Kamala Harris wants voters to know that she helped expand oil leasing on public lands.
The vice president boasted in the recent presidential debate that the Biden administration’s 2022 climate law opened new leasing on federal land. It was the second time she made the claim about the public oil patch in prime time as proof that she no longer supports a ban on fracking.
“I cast the tie-breaking vote that actually increased leases for fracking,” Harris said in an August interview with CNN.
That campaign rhetoric is a dramatic pivot for Democrats, who included a commitment to end oil permitting on public land in their 2020 platform. That goal is missing from the 2024 version unveiled last month, and Harris has since made clear she sees fossil fuel production — particularly oil and natural gas — as part of the country’s energy future.
That does not bode well for the decadeslong movement to phase out drilling on public lands, suggesting that the idea has lost resonance with Democratic Party strategists — and likely the bully pulpit of the White House.
The nation’s oil program is responsible for one in every four barrels of U.S. crude production. To many who see ending the program as a key climate action, Harris’ position is worrisome.
“What it says is that the [political] support for what needs to be done on climate is slipping away,” said Pat Parenteau, a professor of law emeritus and senior fellow for climate policy at the Vermont Law and Graduate School.
The Harris campaign has not released specific policy plans for drilling on federal lands. Asked about Harris’ position on the issue, the campaign touted the country’s record oil and gas growth.
“Under the Biden-Harris Administration, America is more energy secure than ever before with the highest domestic energy production on record,” the campaign said in an emailed statement. “Vice President Harris is focused on a future where all Americans have clean air, clean water, and affordable, reliable energy.”
During the debate earlier this month, Harris explained that she believes in investing in “diverse sources of energy” to ensure energy independence.
“We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil,” she said.
That view is reminiscent of the “all-of-the-above” energy strategy once deployed by former President Barack Obama and other top Democrats. Today, it’s largely a Republican position.
“I’m frankly mystified. It feels to me like her strategy team is operating with a playbook from 2010,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale University’s Program on Climate Change Communication.
Election-year gambit
Oil and gas leases are a major source of funding for the U.S. government, often coming in second only to taxes. But the drilling that occurs in federal waters and on public lands contributes to climate change, from the methane leaks along pipelines and at well sites to the carbon dioxide emitted when the oil products and natural gas are combusted for transportation or electricity.
High levels of oil and gas leasing between now and 2050 could increase carbon emissions by 1.2 gigatons — roughly one year’s worth of carbon emissions from 285 million cars, according to a recent analysis by Resources for the Future.
“Decisions made today will affect future emissions,” the report’s author Brian Prest said in a statement. “Even if oil and gas produced on federal lands only makes up a small percentage of annual emissions, US actions have global consequences.”
Harris’ position on oil leases comes amid former President Donald Trump’s attacks on her energy record, including her support in 2019 of a fracking ban.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a drilling method of injecting water, chemicals and sand to break underground rock and release oil. Criticized by environmentalists for potentially polluting groundwater, it’s a central reason that the U.S. is now the largest oil producer in the history of the world.
It’s also supported by industry and unions in shale gas-rich Pennsylvania, a key swing state in the election.
“You have to put Harris in the context of who she’s running against,” said Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “I also don’t know how far a presidential candidate would get running on a platform of a very specific plan to phase down or stop production of oil and gas in the United States.”
Frank Maisano, a senior principal at Bracewell who represents clients in the oil and gas sector, echoed Harris’ need to make “an appealing pitch.”
“This is a run up to a close, tight election, where Pennsylvania and union rank and file are going to make the difference,” he said.
But some youth and climate organizations see Harris’ language as a preamble to fewer aggressive policies to cut off fossil fuel development if she’s in office.
Kaniela Ing, national director of the Green New Deal Network, said Harris’ comments in the debate were tantamount to “climate denial” and warned that ignoring drilling on public lands is leaving a huge source of emissions on the table.
“[Biden] promised to end drilling, and it’s time to finish the job,” he said. “You can’t pretend to be progressive on climate while going backwards. She’s going backwards.”
Still, Harris hasn’t lost the support of major environmental groups, who are focused on the need to beat Trump.
She also hasn’t won over the oil industry.
