Return to the Table of Contents
HARRIS: Dangers of Climate Change
On January 21, 2019, presidential candidate Harris delivered a speech wherein she asserted that: “Climate change is real and it is happening now. From wildfires in the west to hurricanes in the east, to floods and droughts in the heartland, we’re not gonna buy the lie. We’re gonna act, based on science fact, not science fiction.”
HARRIS: Activism Against Fossil-Fuel Companies
In 2016, Harris was one of seventeen Attorneys General (16 Democrats and 1 Independent) who joined “AGs United for Clean Power” (AGUCP), a group launched by former Vice President Al Gore. AGUCP’s objective was to file criminal fraud charges against fossil-fuel companies (and their supporters) that failed to explicitly endorse the notion that greenhouse-gas emissions associated with human industrial activity are chiefly responsible for potentially catastrophic “climate change.”
HARRIS: Carbon Taxes and Cap-&-Trade
In 2016, Harris’ Senate campaign website vowed that she would, if elected, “stand up to the climate-change deniers and fight to pass national climate-change legislation that promotes innovation like establishing a carbon tax or creating a cap-and-trade market for carbon pollution.”
As the Institute for Faith and Freedom explains: “The purpose of cap and trade legislation is to reduce Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—and to speed up the transition to alternate forms of energy, such as wind and solar power. The ‘cap’ part would be a legislated limit to the quantity of carbon dioxide that Americans would be permitted to put into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The government would then issue permits that it would sell or give … to businesses who could then either emit CO2 up to the amount stipulated in their permit, or, if they can curb CO2 emissions below that amount, could sell or ‘trade’ the permit to the highest bidder in the after-market.”
HARRIS: Ban the Sale of Gasoline-Powered Cars by 2035
In April 2019, Senator Harris co-sponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, which sought to ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2040, at which point they would have to be powered by either electricity or hydrogen. When Harris subsequently launched her 2020 presidential bid, her campaign website advocated standards that were even more ambitious – a plan to ban internal-combustion-engine cars by 2035.
HARRIS: Supporter of the Paris Climate Accord
Summarizing the major tenets and objectives of the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, a Heritage Foundation report says:
“During the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, President Barack Obama met with world leaders from around the globe to discuss plans to combat climate change. The general consensus from the summit was that the use of natural resources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas—which provide 80 percent of the world’s energy needs—should be avoided. Furthermore, industrialized, rich countries should pay for poor countries to build more renewable power and address climate change. In effect, the framework is a push for un-development for the industrialized world and a major obstacle for growth for the developing world. The economic impact of instituting the regulations associated with the Paris agreement will be severe [… and] the economic sacrifices will generate a negligible impact on global temperatures.”
When President Trump in June 2017 announced his intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, Harris said that Trump’s “disastrous decision” would have “catastrophic repercussions for our planet’s future,” and would “threate[n] the world our children and children’s children will live in.”
Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign website said: “My plan sets out a bold target to exceed the Paris Agreement climate goals and achieve a clean economy by 2045, investing $10 trillion in public and private funding to meet the initial 10-year mobilization necessary to stave off the worst climate impacts…. By 2030, we will run on 100 percent carbon-neutral electricity, all new buses, heavy-duty vehicles, and vehicle fleets will be zero-emission. All new buildings will be carbon-neutral.”
The U.S. rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement on the first day of the Biden-Harris administration in 2021.
HARRIS: Ban Offshore Drilling
On April 29, 2017, Harris posted on her social media account: “Offshore drilling is harmful to the environment and poses a threat to the health and well-being of Californians…. That’s why I’m standing up for our natural resources and public health by co-sponsoring legislation that would ban drilling off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.”
HARRIS: Opponent of Fracking
Hydraulic fracturing — commonly known as fracking — is a horizontal-drilling technology that allows oil and gas to be extracted from shale rock thousands of feet below ground. Fracking has been a vital component of America’s ability to finally achieve energy-independence. Contrary to claims that fracking pollutes drinking-water sources, scientific evidence now shows that it is a safe, clean process that has no effect on groundwater.
