There are a lot of reasons to vote against Kamala Harris. Energy policy is one, but energy policy is just one (albeit a key one) point in a larger issue, which encompasses energy development, industry, transportation, and, generally, everything we do in our day-to-day lives.
That issue is, of course, the ongoing battle over climate issues: How much impact humans have on the planet, what (if anything) should be done about it, and how any such measures would affect our economy and our way of life.
Kamala Harris, as one might suspect, is in favor of economy-wrecking "climate change" measures.
Including, as we might expect, the nefarious Green New Deal, which she supported and co-sponsored as a Senator.
As a U.S. senator, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a non-binding blueprint for transitioning the country to 100% clean energy within a decade. The Green New Deal was first introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward Markey in February 2019.
The climate proposal also includes job guarantees for displaced workers and a call for a national healthcare system. In 2019, as a candidate for president, Harris unveiled a plan to spend $10 trillion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a goal of getting to a zero-emissions economy by 2045.
None of these proposals, as we've been over time and again, are even possible. The very fact that the execrable Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came up with this notion is reason enough in itself to oppose it; but so many of its goals, like reaching a "zero-emissions" economy by 2045, are just not possible. Maybe, just maybe, if the country went into a massive building spree to produce nuclear power plants, it might get us to within shouting distance; but the left is never willing to discuss building more reactors. If we are going to spend $10 trillion, at least building some new nuclear power plants would give us some return on the money.
It's also unclear what a national healthcare system has to do with environmental issues.
Harris doubled down on her support while running for president in 2019, and also proposed a "climate pollution fee."
Harris also called for a "climate pollution fee" that would "make polluters pay for emitting greenhouse gases into our atmosphere," and she indicated that a Harris administration would strengthen its enforcement and prosecution of fossil fuel companies.
Prosecution of fossil fuel companies? For what? That part is left unsaid, but we can assume the worst: Kamala Harris would go after fossil fuel companies on one pretext or another, but mostly just for being fossil fuel companies.
This would, of course, have a disastrous effect on the American economy; this would raise the cost of energy, along with the cost of everything we use or consume in our day-to-day lives.
See Related: Trump Campaign Talking Points: Gas Prices Rising
Tax Cuts for the Rich? Clean Energy Credits Mostly Go to Higher-Income Filers
Not only does she presume that energy companies are committing some gross crime by the nature of their existence, she also favors cutting off virtually any energy development on public lands (like Alaska's North Slope) which, again, would raise the cost of, well, everything, by making energy more expensive.
During a CNN forum on climate change in 2020, Harris said she opposed fracking and offshore drilling. She said she would also ban fossil fuel leases on public lands if elected as president.
As California's attorney general in 2016, Harris investigated Exxon Mobil over concerns that the company misled the public and its shareholders about the risks of climate change and whether its public statements violated securities laws and other statutes.
Kamala Harris favors all of these economy-destroying measures, all in the dubious name of climate change, a topic on which Kamala Harris's "Chicken Little" stance is well-documented. In a White House briefing in July of 2023, Vice President Harris said:
So, every day, all across our nation, we feel and see the impact of the climate crisis. I mean, if you watch the morning news, it will be the lead story. It’s been every day for the last couple of weeks. It is the lead story. I think we finally, at least in our progress, come to the point that most people can no longer deny it because it is so obvious.
And we have seen, around our country, where communities have been choked by drought, have been washed out by floods, and decimated by hurricanes. Here in Baltimore, you have seen your skies darkened by wildfire smoke. And you have seen the waters of the Chesapeake Bay rise, threatening homes and businesses that have stood for generations.
This is pure hyper-emotional horse squeeze. Climate and weather-related injuries and deaths are at historic lows. The climate, yes, changes; it always has and always will. People have, throughout human history, adapted to any such changes - including the most recent interglacial, the Sangamonian, and the latest major glaciation, the Wisconsonian. We can adapt to any further changes without destroying our economy - which would be the result of the policies favored by Kamala Harris.
This is one more of many reasons that our republic simply cannot afford a Kamala Harris presidency.