Maisano predicted Harris will pivot back to her base once in power.
“[Climate activists are] not going to stand down. They’re going to come back harder, and they’re going to say you owe us, because we let you off the hook,” Maisano said.
Embracing oil and gas
Veteran federal officials expect a Harris administration would largely follow the Biden administration’s approach to climate, focusing on support for renewable energy, domestic manufacturing and carbon capture technology.
But her campaign website keeps her plans vague, pledging to “unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis” and hold polluters “accountable.” And Harris’ promotion of domestic oil production worries some climate and clean energy observers, who say they are shocked by how far she’s swung on an issue that’s important to many voters.
“People in her coalition that she needs to get to come out and vote for her — and I mean young people, people of color and suburban women — they all are concerned about climate change. They all support the transition to clean energy,” Yale’s Leiserowitz said.
Among liberal Democrats, Yale’s polling suggests that climate action is ranked as the fourth-most-important voting priority.
Parenteau, the Vermont law professor, said Harris is trying to appease swing voters rather than her base, and they care less about climate than issues like the economy.
But Parenteau said Harris’ “wholesale embrace” of oil and gas was probably overkill.
“I’m not sure why they’re caving,” he said.
A recent Stanford University survey of public opinion on climate change may offer some answers. It suggests that some climate policies have lost popularity — though it did not ask directly about drilling on public lands.
For example, 36 percent of people polled said they believed that climate action will hurt the U.S. economy, compared to 29 percent in 2020. The number of people who believe climate policy could damage state economies rose by 10 percentage points compared to 2020.
Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University, said public opinion can shift when policies are successful enough that people think “we need less government effort on that.”
But he emphasized that political fighting on some climate issues is “inside baseball” for the average voter — and that polls show people’s fundamental beliefs about climate change have been stable for years.
Republicans have framed Biden’s climate policies as damaging to the U.S. economy, asserting that they raise energy prices. The fear that such political attacks will land with voters is shaping Harris’s campaign, according to Rabe, the professor at University of Michigan.
Rabe argued that Harris also isn’t far out of step with many past Democratic leaders with her pro-oil comments and that U.S. policymakers have an “enduring ambivalence” towards oil and gas development. The U.S. has shied away from tough policy ideas that have taken hold in some other countries, like nationwide carbon pricing, he said.
Harris will likely maintain and expand the Biden era focus on climate if she wins office, but she will also be saddled with the reality of “huge production of oil and gas in the United States and capacity for export,” he said.
“It’s really kind of hard to take that on,” he said.
Lessons learned
Harris’ position on federal drilling could reflect her experience losing court battles on the issue during the Biden administration.
President Joe Biden entered office promising to end new drilling on public lands. But his order to pause federal oil and gas leasing in 2021 was quickly reversed by a federal judge.
David Hayes, who was Biden’s climate adviser at the time, said the administration ran up against restrictions in the Mineral Leasing Act and other statutes that govern federal oil and gas leasing. Biden was able to update fiscal and environmental rules for the nation’s oil program, he said, but Congress would have to change laws to allow a president to act further.
That’s unlikely, even if Harris wins in November.
Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, one of the few lawmakers to consistently push legislation retiring the nation’s oil program, said federal lands is a “good place to start” eradicating fossil fuel dependence. But he said the oil and gas industry exerts considerable influence to keep that from happening.
Some progressive Democrats had hoped to begin a retirement of the oil program after Biden took office — with Democrats controlling the House and the Senate — but the idea was dropped due to the global energy uncertainty driven by Russian’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.
The dynamics of Capitol Hill could also be a challenge for Harris if she is elected. If Democrats lose control of the Senate — a distinct possibility — a potential Harris administration would likely face total gridlock in Congress. Any Democratic climate legislation would have little chance of moving forward, Parenteau said.
Biden managed to push through $1.6 trillion in climate and infrastructure spending during his presidency. In contrast, Harris likely wouldn’t have legislative wins in her first term, he said.
But Harris’ campaign pragmatism — to only promise what she thinks she can get done on climate — could undercut her, too, Parenteau said.
“She’s going to have a hard time just turning around once she’s president and reinstituting policies that she’s disowned,” he said.