In September 2019, presidential candidate Harris was asked, “Will you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking [on] your first day in office, adding the United States to the list of countries who have banned this devastating practice?” She replied: “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking, and starting with what we can do on day 1 [of my presidency] around public lands. And then there has to be legislation. But yes, and this is something I’ve taken on in California. I have a history of working on this issue. And … we have to just acknowledge that the residual impact of fracking is enormous in terms of the impact on the health and safety of communities.”
HARRIS: Threatens to Bring Criminal Charges against Big Oil
During a November 2019 town hall in South Carolina, Harris was asked if she planned to investigate the role that large oil companies played in polluting the environment. “You should be really prepared to look at a serious fine or be charged with a crime,” she replied. “And, not unlike the tobacco companies, after years — ’cause they’d done the research — they knew the harm that their product was causing. They were making so much money that they kept that secret — same thing with these big oil companies. And they need to pay the price. So yes is the answer.”
HARRIS: Co-Sponsor of the Green New Deal
In October 2018, Democrat congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) made reference to a “Green New Deal” that would: (a) aim to make the U.S. 100 percent reliant on renewable energy sources (wind, water, solar) by the year 2035; (b) strive to eliminate all fossil fuels from the U.S. electric grid by 2030, thereby forcing Americans to use much more expensive and less reliable energy sources such as wind and solar, neither of which is capable of fulfilling more than a tiny fraction of America’s energy needs; and (c) mandate trillions of dollars in public expenditures on government-approved “upgrades” and “retrofits” to make existing homes and businesses more “energy efficient.”
In addition to environmental and energy matters, the Green New Deal vowed to “build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing” a number of major benefits:
Noting that “none of these proposals has anything at all to do with climate change,” Heartland Institute president Tim Huelskamp described the Green New Deal as “the most radical socialist proposal in modern congressional history.”
In July 2019, AOC’s chief-of-staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, candidly acknowledged that the Green New Deal had not been devised to protect the environment, but rather to implement socialism. “[I]t wasn’t originally a climate thing at all…. [W]e really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
By March 14, 2019, Kamala Harris was one of eleven U.S. Senators — all Democrats, except “Independent” Bernie Sanders — who had officially signed on as co-sponsors of the Green New Deal. Harris called herself “a proud co-sponsor of [the] Green New Deal resolution.”
In her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris said: “As president of the United States, I am prepared to pass a Green New Deal.”
HARRIS: Invest in Electric Vehicles
In 2022, Harris said, “Electric cars, trucks and buses, they don’t produce tailpipe emissions that irritate the nose and eyes, that decrease lung function, that increase susceptibility to respiratory illness. And so, putting more electric vehicles on our roads will make communities … healthier for our babies. … The auto industry is clearly moving toward electric. We need to make the shift faster, and make sure it is driven by the United States. That means manufacturing millions of electric cars, trucks, and buses right here in our country…. And it means installing a national network of EV chargers.
In May 2024, Harris went to Detroit to announce a $100 million government outlay to help auto manufacturers to upgrade their facilities in preparation for increased production of electric vehicles.
A Mackinac Center for Public Policy report explains that electric vehicles (EVs) “are proving to have at least as much environmental impact as conventional vehicles.” Some key excerpts:
HARRIS & BIDEN: End Fossil Fuel
During the 2020 presidential run, Joe Biden said at a September 2019 campaign appearance: “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you, I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel.”
HARRIS & BIDEN: Canceling Completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline
On his very first day as the nation’s chief executive — January 20, 2021 — President Biden signed an executive order revoking the presidential permit by which President Trump had granted permission for the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline which was intended to transport crude oil from Canada to refineries and distribution centers in the United States. “The Keystone XL pipeline disserves the U.S. national interest,” said Biden’s order. “… Leaving the Keystone XL pipeline permit in place would not be consistent with my Administration’s economic and climate imperatives.”
But in fact, Biden’s decision to cancel Keystone was destined to have a negative impact on the environment. Consider the issues of efficiency and safety in the transport of crude oil. Nearly three-fourths of all petroleum products in the U.S. were already being transported via some 200,000 linear miles of existing pipelines, while trucks and trains together accounted for only 7 percent of petroleum transport. Despite this massive imbalance, liquid pipelines had a long safety record that was vastly superior to that of roads and railways. Accidents, leaks, spills, and other environmentally hazardous incidents were far less likely to involve transport by pipelines than by trucks or trains.
