here in Pennsylvania, we have a history of abandoned wells still releasing methane years and decades later. I just want to link that to the policy discussion about the Inflation Reduction Act and to wonder, are there any sticks or carrots who actually trap this methane or capture this methane in the policy, and how we might be able to use some of those carrots or sticks to try to reduce some of the methane issue? Thanks a lot.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you.

Ben Geman: Yes, there are actually. There were two gigantic energy and climate bills that were enacted back-to-back, or at least bills that had a large energy and climate component. One was the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the other was the Inflation Reduction Act. I don't remember which of those two bills, but one of them has considerable funding for cleaning up abandoned oil and gas wells because they're just dotting the landscape in a lot of different states, including Pennsylvania, as the caller suggests. Yes, there are millions and millions of dollars in federal dollars available for this. The deployment of that, I think, would be certainly something to watch.

Brian Lehrer: There's our conversation on Kamala Harris and her changing positions and current position on fracking. That's our climate story of the week. We thank Ben Geman, energy reporter at Axios. Ben, thank you so much.

Ben Geman: Thanks for having me on, Brian. I really enjoyed it.

[00:20:33] [END OF AUDIO]

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.