While she campaigns as Vice President on the Democratic ticket, Kamala Harris faces criticism in Pennsylvania for her past stance on the controversial extraction method known as fracking. Her past comments and position threaten to alienate a sector of Pennsylvania’s voters that is directly involved in or otherwise supported by the state’s prosperous natural gas industry.
Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is a method for extracting natural gas and oil from deep within the earth. Pennsylvania, in particular, due to its vast reserves of shale gas, has seen a significant growth in fracking operations that have in turn led to numerous jobs and a large economic ecosystem dependent on the industry. However, fracking is not without controversy. Critics argue that it potentially endangers the environment and contaminating water supplies.
Kamala Harris first clarified her anti-fracking stance during her run in the Democratic primaries for the Presidency. She stated on numerous occasions that she was in favor of banning fracking completely. This stance resonated with the more progressive parts of the Democratic base.
On the other hand, it raised numerous concerns among the pro-fracking communities in Pennsylvania. Harris’ clear and unequivocal stance against fracking painted her as a threat to an industry that forms a significant part of the state’s economy. This perception finds fertile ground in a state that boasts the second-largest natural gas reserves in the US and relies heavily on fracking for both jobs and energy.
As the Vice Presidential candidate under Joe Biden, her stance has seemingly softened – in line with the position Biden’s campaign has publicly taken. The Biden campaign asserts that they will not ban fracking but rather focus on transitioning to cleaner energy sources over time. This policy distinction between the presidential candidate and running mate does not go unnoticed among Pennsylvania voters.
The challenge now for Harris in Pennsylvania is to convince the skeptics that despite her personal position against fracking, she can support policies that would not directly harm the industry and its dependent jobs. This could be a difficult task to achieve given the strong memories of her anti-fracking stance during the primaries.
Harris’ anti-fracking past positions her as the subject of criticism among the pro-fracking communities, making it an uphill battle for her to gain substantial support in Pennsylvania. However, her ability to align with Biden’s less extreme position and articulate the benefits of transitioning to cleaner energy may be key to winning over uncertain voters in the state.
In conclusion, the fracking issue goes beyond being merely a policy issue. For Harris, it forms part of the interpersonal and narrative dynamics of the 2020 presidential campaign. The challenge lies in not only addressing the fears of the pro-fracking community in Pennsylvania but also in reconciling her past stance with the agenda of the Biden campaign. The issue, therefore, necessitates a careful balance of robust policy, interpersonal communication, and an understanding of economic realities on the ground.