Nor were there any identifiable benefits that the termination of the Keystone pipeline could possibly have on the long-term health of the environment. The Daily Signal noted that “even if the oil meant for the pipeline was blocked completely, the impact on the global climate would be almost nonexistent, clocking in at a meager four ten-thousandths of a degree (Celsius) in temperature change over the next 79 years.”
And that is to say nothing about the 11,000 American jobs that were permanently lost when Biden cancelled Keystone, nor about the massive economic consequences that virtually all Americans suffered as a result of the Biden-Harris war on fossil fuels. Specifically, the nation’s declining petroleum output under Biden-Harris gave rise to runaway inflation of a magnitude that the U.S. had not seen in decades.
HARRIS & BIDEN: Waiving Sanctions Against Russia’s Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline
Just four months after having issued the executive order to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, President Biden, citing U.S. national interests, decided to waive Trump-era sanctions against the company in charge of building Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. National security expert Tom Rogan pointed out that Biden’s action would have a number of major repercussions:
“First, Nord Stream 2 will give Putin the means of Europe’s long-term energy dependence on Russia. That will allow Putin to leverage European political appeasement in return for Russia’s provision of cold winter energy supplies. It will thus weaken the American-led international order…. It will be of particular concern to NATO allies on Russia’s border…. Second, Nord Stream 2 will deny Ukraine access to billions of dollars in annual energy transit funds by displacing energy supplies from Ukrainian pipelines. For a country under escalating Russian military pressure, Biden’s action represents a clear betrayal.”
HARRIS & BIDEN: War on Fossil Fuels Empowers & Enriches China
The Biden-Harris quest to abandon fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy empowers America’s chief political and military rival, Communist China, which thoroughly dominates the technologies and raw materials required for the production of solar panels and the lithium batteries that store energy from the wind and sun. For instance, China produces 90 percent of the world’s polysilicon, central to the production of solar panels. It is also the world’s leading supplier of cobalt, a key component of lithium batteries. And 60% of the world’s known cobalt deposits derive from Chinese-owned mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the mining industry has long been notorious for its exploitation of child labor.
HARRIS & BIDEN: Begging for Oil Imports from Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, & UAE
On March 8, 2022, President Biden announced that the U.S. would now ban oil imports from Russia — just days after his administration had argued against such a ban. “We will not be part of subsidizing Putin’s war [in Ukraine],” Biden said. Warning Americans to expect even higher gas prices as a result of this decision, he added: “I said defending freedom is going to cost.” Biden also stated: “I’m going to do everything I can to minimize Putin’s price hike here at home.”
But the Biden-Harris war on U.S.-based fossil fuels put America in the position of begging some of its most hostile enemies across the globe to help it meet its domestic energy needs. In March 2022, for instance, the Biden-Harris administration, in an effort to make up for the domestic petroleum shortfall that was causing American gasoline and heating-oil prices to skyrocket, sought to purchase oil from Iran and Venezuela. Biden also asked Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to increase their own respective outputs of oil in order to throw a lifeline to America, but he was rebuffed in humiliating fashion. This all occurred less than 18 months after America’s own massive oil reserves had made the United States a net exporter of oil and refined fuels during the Trump years.
On May 4, 2022, OPEC, the powerful Middle Eastern oil cartel, announced that it would, along with Russia, reject the Biden administration’s latest request for OPEC to increase its oil production as a way of stopping the rapid rise in petroleum prices.
WALZ: Reduce Fossil Fuels
In November 2006, Walz advocated “reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and the negative effects on our air, water and climate.”
WALZ: Condemned President Trump’s Withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord
In response to Trump’s 2017 withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, Rep. Walz tweeted that climate change is a threat to “our air, water, food and national security,” and that withdrawing from the accord “weakens U.S. national security, food security, moral/global leadership – and lets down our kids.” In a separate tweet, Walz wrote: “Clean, US energy = jobs, energy independence, and a safer future. Staying in #ParisAgreement is a no-brainer for America.”
WALZ: Climate Change Is an Urgent Threat
In October 2018, Rep. Walz characterized climate change as a very real and urgent threat to humanity and the natural world.
WALZ: Invest in Electric Vehicles
In 2022, Gov. Walz announced a climate change plan that, according to Minnesota Public Radio, “includes a goal of increasing the share of electric cars on Minnesota roads to 20% by 2030 from the current 1%.”
In January 2022, Gov. Walz called for a $13.8 million government investment in a statewide electric-vehicle charging infrastructure.
WALZ: 100% Reliance on Wind, Solar, & Green Energy
In June 2024, Gov. Walz pledged that by 2040, Minnesota would be 100 percent reliant on wind, solar, and other sources of power favored by environmentalists – i.e., a carbon-free electrical grid. Moreover, Walz’s policy stipulated that by January 2025, all Minnesotans would be legally required to obtain at least one-fourth of their electricity from “green” sources. Minnesotans would also be barred from selling conventional power to other states, a prohibition that prompted neighboring states to charge that the policy was “constitutionally suspect” and represented “an improper attempt by Minnesota to export its wholly internal energy-policy decisions to its neighboring states in patent violation of those states’ rights and sovereignty.”
As of June 2024, Minnesota had enacted 132 policies and fiscal incentives that encouraged the use of green energy — more than any other U.S. state except California. Among those incentives, as National Review noted, were: “a state energy rebate, renewable-energy credits, property-tax exemptions, and an exemption from the 7 percent state sales tax” – all of which shifted many of the financial burdens associated with green energy onto the shoulders of Minnesota’s taxpayers.
TRUMP: Opponent of the Paris Climate Accord
On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that he was withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, into which the Obama-Biden administration had entered. When announcing the withdrawal, Trump said: “As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does – the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters…. The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries…. Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree … Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.”
Heritage Foundation scholar Stephen Moore has pointed out the inevitable futility and uselessness of imposing economy-crushing regulations on the U.S. coal industry, as the Democrats sought to do: “[E]ven if the U.S. cut our own coal production to zero, China and India are building hundreds of coal plants. By suspending American coal production, we are merely transferring jobs out of the U.S.”
TRUMP: Opposed to Restrictions on Coal Plants
In March 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that initiated an immediate review of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which restricted greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants. He described the CPP as a “crushing attack” on workers, loaded with “job-killing regulations.” Trump also lifted an Obama-Biden moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands.
TRUMP: Supporter of Offshore Drilling
In January 2018, the Trump administration announced a five-year plan to open up all offshore drilling areas — in the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast, and the Alaskan coast — to leasing. Whereas under President Obama, 94 percent of the outer continental shelf was off-limits to drilling, the Trump plan opened 98 percent of the oil reserves in those regions to extraction. This was part of Trump’s pursuit of “energy dominance” as a strategy for increasing national security by eliminating American dependency on OPEC.
TRUMP: America Became the World’s Top Oil Producer
In September 2018, the U.S. overtook Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest oil producer. According to the Institute for Energy Research: “U.S. energy production in 2019 was higher than U.S. energy consumption for the first time in 62 years. Thus, the U.S. attained the long-held goal of ‘energy independence’ … One can thank the oil and gas industry and its use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for that milestone.” “We’ve made OPEC relatively irrelevant,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance.
TRUMP: America’s Air Continued to Get Cleaner during His Presidency
While Democrats contend that radical restrictions on all fossil-fuel-based energy sources are crucial to the promotion of a clean environment, America’s air quality has in fact been improving dramatically for years, thanks mostly to environmental innovations developed by the free market. In 2017, Heritage Foundation scholar Stephen Moore pointed out: “Emissions of lead, sulfur, carbon monoxide, and other air pollutants from coal plants [in the U.S.] have fallen by more than half, and in some cases 90%, in recent decades.”
In February 2020, the International Energy Agency reported that while CO2 emissions in China and India were growing at a rapid rate, the U.S. in 2019 saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions of any country on earth.